[kirk]

Xabulba, I need a GM ruling on TM abilities. (I can run either way, but don't want to plan wrong.)

Can I thread Tacnets? Emotisofts? Some GMs allow, some don't, and there's a range of compromises between.

I would say yes but with a huge penalty unless you have high skills in psychiatry, Kinesiology and psychoanalysis.

For tacnets?

I can see that -- and in fact think that's a brilliant solution -- for the emotisoft. I'm going to ask you to draft up your penalty as if there's not a face to whom I can pass the social issue I will use it.

Also, this character as built has a piece of cheese (rules abuse) I stuck in back when I built him that I'll drop in a heartbeat if you rule it unacceptable.  He has a revolver on which he's loaded a pilot so it's a drone. He then uses remote control  (gunnery+command) to shoot.

It's always the little things...

The gun would have to be attached to a controllable mount or you would need to have Skillwires, otherwise the gun wouldn't be able to aim its self.
[/quote]
That's ... better than I expected. Still, I'll drop it from the current character. Final done tonight.

Runt is in play.

[Mirikon]

Of course, a tacnet needs at least Rating+1 people with Rating senses (or sensors) each tied in, or it doesn't work. There might be 'translation errors' between an actual program tacnet, and the complex form. In other words, the form might not work with non-TMs. Since you can have a form for the actual programming needed for a smartlink, that isn't an issue, but do remember that threading imposes a -2 penalty on all actions that aren't part of the threaded program's function. Since the program's function is to share data, that penalty would likely apply to any attacks or defenses you made while threading the tacnet. So you'd need to have it at Rating 3 or better to get past the 'break even' point.

Honestly? I wouldn't bother with it unless everyone else in the group has a tacnet up and running.

For emotisofts, I'd just pick up an emotitoy drone and be done with it.

[jonathanc]

Xabulba, I need a GM ruling on TM abilities. (I can run either way, but don't want to plan wrong.)

Can I thread Tacnets? Emotisofts? Some GMs allow, some don't, and there's a range of compromises between.

I would say yes but with a huge penalty unless you have high skills in psychiatry, Kinesiology and psychoanalysis.

Also, this character as built has a piece of cheese (rules abuse) I stuck in back when I built him that I'll drop in a heartbeat if you rule it unacceptable.  He has a revolver on which he's loaded a pilot so it's a drone. He then uses remote control  (gunnery+command) to shoot.

It's always the little things...

The gun would have to be attached to a controllable mount or you would need to have Skillwires, otherwise the gun wouldn't be able to aim its self.

I had a technomancer pull this one in a game of mine a year or two ago. Wish I had thought of this complication.

[kirk]

Of course, a tacnet needs at least Rating+1 people with Rating senses (or sensors) each tied in, or it doesn't work. There might be 'translation errors' between an actual program tacnet, and the complex form. In other words, the form might not work with non-TMs. Since you can have a form for the actual programming needed for a smartlink, that isn't an issue, but do remember that threading imposes a -2 penalty on all actions that aren't part of the threaded program's function. Since the program's function is to share data, that penalty would likely apply to any attacks or defenses you made while threading the tacnet. So you'd need to have it at Rating 3 or better to get past the 'break even' point.

Honestly? I wouldn't bother with it unless everyone else in the group has a tacnet up and running.

For emotisofts, I'd just pick up an emotitoy drone and be done with it.

For the emotisoft, sometimes people object to emotitoys being around. By preference the toy, by occasional necessity the complex form.

As to tacsoft, I expect to have at least four drones on an actual run capable of supporting an R3 tacnet. That's "only" +1 for me )and them on a remote control). That's +3 when I let their pilots do the running.

[Mirikon]

But it doesn't address whether there are translation errors between the complex form and program versions of the net. Forms may go by the same name as programs, but they are different.

[kirk]

Wait, I see where the confusion is.

You're thinking of each individual running tacsoft.

If/when I run it for my drones, they'll be centralized/slaved.

[jonathanc]

I'm a little confused - first the Johnson asks us to steal and destroy the remaining stock of commlinks, then he says it's important that we NOT destroy all of the remaining commlinks. Was there a typo?

[Operator]

"Second you will steal the majority of the remaining stock and destroy it preventing our patron’s competitors from befitting from the early release of the com links”.

He wants us to further decrease the supply of commlinks without leaving a big glaring trail pointing at the patron, whom I shall henceforth refer to as Lunchbox.

What appears to be case is that Lunchbox wants the runners to get his shipment of the commlinks and trash most of the remainder so that the big box competitors are left a fraction of their original shipments instead of absolutely nothing at all.

[Mirikon]

That's my read on things, too.

[kirk]

Xabulba, I (finally) posted Runt's sheet in my first post for your review. I had to strip some things I did with rules games, and then... it's always the little details.

I have another GM ruling request. How do you intend to rule on sprites jumping into drones?

[Phylos Fett]

Grimm's sheet is now in my signature - let me know if I left anything out, or if you want an explanation of anything, etc.

[Xabulba]

Xabulba, I (finally) posted Runt's sheet in my first post for your review. I had to strip some things I did with rules games, and then... it's always the little details.

I have another GM ruling request. How do you intend to rule on sprites jumping into drones?

Not sure what you're asking? If you're trying to hack a drone the sprite would have to attack and defeat the pilot program. If your asking if you can use a sprite as a pilot program I would say yes but the sprite would by default have to use it's resonance with a -2 for all tasks it doesn't have a specific power for.

[Phylos Fett]

What happened to clashmasterj? Weren't they playing a Face?

[Mirikon]

He was, but I haven't seen him post in the thread. Looking at his profile says that while he's logged onto the site, he hasn't actually posted since the 31st.

[Phylos Fett]

Well, that's a kick in the pants - the only reason I went for a Sam rather than a Face was because the Face options were covered. Although, I believe that Operator has some Face skillsets, IIRC.