[Ghost Rigger]

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I trying not to sound dense on this, but I'm still not getting the argument for this. Are you saying that you'd rather be awarded edge to player every turn? That sounds horrendous to me, since players are going to get edge over most grunt NPCs in most encounters. So, if the player goes first, here's Edge for having a hire AR and better tactics. Then the NPC goes, granting Edge to the player for having better DR. Then the next NPC goes, granting more edge. In a player versus 3 Grunt scenario (i.e., the Sam versus three low-level gangers), that would easily wind up giving the Sam at least four, possibly all seven, Edge in a single round.

Is it really so wrong for the streetsam to dominate grunts NPCs in combat?

[Iron Serpent Prince]

I believe Finstersang is using Round to represent the entire combat round, and Turn to represent an individuals set of actions.  If I have that backwards my use of the words will need reversing in this post.

A simple combat example, two participants - you, and opponent.  In this case you go first.

When you go, you gain 2 Edge.

With Edge limited to 2 per Round, when your opponent goes it doesn't matter what you have or don't, what they do or don't, you can't gain any further Edge.

If Edge was limited per Turn, you would still have the chance to gain 2 more Edge - say if your AR is high enough and something else.

[Xenon]

Even if you already managed to gain a big advantage over the opposition (maybe because it's dark but you got low light while your opposition does not and maybe because you picked the conflict at optimal range for your current weapon or whatever), you still want to prevent the opposition from gaining a (any) tactical advantage over you.

Waking around naked just because you might be able to secure a big tactical advantage over the opposition is still bad because you will let the opposition gain a tactical advantage over you to even the scores (something you could probably have prevented by simply wearing your armored jacket).

[FastJack]

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I trying not to sound dense on this, but I'm still not getting the argument for this. Are you saying that you'd rather be awarded edge to player every turn? That sounds horrendous to me, since players are going to get edge over most grunt NPCs in most encounters. So, if the player goes first, here's Edge for having a hire AR and better tactics. Then the NPC goes, granting Edge to the player for having better DR. Then the next NPC goes, granting more edge. In a player versus 3 Grunt scenario (i.e., the Sam versus three low-level gangers), that would easily wind up giving the Sam at least four, possibly all seven, Edge in a single round.

Is it really so wrong for the streetsam to dominate grunts NPCs in combat?

Oh no, they definitely SHOULD!

But should the player get seven edge for beating up random gangers in one round?

[Banshee]

I think with it being a hard cap of 7 edge total it shouldn't be a problem.

one street sam versus say 5 gangers ... not using the goon rules ... the street sam can earn 2 edge on his action then 2 edge on each of the gangers actions (assuming he didn't drop one or two on his turn) ... that's 12 total edge potentially. If he started at zero edge he would have to spend a minimum of 5 that round or lose it at the end of the round. If he is gaining that much edge it shows he has a huge advantage of some sort (probably the total package of better tactics, gear, and ware) but having to spend that  a large chunk of that edge immediately should also mean he is wading through them fairly fast too. Then he walks out that fight with a full edge pool and feeling good about himself, and ready for the boss fight.

super realistic no, but super cool action hero type thing ... absolutely

even the odds up some by either using the goons as a single squad entity or just getting them better gear or using tactics (like a security team instead of gangers for example) then that edge gain drastically reduces ... probably only gaining at most 3 or 4 per round

[Ghost Rigger]

It's not too unrealistic. After all, before the big game you'll see star athletes taking shots on an empty net (assume it's the net-based sport of your choice). A streetsam beating up low-level goons would be equivalent, no?

[Michael Chandra]

I mostly want the cap to not apply as strict for people who have 7 as Edge-stat. Right now this has very little value to them. But higher Edge gain I like, keeps things dynamic. Though then maybe mooks should be able to spend a bit more liberal as well.

Meanwhile, after the encounter ends the cap of Edge-stat applies, so there's no use gathering the Edge if you're not spending it and not allowed to keep it. The next fight is another encounter after all.

[Ghost Rigger]

So spend the edge. There are a beavy of things to spend edge on, aren't there?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

So spend the edge. There are a beavy of things to spend edge on, aren't there?

To include literally just giving it away to a teammate.  So you shouldn't ever be stuck with edge that you can't find a use for.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

So spend the edge. There are a beavy of things to spend edge on, aren't there?

To include literally just giving it away to a teammate.  So you shouldn't ever be stuck with edge that you can't find a use for.

Does giving Edge to a teammate count towards their 2 per turn limit?

If so, you may very well get stuck with not being able to give it away.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

So spend the edge. There are a beavy of things to spend edge on, aren't there?

To include literally just giving it away to a teammate.  So you shouldn't ever be stuck with edge that you can't find a use for.

Does giving Edge to a teammate count towards their 2 per turn limit?

If so, you may very well get stuck with not being able to give it away.

IIRC yes, but the larger point I'm trying to make is to confirm that "yes, there are lots of ways to spend edge".  It's going to be quite the corner case where you have nothing you'd want to spend use-or-lose edge on, much less CAN spend it on. 

[penllawen]

In fact, you´re bringing up pretty much the only (semi-)valid concern about the "per turn"-ruling: It could lead to a scenario where tanky characters get rewarded for letting themselfes getting shot at a lot. That would advocate a kind of "bait-and-punish"-playstyle for Tanky McTrollface: Because you often won´t need to use your Edge on your defense/soak rolls, you can afford to put it aside for your own counterattacks.

Narratively, I don't hate the idea of a character who takes a risk and exposes themselves to hits in return for setting themselves up for a vicious counterattack. Say, they step out from behind cover, taking some rounds they could have avoided but getting a clear shot in return. Or in melee, they pull a Rocky Balboa, and take a few shots to the chin so they can get into position for a devastating right hook. That kind of thing.

If you´re now still convinced that there should be a per-round-cap on Edge gain, you may want to consider another houserule/fix/re-interpretation of the 2-Edge-per-round-limit that´s floating around: Yes, there is a limit per round, but Edge that is spend right on the Action that helped you earn it, doesn´t count towards it. In other words, only the amount of Edge that can be saved up for later is limited. No Edge would be truly lost, but it would force the tanky Samurai to use most of the Edge generated by getting attacked on the actual Defense/Soak tests.

Hey, I came up with that too! (Admittedly I'm sure I wasn't the only one. It's an obvious idea.)

Overall this is the approach I am happiest with (disclaimer: haven't actually played any 6e yet, of course.) Like you, there's no way I'm going to play with max 2 Edge per entire round, no matter what the book says. A complex round with lots of participants could take quite a long time to play out; I'm simply not going to keep track of who has earned how much Edge over that long a period. It's too fiddly.

[Michael Chandra]

To include literally just giving it away to a teammate.  So you shouldn't ever be stuck with edge that you can't find a use for.

So if you start the fight with 7 Edge, you HAVE to immediately give it away before you are allowed to earn any? Then there's little point to going for 7 Edge.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

To include literally just giving it away to a teammate.  So you shouldn't ever be stuck with edge that you can't find a use for.

So if you start the fight with 7 Edge, you HAVE to immediately give it away before you are allowed to earn any? Then there's little point to going for 7 Edge.

Way I see it, the point is you HAVE 7 edge to begin the encounter with.  You can start blowing the big chunks of edge as soon as you like before having to accumulate them.  2 edge is earn then spend.  7 edge is spend then earn.

[Michael Chandra]

I don't like the idea of telling someone 'if you go from 5 Edge to 7, 80% of the time your first action in combat will be sacrificing 2 Edge to give someone else 1 Edge'. Their first attack won't grant them Edge, because they already have it, so they lose their first opportunity to gain Edge. That's basically punishing someone for daring to get high Edge. If 7 Edge is a waste, then what's the use of being human?