Multiple comlinks, can you use more than one? Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[limejello10512]

Hey if one has more than one comlink on their pan can they use that to run IC? (i'm aware a hacker can only focus on one cyber combat at a time) but I don't see what's to stop him from jacking more than one comlink and having each of those control an agent.

[KCKitsune]

Just slave the other commlinks to your master commlink and have them run all the IC for you. Also, if you have any cyberware, cluster them together, slave them to your master commlink, and run even more IC on that.

The advantage of this is that while slaved to your master commlink (which should have firewall, Stealth & Encrypt at 6 each) it can NOT be hacked from the outside. It will only accept commands from the master commlink.

If you want to see the rules for clusters, check out Unwired on page 59.

[Karoline]

Just slave the other commlinks to your master commlink and have them run all the IC for you. Also, if you have any cyberware, cluster them together, slave them to your master commlink, and run even more IC on that.

The advantage of this is that while slaved to your master commlink (which should have firewall, Stealth & Encrypt at 6 each) it can NOT be hacked from the outside. It will only accept commands from the master commlink.

If you want to see the rules for clusters, check out Unwired on page 59.

What is the point of Stealth 6? I didn't think that made signals any harder to find, just Agents/ICs/Personas.

[KCKitsune]

What is the point of Stealth 6? I didn't think that made signals any harder to find, just Agents/ICs/Personas.

From SR 4A pg 234:
"Stealth hides the hacker from detection by the Firewall as he breaks into a system (p. 227), as well as from Matrix Perception tests (p. 228) and Trace User attempts (p. 232)."

Since it sounds like the OP is playing a hacker character, then I would think that it would be nice for taking on corp security. Also for when you want to be hidden, the part that I put in bold should explain why every Shadowrunner would want stealth running on their 'Link.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

From SR 4A pg 234:
"Stealth hides the hacker from detection by the Firewall as he breaks into a system (p. 227), as well as from Matrix Perception tests (p. 228) and Trace User attempts (p. 232)."

Since it sounds like the OP is playing a hacker character, then I would think that it would be nice for taking on corp security. Also for when you want to be hidden, the part that I put in bold should explain why every Shadowrunner would want stealth running on their 'Link.

Well Said...

[Karoline]

From SR 4A pg 234:
"Stealth hides the hacker from detection by the Firewall as he breaks into a system (p. 227), as well as from Matrix Perception tests (p. 228) and Trace User attempts (p. 232)."

Since it sounds like the OP is playing a hacker character, then I would think that it would be nice for taking on corp security. Also for when you want to be hidden, the part that I put in bold should explain why every Shadowrunner would want stealth running on their 'Link.

Too bad finding a hidden node isn't a matrix perception test and thus isn't affected by the stealth program in any way whatsoever.

[KCKitsune]

Too bad finding a hidden node isn't a matrix perception test and thus isn't affected by the stealth program in any way whatsoever.

True, but if you're a smart 'Runner, then you have a decoy commlink running in active mode. When someone looks at you they see an active commlink and are less likely to look for the 'Link running in hidden mode.

[Karoline]

True, but if you're a smart 'Runner, then you have a decoy commlink running in active mode. When someone looks at you they see an active commlink and are less likely to look for the 'Link running in hidden mode.

True, but my point was that stealth doesn't help with finding or making it harder to find hidden nodes.

[Johnny Hammersti...]

Just slave the other commlinks to your master commlink and have them run all the IC for you. Also, if you have any cyberware, cluster them together, slave them to your master commlink, and run even more IC on that.

The advantage of this is that while slaved to your master commlink (which should have firewall, Stealth & Encrypt at 6 each) it can NOT be hacked from the outside. It will only accept commands from the master commlink.

If you want to see the rules for clusters, check out Unwired on page 59.

I don't understand the advantage to clustering all of your cyberware. I agree that they should be slaved to the master, just like the comm #2. I guess you could run IC on the clustered node and that would save you from having an agent(IC) in each of the other peripheral nodes, but you won't need IC in those nodes anyhow in most cases.

Of course, commlink 2 or the peripherals could be spoofed if you had the access ID of the master node.

edit:

looking at the other players question, could he have 2 commlinks and have them both run IC, sure. That would of course be 2 different nodes though, if he wants that.

We could cluster both commlinks, but since clustering uses the lowest system and averaged response, there isn't much advantage to this. He could just run 2 pieces IC on the first commlink.

[KCKitsune]

I don't understand the advantage to clustering all of your cyberware. I agree that they should be slaved to the master, just like the comm #2. I guess you could run IC on the clustered node and that would save you from having an agent(IC) in each of the other peripheral nodes, but you won't need IC in those nodes anyhow in most cases.

Except if you are paranoid, or if you want to run a lot of programs on the resulting cluster. Clusters act like a commlink... which can get really nasty for those people who have Beta or Delta 'Ware... super commlink on call and harder to detect.

looking at the other players question, could he have 2 commlinks and have them both run IC, sure. That would of course be 2 different nodes though, if he wants that.

We could cluster both commlinks, but since clustering uses the lowest system and averaged response, there isn't much advantage to this. He could just run 2 pieces IC on the first commlink.

Unless, of course, the commlinks are exactly the same Response. At this point you can run a whole crap load of programs and Agents and not suffer any Response reduction.

[limejello10512]

well if one comlink is just running ic you don't have to cluster it ....you could also use it independently I imagine.

[Johnny Hammersti...]

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

Let me just do the math on this to see if I understand:

Shadowrunner X has 2 commlinks and lets just say 6 peripheral devices.

He slaves commlink 1 to commlink 2. Commlink 2 will be his hidden super commlink, commlink 1 will be his public commlink.

He creates a cluster with the 6 peripheral devices and commlink 2.

For simplicity lets say he's got 2 pieces of alphaware and 4 other standard matrix devices (device rating 3 all around).
EDIT: my typo

Therefore, the cluster with commlink 1 has:

firewall 3-from the standard matrix devices
system-3-again, from the standard matrix devices
response-4-AVG(3,3,3,3,4,4,6)
processor limit-13-(4+4+3+3+3+3+6)/2 (2 alphawares, 4 standard devices, commlink 6)
persona limit-12

Of course you could up the firewall on all the peripherals to makem the 5 or 6 depending. The same could be done for the system, again, for all items. Or you could just say screw it, I won't let that system rating mess with me. You could run 3 agents as IC (rating 3) with 3 rating 3 programs leaving one slot open without response degredation for a program on the commlink( say analyze or encrypt). This starts to get costly.

[Karoline]

No, you don't want to cluster your super commlink with any other devices, it just makes it easier to break into because it will have a lowered response and firewall. Commlink 1 gets slaved to commlink 2, cyberware gets clustered so that you could run some stuff on it if you really wanted to (And because there really isn't much reason not to) and also slaved to commlink 2. Alternatively (if you are amazingly paranoid) you can slave each individual piece of ware to your commlink 2, that way even if they get into your commlink 2, it would take longer to gain control of your ware, though your kinda screwed at that point either way.

Also, you then slave your commlink 2 to yourself. There aren't any exact rules for this, but I don't see why you couldn't set your commlink 2 to not accept any wireless commands, only those input through DNI or by hand (Or even just one or the other). You couldn't set it up to only accept your brain, but it would be exceedingly more secure that way, as if someone has your commlink, you're already in trouble.

[Johnny Hammersti...]

Sorry, I meant the public commlink clustered with the peripherals (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)