A lot to take in over the last few pages. A couple of notes for my own benefit:
1. Probe as an extended test could benefit greatly from a designer's note, perhaps in a larger FAQ documentI do not believe that Errata is needed for this topic as there aren't really any mistakes per se, but the fact that we now have over two pages of discussions mostly revolving around how to resolve Probe as an extended test should provide ample proof that the rules as written entry is not inherently clear. That being said, thank you to Banshee in particular for chiming in; as always, your input is greatly appreciated!
Conclusion: As per Banshee, Probe can be performed as an Extended test without a threshold; the opposed roll is made for each attempted Probe action and determines the threshold for that specific test. Subsequent tests will incur a -1 dice pool penalty on the attacker, but not on the defender.
2. Matrix Search could benefit from clarification, a re-write, or house rulingAs Xenon points out, and Banshee alludes to, Matrix Search is in an odd position. As a non-opposed Extended test with no threshold, a player character could quite easily obtain enough hits to exceed the highest threshold for information on the Legwork Results table that the action itself refers to. While GM fiat/house rules could easily be implemented to make it more difficult to find deep, dark secrets, this does not alter the fact that the rules for Matrix Search is potentially a mistake or oversight.
Conclusion: Something for the change blindness thread, perhaps? Not sure if this qualifies as errata, per se.
On a personal note, I think Probe and Matrix Search would both have been better off as a simple or opposed tests; there is precedent for simple tests with duration greater than a Major Action; Medkit Healing comes to mind as an obvious example of this. The current hybrid approach of an extended/opposed or extended/non-opposed with no threshold test is, as far as I can tell, unique.3. The lines between Initiative, Matrix Initiative (both AR and VR), and Astral Initiative are somewhat blurred and could benefit from a designer's note.With all actions (physical, astral, and Matrix) happening simultaneously in one unified initiative system, it seems obvious that questions will arise regarding how the various initiative systems combine, whether they are in fact discreet systems at all, and what the intent is regarding various initiative boosters and their interactions with each other.
Conclusion: While 'ware and adept powers explicitly state that they do not stack with other initiative boosters, drugs and the Increase Reflexes spell do not. It is, however, highly likely that the intent is for these systems to be separate, otherwise you end up with odd interactions like wired reflexes affecting your initiative in the Matrix or the Astral.
4. Legal Admin accessThis one is my bad; I should have more clearly defined that I was talking about "illegal admin access that does not count as such for the purposes of accruing overwatch score". It was just less cumbersome to write "legal admin access" is all. While I think the distinction is purely semantics from a game mechanics perspective (having legal admin access to your own device does not alter the legality of illegal Matrix actions you would make with said access), I agree that it is worth making the distinction from a conceptual point of view.
Conclusion: There is no such thing as hacking your way to legal admin access. Successful Probe and Backdoor Entry actions instead yields illegal admin access that does not count for overwatch purposes.
Before I move on to the next scenario I do want to question this particular statement by Banshee:
[...] if you fail at any point you lose your progress and have to start over [...]
While this may have been your intent while writing the rule, it does not seem to be supported by the text of the current rules implementation. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by "if you fail at any point"?
Here is the first paragraph of the Probe action:
You probe a device for weaknesses, looking to gain access. You take your time not to alert any security to your presence, and you can create an exploit that may last until you are ready to use it. While not as fast as using Brute Force, Probing a device does not raise an alarm automatically. Even if your attempt initially fails, it will not trigger an alarm unless major mistakes are made. Systems and devices will not detect your presence until you have gained access to them. By Probing a device, you can create a lasting backdoor to the system.
I've emphasized what I think is the most relevant section; this clearly states that even if you fail (i.e. achieve no hits) an alarm is not triggered. The rule as written does not mention losing progress you may have made during preceding Probe attempts in any way, and neither do the the core rules for Extended tests mention anything about reversing existing progress.
I could certainly see a glitch (and especially a critical glitch) causing your Probe to fail, or for previous progress to have been reversed, but I think we need to more clearly define what you mean when you say "failure" compared to what the rule itself considers as such.
Again, thank you to all who've contributed so far. It's been illuminating. Tomorrow I'll tackle my next practice scenario: Brute Force, Data Bombs, and Format/Reboot Device.