I'm just gonna quote myself here, for a second, because I feel like this has been forgotten.
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.
This is an argument which aims to prove that these things are objectively true. You are free to think that I have not proven my case here, but to argue contrary to these points and have a leg to stand on while doing so, you must attempt to demonstrate a flaw in either the logic or the premises. If the logic is sound and the premises are valid, these things are true and there's no longer any argument to be had on these specific points - and thus you cannot, for example, equate giving hacking combat options with giving fighting hacking options; that is demonstrated to be a false equivalence under point 1.
Similarly, it is incorrect to think that this is saying hackers should be just as good in combat as sams - see Premise 2a-I.
Not forgotten, but just because you organized your opinions together does not change that they're opinions.
People have already pointed out multiple ways that a Hacker can contribute to combat that does not involve turning cyber implants into a massive liability.
To reiterate them:
Scramble opposing force's communications.
Hack into and take control of enemy drones.
Cut off access to the field of engagement from the enemy's reinforcements.
Invest in the Gunnery skill and get a drone or two.
Maintain the team's tactical network and keep it secure.
Hack in to shut down alarms that have been activated.
Invest in Combat Skills.
It is an argument. This is a very different thing from an opinion - it may be the case that some of the premises lack the factual support they need, and if you see such a case I urge you to point it out. To address your list:
- Fails the substantiveness test. If you want to keep forwarding this idea, you'll need to challenge the test itself.
- Only counts if the enemy has a rigger, and the control side is rigging rather than hacking. This is a way for a rigger to contribute, not a hacker, and riggers aren't short of those.
- Not possible in anything approaching all fields of engagement, and thus doesn't apply to the more general design level.
- That's for the Rigger, not the Hacker.
- Fails the substantiveness test.
- Not nearly a common enough thing.
- Doesn't apply to already complete characters (See: Hacker/Face). Further, as a purely mental-stat skillset, hacking doesn't lend itself to that kind of crossover like it does for the Infil-specialist who probably already has good Agility. A Hacker/Face character, for example, won't be able to get enough dice for that to pass the substantiveness test.
And thus your list doesn't work.
And further, having a weakness does not make cyberlimbs a massive liability.
