TekHed wrote:

well the point was to get the damage comparable to the other powerful options available. A shotgun round is bigger than a seeker rocket. The problem with shotguns and seekers is that they are SA rather than BF or FA. The only way to make my idea a worthy replacement for railguns or plasma rifles is to use a weapon that can deliver them in FA. 3-6 damage/action phase just won't cut it for me.

I did point out that some shotguns are fully automatic, however. But, as proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_USAS-12 A shotgun slug flies around 1200 feet per second- same as the buckshot, or birdshot, for that matter. They are usually around .65 to .45 in diameter- depending on whether it has a sabot or not. Then, you have the fact that many shotguns are rifled for use with such sabots. This leaves a spinning projectile, going around 1200 feet per second, about half an inch in diameter, most of the time. In other words, about the same kind of projectile that a American Civil War rifle would shoot. They shot accurately out to 500 yards or more. They simply have a short point-blank range, so for anythin past around one hundred yards, you have to start adjusting the sight for the arc of the projectile. In the EP setting, you have such sights that adjust themselves automatically for wind and drop, with a laser rangefinder. So the range problem just isn't there- You have short range with a lot of the special payloads, sure, like buckshot, but for a slug, or a slug carrying nanobots, not so much. You'd have at least much range as a SMG.

Wow, I can't believe I forgot about splash seekers. Yeah, that invalidates my complaint about impact force, which was the sole remaining contention with the concept. At this point I see no reason why you can't fill splash bullets with swarms and am left with no choice but to applaude you for finding a method of specalized rapid fire swarm delievery. I think this is going to change the paradigm of my game.

Now that we more or less agreed that splashing someone full of deadly nanomachines is pretty easy, I would like to hear some suggestions on how to defend yourself, and a comparison to regular ways to kill people with guns. Is it really that more efficient to disassemble your enemies instead of just putting holes in them? (Considering the rules on one hand and physics on the other) Why are disassemblers more efficent than other corrosive agents? How about making nano-razorwire and minefields, that kill the nanobots once they touch the surface of your armor, and positioning your guardians everywhere where this is not possible? And by positioning I mean letting them crawl over each other in a layer that is several milimeters strong, so the disassemblers have to get past several thousand nanobots just waiting to kill them.

First of all, shooting someone with a full-auto burst of Dissasemblers is very, very, expensive: that's 50,000 credits, right there. This kind of attack will be very, very rare, while being of comparable effectiveness to normal bullets. There are lots of ways to defend yourself. There's all the normal stuff, such as knowing more about your enemy than he does of you, via scouts and mesh overwatch, so you can ambush him and kill him first. There is going faster than he does, via initiative and killing him first. You could take total cover, or just run away. I could go on, but for the main part, any battle is usually won before the shooting starts. Going "bang, bang" with the guns is just a formality. Fights in Eclipse Phase will usually be asymmetric. The trick is making sure YOU are the guy with overwhelming firepower before you get to the fight. If you DO get hit by an attack like this, you have a few options. Swarms are slow, so you will probably get at least one action before they start munching on you. Have enough armor that you can detonate 2-3 plasmaburst seekers on yourself and survive, frying the swarms. Alternately, as mentioned several EMP seekers work well too. Have lots of guardian swarms stored internally to eat whatever is left. Or just trigger your emergency farcaster and come back later in a new morph.

Nanobot disassemblers probably work on amorphous solids, which most acidic agents have trouble with. They are also free floating and self directing, allowing them to be manipulated in zero gravity or to act against normal gravity. Farther, disassemblers are selective to a fine degree. They can actually be used, as described by TekHed, as a nonlethal weaponry. Program them to disassemble only non-transhuman materials and the swarms will break down equipment without directly harming the people. Or, if you want their stuff, program it to only break down transhuman matter and it will leave their stuff perfectly preserved. For swarm defense, I'd say immunogenic armor mods would provide alot of defense by destroying nanomachines as they land on the surface of the armor.

I think this discussion is missing the weaknesses of nanoswarms: programming and mobility. I think most people assume that nanoswarms are magical floaty dust clouds but this isn't true. As per the rules, all nanoswarms need to have a mobility system to move, which cannot be ionic. This greatly limits them because each mobility system only works in certain conditions and environments. Thrust vector and hovercraft need some kind of atmosphere. Walkers can't catch flying enemies obviously. I would also say that nanoswarms could be easily knocked away by liquids or high winds, depending on the situation. Since nanoswarms are smaller, they should be slower than the standard speeds listed for mobility systems. So that's one way nanoswarms can be countered. The more important thing is that nanoswarms have to be programmed to act. I would say that a disassembler swarm is extremely hard to program in combat. There's no mention of a sophisticated AI or sensor package necessary to navigate a battlefield or understand what an 'enemy' is. You have to be extremely specific to direct a disassembler swarm in a fight. You could mitigate that by programming ahead of time - i.e. a guard dog program that only eats objects trying to enter a specific area without specific authorization or an assassination program where you have a lot of intel on the target - but attacking someone in a fight requires constant action on the part of the programmer. I would say using a disassembler swarm in a fight is substantially complex and would require an actual Programming (Nanoswarm) Success Test each round of the fight with accompanying penalties depending on the chaos of the fight. Furthermore, a swarm can attack one target per round - if the guardian swarm starts eating it, then it will ignore the guardians unless told to disassemble that. Of course, targeting another nanoswarm would be hellishly difficult to program for a disassembler swarm. Guardian swarms are prebuilt with good programs that only look for nanoswarms - so it's much easier for them to act. Another note - the book says that energy AND kinetic armor protect against disassembly so I would rule the target gets to apply both values - so if a guy with 16/16 armor gets attacked, the swarm would have to do 32 damage before it started damaging the target. I think the gun with a gun full of nanoswarm bullets would be highly effective in the EP world once or twice before adversaries caught on and loaded up on EMP grenades. All 30 swarms would be hit by the same grenades, so the target could just pop 2 or 3 grenades on himself and drop all of them. I would assume all trained armies in Eclipse Phase have similar strategies to deal with offensive nanoswarms. They're extremely dangerous if you aren't equipped to handle them, but otherwise they are no more dangerous than any other serious threat in Eclipse Phase.

TekHed wrote:

Functionally I don't get why the game distinguishes between saboteur swarms and simply programmed disassembler swarms. In my game or a game I was playing I would try and talk the GM into realizing they are really the same thing, and they do the same damage in the game...

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what the exact problem is? My guess is that you are referring to how saboteurs can ignore armor while disassemblers must destroy armor before targeting the individual protected by the armor. The saboteurs ability to bypass armor may be due to a typo, or it may be because saboteurs are programed to look for weak points to skip the armor. In that case, a disassembler nanoswarm needs to be programed, a programing (nanoswarm) success test, to do the same since they are not designed to do such precision work.

TekHed wrote:

You could coat yourself in guardians...which is what I would do. Have like 10-20 guardian swarms that live on your armor that would eat through any nanites.

I don't know if you can stack nanoswarms. The impression I get is that a single nanoswarm is the most effective use of a given area. I think that having 20 guardian nanoswarms coating you still means that only one may engage an opposing nanoswarm at a time, the rest would get in the way. If you look at the armor mod Immunogenic system (core rulebook, p. 313), it provides complete protection from any dermal toxin for the low low cost of [Low]. Having 20 such nanoswarms would be no more effective than the first one, and I think the same logic applies to guardians nanoswarms. The only thing *I think* 20 guardian nanoswarms coating you would protect better than 1, is your sense of safety.

Is that so? I guess I disagree with the consensus then. I'll do a review of what was said, but I think it would be absurd to run around with 20 guardian nanoswarms for defense, or attack with 20 disassembler nanoswarms.

It ultimately breaks down to: If you find it fun, and your GM allows your spiffy idea, awesomesauce. If you find it fun, and your GM doesn't allow it, oh well. As a countermeasure to this incredibly icky situation that could arise I propose: Internal EMP Emitter: This cyberware was created for Reclaimers that would head down to earths surface and found themselves being swarmed by TITAN nanoswarms. As a complex mental action, this implant would be activated and send out a strong EMP Burst in the vicinity of the character. This burst is strong enough to remove any swarm that may be attached to the character allowing them to flee or regroup. The EMP does not discern the user's own nanoswarms and could possibly disable friendly swarms attached to the character. This is also known to cause the effects of EMP to the users communications which may cause issues in trying to call for help. When used, the user also suffers a -20 Distraction Modifier to Perception due to a proverbial "ringing in their ears" after use. This implant can be used a total of 10 times before it must recharge and recharges at a rate of 2 per hour based on the users basic motor movements. [Exspensive]

@TekHed, Implied insults aside, the issue at hand is you posted a character for review, I pointed out an aspect in of questionable nature. We now that we conclude it isn't necessarily true or false, my criticism has merit. You cannot assume a character based of an assumption is a legitimate character and valid for all games. Will some GMs allow it? yes, some will not however and it ultimately up to the individual running it. It was not a question of balance, I was only question its legitimacy, and now I have my answer. Honestly, I have no issue with non-legitimate characters in my games, the most important thing is the player behind the character. If a player tells me something isn't by the rules and is forthright about it, it is pretty much it is fine, I'll try to even come to a compromise if I feel it doesn't fit with the narrative I am building. However, if a player is trying to pass it off as by the rules and it is not, I have an issue.

Can anyone point me to the reference regarding operating nanoswarms via fork? I know you can do that with something like a swarmanoid morph, but a swarmanoid is significantly different from a nanoswarm.

TekHed wrote:

Look at it like this...you are a hypercorp trying to strictly limit and control things you are afraid of, while I am the anarchist scum who wants as liberal an interpretation as possible. Transhumanity will not succumb to your imaginary nerfbat thankyouverymuch.

... Really? The persecution complex is strong in this one. You have spent the last page insulting anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of an ambiguous rules question as totalitarian scum. Maybe you should cut back on the rhetoric and stop being such an ass?

TekHed wrote:

Under the nanoswarm section it says they can be teleoperated. Under the vehicles and robot section it essentially says the line between synthmorph, robot, and vehicle is semantic. Ergo if you can teleoperate a swarm you can do so via fork.

While I agree that a fork can teleoperate one, you'd still need something to store that fork in (a ghostrider module would work)… but if you're implying that a fork can sleeve into a nanoswarm or jam a nanoswarm, then I disagree. Plus the difference isn't totally semantic. They all fill the concept of the shell, but a synthmorph is a robot with a cyberbrain, and a vehicle is a robot built for handling passengers. There's still some difference a skosh bit beyond the semantic.

Quote:

The size difference is immense, comparable to orders of magnitude. It'd be like saying "if a dildo can fit in your ass, so can a bus".

Oh Deci, you have such a way with words, it's almost enough to get this Internet goer all flustered?

TekHed wrote:

clockworkjoe wrote:

Yes, nanoswarms can be programmed but how well can you program them? It's like asking a genie for a wish in D&D - you get EXACTLY what you ask for, nothing more, nothing less. Can you write a list of specific instructions that will do exactly what you want and nothing else? For example, if you want to have a nanoswarm disassemble your enemy and only your enemy (because you're in a habitat and don't want to compromise the safety of the station) how do you define what your enemy is? How specific can you get? What if your enemy changes? For example, a guy with smart clothing could easily change his appearance and if you had defined him by how he looked, the nanoswarms would stop once he changed. If you defined him by the material then you would first have to target his armor (since armor protects against disassemblers) then target his flesh. Even then, if he was coated in another substance, they could get fooled and stop eating him. Popping a NotWater grenade on himself could fool them.

Easy for this example: "Attack anything struck, except my own person and my own meshed gear, and don;t attack the habitat or it's systems." Remember in this setting just about every object has it's own "voice."

Quote:

Requiring a programming check each round should be needed to keep your swarm targeted on only your enemy. Hell, during any normal fight there is going to be a shitload of noise, visual chaos and electronic noise from various devices. Individual nanobots have to be relatively simple by Eclipse Phase standards - they could easily get confused by the fog of war. That would be how I would use them in combat unless the character gives a specific written list of instructions.

This is pure fiat on your part. You are inventing rules that straight up do not exist.

Quote:

As for mobility: Where are their movement stats? How do they move? Every other mobile object in the game has a movement rate and mobility system - morphs, robots, vehicles. Why would swarms be exempt from having to pick a type of mobility? The only line in the rules regarding swarms and vacuums is this: "Swarms are not affected by vacuum." This means the swarms are not disabled or damaged by vacuum. It doesn't say they can necessarily move through it. You have to pick how your swarms move. If you choose the wrong mobility system then they can't move in certain environments. Here's what the rules say about swarms and mobility: "Nanobots and microbots may be designed with all manner of miniaturized propulsion systems (see Mobility Systems, p. 310), with the exception of ionic drives." If you don't pick a mobility system, how can they move at all?

And nothing stops things from having more than one mobility system. And since choosing mobility systems are not mentioned in regards to price, assume my nanites have every mobility system available to them.

Quote:

It was not a question of balance, I was only question its legitimacy, and now I have my answer. Honestly, I have no issue with non-legitimate characters in my games, the most important thing is the player behind the character.

You have proven nothing and calling my idea illegitimate is your own wishful thinking.

Quote:

If a player tells me something isn't by the rules and is forthright about it, it is pretty much it is fine, I'll try to even come to a compromise if I feel it doesn't fit with the narrative I am building. However, if a player is trying to pass it off as by the rules and it is not, I have an issue.

[/quote] And I have an issue with people like you coming up with new rules or limits on the fly, like clockworkjoe here inventing whole new sections of text...this irritates me to the extreme and I would not play with any such GM who pulled such asshattery on me in a setting where limits are largely there to be ignored, transcended, or circumvented. Or at least that is my interpretation of the game. The "limiters" as you shall henceforth be known by me, are essentially imposing all of these imaginary limits on what you seem to be able to grasp nanotech is capable of. Limits I imagine from your own fear of losing your precious "game balance." I am so derisive of the concept of balance because I know what kinds of threats the GM can pull out in this game. Very much like Rifts, it doesn't matter how big and bad you are, since there are always things vastly more powerful. Look at it like this...you are a hypercorp trying to strictly limit and control things you are afraid of, while I am the anarchist scum who wants as liberal an interpretation as possible. Transhumanity will not succumb to your imaginary nerfbat thankyouverymuch.[/quote] Man you're real insecure about this. I didn't know that pretending to be space cops was such serious business. I wasn't making up new rules - only how I would interpret the rules. The rules do say you need a programming test to use them but it doesn't specify much else. If nanoswarm loaded bullets were as deadly as you want to say they are, then everyone would use them - the first army that does use them gains a huge advantage over the others, so every army adapts to their usage. However, they don't so I would assume there are significant flaws to using this tech that prevents them from being a magic bullet that beats everything else. Also, you're making up stuff. "My nanities have EVERY mobility system" WTF? Common sense would indicate that wouldn't work. I doubt the Eclipse Phase authors would agree with that. It doesn't make sense. I also don't think programming disassembler swarms for combat would be as easy as you think it is. For one thing, a skilled hacker or programmer could fake his electronic 'voice' as you put it so he sends out the same signal as the habitat and suddenly the swarm won't attack him.

clockworkjoe wrote:

If nanoswarm loaded bullets were as deadly as you want to say they are, then everyone would use them - the first army that does use them gains a huge advantage over the others, so every army adapts to their usage. However, they don't so I would assume there are significant flaws to using this tech that prevents them from being a magic bullet that beats everything else.

The biggest hurdle might be making the nanoswarm capable of surviving both launch and impact (a bullet is accelerated hundreds, if not thousands of Gs, at both points). If the nanoswarm can survive the trip, then the weapon is feasible. If not, then you're better off using traditional drugs and chemicals (or even high-tech drugs and chemicals).

TekHed wrote:

I'm not a real student of logic terminology but somebody who is could probably tell you what is wrong with that paragraph. Common sense? Invoking your doubt on the opinions of the authors? Not making sense? To you maybe...

His issue isn't that far off. Any design is going to have limitations regarding space and mass. Even nanomachine designs must take into account the fact that you simply can't fit everything in one package. The more mobility systems you add, the more mass you add, therefore taxing said mobility systems more when they try to move the nanomachine in question. And space is crucial; nanomachines have to house a mobility system, power supply, processor, transmitter, and nanomanipulators in a body that is smaller than a red blood cell. Adding another mobility system potentially means taking something else out. Most nanomachines are going to be built with one or two propulsion systems based on the environment they are likely to work in. Nanotoxins will be designed to mobilize through fluids (as they will be moving within a target's body), while free-floating assemblers will be designed to travel through open air or vacuum (unless they are building something underwater, I suppose). Extra mobility systems beyond the useful ones are unnecessary, and only serve to waste space that could have been used for giving those nanomachines more power to do more of what they were doing, or a better transmitter, or other potential advantages.

TekHed wrote:

All I ask is that y'all don't start limit what is possible in the game based upon your own fiat or misinterpretation of the rules or setting.

I don't think it is appropriate for you to be accusing others of misinterpreting the rules quite yet. Please realize that you being the new guy, you are the most likely individual to make such mistakes. In fact the general census seems to be that you are making such mistakes. Please calm down. If you stop to listen, you'd realize we are not making personal attacks against you or your gaming philosophy. We are trying to make sense of what you say, trying to correct when you make a mistake in interpreting the rules, and trying to do other helpful things. Please don't attack us when we try to help. We would like to politely resolve these disputes, but if you keep pushing us, we'll feel the need to politely ask you to leave (that would be our preferred solution). We would be happy to let you play the game according to your house rules (which you may enjoy more). We ask in turn that you don't try to pass your house rules as RAW and that you don't get hostile when you get caught doing so.

TekHed wrote:

Excuse me again? I've seen people making up their own rulings on things left and right, so don't try to pass them off to me as if somehow you guys are the holders of canon and the RAW here. Lots of speculation. All I do is take what the book says and extrapolate from there. It's an rpg...I don;t need the magic-tech to conform to the real-science ideas of anyone here. Take the ego-bridge for example...this one piece of tech that the whole setting depends on is basically sci-fi magic. If that is possible, then many other things are. I'm just taking what the book says and extrapolating from that, and actually NOT making any rules up. In fact I seem to be one of the few who is sticking to what the books say, rather than making up all sorts of new rules and limitations to what the rules say... You will note that many of the people who have objected to my notions have used phrasing like "I don't think it would work that way," or "it isn't likely that..." That my friend is making shit up. I'll happily enjoy the setting from my more science-light perspective, going with what the book actually says, and enjoying the hell out of it.

Okay, and that's fine. But there's a significant difference between saying "I like my science fiction different from you, so I disagree" and accusing people of ass-pulling. Most of us, when we make posts, either do a decent amount of research with regards to what we are saying, have at least a small amount of knowledge with regards to the field in question, or are asking for someone with either to elaborate and assist with our understanding of things. We aren't simply making shit up. Such is the nature of trying to establish a hard science fiction setting… our rulebook isn't just the core book and supplements, it's scientific journals, articles, online tools and Wolfram Alpha to boot. That's how we discuss this setting around here. But I admit that it isn't for everybody. Lord knows that I would be pretty pissed if someone tried to take the hard science stick to my Shadowrun games. But that's how this fanbase is. Though if you want to discuss softer sci-fi aspects, the discussions regarding TITAN tech tend to get pretty good and exotic.