[X] My Assistant

[Fortinbras]

from SR4A page 245:

Issuing Commands
You give a short command to the drone or other device with the
Issuing Command action (p. 245). The drone attempts to execute
those orders autonomously on its own action phase. You need to be
able to communicate with the drone, via the Matrix for example, but
do not need to be subscribed to the drone.

It's very explicit, the drone does it on it's own action phase. Not on yours, not on your agents but on it's own.

This.
You're welcome to disagree, but you're disagreeing with facts.

[Yerameyahu]

As always, it's not your fault, longbowrocks. You're hitting all these bumps for the first time. But it's not the first time for us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This is even in the FAQ (whether or not anyone likes it), because it's *frequently asked*.

[longbowrocks]

No. 4 IPs maximum on Physical. It's explicitly written in the rules. You can go spend that fifth IP elsewhere in the Matrix.

"Most characters may not act in more than 4 Initiative
Passes in a Combat Turn (even if they spend Edge)."

Really, that fifth is spent piloting the drone, but I just skip the pilot test to use for combat instead. I then spend edge on the resulting crash test, pass it, and continue combat.
As you often tell me Yerameyahu, this has been discussed before. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=29138&hl

[longbowrocks]

As always, it's not your fault, longbowrocks. You're hitting all these bumps for the first time. But it's not the first time for us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This is even in the FAQ (whether or not anyone likes it), because it's *frequently asked*.

Not the FAQ! I have a long weekend, so I was going to keep going on this one until everyone got tired of it. I'll check the FAQ and get back here.

[Yerameyahu]

I'm fine with 5 IP riggers, honestly. I think the game is (or should be) intended to max out at 4 IP physical, 5 IP matrix… but it's not clearly stated that you can't rig 5 IPs, and I just don't care that much. That's not what we're talking about.

The issue is 6 IP 'rigging', or (in your example) 12 IP. That's absurd, and (sadly, like many of your discoveries, hehe) flatly against the rules. There's a reason no one else 'thought of' these brilliant ideas!

[Stahlseele]

I'm fine with 5 IP riggers, honestly. I think the game is (or should be) intended to max out at 4 IP physical, 5 IP matrix… but it's not clearly stated that you can't rig 5 IPs, and I just don't care that much. That's not what we're talking about.

The issue is 6 IP 'rigging', or (in your example) 12 IP. That's absurd, and (sadly, like many of your discoveries, hehe) flatly against the rules. There's a reason no one else 'thought of' these brilliant ideas!

'cause most people can't bully/bribe their GM into allowing them *snickers* ^^

[longbowrocks]

'cause most people can't bully/bribe their GM into allowing them *snickers* ^^

I haven't tried to yet, but I'm willing to bet my GM wouldn't accept something like this.

[hobgoblin]

One thing people, do not confuse the Command matrix program with issuing commands. Not sure why they called the program Command, when Remote or RC may have been more fitting. This because using the Command program is basically like driving a radio controller model vehicle, except it can be a full sized one (Mythbusters style!).

Still, only when a rigger is jumped in do the book say that a drone acts on the riggers initiative. So in any other case, unless it is performing some kind of ongoing action, the drone will be holding actions in the event that it has higher initiative then the person operating it.

Btw, this discussion puts a very interesting light on the limitations of driving a vehicle by way of the Command program...

[longbowrocks]

One thing people, do not confuse the Command matrix program with issuing commands. Not sure why they called the program Command, when Remote or RC may have been more fitting. This because using the Command program is basically like driving a radio controller model vehicle, except it can be a full sized one (Mythbusters style!).

I think we've only had one instance of that confusion in this thread, but I didn't comment since I assumed the person knew what they meant. You noticed too?

Btw, this discussion puts a very interesting light on the limitations of driving a vehicle by way of the Command program...

Oho? Do tell.


(caps for noticeability)
BY THE WAY: I give up guys. Let's repurpose this thread.

How about the idea I posted earlier that involves a bus with 6 flexible weapon mounts and automatic weapons on each one?
25k for bus
21k for mounts
18k or so for weapons (3k each)
4k for 20 armor (resulting in 18 condition boxes and 40 soak pool)

All in all, doom bus available at chargen for 68k? Get some debt and buy 4! One for everybody!

[Yerameyahu]

You can do that, but then the question is rules for 'linked' fire. AFAIK, it doesn't exist.

[longbowrocks]

I guess you could slave 5 of the guns to the other one. I guess you could treat the result as 6 separate attacks, but it makes more sense to me to treat it as a burst with more bullets.

[CanRay]

Would that trick work on this drone? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[longbowrocks]

Would that trick work on this drone? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I don't get it. That was an awesome contribution to SR, but that drone can only mount one gun. Also, shouldn't it be body 4 based on the description?

[CanRay]

I don't get it. That was an awesome contribution to SR, but that drone can only mount one gun. Also, shouldn't it be body 4 based on the description?

Nah, not nearly tough enough for 4. Also, it's tall, but not that thick. Makes it look less threatening that way. I guess I should describe it as a "Skinny" Troll. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

The point is there's no rule for that, longbowrocks. Unless there's one that I'm not aware of, in which case I'd love to know!

[longbowrocks]

Lol, ok. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I just thought it sounded like it was rather bigger than a motorcycle.

[longbowrocks]

The point is there's no rule for that, longbowrocks. Unless there's one that I'm not aware of, in which case I'd love to know!

We house rule a lot if we don't remember every little detail. At least until someone looks up the rule in question. I'll let you know if I find anything.

[Badmoodguy88]

What if is it was a ship with a dozen weapon mounds? Could each agent control one weapon mount? The whole ship is in a way one drone but each weapon mount is a bit like a turret drone too. It seems very silly for a gun to fire under control of 12 agents but it is not silly for 12 agents to control 12 drones right?

[DireRadiant]

Without "cheating" you could mount a smart (piloted) gun or five onto a drone, and get lots of lead flying that way.

It's not an issue with getting more firepower, that's easy. There's no need to abuse the rules.

[Ascalaphus]

I always thought those "only one gun on the drone can fire" rule was a bit silly and begging for someone to use common sense to come up with a workaround.

[phlapjack77]

Does the MRSI system have anything about attacks coming from different sources? If not, there should be - this seems like something that a tacnet / MRSI / drone barrage would be good for*

"Target that explosion and fire"

* and by good for, I mean makes sense. Not that I actually think MRSI is a good idea in-game...

[Stahlseele]

"Target that explosion and fire"

Star Trek, the unconquered Land.
When the Stealthed Bird of Prey has been hit by the sniffer Torpedo.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

You can do that, but then the question is rules for 'linked' fire. AFAIK, it doesn't exist.

It does in WAR! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . You can fire several weapons at one target, and the resulting DV is the SUM of the DVs, IIRC. (Ninja'd by phlapjack)

The problem with the Gunboat/gun truck is that, as I see it, you can't put an "independent" turret, with its own pilot program, on a drone. What you would have to do is put several Smart platforms on remote gyro-linked, and command linked, turret mounts. However, you would need 1 IP to align the gyro-linked mounts with the target, and then another IP to give the linked smart platforms the order to fire on that target, only then could the smart platforms fire without movement penalties. And that still disregards the actions required for sensor lock (of which I still haven't understood whether you need it or not.)

If you don't mind movement penalties, you could simply bolt a few smart platforms on the truck, and link their orders.

[Tanegar]

Star Trek, the unconquered Land.
When the Stealthed Bird of Prey has been hit by the sniffer Torpedo.

Close, but no cigar. The subtitle of Star Trek VI was "The Undiscovered Country." Hand in your nerd badge, you're through! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[hobgoblin]

Oho? Do tell.

Mostly it is a implication regarding my "hold action" reading, as if the Command program use the initiative of the vehicle, not the driver, there will be a lag between command input and performance if the initiative score of the driver is higher then that of the vehicle.

This because the vehicle would not respond to the input until its initiative comes up on that pass.