NEWS

Jumpstart

  • 131 Replies
  • 15679 Views

antaskidayo

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
« Reply #120 on: (15:28:19/08-07-15) »
hmmm yeah that's what I initially thought of, but made me think then how would they fare against a tanky criter or enemy? run away and get bigger guns? Teamwork tests add limit and to dice pool, problem is suppression doesn't have any of those, so a dramatic face off wouldn't work aye.

Kincaid

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2623
« Reply #121 on: (15:52:29/08-07-15) »
If you have multiple people creating overlapping fields of suppressive fire, then the person in it needs to make a series of tests detailed in the last paragraph of the section (p. 180).  I'd suggest that if you're using suppressive fire on a single target, Enhanced Suppression is the way to go.
Killing so many sacred cows, I'm banned from India.

Jayde Moon

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Ace Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
  • Shadowrun Missions Developer
« Reply #122 on: (16:20:50/08-07-15) »
Well, you do have to understand that some tank folks just won't get hurt by the small caliber bullets (or medium or even large calibre, depending on just how tank).

I mean, think of an actual tank.  You could shoot it all day long with a pistol and never make a dent.  Of course, a tank has 'hardened' armor, but in Shadowrun, we do allow non hardened armor to get pretty thick.

Even Enhanced Suppression won't do much against someone with 30+ armor if you are shooting him with non-AP Machine Pistols.
That's just like... your opinion, man.

Kincaid

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2623
« Reply #123 on: (16:27:27/08-07-15) »
Totally agreed.  Suppressive fire becomes redundant pretty quickly.  There's a long discussion to be had about optimizing it, but once you have someone under its effects, you're better served having a few other folks riddle him with 6-10 round bursts of apds/ex-ex directly.
Killing so many sacred cows, I'm banned from India.

Raven2049

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • CDT "Special" Agent
« Reply #124 on: (08:08:04/08-08-15) »
Suppressive fire is a great thing. but you have to remember, when you take ANY other action during the current Combat Turn suppressive fire stops.

so in this example
 
goon 1: fire's a suppression(complex action) with an assault rifle.
**players that hit the dirt falls prone and gets -5 to initiative to avoid the rain of bullets,...however....
player A:  " Ah f*ck it, lets duke it out!!!" , my character takes it ( fails his reaction + edge test, rolls for damage resistance and ticks off the damage boxes ) and goes rambo since its my turn next - " Eat this you piece of drek face!!!! " and declares that he's  also firing a suppression at the goon.
** i went with the flow, and let him have his revenge, rolled some dice for effects. I made him roll another reaction+edge and he fails again, lucky for him that he still has 4 boxes on his condition monitor left. After that I let him kill the goon and end the suppression on his party, asking him "How do you kill him?"

you handled the first portion perfectly. however, the second you state the goon with the assault rifle tries to "dodge" (not talking the interrupt action here but Rea+Edge test to get out of the way) his suppression fire ends. and your PC's continues.

basically if you want to continue suppressing each other neither of you can do any dodging or moving or anything like that. you stand there and continue to spray bullets at each other/anything that moves until the end of the Combat Turn. you do however have to resist damage each time your Initiative number comes up.

Alternatively our group plays it that if a PC with a low Initiative (1-10) who uses his only action to suppress, continues to suppress even when his initiative pass(es) are used up. so the street sam receiving the suppression fire has to resist every pass until everyone's initiative is 0 or less. Dont know if this is RAW/RAI or not, but its how we play it.

FasterN8

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Err on the side of awesome.
    • FasterN8's Priority/Point Buy Hybrid Chargen
« Reply #125 on: (14:58:54/08-08-15) »
Sorry for resurrecting something from so far upthread, but the whole thing is a pretty good read and after finishing reading through it all I wanted to weigh in on this Armor thing in particular.

Armor gives "you" +2 dice to resist Matrix damage, so exactly how that would interact with an unattended agent is up to the GM.  I'd say no since the agent's persona is actually distinct from any persona derived from the cyberdeck, but there's some grey there.  If you were running Armor and an agent out of one deck, I wouldn't give the agent the +2 dice then either, so I don't see a need to do so when you're not there....

Starting with the situation of one decker running one deck and and one agent, I don't see why a matrix attack on the Agent wouldn't benefit from the Armor program.   For one thing, many programs simply modify ASDF stats and the agent would certainly benefit from the deck running a better firewall or whatnot.  The agent is also using the same same matrix connection as you so it doesn't make sense for something like signal scrub to only reduce noise for one persona either.  Both of these programs also use the "you" pronoun.

But the best argument for the Armor program specifically applying to an attack on an Agent is this:  The agent doesn't really have a condition monitor of his own.  Sure, his persona will defend against a Data Spike with (Agent Rating + Deckstat), but when it comes to damage resistance (where the armor program benefit applies), it really is "your" condition monitor that's under attack (the decker's.  Or the deck itself if you prefer).  You'll be rolling Device Rating + Firewall to resist damage, neither of which are unique to the Agent.  It some ways it's like creating a second face for people to punch you in.  Not that a second face matters terribly much in the non-euclidean geometry of the matrix where it's just as easy for 20 people to simultaneously punch you in the face as it is 2 people,... but you get my point.

We might make an argument that the offensive programs like Biofeedback and Hammer only apply to the decker (I'm undecided here), but I think that for damage resistance programs (Armor, Biofeedback filter, Shell, Defuse) the benefits of those programs apply at the point of the damage resistance test, which is unified for any number of persona running on the deck, not distinct and different pools like the defense tests would be for different personas.

The more tricky questions are about marks ON the agent and if/how they affect the decker persona.  If an agent is marked, isn't the Deck that formed that persona also marked?  (thereby allowing snoop and spoof and other trixy schemes)  So if the deck is marked, isn't the decker persona now also marked?  That would definitely make him non-hidden... a rude surprise if he things he's stealthing along quietly.   It's tricky to be sure and there are important consequences to whatever conclusions you come up with. 

In the end though, the conclusion Kincaid makes remains the same, Agents are useful tools but they introduce certain additional vulnerabilities and running a second deck for the sake of having an(other) agent is really, really inefficient and potentially counterproductive.
« Last Edit: (15:55:29/08-08-15) by FasterN8 »

Jayde Moon

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Ace Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
  • Shadowrun Missions Developer
« Reply #126 on: (16:13:11/08-08-15) »
Raven, that's an interesting point.  I don't know that I agree. 

Specifically, the text states that the Suppressive Fire continues as long as the suppressor does not 'move' or take another 'action.'.

Making a standard defense test isn't defined as an action, nor is it a 'Move'.  I would agree that if you took an Interrupt Action that this would apply.

Now, I might see where you are applying a very strict definition of the word 'move'.  Defense against someone shooting at you will certainly mean that you are 'moving'.  But I read move in this sense to be 'changing location'.  If you take a 'meter step' the you have moved.  If you swivel at the waist a bit, you have not moved.  Even the act of suppression requires you to 'move' as it is a series of controlled bursts in a ten meter cone.  If you didn't move, if would be a continuous burst on the same spot.

Anyhow, that's my read on the RAW.  How you want to interpret the RAI can be up to individuals, certainly.
That's just like... your opinion, man.

Kincaid

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2623
« Reply #127 on: (16:49:16/08-08-15) »
Sorry for resurrecting something from so far upthread, but the whole thing is a pretty good read and after finishing reading through it all I wanted to weigh in on this Armor thing in particular.

Armor gives "you" +2 dice to resist Matrix damage, so exactly how that would interact with an unattended agent is up to the GM.  I'd say no since the agent's persona is actually distinct from any persona derived from the cyberdeck, but there's some grey there.  If you were running Armor and an agent out of one deck, I wouldn't give the agent the +2 dice then either, so I don't see a need to do so when you're not there....

Starting with the situation of one decker running one deck and and one agent, I don't see why a matrix attack on the Agent wouldn't benefit from the Armor program.   For one thing, many programs simply modify ASDF stats and the agent would certainly benefit from the deck running a better firewall or whatnot.  The agent is also using the same same matrix connection as you so it doesn't make sense for something like signal scrub to only reduce noise for one persona either.  Both of these programs also use the "you" pronoun.

But the best argument for the Armor program specifically applying to an attack on an Agent is this:  The agent doesn't really have a condition monitor of his own.  Sure, his persona will defend against a Data Spike with (Agent Rating + Deckstat), but when it comes to damage resistance (where the armor program benefit applies), it really is "your" condition monitor that's under attack (the decker's.  Or the deck itself if you prefer).  You'll be rolling Device Rating + Firewall to resist damage, neither of which are unique to the Agent.  It some ways it's like creating a second face for people to punch you in.  Not that a second face matters terribly much in the non-euclidean geometry of the matrix where it's just as easy for 20 people to simultaneously punch you in the face as it is 2 people,... but you get my point.

We might make an argument that the offensive programs like Biofeedback and Hammer only apply to the decker (I'm undecided here), but I think that for damage resistance programs (Armor, Biofeedback filter, Shell, Defuse) the benefits of those programs apply at the point of the damage resistance test, which is unified for any number of persona running on the deck, not distinct and different pools like the defense tests would be for different personas.

The more tricky questions are about marks ON the agent and if/how they affect the decker persona.  If an agent is marked, isn't the Deck that formed that persona also marked?  (thereby allowing snoop and spoof and other trixy schemes)  So if the deck is marked, isn't the decker persona now also marked?  That would definitely make him non-hidden... a rude surprise if he things he's stealthing along quietly.   It's tricky to be sure and there are important consequences to whatever conclusions you come up with. 

In the end though, the conclusion Kincaid makes remains the same, Agents are useful tools but they introduce certain additional vulnerabilities and running a second deck for the sake of having an(other) agent is really, really inefficient and potentially counterproductive.

Fair points re: armor.  This is all very much "at  my table" so I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.
Killing so many sacred cows, I'm banned from India.

Raven2049

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • CDT "Special" Agent
« Reply #128 on: (17:54:36/08-08-15) »
Raven, that's an interesting point.  I don't know that I agree. 

Specifically, the text states that the Suppressive Fire continues as long as the suppressor does not 'move' or take another 'action.'.

Making a standard defense test isn't defined as an action, nor is it a 'Move'.  I would agree that if you took an Interrupt Action that this would apply.

Now, I might see where you are applying a very strict definition of the word 'move'.  Defense against someone shooting at you will certainly mean that you are 'moving'.  But I read move in this sense to be 'changing location'.  If you take a 'meter step' the you have moved.  If you swivel at the waist a bit, you have not moved.  Even the act of suppression requires you to 'move' as it is a series of controlled bursts in a ten meter cone.  If you didn't move, if would be a continuous burst on the same spot.

Anyhow, that's my read on the RAW.  How you want to interpret the RAI can be up to individuals, certainly.

well i guess an argument could be made either way.... and ive never really questioned the "dodge test means your moving means suppression stops" rule vocally (mentally yes but hey, at our table what GM says goes unless proved otherwise by rule/ruling by higher powers)  But i would say that if the guy wants to make that Rea+Edg test to evade/hit the dirt etc that is considered moving and his suppression would end (which i dont think that point is in contention between the two of us) if he wants to continue to suppress he would just stand there and take damage as per suppressive fire rules.


FasterN8

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Err on the side of awesome.
    • FasterN8's Priority/Point Buy Hybrid Chargen
« Reply #129 on: (21:07:17/08-08-15) »
Fair points re: armor.  This is all very much "at  my table" so I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.

Gotcha.  In any case it's not a central issue for the game, but I wanted to float my understanding on that point and see if it held any water under the scrutiny of the many.  When something like this comes up I like to put my own ideas in the rodeo to see if anything comes loose.

I am curious on your opinion regarding the marks thing.  First, I am in agreement that a Decker would not share his marks with an agent any more than a Technomancer would share marks with his sprite.  After all they are all different persona and would have different matrix recognition keys, and at least for host access, the simple workaround is to simply unload the agent program and then reload it after you enter the host.

But what if the agent gets marked in the course of his duties?   Esp for an agent less than rating 6, it could easily have a lower defense against Matrix perception and even Hack on the Fly as well, so having your agent spotted and marked it's not exactly a corner case, it's actually a rather likely scenario for anyone using an agent a lot.

So if an marked Agent is marked, I'm thinking that mark also applies to the source of the agents persona (i.e. the deck)??  Try as I might I can't see any way around this.

If so, all the normal device exploits could be applied to the deck running the agent, and If the deck is marked, then the decker must be marked as well...  Meaning he will be also be spotted by whoever marked the agent....   And simply unloading the agent should probably not be an easy out for shedding that mark (lest many loopholes and rule exploits spawn from it).

If this paradigm is right, then it really illuminates the vulnerability of running an agent, especially a low-to mid rating one, which is all you can really get at chargen without the Restricted Gear PQ.  Granted they're tireless and persistent, which is their greatest advantage but if they're only throwing 8-12 dice and defending with similar pools then using them for much more than constant matrix perception is pretty dangerous.

Kincaid

  • *
  • Freelancer
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2623
« Reply #130 on: (21:26:14/08-08-15) »
(as always, answers are just imo)

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I completely agree.  My quibbles are differences that probably mean more in theory than they do in practice.  The master/slave relationship and marks running upstream is a very specific type of relationship.  Going off of pages 216/233, a slave is a device and an agent is, of course, not a device but rather a persona.  So marking an agent would not grant a mark on the deck (or decker persona, depending on how exactly you wanted to interpret that).  That said, I agree with your general conclusion that getting your agent marked sucks for you.  A Trace Icon test will lead them back to you, if they get converged upon, it's your deck that's taking the damage GOD doles out (not to mention the kick team), and so forth.
Killing so many sacred cows, I'm banned from India.

FasterN8

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Err on the side of awesome.
    • FasterN8's Priority/Point Buy Hybrid Chargen
« Reply #131 on: (23:56:49/08-08-15) »
Well, that's why I asked.  :) 

     I appreciate the difference of opinion.  As you may have guessed, I'm not entirely sold on that line of thinking in the first place.  I felt like I was following the most logical path, but I really wasn't sure I liked where it was leading.  You're right of course about the master-slave thing, but the 2 icons derived from 1 device relationship is unique to deckers and their agents so I wasn't sure what other paradigm to apply.
     Perhaps I was giving the mark on the agent too much leeway to exploit and interfere with the deck.  If we can say that the deck Icon is only subsumed by the decker persona (and not agent persona) then we end up with a Agent persona that is not really an avenue to exploit the deck directly, but only to trace its connection.  That limitation seems a bit counterintuitive to me right now, but the mechanics and balance seem to work a little better that way and I'm all for that.

I will work on stretching my brain till it wraps around this new paradigm.  Thanks for the feedback.