I came up with this idea during our last session, and we all cracked up.
Originally, I just said: "Have a drone, have an agent with command, infinitely copy the agent, and viola! Inifnite attacks per round!"

When I got home, I looked up the rules, and I think this would work with a few reservations:
1. Each agent using command requires a subscription to what it's commanding.
2. Each agent needs a different ID if I want to run them all from the same node. Let's just forget about this though. I can patch them with a one week extended test, have them access the drone from various nodes, or just load them all onto my persona.

So here's the plan:

• Get a drone. Upgrade it to response 6, or add modular electronics, and then upgrade to response 6 (I think we're still arguing over whether this is necessary in a different thread).
• Get pilot 6 for the drone (max active subscriptions = pilot * 2 = 12).
• Get a rating 6 agent.
• Crack agent, and copy into 12 agents.
• Load all agents with R10 command, optimized R4.
• In combat, each agent commands drone to fire, resulting in 12 shots per IP, 36 per combat turn.

Nope. Seriously, longbowrocks.

Whoa. Where's the specific problem here?

Don't worry about our campaign. For actual gaming I just stick with looking up all the possible bonus for something rather than actually bending the game this way.

Nothing can have more than 4 IPs in flesh/steel.

I don't think this is about IP's.
It's more about several dozend agents all getting one or two IP's and all getting actions in their IP's and all using them to make the drone do the same thing(fire) again and again O.o

When you command a drone, it still performs actions. The number of actions it can perform per turn is still limited by the usual rules.

Stahlseele's answer is probably the easiest. There *is* no 6th IP, or more.

The drone isn't using any IP's. That logic breaks down because the drone is just a channel for the IP's of the Agents, which are actually using their IP's. That's why drones can channel 5 IP's when used in hot sim by some riggers, even though the drone acting on its own should only have 3. I might even argue that this was an intended loophole (albeit not intended to be used to such a degree).

It's just hilarious when you think of a SS main gun nailing 36 guys in three seconds from 50 kilomters away (I can't think of how that could happen though, since it takes too many actions to negate penalties enough to hit anything). At first I liked improved range finding, but then I realized it probably means "-6 for extreme range reduced to -5", not "-6 for extreme reduced to -3 for long".

I don't think I can get even a baker's dozen. A round dozen seems to be the limit if we say rating 6 pilot is the limit.

You're remote controlling it. It can have 5 IP's by remote command that way. The only challenge I can think of is that the remote control would overlap for all 12 Agents, but there is no rule preventing it, and all the rules supporting it.

No, there are no rules supporting it. One agent can maybe command a drone: total 3 IPs. That's it.

5 IPs is only for a maxed-out real hacker in hot VR. There are only 5 IPs in a turn. You can't get around that, even if you argued that 2 agents together could get 5—and you can't argue that, because that's just the classic question of 'what happens if I command a drone, then let it move for itself?' The answer is 'it doesn't work'.

If you were looking for something more broken, there's always "cheap 20 body bus with 6 flexible weapon mounts". A full auto burst with +53 DV isn't too shabby.

Just sayin'. There's no mention of IP's in remote control. The limiter is the number of subscriptions the drone can hold. The game has no no rules describing the amount of time a drone spends executing actions sent to it by the rigger. I maintain the drone simply acts on the rigger's command, and then awaits more commands.

That is not the limiter. Remote Control is subject to all normal initiative rules. In fact, the subscription count can go much higher.

SR4A p. 245
Drone Initiative equals Pilot rating + Response, and they receive two extra
Initiative Passes (three total).

On IP 1 the drone takes an action as it commanded to do. Later in IP 1, the same drone is given a command to fire again. It cannot because it has already taken it's action.
Repeat twice.
On IP 4 neither the Agents or the Drone have any more Initiative passes.
The Command is issued is to the drone's Pilot. The Pilot only has 3 IPs.

In addition, optimization to a Response of 10 would be 96k nuyen with a Availability of 40F.

There's no way to have more than 4 IPs in Physical.
I don't believe there's anything in the rules saying that outright, but this bit:
leads me to believe that the drone is still performing actions when you issue commands for it. So, once it's performed a complex action this IP, it can't do anything else.

Well, not for the persona as far as I can see, but I guess the node can support more. I misread that.

As far as actions go; new rigger, new action. Drone actions have no part in it.
"Unless already executing an ongoing action on the rigger’s behalf,
a remote controlled drone acts only when it receives commands (ie. on
the rigger’s action)."

That's what we're arguing about.

No need. I optimized the R10 command program to run on a system of 6.

Command and jumped in actions are matrix actions. If the rigger has 5 matrix IPs, he can translate those to physical through the drone, the that's a different argument.

That's just detailing that it takes you more time to do things since you can't get the more natural feeling of being jumped in. In effect, it keeps you from zooming in and headshotting someone in the same IP remotely, or from firing twice in one IP remotely.

We're not arguing about it, though.

Again, the drone counts as having spent its action. Not the pilot, the chassis itself.

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

It's not explicit enough, sadly. But yes, it certainly is clear to the non-abusers.

Fine. I'm saying you're wrong, and, if you feel this sounds better than arguing, you're saying I'm wrong.

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.

Longbowrocks: you give orders to the drone, but receiving orders doesn't give it any IPs. As soon as it gets a normal IP, it'll pick an order from its backlog to execute.

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

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. This is even in the FAQ (whether or not anyone likes it), because it's *frequently asked*.

"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.
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=29138&hl

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.

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* ^^

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

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...

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?

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!

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

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.

Would that trick work on this drone?

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.

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!

Lol, ok. I just thought it sounded like it was rather bigger than a motorcycle.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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

It does in WAR! . 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.

Close, but no cigar. The subtitle of Star Trek VI was "The Undiscovered Country." Hand in your nerd badge, you're through!

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.