[SlowDeck]

I fail to see how mentioning a decker has Edge refutes the fact that they may have a time where they roll to repair and end up bricking the cyberdeck permanently 

Edge is potentially spent on a lot of things. Having no Edge left to fall back on may be why the decker is currently making the repairs instead of being delivered to an organlegger to see if there's anything to salvage while his deck is sold for parts. That's how life sometimes goes in the shadows, chummer.

[gmoney999]

2) A decker only needs to crack the file if it's protected. They can use edit file to copy an unprotected file without being noticed. Also, cracking a file is a sleaze action; you only get noticed if you fail, since the rules on page 236 make it clear that succeeding at the check prevents them from noticing sleaze actions. Cracking a file is identified as a sleaze action in the table on page 244. In addition, deckers can disarm data bombs without setting them off; that's a firewall action and doesn't attract attention if successful.

The Technomancer complex form is only for editing a file and mentions you can only do things with it that you can with a decker's edit file action. Nothing in the complex form (page 252) mentions anything about cracking it if it's encrypted, bypassing security, or disarming data bombs. In fact, there's a massive discussion elsewhere on here about that because the rules as written pretty much make it clear that technomancers can't bypass encryption through sheer omitting of any ability to do so.

3) Dunno. The rules seem to suggest otherwise. But don't actually say one way or another.

2) Ok I see your point. Cracking is listed as a [attack] limit on pg. 238, but on pg 244 it is listed as both a sleaze and attack action!  Oh my!  I have no idea.

3) Trodes + a Data tap?  Again I see what you mean.

[martinchaen]

I usually make every effort to not tell people how to play the game, but if you're a decker with a deck worth half a million nuyen and you don't save a point of edge to fix your deck, you're better off dead.

There's a reason the fluff describes deckers as being willing to protect their deck with their bodies. And if you're attempting to fix said high-end hardware without a point of edge AND little to no skill in hardware, hell, you deserve having your deck bricked.

Edge is relevant because it has the potential to completely negate what is essentially the end of a principal archetype's primary source of income.

[Senko]

Im not saying it would be easy but i could see a high level techomancer having some skill with a deck for those occasions when they (a) want to hide their a technomancer or (b) it would be more use (for example currently a deck is better for wired systems unless you houserule in skin echo).

[SlowDeck]

Martin:

Edge is nice... but doesn't stop you from rolling multiple critical glitches. That's why I didn't factor it in. Periods of bad dice rolls happen; they're part of any game with dice.

Besides, a live runner can still get ahold of a new deck if they bricked the one they had. There's always the possibility of cash lying around to replace it entirely, contacts willing to cut you a deal, cheaper decks to rely on for the short-term, contacts willing to loan you a deck as good as you used in exchange for you paying it off (through money, favors, or jobs for them), and so on. If they've been in the game long enough to get a deck work half a million, they've probably been in it long enough to get the resources they need to replace it.

Besides, if all else fails, the group can hire a decker from outside and go steal the group's decker a new deck. Maybe even a better model. And, of course, one for the decker helping out.

It's not the end of the decker's primary income until the fat dragon sings, and I doubt you'll hear that without a bullet or black IC being the speaker system.

[Namikaze]

And so, to the OP I point out that there is obviously some contention about which role to play.  My suggestion remains valid though: if you want to play a mystical hacker, go technomancer.  If you want to be a technological hacker, go decker.  That's really the only aspect of each archetype that cannot be adjusted or adapted to your needs.

[RHat]

Decker pros:
2. Can steal files without being noticed.
3. Can use wired connections without potential problems.
4. Can access wired systems without as much problem.

2) If I'm not mistaken only a technomancer can steal encrypted files without being noticed.  A decker has to make a crack file action (which as an attack alerts the host), then edit the file to copy.  A technomancer can use the editor complex form without cracking (which is not only stealthier but also at least one pass faster).  So a decker always does a smash and grab, while a technomancer can steal without anyone noticing.

3) They can use trodes to make a direct connection.

No and no.  First, Editor doesn't work like that - it's limited to the "change" functions of Edit File, and thus cannot copy.  Second, a direct connection requires that you hook a cable directly from the device you're using to hack to the device you're hacking; technomancers cannot ever achieve this.

[martinchaen]

All right, since you persist in pursuing this ridiculous line of reasoning...

The mathematical chance of rolling 0 hits on 1 die is 66.67%. At 10 dice, this chance has decreased to 1.73%. At this point, I'm not accounting for the fact that you also have to roll at least half of your dice pool in 1s.

Do you still think the risk of critically glitching a roll to repair a half million nuyen device is statistically significant?

[Tenlaar]

Because we all know that nothing outside of the statistical norm ever happens...

[SlowDeck]

Well, this is fun.

Martin:

Okay, if we want to point out ridiculous reasoning: I pointed out that a decker might end up permanently bricking their deck. I never said it was statistically likely to happen. Or that it would happen. It goes in with the "deckers are extremely gear dependent" aspect of their existence and the fact the rules have an option for it to actually happen.

And then you make the ridiculous reply of asking if they have Edge (if they permanently bricked their deck, it's pretty obvious they probably don't have any left by that point), go on further to make the ridiculous argument that losing a deck is the utter end of a decker's existence when nothing within the rules prevents them from getting a new one (albeit at extreme expense and effort, making it a case of something you do only when you have absolutely no choice), and now you're arguing statistics...

Well, let's have fun with statistics for a moment... Did you know the statistical likelihood of human life arising at all is, last I checked, somewhere around four quadrillion to one against? Keep in mind that, under at least one theory, life didn't actually originate on Earth but on a comet or meteor... which means we have to check every piece of rock, ice, or dust gathering we come across. To date, we've one one "yes," one "it might have happened, but they died millions of years ago," and several "maybes." Which means that every single one we don't find life on is another check in the "not likely" column and added onto the statistical unlikelihood of the proper atmosphere, gravity, and chemical combination even existing on a planet in the first place. Then add on to that the statistical likelihood of each particular adaptation happening, and it gets even more absurd (in fact, "quadrillion" might be a few digits too low). Which means that we shouldn't even worry about life at all because, statistically, humanity shouldn't even exist.

Martin, the very fact you exist at all is outside of statistical norm by such of a massive range that it makes statistics look foolish. I'm talking about a set of dice rolls using a limited number of dice with my comments about critical glitches, which are at least a trillion times more likely to happen.

So, yeah, excuse me if I bother to take a look at a dice roll result that doesn't require scientific notation to write out the chance of it actually happening and consider it a realistic possibility to factor into my decision making. Because, really, I do more statistically absurd things every day just by still being alive.

So, that's why it is that statistical likelihood is not a very good argument about dice rolling. Or, well, a useful argument related to anything.

Edit: Apologies if I keep this appearing new. I end up rewording parts, editing, etc. way too much.

[Triskavanski]

Second, a direct connection requires that you hook a cable directly from the device you're using to hack to the device you're hacking; technomancers cannot ever achieve this.

At least kinda currently. Due to a poorly defined "Direct Neural Interface" that says that directly connecting to the matrix with your brain is not direct enough.

[Dinendae]

Second, a direct connection requires that you hook a cable directly from the device you're using to hack to the device you're hacking; technomancers cannot ever achieve this.

At least kinda currently. Due to a poorly defined "Direct Neural Interface" that says that directly connecting to the matrix with your brain is not direct enough.

Something else that needs to be clarified either with errata, or with the Matrix book. As I remember in 4th, a TM only needed to touch something for a direct connection.

[Namikaze]

Quatar, I'm going to recommend that you lock this thread.  It's ignited yet another contentious issue, and you have your answer.

[martinchaen]

1. Human life not being statistically significant is an invalid comparison to a simple dice roll as you present it, because of the multitude of unknow factors needed for life to occur, especially if one considers the possibility of alternate life forms and humanity's significant lack of understanding and knowledge of the sheer vastness of the galaxy, even as we know it.

2. Thank you for agreeing that your argument was based on an event that is mathematically unlikely. That was exactly my point; even a tiny amount of planning and preparation can prevent such an incident.

it is up to the player, represented in this case by the OP, to consider if such events are significantly probable enough for them to impact his or her decision making.

[JackVII]

Also, cracking a file is a sleaze action; you only get noticed if you fail, since the rules on page 236 make it clear that succeeding at the check prevents them from noticing sleaze actions. Cracking a file is identified as a sleaze action in the table on page 244.

This was "corrected" in the errata. Cracking a file is always an Attack action now.