[Redwulfe]

Bringing this here as I don't feel that it is on topic for the bricking guns thread

In the book every device has a Icon. for eyes all of the devices are built into the eye so it makes since that it is one icon but not the glasses and the eyes.

If you are explicitly looking for the device icon of the "eyes" then you would not randomly pick between the device icon of his trodes, glasses, ballistic mask and eyes.....

You would just take a perception test to notice the eyes.
No need to over-complicate things for no reason.

In this, I think we just have different interpretations of the rules. The function of glasses is to help you see or see better the function of the eyes is the same.

Why would you make a perception test to see someones eyes? If they are where glasses you made need to but only if they aren't wearing wrap arounds and many motorcyclists do. and for the most part if they are wearing glasses with any type of tinting you can not see the eyes with a perception test if they are fully covered. This of course is just my interpretation you can rule it however you wish in your games, but I don't think this is definitively clear.

Same with a gun the internal smartgun and gun would have the same icon as they are built into each other but I don't think the laser sight and gun would or the external smartgun link and gun would.

Pretty sure that the smartgun (no matter if it have an external smartgun system or internal smartgun system) is just one icon. If you get 3 marks on the smartgun icon then you can use Garbage In/Garbage Out to reprogram it so that when the trigger is pulled (either mechanically or via DNI) you can make the magazine eject instead.

Same as I am pretty sure that a vehicle (no matter if it have sensors, a steering wheel, gear box, engine, window elevators etc etc) also count as one single icon. Or that if you get a mark on a drone you can also control its weapon mount.

Again, keep it simple and don't over complicate things for no reason.

Again I think this is interpretation. yes you can hack a smartgun icon and get it to perform some functions on the gun but you brick an external smartgun and I don't think it would fry the gun unless they where the same icon and in this case the external smartgun and not the gun itself.

The vehicle example does make me wonder if the sensors should be a separate icon that is with the vehicle as bricking the backup camera should not brick the engine. and you can only attack a devices icon not the physical device itself or a part of the icon.

The keep it simple analogy is fine but I think complexity is a part of the system and simplifying it for all games is not the best way to go. my group enjoys Black trenchcoat style play and making it too simple would lose my players. Your game may be different, to each their own. to us it doesn't seem that overly complex as we just don't try to brick items that often as it is an overly complex process, which to us is what the corporate court wanted when they designed the system.

These icons can run silent which makes them hidden to being automatically spotted within 100 meters of you.

Same as any icon beyond 100 meters of you (silent or not) is also not being automatically spotted.

You need to spend an observe in detail action to "focus" on a device icon before you can interact with it. Once you done this you can interact with it at any time without another observe in detail action. Even if the device is moved to the other side of the world or start to run silent. Doesn't matter. Once you have the icon in "focus" it will remain there until you log out or the device is rebooted (or its owner successfully bend the rules of the matrix to hide the icon from you).

I don't think we are in disagreement here.

I choose invisible because that is easy for players to understand. In the game they are said to be hidden.

I would be careful about using the word Invisible. Remember that it only take a single hit on a matrix perception test to see every single silent running icon in the vicinity. It take 1 single hit on a matrix perception test to "spot" an icon no matter where in the world it is located (they are very obvious). To "spot" a silent running icon you might need 2 hits (maybe 3), they are slightly harder to interact with due to the limited communication to the matrix, but they are hardly "Invisible".

I think invisible is fine for an analogy so we will have to agree to disagree on that one. 1 single hit does not allow you to "see" all icon that are running silent in your vicinity, it allows you to "know" they are in the vicinity. but this is probably an interpretation thing again. I can know the wind is present even though I don't see the air, by scanning my area for signs of its presence such as the way the leaves of a tree move under its effects. this is a perception test and in my groups mind what you do in the matrix to know silent icons are present in your vicinity, especially in a sculpted system. And this once agin allows us to get creative in our description rather than just make it a dice roll or purely mechanical thing.

5th edition core, page 235: Mtrix perception sidebar
If you’re out on the grid, whether there is an icon running silent within 100 meters.

In either case I am sure that you would have to make two perception tests to fully spot a hidden icon if you are not sure one is there. One to know that there is an icon in the vicinity the second, if you know a feature of the icon, to actually spot the icon.

5th edition core, page 241: Matrix perception.
If you’re looking for an icon that is running silent (after you’ve determined that it’s present),

The book says if you know a feature of an icon you can try and spot it, otherwise you must try to spot a random Icon amongst the multiple icons that may be running silent in the vicinity. This is where I don't agree with just being able to say "I am hacking his eyes." One, I don't think saying I want to hack his eyes is "knowing a feature of the icon", you know a feature of the device though. I do think that term "feature of an icon" could be interpreted in several ways. I do not think other people are wrong for interpreting it another way I just don't agree with that myself.

There is an example on p. 271 where Spike know that the Riggers RCC and and the rotordrone are running silent within 100 meters. This information alone is enough to take a matrix perception test to spot them directly without randomly looking through every single silent running icon in the vicinity. Just keep it simple and don't try to over complicate things.

In this example he uses one spot test against all hidden icons in the area which always made me think it was a mistake in the example as it contradicts what the rules seem to be saying. I chalked this up to another error in an example especially since it seemed to me that the paragraph had a grammatical error in it as well, that still has not been corrected in the 5th corrected printing. but it was just an example and I am not a person that should gripe about grammar.

5th Core, page 271, example in rigger chapter:
Spike performs a Matrix Perception actions, knowing that Driver’s RCC and his rotodrone are running silent within 100 meters.

1. How many Matrix perception test did he have to perform, 1 "a Matrix perception" or more "Matrix perception actions"?
2. Did he know that Dirver RCC and Rotodrone where running silent because of the Matrix perception or did he assume that the hidden icons where Driver's RCC and rotodrone for other reasons? The comma suggests that this could be separate. He performed action and knew the the device where running silent not that one caused the other.

5th Core, page 271, example in rigger chapter:
He makes a Computer + Intuition [Data Processing] roll, while Driver and his drone make their Logic + Sleaze rolls. Spike gets at least one net it on each icon, locating both devices.

If you only needed one test to spot all running silent icons in your area then why even ask the question that they are there, just brute force the perception roll and spot them all. Why stop at your vicinity just brute force with one roll to spot all the icons in the whole world. Why even have a rule about randomly accessing icons when multiple are in your vicinity if you can just brute force the roll? I mean I know they are there and that is the only requirement needed. And yes I know that this is an over exaggeration of worse case scenario but the example leads us to this over exaggeration which is why I don't use it and when you look at it as just an error by possibly a different writer or as one of many the book still has not corrected, the rules make more since, or to me at least. And as this is an example and not a rule my group is better off without it.

I can see where the justification that eye constitute a feature though if you look at this poorly written example and assume that he got the spot roll because the features he knew was RCC and Rotodrone. To me they didn't say why he got the roll only that he got one and the example is poorly written so I can't get too caught up in it.

I don't believe you get to make one role to spot all running silent icons in your vicinity with one roll. In the end I think this in not clear enough to make a solid conclusion so I stick to the majority of the rules which are alos not clear and think it would be up to each table GM to rule how he likes.

To me both cybereyes and glasses could have the same form in the matrix...

Cybereyes is a cybernetic augmentation while glasses is an imaging device. Why would you assume they have identical icons and features within the matrix...?

I didn't say they "did" have only that they "could" have the same icon.

This is what I call layering icons.

I don't think laying icons is a "thing" to be honest.

And that is a totally legitimate conclusion, just not the one I made from the unclear rules on the subject.

But Icons don't always look like the device so why would the physical device other than knowing where it was at, help you spot the icon?

Because: "Lucky for you, the Matrix is very helpful in finding things for you."]

To me it was designed to not help deckers at all as per the fluff. just looking at the matrix as an entity from a computer science standpoint it is not designed to be helpful and there are much better ways of doing this than the way it is in 5th because it was not designed to be easy for users, it was designed to be hard so deckers would have a harder time exploiting it.

Device icons still have to follow matrix protocol (unless the owner is running the restricted wrapper cyberprogram). As long as it is following matrix protocol you always instinctively know what type of device the icon represent. And wrapper doesn't fool matrix perception, so if you are specifically looking for the icon you will still spot it even if it have a representation that goes against the matrix protocol and if you are successfully looking at a wrapped icon you may also see what it really is.

Yes they do have to follow protocol and the protocol is that form suggests function not what the device is. by following protocol you now how a device may work but not what the device is. Function not device. And wrapper is specifically design to obfuscate the device that it wraps by breaking this protocol. you can make a perception test to know what it truly is but it is not clear, to me at least, that you get to know what the device is.

5th Core, page 246, Wrapper program:
Wrapper: This program overrides the Matrix’s protocols for icons. While this program is running, your icons can be anything you want them to be when you use the Change Icon action. From the lens of the Matrix, your Hammer program could look like a music file, your Ares Predator icon could look like a credstick, and your own persona could look like a Mitsubishi Nightsky. Another persona can see what the disguised icon really is with a Matrix Perception Test, but they need to at least suspect enough to check (Matrix Perception, p. 241).

All of these examples make a type of icon look like another type of icon from the perspective of the matrix. in matrix perception you can ask:

5th edition core, page 235: Mtrix perception sidebar:
The type of icon (host, persona, device, file), if it is using a non-standard (or even illegal) look.

This allows you to know the type not what the device is. so when you wrap an icon make it the same type like predator to credstick and not persona to nightsky.

Now this is not a exhaustive list so you can add to the list knowing what type of device it is like this is a credstick that is a gun if you want. I have been in games where you where allowed to ask what IC was running on a host that you where not even in so that is a GM's call, but I don't think it is clear enough to say that this is the way it is.

Now since you see through the wrapper you can see what it is I can see you also knowing the function of the underlying device but I don't think this means you get to know that these are glasses and that is eyes only that their function is to enhance vision, or that this sensor is ultrasound and that is a MAD scanner only that they are functional sensors but not that they are hand held, wall mounted, or a sensor tag, though your character can make assumptions based on his experiences.

All of that being said if the target is using the default icon for a device I would allow the decker to know what the device actually was but only if the icon is the default for the device as that would tell me what the device actually was. and yes this is my interpretation.

As always I would love to hear counter points as my opinions are always subject to change as I grow and understand more as I go. please feel free to let me know if there is something I missed or if their is more clarity to be gained from other parts of the rules.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Spotting hidden icons is unplayable as pure RAW. 

I think you are too hung up on the scenario the book describe when you have no idea if there are any hidden icons out there and you have no idea of what icons you are looking for.

"the first thing you need to do is have some idea that a hidden icon is out there." = If you already have some idea that a hidden icon is out there then you can stop there.

"You can do this with a hit from a Matrix Perception Test; asking if there are icons running silent in the vicinity" = If you have no idea that any hidden icons is out there then ONE way you can find out (there might or might not be OTHER ways you can also do it) is by looking for all silent running icons in the vicinity (to see all of them you only need a single hit which basically make them as obvious as spotting a neon sign or a running crowd with normal perception).

If you have no idea what you are looking for then you need to pick randomly by all the silent running icons around you. If you know at least one feature of the icon you no longer need to pick the icons at random. The more explicit information you have of the icon you are looking for the easier it will be to pin point.

It is like googling. If you don't know even a single feature of what you are looking for then you would get every single internet page and you get to pick them at random (but if you don't know anything about the icon you are looking for in the matrix you may want to at least narrow down the search to just icons that are in your vicinity). But normally you know at least one feature of what you are looking for and can use that to narrow down the search criteria. The more explicit information you have the easier it is to find the correct page you are looking for.

"Lucky for you, the Matrix is very helpful in finding things for you."

What I'm hung up on is:

Note that if there are multiple silent running icons in
the vicinity, you have to pick randomly which one you’re
going to look at through the Opposed Test.

Running back through the Perception rules for Running Silent:
1st paragraph describes fluff.
2nd paragraph governs how to enter Silent Running mode.

I believe the 3rd paragraph begins our divergent understandings.  It begins the rules on how to perceive hidden icons.  This paragraph includes the criterion that you must "have some idea" that the hidden icon is present.  It says that a successful Matrix Perception test can satisfy this criterion.  I agree that this is a nonexhaustive example of how the criterion can be satisfied, and therefore there are other ways the criterion can be met: potentially including being in AR and looking at a guy standing in front of you brandishing a gun that oddly has no matching ARO tags.

The 4th paragraphs carries on with the assumption that the previous criterion ("having some idea a hidden icon is present") is met by any means, not just by the Matrix Perception example. And this is critical because it's what the following paragraph is referring back to.

The 5th paragraph is what I quoted above.  Its wording reads to me that it applies in ALL methods of the criterion being met, not just via Matrix Perception.  So if that guy with the silent gun also has a roll of 99 stealth tags in his pocket that you don't even know about, well your odds of randomly homing in on the gun's silent matrix signal is worse than 1 in 100, as the guy probably also has silent running smartlink cyberware/eyeware, commlink, and more.

Ergo my statement that by RAW it's unplayable.  The GM has to flatly ignore that entire paragraph in order for combat hacking to even be plausible because you don't even need to abuse the rule by carrying around a bunch of stealth tags.  EVERYTHING manufactured in the 2070s is on the matrix, including your underwear, socks, sneakers, sunglasses, etc.  Assuming someone sets everything they own to silent, you've arguably still got something on the order 1 in 100 odds (or worse!) of randomly selecting the gun's silent matrix broadcasts rather than say his package of cigarettes' silent matrix broadcasts.  Only from a rules mechanics point of view it's even more unplayable as we don't even have a hard count of what "everything" he has on his personthat is running silent when "everything" is toggled that way.

[Xenon]

In this, I think we just have different interpretations of the rules.

Fair enough.

Why would you make a perception test to see someones eyes?

I was not talking about a physical perception test to see his physical eyes behind his physical glasses. I was talking about matrix perception to spot the device icon of the cybereyes so you can interact with them.

...but you brick an external smartgun and I don't think it would fry the gun unless they where the same icon and in this case the external smartgun and not the gun itself.

In that case I think you also need to rule that you cannot mentally pull the trigger of the firearm with an external smartgun, that you only can do that with an internal smartgun. And possible also rule that you can attach an external smartgun on the top or underbarrel mount with a complex action rather than requiring an Armorer + Logic (4, 1 hour) extended test.

1 single hit does not allow you to "see" all icon that are running silent in your vicinity, it allows you to "know" they are in the vicinity.

I think we are saying the same thing.

If you are interested in all 800 silent running devices in the vicinity then you take a simple matrix perception test and with only 1 hit (it is as obvious as a neon sign or a running crowd) you will "know" about all 800 of them (including silent running devices several floors above and below you).

...but if you are explicitly only interested in the device icon of a traffic camera 200 meters further down the street you just take a matrix perception test to spot it directly. Either you spot it or you don't. You don't even need to know if it is running silent or not (either you only need one hit on a simple test or your test will be opposed and you might need 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 hits to spot it, depending on if the camera is running silent or not).

In either case I am sure that you would have to make two perception tests to fully spot a hidden icon if you are not sure one is there. One to know that there is an icon in the vicinity the second, if you know a feature of the icon, to actually spot the icon.

If you have no idea that there might be any silent running icons out there and you have no idea about any features of any of the icons you are looking for then it will be [at least] two tests, yes.

However, if you suspect that there is a silent running icon out there then you just take the opposed test and try to spot it directly. Also, there is no "100 m limit" on spotting silent running icons as long as you "know" that it is there.

5th edition core, page 241: Matrix perception.
If you’re looking for an icon that is running silent (after you’ve determined that it’s present),

...but you don't always need to take a matrix perception test to determine that it is present.

For example, if you don't automatically spot the icon of a wireless enabled device within 100 meters then you already concluded that it is running silent. You just declare that you try to spot its icon so you can interact with it, roll some dice and the GM either answer that you managed to spot it or that you didn't.

Another example, a wireless enabled car is parked 200 meter down the street. You don't automatically spot the icon of a wireless device 200 meter away (no matter if it is running silent or not), but you don't even need to know if it is running silent or not. You just declare that you try to spot its icon so you can interact with it, roll some dice and the GM either answer that you managed to spot it or that you didn't. If it was running silent then the threshold to spot it just might have been a bit higher, that is all.

In this example he uses one spot test against all hidden icons in the area

No, Spike knows about the RCC and drone but can't automatically spot them, even though they are within 100 meters. This mean that they are running silent. There is no need to scan all silent running icons in the vicinity. He already "knows" about the two silent running icons. Since he "knows" about the two silent running devices he can go directly to the opposed matrix perception test to spot them.

5th Core, page 271, example in rigger chapter:
He makes a Computer + Intuition [Data Processing] roll, while Driver and his drone make their Logic + Sleaze rolls. Spike gets at least one net it on each icon, locating both devices.

SR5 p. 245 Fork
You can perform a single Matrix action on two targets with this program. You make a single test, with modifiers from each target both counting toward your dice pool. Each of the targets defend with their own dice pools. Determine the result of the actions separately against each target.

To me it was designed to not help deckers at all as per the fluff.

Agree. But what they are trying to say is that the matrix is helpful as long as you are only trying to find things. This is a Data Processing action. Legal. Doesn't require a cyberdeck or hacking skills or cybercombat skills. Computer is a skill that everyone use.

I agree that matrix 2.0 is NOT helpful when you are trying to break things. Devices cause matrix damage on failed Attack actions. Overwatch score is generated. GOD converge on you....

Wrapper program...

If you see a wireless enabled Mitsubishi Nightsky 200m down the street and want to spot its icon you take a matrix perception test. Doesn't matter it is running silent, used change icon or is running a restricted wrapper cyberprogram. Either you spot it or you don't. None of silent running, change icon nor wrapper will fool your matrix perception test when trying to spot the icon.

[Xenon]

The 5th paragraph is what I quoted above.  Its wording reads to me that it applies in ALL methods of the criterion being met, not just via Matrix Perception.

This is where we don't agree. Your reading conflict with the fact you can also spot silent running icons further away than 100 meters. Your reading also conflict with the example on p. 217

If you have no idea what you are looking for then you can still for example "know" about all icons within 100 meters, but then you have to randomly pick from that list when you start to spot icons. This is what the 5th paragraph is talking about.

If you "know" about a device running silent within 100 meters or for that matter any device beyond 100 meters (silent or not) you take a matrix perception test to spot that specific icon. It will either be a simple test or it will be an opposed test (depending on if the device is running silent or not). This is not what the 5th paragraph is talking about.

So if that guy with the silent gun also has a roll of 99 stealth tags in his pocket...

It doesn't work that way.

I know people have been trying to argue this for years, but it have been clarified and when DT was published they even put in a paragraph specifically just to shut up the handful of verbal people on this very forum that repeatedly argued that this was a valid strategy.


DT p. 69 The all-seeing eye of GOD
There was a brief time when hackers thought they could confuse security by flooding hosts with dozens of RFID chips running silent, but once they figured out that demi-GODs knew enough to design their scans to screen for icons that were running silent and were not RFID chips, the days of that trick were numbered.

Ergo my statement that by RAW it's unplayable.

You just need to read the 5th paragraph as if it is only connected with the "have no idea"-test on the previous page and everything will become playable. Even by RAW

[kainite311]

DT p. 69 The all-seeing eye of GOD
There was a brief time when hackers thought they could confuse security by flooding hosts with dozens of RFID chips running silent, but once they figured out that demi-GODs knew enough to design their scans to screen for icons that were running silent and were not RFID chips, the days of that trick were numbered.

Thank you, looked for it several times and missed it.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

DT p. 69 The all-seeing eye of GOD
There was a brief time when hackers thought they could confuse security by flooding hosts with dozens of RFID chips running silent, but once they figured out that demi-GODs knew enough to design their scans to screen for icons that were running silent and were not RFID chips, the days of that trick were numbered.

Thank you, looked for it several times and missed it.

It's a neat catch, but it doesn't actually fix anything about the rule saying you have to pick at random.  Let's assume that DT quote is a formal rule and you can do the same thing GOD does and search for a nonRFID silent signal.  Uh, it just means stealth tags can't use the defense.  Cyberware, goggles, earbuds, and all sorts of other legit gear will pump the odds of picking the gun's signal at random into unworkable odds in a combat turn action economy context.  And then when you add in non-statted gear like your left sock, your right sock, your left shoe, your right shoe, your undershirt, your tee shirt, your jacket, your undershorts, your trousers, your wallet, your pen, your car fob, and etc etc etc you still get the same end effect of "99 stealth tags".

Unless of course there's a rule somewhere saying you can eliminate every sort of object except the one you're hoping to hone in on... which is pretty much exactly counter to what the 5th paragraph is saying.


Xenon: as for the 5th paragraph only applying to the context of satisfying the 3rd paragraph's criterion by way of a matrix search, then the 4th paragraph also only applies in the same way and we have no rules at all for how to get a fix on a silent signal if you have reason to suspect its presence by means other than a matrix search (e.g. you physically see a gun without accompanying AROs).  In other words, if the 5th paragraph doesn't apply to all contexts, then neither can the 4th.  And that's a mess of a situation.  The DT quote does indeed go to show some RAI about how it's supposed to work, and that's great.  But until they errata the 5th paragraph, the RAW is conflicting with the RAI.  And that was my point.  In order to be playable, you have to prioritize RAI>RAW.  And that's fine at the end of the day.  My point ever was that you have to set RAW aside and not that RAW has to ruin a hacker's play experience.

[Redwulfe]

It could also mean that Tag is an icon type and you can use types to narrow searches.

5th core, page 216, matrix jargon:
icon: The virtual representation of a device, persona, file, or host in the Matrix.

This seems to list icon types.

5th core, page, matrix perception sidetable:
The type of icon (host, persona, device, file), if it is using a non-standard (or even illegal) look.

We know this is not an exhaustive list of icon types because programs are not list under icons in the list of icons. We also know that you can filter out certain types of data in your search which is why datatrails do not show up in your view of the matrix world. Why can't you just filter out Tags. This could be how you filter out spam in spam zones any way, Arn't those just tags that carry aggressive AROs.

[Xenon]

Xenon: as for the 5th paragraph only applying to the context of...

I will not argue that the language is strange and can be read in different ways, however, as far as I can tell it is the only reading that will not conflict with the other rules and other the examples clarifying how to read the rules.

Let me see if I can clarify the rules by injecting a few words and changing around the text a bit that we can read earlier on p 235:


"You need to be able to find your target in the galaxy of icons before you can start affecting it; finding an icon this way is called spotting it. Lucky for you, the Matrix is very helpful in finding things for you.

You [always] need to make a Matrix Perception Test to find a specific icon [no matter if the icon is running silent or not]. [However], You can automatically spot the icons of devices that are not running silent within 100 meters of your physical location."


The above describe the default case. The blanket statement. This is what the Matrix Perception Spotting table on the previous page is used for. You have all the rules you need to spot a specific icon - no matter where in the world it is located or if it is running silent or not.


Then we have a special case with "silent running icons that you have no idea are there in the first place". When you are not trying to spot "a specific icon". If you "don't even have some idea that a hidden icon is out there".

For this special case the book describe an extra rule that you can use, but only for this special case. This extra rule let you take a matrix perception test to "know" about all silent running icons in your vicinity and it also describe that since you don't know the "specific icon" you are looking for you have to pick them at random (which make sense since you in this "special case" don't know what "specific icon" you are looking for anyway). The only purpose of the following paragraphs is to describe this new rule. They don't apply to or change how you resolve the default rule described earlier (where you are looking for "a specific icon").


On p. 271 you even have a clarifying example that showcase how you find "specific icons" (the default case)

On p. 182 in DT you have a second clarifying example that showcase how you find "a specific icon" (the default case)

From both examples it is clear that you just roll matrix perception to spot "a specific icon" directly (and if the "specific icon" happen to be running silent then it get to oppose the test).

Please try to read the rules using the perspective above and you will see that it all fits. There will be no conflicting rules anywhere.


Another observation is that it is also clear that you don't really need a lot of information when searching for a specific icon. The matrix seem to be quite helpful at finding things for you.

In the first example it seem as if it is enough that you "know" that there should be a drone and a RCC out there somewhere ("I am trying to spot the icon of the drone and the RCC").

In the second example it seem as it is enough that you "know" that there is an icon somewhere out there that just attacked you ("I am trying to spot the icon that just attacked me").



Feel I might not be getting through here. Maybe it is because English is not my native language...? Could we please turn the table around for a second.

With your reading;

* Could you please explain the matrix perception table on p. 234 and how you mechanically are supposed to spot a specific silent running icon that is more than 100 meters away from you?

* And why Spike (that is trying to spot two "specific icons") in the clarifying example on p. 271 doesn't first have to spend a complex action to search for all silent running icons in the vicinity and then start to spot them one by one at random?

* And please explain why the Spider (that is trying to spot the "specific icon" that just attacked him) on p. 182 in DT  doesn't first have to spend a complex action to search for all silent running icons in the host and then start to spot them one by one at random?