[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Some of the examples on tallying Overwatch score are not compliant with the rules as given on pg. 176.  I'm pretty sure this is due to the rules evolving thru playtest/development and the example text fell through the editing cracks.

Take the rules here as gospel, and where the examples don't match, go with the rules.

So I'm really not sure how it's supposed to work. If it's just opposing hits, though, then what's the consequence of labelling some actions without opposing rolls as illegal? Is it just for flavour, then?

So you gain OS from:

Any matrix action where you benefitted from a hacking cyberprogram (+1 OS per action)

Maintaining hacked access (+1 OS/round for User Access; +3 OS/round for Admin access)

Performing illegal matrix actions (+1 OS per hit on the opposing roll)



So, for example:
If Mungo throws a Data Spike at a goon's gun, he gains however much OS as there were hits in the resistance test because it's an illegal action. 0 hits = 0 OS.  10 hits = 10 OS.
If he used the Exploit hacking cyberprogram to lower the Matrix Defense Rating for the target of the Data Spike, then that's +1 OS.
If he used multiple hacking cyberprograms, it's still only +1 OS, as the language says it's per "action modified" and not "per hacking program employed"
If he had previously hacked the goon's PAN and had gained access, he gains +1/+3 OS as well for the round, even though that didn't come directly from the Data Spike.

[Xenon]

I am inclined to say that the example in core where the hacker gain OS from checking overwatch score (which is a simple threshold test, not an opposed test) is wrong and that checking this will not cause overwatch in itself (as there are no opposed hits).

That perhaps check OS should be re-labeled into "(Legal) Cracking" rather than "Illegal (Cracking)"
Similar to Disarm Data Bomb action. Which I personally think make sense.

(but then you should perhaps also revisit Jam Signals.... Should this also be a (Legal) Cracking action perhaps? Not equally sure about this one to be honest.... Perhaps Jam Signals should, unlike the other two, always generate 3 points of Overwatch, or something like that.... I don't know)

[Mepsipax]

I am inclined to say that the example in core where the hacker gain OS from checking overwatch score (which is a simple threshold test, not an opposed test) is wrong and that checking this will not cause overwatch in itself (as there are no opposed hits).

That perhaps check OS should be re-labeled into "(Legal) Cracking" rather than "Illegal (Cracking)"
Similar to Disarm Data Bomb action. Which I personally think make sense.

(but then you should perhaps also revisit Jam Signals.... Should this also be a (Legal) Cracking action perhaps? Not equally sure about this one to be honest.... Perhaps Jam Signals should, unlike the other two, always generate 3 points of Overwatch, or something like that.... I don't know)

Not only that, but also the Hash search is understandably an illegal action without an opposed test. Should that also be labeled legal then? Strictly going by the rules would mean this doesn't cause OS. Is that how it's supposed to be?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I am inclined to say that the example in core where the hacker gain OS from checking overwatch score (which is a simple threshold test, not an opposed test) is wrong and that checking this will not cause overwatch in itself (as there are no opposed hits).

That perhaps check OS should be re-labeled into "(Legal) Cracking" rather than "Illegal (Cracking)"
Similar to Disarm Data Bomb action. Which I personally think make sense.

(but then you should perhaps also revisit Jam Signals.... Should this also be a (Legal) Cracking action perhaps? Not equally sure about this one to be honest.... Perhaps Jam Signals should, unlike the other two, always generate 3 points of Overwatch, or something like that.... I don't know)

Not only that, but also the Hash search is understandably an illegal action without an opposed test. Should that also be labeled legal then? Strictly going by the rules would mean this doesn't cause OS. Is that how it's supposed to be?

Going by the rules: it's correct to say Hash Check doesn't generate Overwatch Score directly.  However since you must maintain User access level, you must still necessarily gain at least 1 OS for maintaining User access in that Host for the round.  And given its special rules, it may take multiple rounds.

So... yes it's an oddity that Hash Check is labelled Illegal.  I believe that at one time prior to publication, the OS rules were such that any illegal task generated an automatic 1 OS.  Obviously since then it evolved to the rule as-is.  Just like certain examples regarding illegal actions and OS now being erroneous/obsolete, soo to might be Hash Check's status as illegal... esp. since it conflicts with the rule of thumb that Illegal actions use the Cracking skill whereas Hash Check uses Electronics (normally used for Legal actions).   Does it need fixing?  Meh.  The purist's view might be to consider it a Legal action instead, but what does that really gain you other than an added bit of arcana for your own house rules document?  Also... changing it to Legal might have unforseen 2nd order effects once the Matrix expansion book comes down the line.  My personal view is this is something that is odd but doesn't really need fixing.

[Banshee]

I am inclined to say that the example in core where the hacker gain OS from checking overwatch score (which is a simple threshold test, not an opposed test) is wrong and that checking this will not cause overwatch in itself (as there are no opposed hits).

That perhaps check OS should be re-labeled into "(Legal) Cracking" rather than "Illegal (Cracking)"
Similar to Disarm Data Bomb action. Which I personally think make sense.

(but then you should perhaps also revisit Jam Signals.... Should this also be a (Legal) Cracking action perhaps? Not equally sure about this one to be honest.... Perhaps Jam Signals should, unlike the other two, always generate 3 points of Overwatch, or something like that.... I don't know)

Not only that, but also the Hash search is understandably an illegal action without an opposed test. Should that also be labeled legal then? Strictly going by the rules would mean this doesn't cause OS. Is that how it's supposed to be?

Yes that is intentional ... afterall not everything you will doing should attract a lot of GOD attention, that's why we have the "maintaining access" accumulation which is the basic background slow build, then you have the illegal use of hacking programs which tic up a little faster ..  then you have the opposed illegal action which really attraxt the attention since you are actively engaging the system.

As for the examples... the CRB were not written by me and most likely done before final version was complete so the examples that are in the Guide are correct as I intended them to be (btw Xenon did the actual writing of the examples for those thatcwant or need to know)

[Mepsipax]

oh Thanks Banshee for chiming in!

that's why we have the "maintaining access" accumulation which is the basic background slow build

except when you get access via backdoor entry in which case you can hash check to your heart's content right?

[Xenon]

except when you get access via backdoor entry in which case you can hash check to your heart's content right?

From a Grid Overwatch Division Point of View, perhaps, yes.

But if Patrol IC or Spider in the local host you just invaded notice you then it will be immediately obvious for them that you don't belong, so.....

[Banshee]

except when you get access via backdoor entry in which case you can hash check to your heart's content right?

From a Grid Overwatch Division Point of View, perhaps, yes.

But if Patrol IC or Spider in the local host you just invaded notice you then it will be immediately obvious for them that you don't belong, so.....

Yep

[marfish]

Brute Force
...Using Brute Force will always alert the device you are attempting to gain access to, so GOD score accumulates with each test...

I got a question about Brute Force.
So, let's say I am the owner of the device, right? And I notice someone is trying to Brute Force my device, why don't I just turn off the wireless function of my device? Anything stop me to do that? Does that make Brute Force essentially useless?

[Xenon]

Brute force is resolved in a single action. By the time you notice the attack the hacker already have access.

And since the device is probably part of (and defended by) your personal area network the hacker will now have access on the entire network. Not just a single device. And also not just wireless enabled devices (the hacker also have access on wireless disabled devices that are using a wired connection to your network).

Disconnecting a single device (from both the matrix and your network) might prevent the hacker from controlling that specific device, but if you want the hacker out of your PAN then you basically need to reboot your entire network (which is typically done by rebooting the device you used to access the matrix with).

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Brute Force
...Using Brute Force will always alert the device you are attempting to gain access to, so GOD score accumulates with each test...

I got a question about Brute Force.
So, let's say I am the owner of the device, right? And I notice someone is trying to Brute Force my device, why don't I just turn off the wireless function of my device? Anything stop me to do that? Does that make Brute Force essentially useless?

That was a problem in 5e, yes.

However some key things changed in this edition:  A) it's not a free action anymore to turn wireless off  B) You can't turn multiple things off at once  C) it's an electronics test to succeed, not an automatic success anymore.

So if you brute force a PAN, the victim has to spend minor actions to turn off each device they're worried you'll hack.  You already scored access to all of them by succeeding on the PAN in the first place.

Even if they do this, you scored an action economy nerf on your target at the very minimum.  Costing someone actions mid-combat is always a win.

[Michael Chandra]

Speaking of Matrix Damage: It applies penalties to all tests using the device. So say I Data Spike a gun and do 6 damage, then the owner turns the gun offline: The way I read it, the Matrix Damage means they still take the -2 penalty on shooting?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yes, that's also a change from last edition.  Matrix damage isn't all or nothing anymore... matrix condition monitor damage applies to physical world actions too now.

[Mepsipax]

Hey guys, I'm confused as to what Matrix actions give Edge for a higher attack value.

From Banshee's guide, it seems like almost all actions give the Edge. For example, even non-combat actions like 'Trace Icons' give edge. It leads me to assume that all Matrix actions with an opposed test can give Edge. But it's not that, because it doesn't seem to work for Matrix perception.

So how do we determine if a Matrix action gives Edge?

[Banshee]

Hey guys, I'm confused as to what Matrix actions give Edge for a higher attack value.

From Banshee's guide, it seems like almost all actions give the Edge. For example, even non-combat actions like 'Trace Icons' give edge. It leads me to assume that all Matrix actions with an opposed test can give Edge. But it's not that, because it doesn't seem to work for Matrix perception.

So how do we determine if a Matrix action gives Edge?

You're right, any opposed check has the potential for granting edge