[Namikaze]

In 4th you could use image magnification to completely neutralize range modifiers - I assume they nerfed it in 5th so that shiny table on page 175 gets more use. As for the stacking: the Improved Range Finder itself says it doesn't stack with image magnification bonuses, but it has "on the weapon" in there, which leaves a bit of a loophole that may not be intended.

Bingo.  I liked that it removed all the range modifiers when you spent a Take Aim action, it seemed realistic.  As Quickscope pointed out, if you're using a 50x optic your target is going to be gigantic.  Still not a shoo-in to hit though, as there are still a crapton of other variables, but it certainly would eliminate the size of the target being an obstacle to success.

[Michael Chandra]

On the other hand, distance still can make for a tricky shot, so it may represent that.

[Malevolence]

Yeah, I'm with Michael on that - the perceived size of the target is only part of the challenge that distance provides. There are things like bullet drop and general inaccuracy of the gun - they don't shoot exactly straight, or even non-straight in exactly the same way every shot. More than that, any slight tremble or twitch or slight adjustment of the shooter can more dramatically impact the point of, well, impact, the further away the target is, making it difficult to keep your gun aimed at a distant target, especially when it doesn't have the common decency to stay still for you.


So, yeah, I can see the argument for it to be able to reduce the penalty by more than one category, but not completely eliminate it.

[jim1701]

I don't think anything should be able to eliminate range (beyond medium to short) completely.  None of the other environmental factors can be reduced by more than one step AFAIK which is why they have a cap on how bad the modifier can be when multiple factors are in play at the same time.  The majority of the rules indicate there is a limit to how far you can reduce the effects of visibility, light, glare and wind so I'm not seeing the intent to allow this one combination of tech to bypass range completely with a take aim action.

[8-bit]

I don't think anything should be able to eliminate range (beyond medium to short) completely.  None of the other environmental factors can be reduced by more than one step AFAIK which is why they have a cap on how bad the modifier can be when multiple factors are in play at the same time.  The majority of the rules indicate there is a limit to how far you can reduce the effects of visibility, light, glare and wind so I'm not seeing the intent to allow this one combination of tech to bypass range completely with a take aim action.

I'll just point out that low-light can turn Partial Light or Dim Light into Full Light. That's 2 steps negated.

[Fedifensor]

Can you downgrade actions?  For example, using one of your two Simple Actions to take an extra Free Action?

[Namikaze]

Can you downgrade actions?  For example, using one of your two Simple Actions to take an extra Free Action?

Don't you have a topic about this already?  Located here?

[8-bit]

Can you downgrade actions?  For example, using one of your two Simple Actions to take an extra Free Action?

Don't you have a topic about this already?  Located here?

He probably didn't read through the entire 87 pages of this thread and notice that Aaron doesn't post here anymore. He was probably looking for the "official Catalyst Games" answer.

[Fedifensor]

He probably didn't read through the entire 87 pages of this thread and notice that Aaron doesn't post here anymore. He was probably looking for the "official Catalyst Games" answer.

Yeah, that's correct.  Is there a place to go for official answers, anymore?

[JackVII]

Nope. You can post here and hope that the folks at CGL are still looking at this thread and using it for errata and a future FAQ, but that's about it. Occasionally, one of the nice freelancers will opine with their opinion on things, but that's about as official as it usually gets.

ETA: With that said, I think they sometimes pull out errata from here and add it to the books without mentioning it. For instance, the Cyberware Scanner table on p. 362 of the Core Book now correctly has "Modifier" for the header for the Situation line. It used to say Threshold (making it harder to detect cyberware if there was more of it, for some reason). I don't know if that actually appeared in a written errata, I'll have to check.

[Kincaid]

Speaking strictly for myself, I sometimes churn through here, but when I'm looking for book-specific stuff, it's infinitely easier to go through the book-specific errata threads.  I understand that this distinction isn't always made as clearly in the forums as elsewhere, but the community writ large seems to be pretty good about clarifications (how many gauss rifle availability threads are we up to now?) and FAQ items are handled separately from errata, so winnowing things down to strictly errata using this thread can be tricky.

[dfmaia]

I would like to know if an agent running on the hacker's cyberdeck share marks with his owner.
I would also like to know if they share a single OS score.

1) If the decker marks a host, does his agent mark it as well?
2) If the decker gets marked by IC will his agent gets marked as well?
3) Can the agent hack a persona on the public grid while the decker hacks a host from a global grid?

Thank you in advance!

[Namikaze]

I would like to know if an agent running on the hacker's cyberdeck share marks with his owner.
I would also like to know if they share a single OS score.

Yes to both questions.  Unlike technomancers, the OS score is shared as the agent is still running on the cyberdeck.  Also, any marks acquired on/by the agent are shared with the deck.

1) If the decker marks a host, does his agent mark it as well?

Yup.

2) If the decker gets marked by IC will his agent gets marked as well?

Yup, though at that point the decker has more to worry about than the IC getting a mark on his/her agent.

3) Can the agent hack a persona on the public grid while the decker hacks a host from a global grid?

That's a question of whether the agent and the decker need to be on the same grid.  There's nothing hard-and-fast that says you have to be on the same grid, but I think logically you'd have to be on the same grid.  The agent is running on the deck, which is also running the persona.  Unless the deck is capable of processing multiple grids at once the agent and the persona would have to be on the same grid.  However, the book does state the agent gets it's own persona.  Unfortunately that's where it stops.  One could argue successfully on both sides of this question, which means ultimately it's up to your GM.  But for what it's worth, I would make the agent stay on the same grid as the decker.

[Michael Chandra]

Uhm, Namikaze, where are you getting this from about the Agents? All I found was that marks cannot be shared, I did not manage to find anything supporting that Agents and Deckers share their marks through the Cyberdeck. Marks are given to personas, and Agents are their own Personas. Your marks are specific and connected to your persona and whatever you've marked, so since the Agents are separate personas, the marks don't go to them. Same for the IC: It marks a single Persona, not the others.

[Namikaze]

It's just logical - the agent, even with it's own persona, is still a program.  Sprites are explicitly given their own marks while Agents are not.