[Kiirnodel]

Marcus, I'm not sure why you seem to be taking the rules editing so personally, but you are injecting confrontation where it doesn't need to be at this point. It seems like every chance you get you are making some sort of rude comment about the writers or even just Catalyst directly, even when there is no call for it. I know that there is a general unrest with some of the rules and the "standard of writing" but it really doesn't need to be rehashed every other post you make. And making comments like "if Pegasus were writing..." is completely unfounded. Pegasus is only translating and localizing content, they haven't written any rules so we have no basis for how they would do at it. We haven't even gotten absolute confirmation that Pegasus does the clarifications themselves. For all we know, it could be a fluke in translation, there has already been positive proof that different translations get different results (see discussion about Good Cover, difference between French and German).

In this particular discussion there doesn't even seem to be a rules ambiguity, a drone shooting is a complex action. Nothing ambiguous about it. Maybe it's because they have to take the extra processing time to confirm target lock...

I would also like to note that while I am a member of the Catalyst Demo Team, I do not speak for Catalyst in any way. I am simply speaking up because I feel the repeated negative commentary is unnecessary and inappropriate to the discussion.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Marcus Gideon
In the absence of a "Like" button I'll just state for the record that I support Kiirnodel's comments 100%. There's constructive criticism, and then there's just criticism; many of your comments cannot objectively be labeled "constructive" in my opinion, and I too feel like the repetitive negative commentary is unnecessary.

[jocan2003]

In SR5 drone/vehicule needed both condition to be filled to be a total unrepairable wreck, in R5 it now seem to only be physical, is that what was really meant to be? From SR5 page 270

If the chassis and the electronics of your drone get
trashed, it will probably cost you more to fix it than buy a
new one. But if it has sentimental value, ain’t it worth it?

Says here its a possibility to repair it, while in R5 page 29

If all of the boxes on its Condition
Monitor are filled, then sorry chummer, your baby is totaled (but I know a guy on Maynard who can give you a
good deal on a refurb).

Seem to indicate repair is impossible after only phys being filled? Is that really the intention? Moving from having both condition track filled to only 1 for totaling a vehicule/drone? Thats kinda of a big finger to riggers in that case....

Whats the official word on this?

Edit: Why i find it interesting. Using the juggernaut as example using a single high power sniper shot you can totally fill the condition monitor if the rolls arent in your favor, that would really totally wreck that beast with no chances of repair? I understand if the drones stepped on an anti-vehicule mine or get shot with a anti-tank cannon... but being grinded with low power bullets or a single high power snipershot shouldnt make a total mess of the drone and could still be repairable. Now if matrix AND phys were to be filled up or have phys overflow to move toward matrix damage like it were short circuit yeah i could understand that invesment would be quite high. But again should make a vehicule irreparable either... The cost is still there isnt it?

[Herr Brackhaus]

jocan
Vehicles have always had a single condition monitor in SR5, as they are immune to Stun damage. As for filling both Matrix and Physical; I for one never interpreted the statement on page 270 to mean that a physically destroyed vehicle could somehow be repaired just because it's electronics were still functional.

I will agree that the notion introduced by Rigger 5.0 of a vehicle being destroyed completely beyond repair is a little odd, and one we house quite simply ruled away.

[El Diablo]

Ultrasound, CRB 446 and 452. How well do you "see" with an Ultrasound sensor in your headware? Like Daredevil/Matt Murdock or just a rough topographic map?  Do you get Blind Fire penalty against an invisible enemy?

[jocan2003]

Personaly i see it like daredevil like vision exept maybe with less details, might not be able to see the exact contour of lips, eye brows and stuff like that but see the general shape of items/ppl. Also some material might be able to absorb the soundwaves making it look like an infinite corridor since there is no bounceback

My house rule and in no way is it official. The way i work is you throw a perception test/ewar test against a set threshold similar to a sensor attack but without the locking, if you succeed you get reduced negative for each net hits.and it counts as a simple action, pretty much like the observe in details action but using sensors instead of flesh sensory input. Keep in mind... if the sensor the player is using is olfactory... that wont help much trying to find where the guy is behind that smoke cover. But if the player choose to he can use a simple action oberve in details and try to find the target using a mean of his choosing and i adapt a threshold from there.

I mean sure a smoke can hide visualy the enemy, but i can clearly see somebody squinting in the hope to see a shadow or mass moving behind the smoke and reduce the negative accordingly.

[Dinendae]

I've always mentally pictured ultrasound as being similar to those 3D sonar images you see now; they show a surprising level of detail, but they're not as good with lots of clutter around.

[Reaver]

On phone so next to impossible to link

But google 'Ultrasonic building pictures' to get an idea of what you would see. All 'greyscale' as the density of objects is shown. Enough detail to identify objects but not enough to actually read anything (so no note reading).

Or, that is what i expect from the technology in 70 years based off of what I have seen from non-destructive ultrasonic field testing eqiupment.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Does Shock Weave (Run & Gun page 85) inflict 8S(e) with or without an AP of -5 as per usual for electrical attacks?

AP isn't mentioned in the text, but all other electrical attacks in the books as far as I know have an AP modifier, so I'm wondering if this is just an oversight. Per RAW I'm sure it doesn't, but what do you think the intent is?

[Kincaid]

On phone so next to impossible to link

But google 'Ultrasonic building pictures' to get an idea of what you would see. All 'greyscale' as the density of objects is shown. Enough detail to identify objects but not enough to actually read anything (so no note reading).

Or, that is what i expect from the technology in 70 years based off of what I have seen from non-destructive ultrasonic field testing eqiupment.

Stick this into your kanimushi swarm's sensor array and load up some AutoCad 5.0 software.  Instant(-ish) floorplans.

[Reaver]

On phone so next to impossible to link

But google 'Ultrasonic building pictures' to get an idea of what you would see. All 'greyscale' as the density of objects is shown. Enough detail to identify objects but not enough to actually read anything (so no note reading).

Or, that is what i expect from the technology in 70 years based off of what I have seen from non-destructive ultrasonic field testing eqiupment.

Stick this into your kanimushi swarm's sensor array and load up some AutoCad 5.0 software.  Instant(-ish) floorplans.

More then that.
Adjust it correctly, and spot structrual weaknessess in a building, pipeline, support! (Possible bonus to demolitions?).

Currently ultrasonics are used to test welds and cement for structural faults and weak points. They do a very good job of showing mirco cracks, thin walling, shaling, and air pockets...

Expand the tech by 70 years.....

[Kincaid]

You'd also get things like patrol routes and all sorts of other useful info, but I'll leave that up to enterprising players.

[adzling]

Yeah but it'd be risky with wireless on.
If you turn wireless off I guess you could rely on its pilot and autosofts to stay hidden, do the mapping and return to a pre arranged meet poont😬.

[Blue Rose]

Rigger 5 questions.

Increased seating with an odd number of seats. Increases seating 50%. Round up or round down?

Buying a new pilot program. This also increases firewall, data processing, and device rating now, right?

Can a vehicle run encryption?

[Herr Brackhaus]

Increased seating:

The general rule of thumb is to round up, unless a specific rule tells you to do otherwise.

Pilot program:
Yes, raising Pilot raises Device Rating, which raises Firewall and Data processing.

Vehicles and programs
Vehicles have Pilots, Pilots can load and run autosofts, but autosofts are a specific type of program. So no, unless you slave the vehicle to an RCC or install a program carrier, the vehicle cannot natively run cyberprograms.