NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 309 Replies
  • 6057 Views

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #270 on: (19:31:06/08-12-19) »
Or you can go with Hephaestus´ idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
Wait, what? Using an imaging scope makes your target's armor literally and completely pointless even within its newly defined functionality? Why? Was it not enough that they took our soak dice from us?

Just looked it up. Finsterang is right, if you use a Take Aim minor action, you negate the target's ability to gain edge from higher armor. And the wireless bonus is to share the LoS view of the scope with your team (no mention of network limitations), so does that mean they benefit from this bulldrek as well?

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5114
« Reply #271 on: (02:10:10/08-13-19) »
Its only for the shooter, it require that you spend a minor action to get the effect and it is only used to negate edge gain from the defender - it does not help the attacker to gain an edge over the defender (but loading the weapon with APDS would).

If someone hunker down behind cover your long range sniper guy can take his time to line up a shot and hit the parts of the target that is not covered. I think it is a pretty cool feature actually :-)

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
« Reply #272 on: (04:09:11/08-13-19) »
Or you can go with Hephaestus´ idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
Wait, what? Using an imaging scope makes your target's armor literally and completely pointless even within its newly defined functionality? Why? Was it not enough that they took our soak dice from us?

Just looked it up. Finsterang is right, if you use a Take Aim minor action, you negate the target's ability to gain edge from higher armor. And the wireless bonus is to share the LoS view of the scope with your team (no mention of network limitations), so does that mean they benefit from this bulldrek as well?

It´s Xenon who pointed that one out  ;) I don´t have the book, I only comment based on the bits I know. And the more I know, the happier I am that I haven´t paid CGL money for this dumbsterfire.

I mean yeah, one of the benefits of firing through a scope might be that it can help you find a less armored spot or something like that. Also, using the Scope is RAW most advisable in the Range Categories where the Gun is worst - which sounds fitting at first until you realize that this means that it´s rarely usefull when used with an actual sniper rifle on a long distance shot. BUT on a close range shot, using the Scope would be mechanically advisable, because that´s where Rifles are crap (please tell me that there´s a restriction on how close you can be to your target to profit from an imaging scope...).

Once again, it´s all so badly thought through. For imaging scopes, a simple AR increase (in the higher range categories) or godforbidd, a dice pool bonus would have been the right choice. Instead, they go with this terrible idea that would have been more fitting for Armor-piercing options.
« Last Edit: (04:15:54/08-13-19) by Finstersang »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 8581
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #273 on: (04:42:25/08-13-19) »
Or you can go with Hephaestus´ idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....

I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
Hardened Armor is yet another subject I can't comment on due to NDA... =/

How does 'nullifies 2 autohits of Hardened Armor' sound as possible houserule, so that against Hardened Armor it's actually +1 DV instead of -1 DV? But only if they have strong enough for 2 autohits?
CorpSec when an alarm is triggered;: "This is so sad, Alexa play Shoot The Runner"

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
« Reply #274 on: (06:39:02/08-13-19) »
Or you can go with Hephaestus´ idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....

I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
Hardened Armor is yet another subject I can't comment on due to NDA... =/

How does 'nullifies 2 autohits of Hardened Armor' sound as possible houserule, so that against Hardened Armor it's actually +1 DV instead of -1 DV? But only if they have strong enough for 2 autohits?


Goes in the right direction as well, bit I‘d really say that the Damage should not be decreased until there is some really fat advantage tied to it. This one boils down to "It´s shittier bullets against all targets except Dragons and Spirits" right now. It also depends on if or how you want to houserule Hardened Amor.

Honestly, since the effect of the imaging scope seems to have purpuse the mark as well (not really an advantage for long-distance shots, but against targets with a good defense value), I´d say just swap the 2 main effects around and improve the balance a bit:

  • Imaging Scope: +2 AR and +1 Die on the Attack roll (after all, it requires a Minor Action to use) on all ranges except close and near range.
  • APDS Ammo:No reduction of the Damage Value, Target can´t get Edge from the AR/DR comparison, maybe also something about Hardened Armor (F.i. ignore 1 point of the damage reduction i.e. increase damage by one)
  • Ceterum censeo: The 2-Edge-per-round-Limit has to be destroyed.
« Last Edit: (07:07:46/08-13-19) by Finstersang »

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5114
« Reply #275 on: (11:18:46/08-13-19) »
Minus 1 DV make a lot of sense for APDS, keep that.

Beyond that I would say anything that affect the targets armor or defense is the way I would have gone. Let's review the options.

1.  -1 DV, +2 AR (as-is)
Against both normal armor and hardened armor and compared to regular ammo this give +2 AR and -1 DV.

This feels bad because:
- Regular ammo have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor
- Easier to gain edge against a low armor targets (Flechette should give bonus AR, not APDS)

This feels good because:
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have less chance of generating edge against you.


2.  -1 DV and reduce targets armor by 2.
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this is the same as +2 AR and -1DV (which is fine and mechanically the same as it is today). Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo this is the same as +2 AR and same net DV (-1 DV but also +1 DV from one less auto hit, this is one more DV than it have today) and +1 DV (-1 DV but -2 armor, which is two more DV than today) when it comes to if it may penetrate at all.

This feels bad because:
- Easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.

This feels good because:
+ Have have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have less chance of generating edge against you.
+ Less effect on targets with no armor


3.  -1 DV, +2 AR and nullify 2 hardened auto hits.
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this is the same as +2 AR and -1 DV (which is fine and also the same as today). Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it is the same as +2 AR and +1 net DV (-1 DV but +2 DV due to two less auto hits, this is two more DV than today), but still require one DV more when trying to penetrate at all (same as today).

This feels bad because:
- Regular ammo have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor
- Easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.

This feels good because:
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have less chance of generating edge against you.
+ Deal extra damage against hardened armor


4.  -1 DV and deny edge for defender during AR/DR.
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this have -1 DV (same as today, but without +2 AR), but it also fully prevent high armor targets or targets behind cover to gain edge from their DR. Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it will have -1 DV (both for damage and for penetration) and no bonus AR, but it will prevent high armor targets from gaining edge. By doing this, modifier from scope should probably be changed to something else.

This feels bad because:
- Regular ammo have a higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor

This feels good because:
+ Not easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage
+ A heavy armored target will have no chance of generating edge against you.


If we combine the good things from above and discard the bad then we end up with something like this:

5.  - 1 DV, deny edge for defender during AR/DR and ignore 2 points of hardened armor
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this have -1 DV (same as today, but without +2 AR, will be less efficient against low armor but this is a good thing), but it also fully prevent high armor targets or targets behind cover to gain edge from their DR. Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it will have same DV and it will have one DV higher when it comes to penetration. It will prevent high armor targets from gaining edge.

This feels bad because:
....

This feels good because:
+ Not easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage (but not against targets in hardened armor)
+ A heavy armored target will have no chance of generating edge against you.
+ Have higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor


There you have it. Go with option 5. Discuss it. Thank me later ;)
« Last Edit: (11:21:34/08-13-19) by Xenon »

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #276 on: (09:02:02/08-29-19) »
One of my players bought SR6. Last night we tried a little mini-session, starting with Nigel Nutbiter the dwarven samurai against two PR3 Lone Star beat cops.

First combat turn:

1. NN puts a single round into Goon1 with his FN-HAL. Gets an Edge because the gun overwhelms Goon1's armour vest. Goon1 takes 4P damage.
2. Goon2 shoots NN with his light pistol. NN gets an Edge because his armour is much better than Goon2's shitty pistol. Goon2 still tags him, though, for 3P damage.
3. Goon1 shoots at NN. NN gets no Edge. He already has his two for this Combat Round. His armour just doesn't do anything.

Second combat turn:

4. NN uses 4 Edge to get Anticipation, and mows both goons down.

If it had been dark, then NN's vision mods would have given him a second point of Edge at step (1), and his armour would have had no bearing on the subsequent combat.

Intellectually I knew all this already, but watching it play out was still impactful. I am deeply unimpressed by the two-per-round Edge clipping effect and how unnatural and stilted it feels at the table.

One of the points of Edge that Nigel used in step 4 to mow the goons down he earned in defence at step 2. NN's armour made a difference when one goon shot at him, but not when the second goon did. I have no feel at all for how these mechanics are reflected in the narrative fiction that's happening inside the game world; there's a disconnect between the dice and the story that I don't know how to bridge smoothly.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2456
« Reply #277 on: (10:18:07/08-29-19) »
Your steps 2 and 3 should have been combined into one group attack. And if you did, NN wouldn't have "lost out" on Edge.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Serbitar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 49
« Reply #278 on: (10:28:09/08-29-19) »
Your steps 2 and 3 should have been combined into one group attack. And if you did, NN wouldn't have "lost out" on Edge.

A group attack rule should emulate the result of multiple single attacks as closely as.possible. In SR6 it is clearly very, very far from that.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2456
« Reply #279 on: (10:35:03/08-29-19) »
In 6we, grouping everyone attacking the same PC during the same round is important due to the 2 edge per round cap rule.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2298
« Reply #280 on: (10:40:01/08-29-19) »
I get grouping for big groups but 2?  If you need to do this to get edge to work it sounds like edge has some problems at the core.

If you don’t play the game in this certain way the core mechanic that makes our system work fails doesn’t seem great for a rpg which will be played in dozens of different ways.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2456
« Reply #281 on: (10:48:19/08-29-19) »
There's a bit of intentional ambiguity when you "should" group or let NPC attacks get resolved individually.

My synthesis is if the NPCs don't have individual names, they don't make individual attacks. Unless of course they're the only one making any attack on a given PC this round...  The Big Bads and other NPCs that are meant to actually be scary obey the same rules as PCs (have two CMs, etc) usually won't combine attacks, in my view.

As penllawen's simple example demonstrates, subjecting a PC to iterative attacks rather than a gestalt attack increases the PC's peril.  Facing 2x 3P is worse than 1x 4P DV because of the depressed soak values.  Of course the NPCs have more opportunity to gain edge over 2 attacks rather than 1 attack, while the PC is simultaneously losing out on edge due to the cap.  So on and so on.

RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

fougerec99

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 11
« Reply #282 on: (10:53:40/08-29-19) »
The group rules are something I really like.  The idea of not having an individual name means you don't get an individual attack is a great rule of thumb.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
« Reply #283 on: (10:55:54/08-29-19) »

5.  - 1 DV, deny edge for defender during AR/DR and ignore 2 points of hardened armor
Against normal armor and compared to regular ammo this have -1 DV (same as today, but without +2 AR, will be less efficient against low armor but this is a good thing), but it also fully prevent high armor targets or targets behind cover to gain edge from their DR. Against hardened armor and compared to regular ammo it will have same DV and it will have one DV higher when it comes to penetration. It will prevent high armor targets from gaining edge.

This feels bad because:
....

This feels good because:
+ Not easier to gain edge against a low armor targets.
+ Small entry and small exit should normally deal less damage (but not against targets in hardened armor)
+ A heavy armored target will have no chance of generating edge against you.
+ Have higher chance to not be fully stopped by hardened armor


There you have it. Go with option 5. Discuss it. Thank me later ;)

+1

My current houserule keeps the Damage reduction as well and flat out cuts Armor (including Hardened Armor) in half. I like the idea of making the benefit of APDS scale directly with the amount of Armor the target has. But I´d say your suggestion fits the purpose and properties of APDS just as well.

Now let´s do Flechettes! Because RAW, these are worse APDS round right now, which also robs shotguns of a huge part of their flavour and purpose. 

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #284 on: (11:06:08/08-29-19) »
Your steps 2 and 3 should have been combined into one group attack. And if you did, NN wouldn't have "lost out" on Edge.
There's a bit of intentional ambiguity when you "should" group or let NPC attacks get resolved individually.
If it's "intentionally ambiguous", why "should" I have used the grunt rules?

Quote
My synthesis is if the NPCs don't have individual names, they don't make individual attacks. Unless of course they're the only one making any attack on a given PC this round...
Fine. Now they're called Alice and Bob. Alice was trying to arrest Nigel, and when he starts firing, she's right next to him; so she pulls her stun baton and takes a swing. Bob was wary and hung back, so when it kicks off he draws his gun.

Should I combine their attacks now? If so, how? One is melee, one is ranged. One is stun, one physical. One is taking a modifier for shooting into melee, the other one isn't. Maybe I can find a way to do this mechanically, but in narrative terms, why does it make any sense to combine these different things?

But if I don't combine the attacks, we're back to:
Quote
Facing 2x 3P is worse than 1x 4P DV because of the depressed soak values.  Of course the NPCs have more opportunity to gain edge over 2 attacks rather than 1 attack, while the PC is simultaneously losing out on edge due to the cap.  So on and so on.

Optional rules to combine faceless grunts into one dice roll for speed is great. But if you have to make those rules mandatory to patch over another part of the system, that ain't so great. And you're quickly gonna run into situations where it breaks down. You mention:
Quote
The Big Bads and other NPCs that are meant to actually be scary obey the same rules as PCs (have two CMs, etc) usually won't combine attacks, in my view.
like it's a binary state; grunts and scary. But it's a continuum, and somewhere on that continuum you have to choose to stop grouping the attacks, and as soon as you do you're looking at a weird Edge economy again.