[Michael Chandra]

Alrighty, edited that one.

[Xenon]

I approve of the topic in that other thread.

One attack action also include attacking several targets at the same time and the same target multiple times. As long as you do it within the same action.

(One example would be "casting multiple spells" (p. 281) where you cast different spells at the same time and in the same action and on the same target (or even at different targets ) while splitting pool with the multiple attacks free action).

Great job!

[freerunner]

all good stuff so far. nice work and much needed IMHO.

I'm not clear on spell sustaining foci. if I have a spell sustained with one and it gets deactivated either intentionally or otherwise, does that mean the spell is lost or if I activate it again the spell is still there. RAW are not very clear. 

what i really want to know is if I'd need to recast the spell everyday after sleep.

[Michael Chandra]

Good one, adding that. Yes, you have to recast it every time. The spell ends once you stop sustaining it, which means it's gone. If a Sustaining Focus gets disrupted, the spell in it ends as well.

[DeathStrobe]

Integral weapon modifications.

Core says all weapon mods that are listed on the base weapon are integral. Even the ones that are on the gun's description list as being in a slot? And annoyingly Run & Gun did not clarify this at all.

Example, can the Ingram Smartgun X have a gas vent system put on its dual gas vent/silenced integral barrel? Because that's silly. But that seems to be RAW, but may not be RAI.

[Emperors Grace]

I'm surprised to see that the whole: what has/needs DNI? what has cyberware UDC? thread(s) didn't make it to the controvertial issue list.

As soon as you answered my question, two others jumped in with the opposite view.

I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.

[SlowDeck]

I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.

The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.

[Xenon]

I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.

The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.

Why would you want to plug a cable directly into your freekin eye to begin with is beyond me...
The book DO let you plug the cable into your datajack (if you have an internal smartlink)
Just like we done in every other edition before things got wireless...

(or into your imaging device if your smartlink is external)

[Michael Chandra]

I'm surprised to see that the whole: what has/needs DNI? what has cyberware UDC? thread(s) didn't make it to the controvertial issue list.

As soon as you answered my question, two others jumped in with the opposite view.

I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.

Forgot about that one, thanks. Need to remember to add it later.

[Emperors Grace]

I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.

The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.

Why would you want to plug a cable directly into your freekin eye to begin with is beyond me...
The book DO let you plug the cable into your datajack (if you have an internal smartlink)
Just like we done in every other edition before things got wireless...

(or into your imaging device if your smartlink is external)

Depending on how you view them style wise, there's no real issue to an eye cable.

If the cyber eyes are a cheap end, goggle looking, Cyclops visor - no one would question whether you could have a UDC on the side.
If you envision high end "almost human" eyes, it still is possible to have a link at the temple like Geordi LaForge's visor contact points.
The ick factor only comes in if you are talking about something like a high end "human" eye with no external hardware what so ever (even then it could be a covered flap like Data's ports on ST:TNG).  And I doubt the rules should bow to ick factor.  I mean, how's your ick factor when the eye drones are sent out?  (Flying eyeballs and a PC with empty sockets? That's nightmare fuel)

Of course this also brings up other style issues - does my embedded commlink look more like Data with hidden ports under little doors? or more like Lobot with a cyber headband in the back?

Personally I have no qualms with internal stuff having a dermal or subdermal (you can transmit through skin if you adhere the wire) hidden UDC for a wired connection but I was trying to find out what the game says on that (as I go to Missions) and it appears that there are at least two different camps.

[SlowDeck]

I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.

The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.

Why would you want to plug a cable directly into your freekin eye to begin with is beyond me...
The book DO let you plug the cable into your datajack (if you have an internal smartlink)
Just like we done in every other edition before things got wireless...

(or into your imaging device if your smartlink is external)

Depending on how you view them style wise, there's no real issue to an eye cable.

If the cyber eyes are a cheap end, google looking, Cyclops visor - no one would question whether you could have a UDC on the side.
If you envision high end "almost human" eyes, it still is possible to have a link at the temple like Geordi LaForge's visor contact points.
The ick factor only comes in if you are talking about something like a high end "human" eye with no external hardware what so ever (even then it could be a covered flap like Data's ports on ST:TNG).  And I doubt the rules should bow to ick factor.  I mean, how's your ick factor when the eye drones are sent out?  (Flying eyeballs and a PC with empty sockets? That's nightmare fuel)

Of course this also brings up other style issues - does my embedded commlink look more like Data with hidden ports under little doors? or more like Lobot with a cyber headband in the back?

Personally I have no qualms with internal stuff having a dermal or subdermal (you can transmit through skin if you adhere the wire) hidden UDC for a wired connection but I was trying to find out what the game says on that (as I go to Missions) and it appears that there are at least two different camps.

Dermal and subdermal are not possible with all of the cyberware. Like a tooth compartment; RAW, that is a device and has a UDP. Problem: By design, the only way to be able to plug anything into it and have it still capable of its main function requires prying the tooth out first.

The entire idea of "all devices have UDPs and all cyberware are devices" was very obviously not thought through.

[Xenon]

...but I was trying to find out what the game says on that (as I go to Missions) and it appears that there are at least two different camps.

Strictly reading the book you connect your smartgun system like this:

SR5 p. 433 Smartgun Systems
The smartgun features are accessed either by universal access port cable to an imaging device (like glasses, goggles, or a datajack for someone with cybereyes) or by a wireless connection working in concert with direct neural interface.

Strictly reading the above does not give much leeway to connect in any other configuration. If you have an internal smartlink it is either with a wire to your datajack or wireless working in concert with trodes or internal datajack/commlink/cyberdeck. There might or might not be other configurations, like a cable directly into your eye, but strictly reading I would say no.

[Emperors Grace]

Xenon, SlowDeck, I can see your points but I'd rather not hijack this thread further.   

Original thread is here for further discussion: http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16188.msg286667#msg286667  My part begins at reply #97.

Suffice to say, multiple people (including yourselves) had multiple viewpoints.  Also, realistically, the argument is broader than just cybereyes/smartlink.

[SlowDeck]

 

Sorry for the derail, Michael.

[Michael Chandra]

So that topic would be the link for multiple controverses then. Thanks for the link.