[thinklibertarian]

Page 252:

PUPPETEER
Target: Device • Duration: I • FV: L + 4
You push Resonance commands into a target, forcing it to perform a Matrix action. Pick a target and a Matrix action for it to perform. Make a Software + Resonance [Level] v. Willpower + Firewall test with a threshold based on the type of action: 1 for a Free Action, 2 for Simple, and 3 for Complex. If you succeed, the target performs that Matrix action as its next available action.

Is this an opposed test or a simple threshold test. Or is it both?

I've received a couple of responses in other threads that suggest it is both. In other words, roll the opposed test, then match your net hits to the threshold.

But page 47 states: "Note that Opposed tests do not list a threshold. That's because in an Opposed test, you are trying to generate more hits than an opponent."

Personally, I think the opposed test is a copy/paste error. Why? Fading Value.

If it is an opposed test, I would have to set the Level to take account the number of hits my target can generate, then add in up to three more for the type of action. That means a Level of at least 6 (a bare minimum of 3 hits to cover the opposed test + 3 for a complex action). More likely 7 or 8 for a bit of insurance. With an FV of Level + 4, that means 10 to 12 fading to resist, virtually guaranteeing most of your technomancer's stun gone, crippling him for the rest of the run, since there is no way to heal fading damage except with time.

If it were a simple Software + Resonance [Level] test vs. the threshold, then it makes it a relatively easy test for most TM's to pass, but they still have to resist 7 fading for a complex action. Assuming most TMs will have around 11 dice (Resonance 6 + Willpower 5) to resist, that will leave you with an average of 3 stun. A fair hit, but you can still keep going.

I think they meant it to be just a simple test with heavy FV. What do you think?

P.S. I've seen the threads about how abusive puppeteer can be, but it is limited by the heavy fading value. Your TM would have to be very good and/or lucky to use it more than two or three times on a run.

[SoulGambit]

Pretty sure its "Beat the test +3 More" because of how powerful it is. I speculate that whomever wrote complex forms didn't talk to the guy writing how tests work. What you do is spend Edge to cast it at Level 1. Considering it lets you reformat someone's Spider, I feel a point of Edge is appropriate.

[thinklibertarian]

Reformatting is a complex action, so 7 FV, and so is rebooting, another 7 FV. Even if use Level 1 + Edge as you suggest, it is still two 4FV hits and two of your precious edge gone.

It is a nasty combo, but so is data spiking the spider a couple of times, and that has the same effect (bricking) without any fading whatsoever.

[Ryo]

The main issue I see with making Puppeteer a Success Test instead of Opposed isn't with Complex Actions like Reboot or Reformat, its with the Invite Mark Simple Action. With this single test, you can make a target give you 3 marks, something that would normally require a mundane hacker to take a -10 penalty on an opposed roll. And the Technomancer doesn't even generate OS doing it, or risk being discovered by the host or device owner. At which point, he can basically walk all over their security, reboot them, reformat them, crash them, or do whatever he likes.

If it's a success test, you either need Level 2 only or Level 1 with a limit breaker. 5 or 6 Fading is pretty high, but Technomancers resist Fading with Resonance+Willpower, which can both easily be 6 at creation, and Resonance can constantly be raised with Submersion. You have a good chance to not take any fading at all, or at least escape without a wound penalty, especially further along in your Technomancy career.

[thinklibertarian]

Even if you force them to Invite Mark, it is the owner who decides how many and how long they last, not the TM. So all the owner has to say is "one mark for one second" (which I would treat as one initiative pass).

Puppeteer says  "the target performs that Matrix action as its next available action." It does not allow the TM to say how the action is carried out. At best I'd allow the TM to pick the target of the action (if applicable).

Examples: "invite me to mark your persona ", "use data spike on that IC", "switch from AR to VR", "jack out", "disarm the data bomb on this file", etc.

[Ryo]

Even if you force them to Invite Mark, it is the owner who decides how many and how long they last, not the TM. So all the owner has to say is "one mark for one second" (which I would treat as one initiative pass).

Puppeteer says  "the target performs that Matrix action as its next available action." It does not allow the TM to say how the action is carried out. At best I'd allow the TM to pick the target of the action (if applicable).

Your interpretation makes Puppeteer completely worthless for any action, since the owner would sabotage it, despite having no reason to be aware it's occurring.

Puppeteer explicitly forces the target to perform the action, picking the target and the action it performs. It's not a suggestion. The Technomancer isn't asking nicely and the owner begrudgingly complies. How the action is performed is obviously up to the Technomancer, and there's no indication that the owner would even be aware it occurred, unless its something obvious like doing Control Device to make a turret shoot somebody. (And by your interpretation, the owner chooses who the turret shoots at, so it shoots the technomancer. Because 6 fading to tell a guy to shoot you is totally the intent of the power, right?)

[thinklibertarian]

Where does it say the owner is unaware of the action?

At the very least, the owner would be surprised to discover his device did not perform the action he desired.

[SoulGambit]

I feel like if "use Invite Mark on me" is a valid command, then so is, "Use Invite Mark on me that lasts for the duration of a year and a day." Presumably the puppeteer gets to select the parameters of the action.

[thinklibertarian]

I will concede the point that the puppeteer should specify the parameters of the action.

You could give the command "give me three marks on your persona for a year and a day". The owner will still be aware of the action after the fact, so he could spend his next initiative pass to try to erase the marks (complex action), or just switch to AR and jack out (two simple actions).

It all depends on whether or not the owner is aware of what the puppeteer did. And how could he fail to notice his icon's actions?

[firebug]

I'm pretty sure Bull or Aaron said something along the lines of "The owner doesn't lose his memory of the actions".  Telling someone's persona to do anything is going to make them aware that they are doing something against their will.  And while if you said like "use your admin-level access to remove this piece of data from the archives" they wouldn't automatically know who did it, but if you're telling them to give you free marks on them, they'll know what happened (if not specifically how you did it).

Puppeteer is, in my mind, best used on actual devices you don't have the time to place marks on.  Like if you absolutely need that asshole's car to launch itself off the road.  Using it as a shortcut for marks you could normally get is nice, but it at best trades Fading for one or two Action Phases.  Maybe in some situations that's worth it.

[Ryo]

The 5th edition matrix is largely automated, with things responding automatically when they detect intrusions and attacks. For everything else, Matrix Perception Tests have to be made. Now, if you're doing puppeteer on an active Spider to get marks, sure, he'll notice that he is performing an action he didn't intend to, but if you're doing it on a Street Sam's gun, or a maglock, or some random device slaved to a host? There is no indication that resonance actions ever trigger any kind of warning. You can't even check for them with Matrix Perception if you aren't a Resonance being yourself. So unless the Street Sam takes a complex action to check for marks on his gun, how is he going to know his gun gave marks to somebody without his input?

[thinklibertarian]

That is a good point. If the owner is not in a position to notice the marks, he would not get too.

At this point I'm cool with Puppeteer, with the following clarifications:
1) it is a simple test against the threshold.
2) the puppeteer can specify the parameters of the matrix action to be taken.
3) if the owner is in a position to notice the result of the puppeteer's action immediately after the fact, he does so automatically and can act accordingly.

[Unahim]

3) if the owner is in a position to notice the result of the puppeteer's action immediately after the fact, he does so automatically and can act accordingly.

Do you do the same with successful Sleaze actions? I don't feel they're so different.

[thinklibertarian]

3) if the owner is in a position to notice the result of the puppeteer's action immediately after the fact, he does so automatically and can act accordingly.

Do you do the same with successful Sleaze actions? I don't feel they're so different.

I guess it depends on the action. It is true that a successful sleaze action raises no flags for the action itself (aside from OS), but the consequences of an action may be noticed after the fact depending on how closely things are monitored.

Control Device? If a device is being monitored and it performs an unexpected action, it should raise concerns. Responses would vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the event.

If it is Hack on the Fly, then the rules for noticing marks are clearly defined.

For Snoop, I doubt the victim would notice unless the snooper glitched. Or someone finds the mark.

Format device, reboot device, or spoof command? See Control Device.

[SoulGambit]

Keep in mind that Puppeteer is also basically a stun. On the person's next action, they do what you said instead of doing anything else.I think a person would be aware of what they themselves are doing. Its also a bit of a balance thing.