[Marcus Gideon]

Ehh... bioware is weird. It's not cyberware, so there isn't an actual interface to log in and change settings. But I also don't think that bioware is constantly running, or else Synaptic Boosters would drive people bonkers when the whole world is perpetually slow motion.

The book doesn't say one way or the other, so it's up to GM interpretation. For my money, I'd say that it has to be activated as a Free Action (Adrenaline Pump is one of the only Bioware that specifies being activated, and says it's a Free action, so that's my basis). And when you activate it, you decide where to put the 4 boxes. After it's activated, you have to wait until the end of the scene to turn it off and reset it. So no rearranging mid-combat.

But that's just me. Your GM may very well say you have to decide the distribution at purchase and implantation, and it cannot be changed afterwards.

[NoxMortem]

Don't get me wrong, I thank you very much for your explanation, but is this how others read this as well? Beeing over-correct the wording does not necessarily require a splitting up at all as a combination does not implicate a sum. For a rating 4 compensator this can be very easily and correctly read as a "physical, or mental or (physical and mental)=4 boxes compensation" which would be physical=4 boxes or mental=4 boxes or physical=4 boxes and mental=4 boxes. The wording does not require a "(physical, or mental or (physical + mental))=4" which would be physical=4 or mental=4 or physical+mental=4.

Was this topic already discussed at some earlier point? How do demo teams interpret this? Has this come up maybe in one of the mission games/faqs?

[Reaver]

I read that as:

You have <compensator rating> Worth of Stun and/or physical.
So: a rating 4 DC, would give you 0 stun 4 physical. OR 4 stun 0 physical OR  1 stun 3 physical. Or any other combination of damage up to the total of the compensator.


As to WHY it was changed... Keep in mind this is only my opinion, with no communication from anyone at CGL, nor a freelancer, and is expressed in my own words.

"To stop rules lawyering armor and DC stacking, cheese monkeys from being a the whiny, rules lawyering armor and DC stacking, cheese monkeys that they are?"

Do you KNOW how many times I heard the argument in 4e of: "Well, I have a Damage compensator of 9, and a stun track of 8. So OBVIOUSLY the damage compensator makes me totally ignore stun damage, including falling unconscious when it's exceeded. Combine that with 45 points of armor from loading armor into all my cyber limbs, demal plated, and welding 3 shields - 1 for each ass cheek and an other directly to my face, I am totally unkillable as nothing can penetrate my armor. THUS all attacks that don't penetrate have ZERO effect! Which for the record, is nothing short of a combined Thor shot."

And other types of Cheese lawyering that went on? As to why they are not ALL like that... different writers for each section? The cyber section just happened to have been a freelancer who got VERY sick of hearing the above argument ad-nausium??


But, that's just a guess... 

[NoxMortem]

Thank you for the answer Reaver! What I don't exactly see why one can't make the same argument you quote from 4e in 5e? Ok, he now needs to split between physical or mental damage, but wouldn't he be able to make the exact same statement as the one you quote?

Just to be clear, personally I would only apply it to injury modifiers and not to the condition when to fall unconscious. I just wonder why the change to split the boxes affects the quote in any way?

[jim1701]

My GM ruling on Damage Compensators would be to declare at the time the damage is taken.  It doesn't make sense to me to do it any other way. 

[Marcus Gideon]

My GM ruling on Damage Compensators would be to declare at the time the damage is taken.  It doesn't make sense to me to do it any other way.

Ooh, that's a good idea! It automatically buffers the first 4 boxes of damage you take, however that may be.

Good thinking Jim, I knew there was a reason we kept you around.

[jocan2003]

So ive been having a nice discussion with my shadowrun group about agents skill.

1. Agents by default doesnt have electronic warfare skill, is it an oversight? If not i found a workaround but we are having hard discussion about the legitimacy of my argument.

In core Page.246

An agent
runs as a program and can use programs running on
the same device as them.

In Rigger 5 Page.127

Some skills are Restricted or Forbidden. Those will be
indicated on the individual autosoft profile. Remember
also that an autosoft is designed for only a single drone;
you cannot slot a Clearsoft autosoft designed for an Aztechnology
Crawler into an Evo Proletarian. (Well, you
can; it just doesn’t do anything.)

In core Page. 267

The Sharing rating is the number of autosofts
you can run on the RCC that simultaneously run on all
slaved drones at the same time. One caveat: if a drone is
running any of its own autosofts, it cannot benefit from
the RCC’s autosofts.

Using these 3 quote i come to the conclusion, i could have an agent on my RCC using a virtual machine hardwired in and my agent could teamroll for assist a drone running autosoft from the RCC?

Can i push it as to he assist me if i am rigged in? Since its the autosoft running are for the drone im rigged in?
--------

2. Another question that bangs my way around. Using the juggernaut, he has weapon mounts in his cyberarms, if my drone uses the weapon from his cyberarm mounted weapon its a simple action right? But what if im rigged in? Since i become the drone wouldnt it be simple action too? or complex gunnery thingy?

3. Another related question, if in the other hand the Juggernaut has the weapon in hand, would it be simple or complex action, i mean i AM the drone now and drones combat action follows the same rule as for meat action right?

[Marcus Gideon]

1) Agents are like a baby AI, programmed and designed to be an assistant Hacker. They cannot be run on an RCC b/c it's not a hacker tool, it's a Rigger tool. The reason why they only know Computer, Hacking, and Cybercombat is b/c they are a purely Matrix entity. Electronic Warfare is a skill that jams real world tech, and they only live inside the Matrix.

Even if that weren't the case, they cannot assist you or the drone. Agents can't "use" Autosofts, so they won't have the EW skill. Autosofts are software that only works for drones, just like Agents are software that really only works for Decks. Even if the RCC is sharing out the Autosoft, it's the drone running it. And if you were Jumped In to the drone, then it wouldn't be running anything since Jumping In basically suppresses the drone Pilot program completely. You are 100% in control of the drone.

2) Drones live in a difficult middle ground between "personnel" and "vehicles". Attacking with a vehicle mounted weapon is always a Complex action, even though it would be Simple for a person with the same weapon. Even if you Jump In and take control of the drone's Cyberlimbs, it's still using the Vehicle rules which makes it a Complex action.

3) "Technically" if your drone had hands and fingers, and were simply grasping an ordinary firearm, that wouldn't be a "vehicle mounted weapon" and would still be a Simple action. Really all it boils down to is these writers suck at their jobs and left a bunch of illogical flaws in place. Such as when does a drone count as a person, and when does it count as a vehicle?

[Herr Brackhaus]

1. Depending on who you ask, agent programs can run on RCCs just fine. The rules are unclear on this point so its up to table interpretation. Marcus thinks they shouldn't, I think they should. My reasoning is that an RCC can run any program a deck can, and agents remain a cyberprogram be definition.

I also wouldn't necessarily agree with Marcus on the usage of autosoft, as agents are much like pilots and can use any program loaded on the device they are running on. Operating under the assumption that an agent can run on an RCC (see above), I would say it's likely that said agent could use all programs on the RCC which would include autosofts.

2. I agree with Marcus on this one. Gunnery with a vehicle mounted weapon is a complex action for some reason. This gets even weirder if the drone picked up a weapon in its mechanical arms and used it...

3. Yep. See above

[Marcus Gideon]

Herr B kinda highlighted my point... Agent programs are like drone Pilot programs. Both are semi-AI programs that make your devices function unattended. Only Agents are for hacking with a Deck, existing entirely in the Matrix and doing Matrix things. And Pilot programs operate on drones which wander around the real world. Since Agents are clueless about the real world, they wouldn't know what to do with Autosofts even if they could run them. This has already been illustrated in Data Trails, when they said only Pilot Origin AI can Jump into drones, and run Autosofts. Other forms of AI can't, and Agents aren't even on the same level of complexity as full fledged AI.

Furthermore, RCCs don't "use" the Autosofts, they just make the data network accessible so the drones can use it. Just like how your USB thumb drive doesn't "use" the music or movies you have saved on it, it's just the place where your PC looks to find the files.

[adzling]

Yeah I think Marcus has it with Agents = Pilots for Matrix.
The two experiences (VR vs. real) are so vastly different that you need both an Agent and Pilot to deal.
Otherwise you would be an A.I. ;-)

I disagree with both of them re: anthro drones.
I seem to remember somewhere (in Rigger 5.0?) that humanoid anthro drones use regular firearms and melee attack skills when rigged in.
The defining line is that they have real arms/ hands/ fingers that allow them to pick up and manipulate different weapons and such.

Anyhoo ymmv.

[Herr Brackhaus]

And this does highlight a problem with vague rules; three people, three different interpretations

[Reaver]

There is a reason why the written word is considered the least exact form of communication.....

[jocan2003]

I was mainly thinking about the Juggernaut drone since in the description he has 2 cyberlimb and they are to be considered the same as the metahuman counterpart exept with it comes down to price since there is no flesh/electronics connection/adaptor.

The juggernaut has 2 cyberarms wich are identical to the metahuman counterpart exept for flesh/electronics adaptor hence thereduced price. So if a metahuman can pick up a weapon and use it in a simple action, there is no reason to make it a complex action if the rigger is jumped in and use the weapon with the cyberarm hands.

Also my reasoning about the mounted weapon if the following, If the weapon were mounted on a swivel of some sort on the drone hull i would understand, but if the weapon is mounted on the exteriorof the cyberarm, wouldnt it be the same as a metahuman using an weapon modified to be a cyberweapon mounted on the inside of the limb? Thus using simple action? I mean the only difference in these case is outside vs inside mounted of the weapon.

[Marcus Gideon]

Yep, and unfortunately in this case, as with just about everything else SR5 has done so far, the rules are poorly written making the answer unclear.

Drones are tiny vehicles. So they fit in the space a person would, but they use vehicle rules for a majority of their actions. And vehicles don't get much in the way of Simple actions. Everything you do with a vehicle is Complex.

So while I see the argument for humanoid arms holding a typical rifle, if the weapon is "mounted" to the drone then it would be treated as a "mounted weapon." According to the rules.

Now, if Pegasus were writing the English version instead of just the German version, then we'd probably have a better understanding of all the rules in general.