Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: Jack_Spade on <12-28-14/0840:16>
-
I have to admit, as GM I've never invested much interest into the matrix rules and even less as a player.
Since Run Faster has brought back the Restricted Gear quality, it's pretty easy to gain access to a Grade 6 Agent.
That got me thinking: Would it be possible to string together a few low level Agent programs to aid an Agent 6 and leave all the heavy lifting regarding Matrix security, open doors and disabling security to your fellow dog brain?
The setup I have in mind, would look like this:
You have 2x Erika MCD-1 Decks with the Virtual Machine program and two Agents 3
These two decks work exclusively for a Novatech Navigator with an Agent 6 and all the usual common and hacker cyber programs. The 4 Agents support the Agent 6 with Teamwork checks, so its limit and dice pool is increased by ca. 4 for each action
As far as I can see, the whole setup would cost about 332 000 and only need appropriate knowledge skills, a bit of computer skill and a big red off button to keep the whole setup from gaining sentience and turning on you...
My question for those more knowledgeable regarding the Matrix rules - would that really work?
-
Do a search on this topic for thread I started a few months back.
It can work in limited situations, issue I see is agent doesn't have access to all the skills a decker does like e.w. For example.
Search on Sony pocket hacker I think
-
Thanks, will do
-
Although my scenario was different (single rating 6 agent on a good deck) it has parAllels.
We used it as a decker in a box to hardwire to an access point inside a host to bypass the host firewall and directly unlock maglocks and such until we managed to find a decker runner.
-
The way the rules are worded there is no support for a single player using more than one agent... >:(
So multiple agents can't run teamwork test for each other in a single round if you consider the wording in the rule book.....
I think a setup like that would have to be run by three seperate characters without some custom rules written.
It's a good idea just the same and when I run into problems like that I go to the program creation rules from 4th edition for some idea....
-
I found the discussion (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18029.0 (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18029.0))
Very interesting and useful info.
@Shonen_Mask
Could you direct me to were that limit on agents is mentioned? I was under the impression that an agent is just a program and only limited by the available slots.
-
I don't know the exact pages but......
I can tell you that they imply the the the character's matrix actions include giving an instruction to the agent which take place in the same round. And only so many actions can be completed in a round.....
-
Er, how does a limit of the number of actions imply anything about the limit on agents? They are two separate things. You can run multiple agents on a deck, although it's not recommended. Still can be useful for stuff like multiple Matrix Searches and sifting through data with Matrix Perception checks.
-
I'm pretty sure you can only run one agent on a deck, not sure why you couldn't run multiple agents each on their own deck.
-
I'm pretty sure you can only run one agent on a deck, not sure why you couldn't run multiple agents each on their own deck.
I just am curious where this notion of "only one per deck" being a thing comes from.
Agents are autonomous programs that are rated from 1 to 6. Each agent occupies one program slot on your deck. Agents use the Matrix attributes of the device they run on, and their rating (up to 6) for attributes. Agents also have the Computer, Hacking, and Cybercombat skills at a rating equal to their own. An agent runs as a program and can use programs running on the same device as them.
You can have your agent perform Matrix actions for you. When an agent is running, it has its own persona (and icon). An agent is about as smart as a pilot program of the same rating (Pilot Programs, p. 269).
Any attack on an agent damages the device on which it is running, rather than the agent itself (which is, after all, merely a program). This means that if you’re running an agent on your deck, you and it share the same Matrix Condition Monitor.
There is nothing saying there is a limit; you can have 1 Agent per Program Slot you have. And that is dangerous, especially with lower rating Agents.
-
My vague feeling was obviously wrong! Thanks for digging that up.
-
I hope I didn't come across as insulting or anything. Just had me confused that everyone seemed to have that opinion, when I couldn't find any mention of it in the book.
-
Not at all 8 bit.
I appreciate it when someone who thinks they are correct sticks to their guns and backs it up with facts.
It helps everyone.
-
Thanks for the clarification 8-bit.
I'm aware of the danger multiple low level agents pose to a system (that's why I'd install them on two separate, comparatively cheap decks instead of the main deck).
The lack of Electronic Warfare on the Agents side is unfortunate. It seems the setup would be best managed by the the team rigger.
Edit:
I've just looked through the matrix actions section to identify what an Agent can't do + possible workarounds:
Software:
set/disarm data bomb: No real workaround comes to mind. Here you need to either rely on your luck/Edge or invest in skill wires
Electronic Warfare:
Check Overwatch Score: Workaround with the Baby Monitor program
Control Device: Workaround with the Spoof command
Hide: Workaround: Reboot
Jam Signals: Workaround: Just buy a god damn jammer
Jump Into Rigged Device: Workaround: May be Spoof command, if you don't mind to have the drones/vehicles dog brain to do all the work
Snoop: Workaround: Maybe through the Edit action
-
Nice work jack, now you just need to summarize cost and dice pools for both approaches (agent cluster on bunch o cheap decks or on a single more expensive deck) and whether it makes sense to run software or just more agents and teamwork it.
Once you do that you got an in-Game product to sell ;-)
-
Well, the system, if not entirely as reliable as a more expensive machine with a real decker, is actually quite cheap:
You need:
4x Agent 3 (12000¥)
1x Agent 6 (12000¥)
2x Erica MCD-1 (99000¥)
1x Novatech Navigator (205,750¥)
3x Virtual Machine (240¥)
The 6 other Common Programs (420¥)
Baby Monitor (250¥)
Decryption (250¥)
Exploit (250¥)
Fork (250¥)
Stealth (250¥)
Wrapper (250¥)
Optional:
Area Jammer 4 (800¥)
Data Tap: (300¥)
Total: 332 010¥
Compared to a Sony CIY-720 (345 000¥) without frills you save 12 990¥
You miss out on one additional program slot and three additional slave slots
The four Agents have 6 dice each for their teamwork checks. On average, they provide each 2 successes up to a total of max. 6 bonus dice and +6 to the limit. If you run silent expect only +4
A standard loadout would be:
Erica 1 & 2: Agent 3^Virtual Machine^Agent 3
Novatech: Agent 6, Baby Monitor, Sneak^Virtual Machine^Stealth
Your Sleaze actions should on average be made with 14 dice (16-2 for running silent) against a limit of 11
Without a good Matrix perception check an attacker has only a 20% chance of actually attacking your good main deck from the 5 active personas (and he will probably notice one of the Agent 3 programs before the Agent 6)
On the downside: You'll probably have to repair quite regularly a lot of Matrix damage on your Erica decks, since they are relatively vulnerable through Virtual Machine and two Agents that can be targeted simultaneously.
The setup could be supplemented with an additional helper deck to provide more redundancy and another decoy.
The setup is also particularly vulnerable to high noise ratings. Everything above 2 will bring the system to it's knees (a bag with fresnel fabric could help, as well as direct connections, of course)
-
nice work!
-
I'm pretty sure you can only run one agent on a deck, not sure why you couldn't run multiple agents each on their own deck.
I just am curious where this notion of "only one per deck" being a thing comes from.
There is nothing saying there is a limit; you can have 1 Agent per Program Slot you have. And that is dangerous, especially with lower rating Agents.
Except, there is: p. 246 CRB
Agents are autonomous programs that are rated from 1 to 6.
+
An agent runs as a program and can use programs running on the same device as them.
+
Any attack on an agent damages the device on which it is running, rather than the agent itself (which is, after all, merely a program).
combined with p. 243
You can’t run more than one program of the same type on your deck at once (and no, changing the name of one copy of a program to run two copies doesn’t work, chummer).
So you'd need one deck per agent, which gets really expensive.
-
Good catch. That does indeed impact the system. Although one could argue that an Agent 3 is different from an Agent 4 or 2.
But at least it's something you can do with all those crap decks that you tend to find on enemy deckers.
-
Here is one of the rule wordings that ill point out.
'Agents run as a programs' as the later post points out. They have no written way to automatically run in any situation. They must given a command to run each and every time you need them.
I believe running a program is a simple action? So activating two for example agents will drastically limit any other desired actions a character would want to take.....
-
Can't agents be script commanded like Drone Pilot programs can? Ala, Attack Pattern Alpha costing only 1 Simple Action and all of the Agents respond in a set but varying manner based on the coding of the command script.
-
Scripts were in 4th edition.... :(
Automated responses are for IC's only it seems.....
Hey! An agent acting as limited IC for a Deck is a good place to start a custom programming skill rule!
deckers are still hackers, No?
-
Shaidar
They certainly could in SR4A; Unwired introduced scripting. Page 100:
"Like IC, agents—including mooks, bots, and drone pilots— can have scripts (see Scripting, p. 69), a list of actions that they take when certain conditions apply. Scripts can make a hacker’s (and a gamemaster’s) life much easier, as hackers can spend less time micromanaging their agents or bots."
I see no reason why this couldn't be allowed in SR5 as well; in essence, this is similar to ordering drone pilots, spirits, and sprites to perform a task.
As for running multiple agents, I'm not sure I agree with using the programs rule of only one copy of a program. If you want to get really pedantic about it, I'd say that rule exists so that you can't run four copies of the same Encryption program for example to gain the benefit four times. Buying four rating 4 agent programs however to my mind is not the same, and since each agent program is an autonomous program that exposes your deck to risk I would certainly allow it.
As for low defenses; slaving the support decks to the master would give them slightly better defense attributes, if nothing else.
-
The lack of scripts and daisy chaining does eliminate the the character run bot network zombies from 4th edition. A real abuseable situation *LOL*
-
Here is one of the rule wordings that ill point out.
'Agents run as a programs' as the later post points out. They have no written way to automatically run in any situation. They must given a command to run each and every time you need them.
I believe running a program is a simple action? So activating two for example agents will drastically limit any other desired actions a character would want to take.....
Just because it requires extra actions does not mean it isn't doable.
I'm pretty sure you can only run one agent on a deck, not sure why you couldn't run multiple agents each on their own deck.
I just am curious where this notion of "only one per deck" being a thing comes from.
There is nothing saying there is a limit; you can have 1 Agent per Program Slot you have. And that is dangerous, especially with lower rating Agents.
Except, there is: p. 246 CRB
Agents are autonomous programs that are rated from 1 to 6.
+
An agent runs as a program and can use programs running on the same device as them.
+
Any attack on an agent damages the device on which it is running, rather than the agent itself (which is, after all, merely a program).
combined with p. 243
You can’t run more than one program of the same type on your deck at once (and no, changing the name of one copy of a program to run two copies doesn’t work, chummer).
So you'd need one deck per agent, which gets really expensive.
Hmm, good catch. Although, as Jack_Spade said, it becomes debatable whether a rating 1 Agent counts as the "same" or a "copy" of a rating 6 Agent.
-
And think of this.......
It would take about 2 initiative passes to activate 3 agents and take no other actions. And all of the requested actions would be complety out of sink.....
-
That's actually quite easy to do:
Simple Action: Tell Agent 6 to ask Agent 3(1),(2),(3) and (4) to start teamworking
Simple Action: Tell Agent 6 to start hacking as soon as Teamwork actions are completed
Don't forget, that every Agent has two simple actions, so they can act and direct others within one phase
-
And think of this.......
It would take about 2 initiative passes to activate 3 agents and take no other actions. And all of the requested actions would be complety out of sink.....
Firstly, your comment on running a program is only applicable when a deck is booted or a program needs to change (say, when swapping Baby Monitor for Encryption, or loading an Agent into an empty program slot).
Secondly, if the Control Device action (p238) can be used to control multiple devices as long as the command is the same to all devices, surely Send Message can perform the same function.
Example:
Decker X (single Action Phase):
Simple Action: Send Message "Agent 6, sleaze a MARK on the owner of [AR marked maglock] and then spoof a command to unlock it"
Simple Action: Send Message "Agents 1 through 4, assist Agent 6 in it's task."
Since an agent has both the Hacking and Computer skills, the Matrix Perception, Hack on the Fly, and Spoof Command actions would be intuitive to it, and in my opinion would not require a Pilot/Agent test to see if it understood the order (p269). The Agents would proceed somewhat as follows, assuming average initiative rolls (12+14 for the Rating 6 agent, 6+14 for the Rating 3 Agents):
Initiative Pass 1: Complex Action - Matrix Perception (Who is the registered owner of maglock Icon?")
Initiative Pass 2: Complex Action - Hack on the Fly (Owner of maglock Icon)
Initiative Pass 3: Complex Action - Spoof Command (Unlock maglock)
Thirdly, to my mind there are ways of making the kind of of thing the OP has suggested work in the current SR5 ruleset. Just because those ways are aren't necessarily explicitly spelled out I see no reason to restrict a player from coming up with a great idea and using it in an interesting fashion, any more than I see a reason to restrict a street samurai or magician who thinks of using his or her environment to their advantage during a combat scene. Is it rules as written? No. But the rules as written contain these very important sections on page 44:
"The rules are here to help you move the story forward, to give you outcomes for the decisions you’re making. They are not a perfect mirror of reality—at times, the rules provide abstract ways to determine the results of concrete actions, because it speeds up the game and prevents players from having to roll dice over and over again to complete certain tasks."
"Role-playing is a cooperative endeavor, and every member of the gaming group should be working together to help each member of the group have fun (even the gamemasters, since they should occasionally be allowed some enjoyment). Players should feel like their characters can play an important role in shaping and advancing the story, and the gamemaster should feel that they can keep the story moving ahead without having to engage in prolonged and distracting discussions about the rules."
To summarize; to me the game is about having fun, and if the rules don't contain the necessary provisions to make something I want to happen, well, happen, then I either handwave it or come up with some rules on my own. Rules for scripting and mooks may not exist in 5th (yet), but there's plenty of rules in 4th to base a new framework on, and even without that it's simple enough to implement with very little deviation from the core SR5 rules.
In this case, the OP has come up with a unique way of creating a pocket hacker that has significant drawbacks, costs a decent chunk of money, but that gives a team with no dedicated decker matrix support of a kind. I think that should be rewarded.
-
All of the information in this thread, both rules-legal and -questionable, makes me want Data Trails to come out so badly. I like the direction the OP is going with this, I don't see it for every team (or even most teams) but there is enough grey area to make it worth at least testing. If it doesn't unbalance things (I doubt it will), and if it doesn't bog things down too much (I'm worried that this will happen) then I could definitely see it being adopted more readily by teams that need a hacker but don't want to risk hiring some unknown off the street.
-
And imagine when people start posting some comprehensive rules of their own that will inspire others to do the same!
-
And imagine when people start posting some comprehensive rules of their own that will inspire others to do the same!
You mean like the (shameless plug incoming) Advanced Technomancy Rules (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18436.0)?
-
And imagine when people start posting some comprehensive rules of their own that will inspire others to do the same!
You mean like the (shameless plug incoming) Advanced Technomancy Rules (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18436.0)?
Are you sure it's shameless? :P
No, but really, they are awesome, those houserules.
-
I've honestly always felt that agents - however they're called in whatever edition you're in - were one of the ways to seperate the hackers from the wannabes. Wannabes might buy a dumb frame or two, and basically remote-pilot them kamikaze-like into the action; it's the delicate, fine programming of a smart frame / agent / bot / whatever that enables a hacker to spread his digital fingers wide and get deep into the guts of whatever he's trying to do. There's just too much that's out there for a decker to personally have to interact with.
And that, functionally, is the second part of it - an agent, a 'smart frame', is going to be programmed to take cues from the decker's own actions, code phrases, and the like. Should it run on the decker's own deck? I'm of two minds on that one - I think that if you run it (or all of them) on your deck, you should have instantaneous access to anything they snag, but if they get hurt, so do you. On the flip side, I think that you SHOULD be able to cut them loose, to run on the global network, but then they have to actually come back to you in order to give you the goodies - and if they get roasted, you are none the wiser.
Unfortunately, Data Trails is as likely to have hard rules for coding and the like as Street Magic has rules for building spells. Me, I love crunch, especially that which lets you take something apart (vehicle, deck, weapon, spell) and understand in game-technical terms how it works - and then go and put your own wizzer custom thing (vehicle, deck, weapon, spell) together.
Were I to house-rule something along these lines, I'd simply say that these sorts of programs can't be copied; you can't buy (or code) one version of DataHunter V, copy it a dozen times, and send the dozen copies out into the ether to do your search; the code requires unique identifiers, and copies screw that up, meaning that the matrix is confused about which one is the REAL one, and winds up frying them all into digital dust. If you want multiple agents, you'd have to buy or code them - but then, I'd also require some sort of test by the decker (at least software, presumably) in order to fine-tune the agent, perhaps a Software + Logic [Mental] (3 * agent rating, 12 hours) extended test to get it tweaked in just the right way. That means a wannabe is going to wreck expensive agent after expensive agent, because they'd [ degrade, work in the wrong ways, conflict with the decker's own style/actions/code ], whereas the true decker is going to be able to buy a good Level 6 Mastermind Agent and a few lower-level Thug 4s and get them properly networked - between both each other and himself.
-
Guys.
Get your shit together.
It says right there. This is like basic matrix rules.
Here states that ages *are programs*
"Agents are autonomous programs that are rated from 1 to 6. Each agent occupies one program slot on your deck." page 246, Agents
And here it states you can only run one program
"You can’t run more than one program of the same type on your deck at once (and no, changing the name of one copy of a program to run two copies doesn’t work, chummer)." ~ page 243, Programs
Could you imagine running 7 (rating 6) agents on your deck?
Frag no. No sane DM would ever allow that.
-
What a great way to introduce yourself to us, Neal. Nothing says "I want to make a good third post" quite like insulting people. I should know, my third post was a picture of a person with their head up their own ass. You can guess what happened to me after that.
-
To be fair, his other posts were reasonable, but I did have to check after reading this. It's a bit insulting, but also just stating things already stated in many of the posts.
-
@Neal
Yes, as mentioned, others have found those rules and quoted them already.
To reiterate: It is still debatable if an Agent 3 is the same program as an Agent 4. Even if that would be the case, the Cluster would just have to be increased by a few other "cheap" decks (yeah, yeah at 50k a pop it's not quite optimal, but still manageable, especially with looted gear)
-
@Namikaze & Darzil
No offense guys, but I really don't care. You've both mentioned it's only my third post. In the whole time I've had this account. 99% of what I do is not commenting.
@Jack_Spade
Fair enough, but the argument can also be made that a Respirator (rating 4) and a Respirator (rating 5) are both respirators.
-
@Namikaze & Darzil
No offense guys, but I really don't care. You've both mentioned it's only my third post. In the whole time I've had this account. 99% of what I do is not commenting.
No offense intended, I suppose. But I am offended. You acted like an ass, and now you say you don't care. Which, by itself, is a pretty assinine response. So you can say you mean no offense all you want, but your behavior says otherwise.
-
I hope I didn't come across as insulting or anything. Just had me confused that everyone seemed to have that opinion, when I couldn't find any mention of it in the book.
The wording of "Your Agent", singular, not highlighted by ADZ above could give the impression of just 1.
But I think the "Each Agent" takes up 1 slot has more weight.
But I can see at first glance where you could read it as 1 by the "your" part.
That said the only 1 of a "type" is going to limit it depending on how that whole debate goes.
-
Yes, as mentioned, others have found those rules and quoted them already.
To reiterate: It is still debatable if an Agent 3 is the same program as an Agent 4. Even if that would be the case, the Cluster would just have to be increased by a few other "cheap" decks (yeah, yeah at 50k a pop it's not quite optimal, but still manageable, especially with looted gear)
Would there be a reason to run any other program at 2 different strengths?
Like say Wrapper-3 & Wrapper-5 ?
When I see "Type" of program, I think its referring to the "Name" of it not its power.
But I'm curious if there is any OTHER program type that you would regularly run multiples of?
-
@Tarislar
I'm not aware that there are other programs with different strengths.
The argument is purely based on semantics and poorly worded rules. I'd say the intent of the rule was to prevent you from stacking bonus dice e.g. from Sneak.
How you define type is left to you and your GM to decide. A silly strict reading would prevent you from running two hacking programs at the same time, since they both share the type hacking program (which is - with a high degree of probability - not the intent of the rule).
-
I'm not aware that there are other programs with different strengths.
Doh, and that is why I'm not a Decker in 5E.
I was still thinking old school SR where all programs had ratings, not just the Agents being discussed.
-
@Tarislar
I'm not aware that there are other programs with different strengths.
The argument is purely based on semantics and poorly worded rules. I'd say the intent of the rule was to prevent you from stacking bonus dice e.g. from Sneak.
How you define type is left to you and your GM to decide. A silly strict reading would prevent you from running two hacking programs at the same time, since they both share the type hacking program (which is - with a high degree of probability - not the intent of the rule).
And here we are: RAI we welcome you.
You take a quite silly argument that type of program could also mean common ./. hacking to justify your reading of Rating X Agent is a different type than Rating Y Agent? Come on ...
-
Yes it's hyperbole, but the rules aren't particularly clear in that regard. That's all I'm saying. Until there is a hot patch errata or Datatrails with more details, it will be a call for the individual GM.
-
Me personally I would read that the program is Agent, and no I don't care how many times you can split a hair to say Agent rating 3 is a different program to Agent rating 4 with hand-waving and rule lawyering, an Agent program is an Agent program... to me seems pretty clear cut as the ONLY reason to care any different is for shenanigans.
-
Maybe, maybe not. The wording of agents - "Each agent occupies one program slot on your deck." - does seem to imply that you can run multiple, no matter that it says you can only run one copy of each program; as the guideline goes, specific rule overrides general rule. I can understand why a GM wouldn't want it the other way, but considering that by running any agent at all, you're opening your deck up for damage from another route, and for multiple agents, multiple routes, well - it's sort of a self-controlling issue.
-
I think that's more to define it as a Program rather than being something unique that a deck could run seperartely.
-
"Specific rules override general rules." Therefore, seeing as you cannot run multiple copies of the same program, but each agent takes up one slot on your deck, you can run multiple agents (just not copies of the same agent; se my thought on that above), each one taking one slot. An agent may be a program (general), but each agent takes up one program slot (specific). *shrugs* It seems to be in the 'table ruling' zone, but it also seems to be a self-correcting issue.
-
For specific to beat general, the former has to specify the general rule it overrules. And that is not done.
-
No, it doesn't specify the general rule - I guess because it happens to be blatantly obvious. Sorry, Lucean, no room for pedantry here.
-
Some might say you're being pedantic as well mate.
To me I just ask the question of what seems the more sensible?
That you can install multiple Agent programs at different ratings because that makes them different programs.
That the rules are clarifying that an Agent takes up one program slot regardless of rating.
*shrugs* to me seems the later is the more sensible.
-
I suppose, yes, I am - but the question is blatantly, even willfully, obtuse: "Well, WHAT RULE is it overriding??" Uh ... the one we've been talking about the entire time, y'know?
The rule doesn't say the agent takes up one slot regardless of rating; ALL programs take up only one slot. The rule says that, and I quote, "Each agent occupies one program slot on your deck." While I agree there is wiggle room there - which is why I've said it looks like it'll be a per-table thing - it DOES say 'each agent', which bears a strong and clear implication of one being capable of running multiple agents. Otherwise, 'twould say 'the agent', or 'an agent program', such as 'An agent occupies one program slot on your deck,' with the clear implication that you can only have AN agent - 'an' meaning 'one'.
But geez, there's no bloody question as to what the general rule is ...
-
Wyrm, but implications are what distinguishes RAW from RAI. So you might be right assuming multiple agents are fine, but alas, we can't be sure.
-
Uh, yes we can. Because if it were standard, it wouldn't even have to repeat itself. Instead, it says 'each agent'. While it does not explicitly state that you can run multiple agents, it says that 'each agent takes up one program slot'. For people who speak standard English, that's stating that you can run more than one agent, each one taking up a slot. I'm sorry you disagree, but that's the way it is.
-
Except that it flies in the face of the standing rule of "One copy of a program" and could just as easily be a typo, or an edit holdover, or any number of reasons why idiotic idiosyncrasies like the defense penalty against AoE attacks, except there is no defense against AoE attacks.
-
... which is the general rule that the specific rule overrides - like certain firearms, spells, etc. etc. etc. etc.
-
Uh, yes we can. Because if it were standard, it wouldn't even have to repeat itself. Instead, it says 'each agent'. While it does not explicitly state that you can run multiple agents, it says that 'each agent takes up one program slot'. For people who speak standard English, that's stating that you can run more than one agent, each one taking up a slot. I'm sorry you disagree, but that's the way it is.
But there is another possibility how to interpret it:
Each Agent takes one slot, regardless of its rating, to prevent people from thinking they would need program slots equal to their rating.
-
Which, again, would use either 'an agent', or else 'regardless of rating'. Your interpretation is significantly less likely.
In any case. YMMV.
-
Who says you only need to have one deck? When you can spend 1k on an S-B Microskimmer that will run an Agent and another cyberprogram, you can easily get together the hardware to run large numbers of agents and dodge the whole issue of running multiple agents from the same device.
-
Who says you only need to have one deck? When you can spend 1k on an S-B Microskimmer that will run an Agent and another cyberprogram, you can easily get together the hardware to run large numbers of agents and dodge the whole issue of running multiple agents from the same device.
An S-B Microskimmer is a Drone, and can run Autosofts, not Agents or Cyberprograms. For Agents you need a Deck, which starts with the Erika MCD-1 at 49.5k.
-
Who says you only need to have one deck? When you can spend 1k on an S-B Microskimmer that will run an Agent and another cyberprogram, you can easily get together the hardware to run large numbers of agents and dodge the whole issue of running multiple agents from the same device.
An S-B Microskimmer is a Drone, and can run Autosofts, not Agents or Cyberprograms. For Agents you need a Deck, which starts with the Erika MCD-1 at 49.5k.
Or potentially an RCC, but that's a debatable situation to begin with and probably wouldn't help much as the agent couldn't perform any Sleaze or Attack actions.
-
Or potentially an RCC, but that's a debatable situation to begin with and probably wouldn't help much as the agent couldn't perform any Sleaze or Attack actions.
Is there somewhere that implies that? On pg 246 I see "Each agent occupies one program slot on your deck." which implies deck only. Agent doesn't appear on pg 269 as a program Riggers can run on an RCC. I guess it does only call it "handy programs", which may imply they are only the more commonly used, rather than an exclusive list.
-
Darzil
It's a hotly debated topic with no clear answer. The argument from the proponent side is that RCCs can run cyberprograms, and an agent is a cyberprogram, so an RCC should be able to run agents. The opponents use the "occupies one slot on your deck" wording amongst others to argue against the former.
There's a long thread on it here on the forums for those wanting to know more. Not really relevant to the discussion, except to say that even if agents can run on other devices than decks they'll be limited to Computer and Data Processing actions.
-
One of the PACKS in Run Faster is a RCC with an agent. I asked about this during editing and was told it's working as intended.
-
Well.. it wouldn't really be able to do any Matrix actions... but I could see one being used to manage and filter feeds from a surveillance swarm.
-
Update:
With Data Trails out, the Agent Cluster can be realized a lot cheaper:
Now you need:
Base:
1x EvoTech Himitsu with a rating 5 Sleaze (11.000 NY)
1x Agent 6 (12.000 NY)
1x Program Carrier: Virtual Machine (900 NY)
1x Device Modification: Add a Module (2 Parts)
1x Stealth Cyberprogram (250 NY)
6x Nixdorf Sekretär (24.000 NY)
6x Add a Matrix Attribute: Stealth (48 Parts)
Parts cost: 10.000 NY
Total cost: 58.150 NY
+10 Karma if you want the Agent 6 as a starting character.
If you want an attack option, you'll have to invest in a bunch of dongles:
6x Rating 1 Attack (18.000 NY)
1x Rating 3 Attack (27.000 NY)
1x Cyberprogram Decryption (250 NY)
New total: 93.300 NY
What a brave new world ;D
Edit: Some more details:
Every Agent 3 provides through teamwork pretty reliably (91%) at least 1 bonus die and +1 to the relevant limit.
That allows the Agent 6 to work with 18 dice and a nearly uncapped limit for all but the best rolls.
A weakpoint is the susceptibility to matrix damage and the low firewall. But without dumpshock there is no problem with just hitting restart.