I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.
At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.
The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this. Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role. It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks. And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts. The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain. They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass. Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.
I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.
Except that hackers attacking their ware is one of the major balancing aspects against Street Samurai and other ware-heavy characters. Plus, it is a quintessential part of the Cyberpunk genre. You go around lopping off perfectly good pieces of yourself and putting machines where flesh ought to be, that's all well and good, but there's a price to pay, and I don't just mean nuyen. That's like saying it sucks to play a mage, and then have to deal with drain or background counts because that is a pain. That's a part of what it means to be a mage, so suck it up or play something different.
If you have massive ware, and aren't taking steps to protect yourself, then don't blame me if I go Laughing Man (not the Shadowland poster) on you. You shouldn't have replaced perfectly good eyes with cameras. Just be glad there isn't such a thing as ghost hacking (yet).
Again, my whole point is that it's just not worth the hassle to leave it in. Like I said, it's far too nebulous as to what can be accomplished, and also like I said, it's better to remove the option than it is to complicate the already highly complex Matrix rules defining it.
Not to mention that people keep ignoring the simple fact that not every single character type should 'have something to do' in every single situation. Different character types contribute in different situations, and that is just fine.
You get access, you make a Command vs Command check to make it do something within the range of what it can do. Unless something else (like Mind Over Machine) specifically expands the range of what something can do, it's not all that nebulous or vague - just a cross reference. The hacking rules are highly inheritance based.
In any case, let me frame this a little - note that for these purposes, hackers and riggers are being considered to be two separate skillsets.
1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.
Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.
Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.
Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.
Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat. This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.
2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.
Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience
Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended. (Let's call this the substantiveness test)
Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.
Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules. Again, this fails the substantiveness test.
Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.
3: It is probable for a playable character to exist that uses hacking as its primary role and does not have a combat-based secondary role.
Premise 3a: A character that is not combat primary or secondary is highly unlikely to be able to make a meaningful contribution, as defined above, through their combat skills.
Premise 3b: A secondary role is one that is either an element of a character's primary type but not its core (a mage not specifically structured for combat but having a workable combat spell and/or a decent combat spirit to fall back on), or the secondary skillset they are built for (IE, a social adept with some unarmed ranks and powers).
Premise 3c: A character that is able to make its primary and secondary skillsets work together will probably see a fair bit of play.
Premise 3d: The social engineering hacker (Hacker primary, Face secondary) has two skillsets that directly complement each other, creating a very effective character that could very easily fit with the concept a player wants.
Premise 3d-I: Face supplements Hacker due to the ability to grift your way into getting the physical access you need and the information you need to make your Hacker activities much easier, especially if the information isn't on the Matrix.
Premise 3d-II: Hacker supplements Face by making it far easier to sell a con, as well as providing the information to make it easier to manipulate people.
Conclusion: Hacking needs to be directly relevant to combat in a way that passes the substantiveness test.
4: Hacking is, or at least should be, the counter to cyberware.
4a: A counter is defined as something that is especially effective at specifically combating the subject, usually through taking advantage of weaknesses and limitations or decreasing efficacy. This means that it is (a) generally the most effective means of taking on the subject, and (b) more effective at that than at other tasks in the web.
4b: In any multi-element game, maintaining both balance and distinctiveness simultaneously requires the notion of counters. Rock-Paper-Scissors is the classic example, albeit an overly simplistic one.
4c: Heavily cybered characters lack any true counters - everything that's effective against them is effective in the same way as against anything else. The sole exception is cyber-hacking, which is a means by which hackers can diminish their effectiveness, perhaps to the point of eliminating or even reversing their impact on the fight.
4d: Hacking isn't a true counter to anything else - the only runner-up is riggers, who are actually (due to their likelihood of having better ECM and ECCM capabilities, along with a few other things) the direct counter to hackers.
Conclusion: Cyber-hacking cannot be removed should various forms of balance be preserved.
Feel like I'm forgetting a couple of points I wanted to cover (stopped in the middle of typing this to grab dinner), but I can't seem to cease forgetting them.
