Shadowrun Play > Rules and such

Jamming Signals Question

<< < (2/3) > >>

firebug:
Noise due to distance is a confusing case that shouldn't really be called noise, but is because it can be reduced by Noise Reduction; it doesn't really exist until an action is picked--  Meaning, Noise due to distance can't stop you from using your commlink at all, but if you decide to send a command to something really far away, your device may be unable to actually perform that action because the Noise would shut off the wireless.  I'm not really convinced that's working as intended though.  Otherwise, if a R4 Commlink is in a Spam Area creating 4 Noise, and someone turns on a R6 Jammer, the commlink is now facing 10 Noise and its 2 NR simply brings the Noise down to 8, not enough to make a difference in terms of "can I use my commlink yet".

To suppress an alarm, you'd need to think about what the alarm actually is and where it's coming from.  If the alarm relies on an outside device telling it to work (like, it only functions when there's a device telling it to sound, and defaults to Off otherwise) then you could use Control Device or Spoof Command to tell that device to stop.  Or alternative to send an "all clear" message if that's the case.  If you're inside the host and this device isn't slaved to the host, then you'll have to leave the host first.  There's reasons for a site to have all their guards' commlinks slaved to the host, and there's reasons to not do that, so it isn't a given which it'll be.

Devices slaved to a host ignore noise in relation to things inside the host.  What that means is, you can never receive a penalty from noise on any action you're taking inside a host--  Even if it's targeting a physical device, as long as that device is slaved to the host.  It adds to hosts basically being their own little matrix worlds.

SavarWallk:
Deep dive, get a set mark on each slaved comm, then tell them all to reboot with a 1 hour cycle?

Stainless Steel Devil Rat:
I've been thinking about this again lately and I'm gonna beat the horse some more.



--- Quote from: firebug on ---It's an actual rule, and I've made that same argument about how stupid that exact interaction becomes.  The FAQ's answer was "it only stops wireless bonuses", but that's not the official rule.
--- End quote ---

I have to say, the FAQ answer makes perfect sense.  I've been searching high and low since I made this thread and the only time/place I've been able to find the rules saying Noise does anything beyond inflicting a dice penalty is on pg 421, and that is only in reference to wireless bonuses.  It's not about noise shutting down functionality totally.  In this context, it actually does make sense that a spam zone might shut down a wireless bonus of a piece of cyberware or a smartlink- because all the annoying AR popups are doing is cancelling the bonus rather than complete functionality.

Of course, the problem still stands then that if that's true, then Jammers are largely pointless.  Which probably isn't the intention.  The example in the sidebar on pg 176 of dice penalty for throwing a weapon isn't technically relevant to noise and jamming, but the example makes it explicit that it's intended that Jammers are intended to stop commlinks from being able to make a no-dice-test-required commcall.  OTOH, there's other mentions elsewhere suggesting that AoE attacks get defense tests, so there's only so much weight you can give to examples when they contradict the rules themselves.


--- Quote ---My suggestions is to houserule Noise into "Spam" and "Static", based on the chart on page 231.  Spam is caused by traffic and cannot paradoxically shut down wireless signals, only cause penalties.  Static is caused by landscape and also includes the Noise made by Jammers, and can disable wireless functions.  Static and Spam don't stack, and Noise Reduction applies to both equally.  For the record, even though it's not listed in the book, the suggested errata is that Noise Reduction applies to all devices in the same PAN as eachother.

--- End quote ---

Absolutely agree with you.  I think Jammers' Noise should be typed as "Static" and furthermore all Static noise > DR should be allowed to shut down the Device.  But only Static- not Spam and not Distance.  I'm actually fine with Spam noise shutting off wireless bonuses as that's not shutting the device down entirely.

PAN-wide Noise reduction is kind of fascinating idea.  First of all, Noise only affects one side of communication- never stack both ends.  So inside the PAN is the Smartlink talking to the Commlink, or is the Commlink talking to the Smartlink?  For the purposes of Noise, it has to be exactly one or the other and absolutely not both.  I don't see why the PAN master/Commlink has to be ruled out as the "source", and therefore its own Noise reduction applies to transactions involving that PAN master/Commlink.   OTOH Datajacks' wireless bonus is awkward.  It gives Noise reduction.  Is that just for the Datajack, or for the entire PAN?  I'd argue the entire PAN... and if so perhaps a PAN Master/Commlink's Noise reduction also should just blanket apply everywhere in the PAN and render identifying the source of any given communication moot.

firebug:
The most logical and functional way to rule "to what does my Noise Reduction apply" is "to everything sharing your PAN".  Once something is slaved, it applies it's NR to its master and every other slaved device.  This could lead to some odd NR stacking, but consider that otherwise we have issues like some things saying "your slaved devices", not saying to what it applies, or worst of just saying the NR applies to "you".  Applying it to everything in your PAN also allows people to protect their wireless gear from jamming, which I think should be possible.  It just wouldn't make sense for there to be no way to protect the majority of devices from jamming.

Also, random brain-fart, there's no rule that says you have a direct connection to slaved devices, is there?  That sounds logical, that you can't have a noise penalty to something slaved to your own commlink, but I don't think there's actually any rules that say that.

I also don't think there's rules covering how you slave a device...  Unless I forgot those too.  Does it need to be something you're the Owner of?

Stainless Steel Devil Rat:

--- Quote from: firebug on ---The most logical and functional way to rule "to what does my Noise Reduction apply" is "to everything sharing your PAN".  Once something is slaved, it applies it's NR to its master and every other slaved device.  This could lead to some odd NR stacking, but consider that otherwise we have issues like some things saying "your slaved devices", not saying to what it applies, or worst of just saying the NR applies to "you".  Applying it to everything in your PAN also allows people to protect their wireless gear from jamming, which I think should be possible.  It just wouldn't make sense for there to be no way to protect the majority of devices from jamming.
--- End quote ---

Agreed.  Although there is the wording given on the Receiver Dongle in DT on pg 62.  It says it provides Noise Reduction to not only the Commlink but also the entire PAN.  It explicitly including the PAN where things like Signal Scrub, and the Datajack Wireless bonus do not may mean the Receiver Dongle does extend to the PAN whereas the others don't.  OTOH the Cyberear Antennae provide Noise Reduction "to the user", which probably not only extends to the PAN but also everything on her person even if not inside the PAN.  Technical language and precedent is something SR is really, really weak with however and I'm thinking it's easier to presume the Receiver Dongle's explicit saying it includes the PAN is just another way of saying "it applies to both Commlink and the entire PAN, just as any NR on your Commlink would".


--- Quote ---Also, random brain-fart, there's no rule that says you have a direct connection to slaved devices, is there?  That sounds logical, that you can't have a noise penalty to something slaved to your own commlink, but I don't think there's actually any rules that say that.
--- End quote ---

There is the discussion about hacking devices via direct connection and the advantages therein on page 354-355, but that's mainly about why it can be worthwhile to break in to a facility before hacking into the host.


--- Quote ---I also don't think there's rules covering how you slave a device...  Unless I forgot those too.  Does it need to be something you're the Owner of?

--- End quote ---

I don't think so either, but given the language used about how you can only link "your" devices to a PAN, I'd presume someone else wanting the decker to protect his equipment would have to invite 3 marks so that the decker counts as the owner for matrix purposes.  But of course then there's the aforementioned dangers of using technical interpretation on the very conversational language given in the rules :)  Still, makes thematic and rules-balance sense that you have to have marks (and 3, at that) on the device if you're to slave it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page