[Mattsetback]

So when you get marks on a slaved device, you get marks on the master. So if for example you're trying to hack a guy's gun and you end up getting marks on the slaved gun and the commlink master, does this have any effect of the PAN? I mean does controlling the master mean you have any marks or power over other devices in the PAN?

[ScytheKnight]

It's rather counter-intuitive but no, it isn't a two way street.

[Hobbes]

If you have a mark on the owner you can Spoof Command to invite marks from the devices in the PAN. 

[ScytheKnight]

If you have a mark on the owner you can Spoof Command to invite marks from the devices in the PAN.

That's actually somewhat debatable as it's never been clarified what kind of action, if any, Invite Mark really is.

[Hobbes]

If you say so, but it looks pretty clear.  Invite Marks action requires ownership.  Spoof Command requires 1 mark on the owner and:

"You spoof a device’s owner’s identity, making the
device think that your command is a legitimate one from
its owner."

Seems like it should work.  What am I missing?

[Darzil]

I'm not sure. It's always seemed reasonable to me. Invite marks action is listed as a matrix action, I think the tricky bit is it says it's something done by an owner, rather than the device. That seems a little like over interpretation to me, as it isn't the owner that gets marked, it's the device, so the invite must be coming from the device. I think it just isn't written considering that spoof action is possible.

As a GM, I'd allow it. After all, this isn't something that'll always be easy to do. Before you can do it you need to find the owner, or someone considered owner for corporate gear, which in some cases may not be trivial, and may involve legwork from other members of the team. Then the owner has to be active online, with a Persona formed, this may not always be the case. Despite this, they somehow have to be stopped from just rebooting the device, erasing the marks or otherwise interfering if you're trying something extended, which, again, may involve other members of the team. That's an awful lot of hoops to jump through, in a way that can involve more players, and become the focus for a part of a run. That's pretty much my ideal action as a GM, rather than a one roll power that never takes focus.

[korusef]

There is an easy way to find owner of a device in PAN.

if you fail a Sleaze action against a slaved device, only the device’s owner gets the mark on you, not the master too.

• Fail Sleaze
• Matrix Perception the mark or instruct Agent/Sprite ahead of time to do it for you to save on combat time.
• Remove mark, restart
• Matrix Search for the personas using the mark

[firebug]

I can't imagine "Invite Mark" just happening without alerting the user.  I imagine it'd be like a party invite in a videogame.  You'd get an AR pop-up informing you the person accepted your invitation so you know it was successful--  Otherwise, the user would have to manually check their device for marks which is a bit backwards.

[living]

I can't imagine "Invite Mark" just happening without alerting the user.  I imagine it'd be like a party invite in a videogame.  You'd get an AR pop-up informing you the person accepted your invitation so you know it was successful--  Otherwise, the user would have to manually check their device for marks which is a bit backwards.

On the other hand, imagin a forum / social network host / bar host or what ever. they auto invite marks, if every time the owner gets an "bling bling" he would drive crazy...

[Hobbes]

I can't imagine "Invite Mark" just happening without alerting the user.  I imagine it'd be like a party invite in a videogame.  You'd get an AR pop-up informing you the person accepted your invitation so you know it was successful--  Otherwise, the user would have to manually check their device for marks which is a bit backwards.

RAW the only way to know what marks are on an Icon, including one you own, is with a Matrix Perception check.  There is no Matrix action for a device to report out to an owner about marks.  If there was, it would make hacking next to impossible.  See my thread in the Gear form about PAN protection for non-hackers.   http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=21440.0

So you've either got to either check manually or have an Agent check. 

[RiggerBob]

Spoofing and Invite Mark just don't work.
Invite mark is an owner-only action...
You can't spoof the devce to invite marks, because it's not allowed to
And you can't spoof the owner either, because personas aren't devices 

[Darzil]

Spoofing and Invite Mark just don't work.
Invite mark is an owner-only action...
You can't spoof the devce to invite marks, because it's not allowed to

Personally I find this argument a little weak, if common. Sure, it mentions that you must be owner of a device, persona, host, file or IC you can offer other icons the chance to make a mark. But there are loads of matrix actions that say "You can use this action", rather than "the device can use this action". Normally the difference doesn't matter, it isn't until you add in spoof device it matters. And clearly the invite isn't happening from the persona, as the invite is going from the device, persona, host etc. It's clearly a matrix action as it is listed under matrix actions. For me that's good enough to make it work in my games. The fact that the marked persona will probably be aware unless distracted means that more people than the hacker can be involved and that gets play more interesting. It also allows things like hackers to get marks for riggers. Anything that involves more of the team is good to me.

[Hobbes]

Spoofing and Invite Mark just don't work.
Invite mark is an owner-only action...
You can't spoof the devce to invite marks, because it's not allowed to
And you can't spoof the owner either, because personas aren't devices 

Again, direct quote from Spoof Command Matrix action

""You spoof a device’s owner’s identity, making the
device think that your command is a legitimate one from
its owner."

I just don't see your argument.  Spoof Command lets you issue legitimate commands as if you're the owner of a device.  One of the things an owner of a device can do is Invite Marks. 

From a Balance stand point, its really not anything unbalancing.  Typically you can get a mark on a device easier than getting a mark on a persona.  Unless there are some kind of extenuating circumstances, Spoof Command is usually a more difficult task.  Or at least as difficult as getting a mark on a device. 

[FasterN8]

I can see your argument Hobbes, the text can definitely be read that way.  When I originally read this I assumed that Spoof command was meant to re-task the autopilot of drones and stuff like that, effectively making Spoof Command a fraudulent Send Message to devices (drones mostly) and agents.  Please allow me to make my case for this interpretation.

My concern is that your interpretation seems to short circuit the whole "Marks required" restriction of certain matrix actions, especially in the case of Owner only actions.  Also it creates a big fat loophole in the case of 3-mark matrix actions which would normally require 4 actions (fewer if you take stiff penalties) to build up the required marks and then execute the desired matrix action.  Using Spoof command, you can effectively do 3 mark actions AND owner only actions with only 2 actions.

Spoof Command: "...making the device think that your command is a legitimate one..."

      One thing that isn't clear to me is what is meant by "your command" in this description.  And to the extent that that includes matrix actions, what matrix actions (if any) can devices execute on their own?  Agents can certainly take matrix actions, but I'm not sure a zamboni-drone could do anything on it's own besides drive around in circles and then park itself.  Could the Zamboni use the "Jam signals" matrix action? No, it's not meant to do that.  Trackback from Data Trails?  Definitely not, that's an extended action.  Garbage in/Garbage out?  No way.  Invite Mark?  Perhaps.  Reboot? Definitely maybe. 
       Let's examine, but at least those last two are Data Processing actions and don't require a test.  Invite mark in particular seems quite powerful.

     The word "command" strikes me as something short and directive, and if that's the case, that the target of the Spoof Command must be able to accomplish this command on its own without further input from the owner/spoofer.  I think that's a very important distinction, because while devices can do lots of things, there are still things that a device is not inherently capable of on its own (by design) and in those cases the device must be manipulated either physically or electronically to accomplish the task, presumably its owner or someone else with sufficient permissions. 
     You only need a Send Message action to direct a drone or agent with a simple action, but Matrix actions are mostly Complex actions and would seem to be the more involved manipulations I mentioned and not something a device could so for itself.  So I'm thinking that whatever stuff that an owner has to normally do to accomplish the Invite Marks matrix action probably isn't a simple something a device could do by itself or else Invite Mark would be a simple action, like a directive from the owner.  For the same reason, Spoof Command to direct an Invite Mark action isn't something that would work because a normal device wouldn't be capable of Inviting Marks on it's own, but instead requires the owner to do those things TO the device.

I feel like the whole thing needs some clarification, but I will agree wholeheartedly with Darzil that any tactics or or interpretations that *require* teamwork generally make for more fun as gameplay tools.

[Hobbes]

      One thing that isn't clear to me is what is meant by "your command" in this description.

100% depends on if "...your command..." can include Matrix actions or not, yep.  Perfectly unclear, and absolutely debatable.