Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: guyk on <09-05-19/0533:19>
-
After reading the matrix section of the rule book 3 times I'm still not clear on how cyberdecks, cyberjacks and commlinks interact. Does a decker have to have all three to be effective or does a cyberdeck-cyberjack combo replaces the need for a commlink?
Accessing the matrix say you can do it with a cyberdeck or commlink but the cyberdeck has no data processing, so that mean you can't create a PAN using it?
And while cyberjack has a device rating nowhere does it says you can use it to access the matrix, does that mean that you would still need a commlink? if so does the D/F of the cyberjack replace the comlinks? If so is the number of devices in you PAN determined by the cyberjack data processing even when it isn't the device you use to access the matrix?
And finally, both cyberdecks and commlinks have active program slots, do you use the higher one or do you combine the two?
-
I think you need:
Datajack, cyberjack (provides D/F attributes) or trodes to connect to brain (or use a screen + keyboard like a luddite)
A commlink (provides D/F attributes) or cyberdeck (provides A/S attributes) to connect to internet (see last paragraph on devices, P.174)
If you want all four attributes at levels above zero, you'll want a combo that includes all four attributes (probably cyberjack + cyberdeck) as you get attributes from the devices you accessed the matrix through (P. 174),
Though it's a bit unclear whether datajack + cyberdeck + commlink allows you to do this as well as one of those devices is "extra"...
-
Consider it this way:
A normal person uses a commlink and 'trodes or a datajack. They get a Matrix persona with a small amount of Data Processing and Firewall, and no Attack or Sleaze. They can do legal stuff, but nothing else; and they can resist Matrix attacks, but not very well. (Or they can just use its screen, which I don't think counts as "Matrix" access at all (they have no persona etc.))
A decker uses a cyberjack and a cyberdeck. They get a Matrix persona with decent ASDF stats. They can do illegal stuff as they have Attack and Sleaze stats. Cyberdecks include everything a commlink has and don't then need a commlink to get online (this was clear in 5e and doesn't seem to be explicit in 6e, but I think it's change blindness and not an intentional change.)
Deckers might choose to also carry a spare commlink, perhaps for subtlety reasons (cyberdecks are illegal while cyberjacks require licences [1], and decks are physically large enough to be noticeable) or as a backup. I have no idea what happens if a decker goes online with a cyberjack+commlink combo; can anyone shed any more light on that? I'd guess the cyberjack's D/F stats override the commlink's, but I can't find a specific rule.
[1] Which, thinking about it, is a bit weird, no?
-
Ooh - also not clear where an RCC fits in here, it has D/F attributes, so possibly replaces a cyberdeck and/or commlink,
-
can anyone shed any more light on that? I'd guess the cyberjack's D/F stats override the commlink's, but I can't find a specific rule.
P.174 does say you can:
You can rotate all attributes through your persona, even if they originated from different devices
I would guess that would mean that you can pick the four attributes from all available devices,
Possibly confusion here as "your Matrix attributes are determined by the device you’re using to access the Matrix"
So, does that mean you have access to all attributes in devices in your PAN, or just the devices you are using for access,
-
An RCC would fit like a commlink into a PAN, but cannot PAN (errata noting this pending, per Banshee) with a Cyberdeck to allow both rccing and decking.
I'd say, no time to dig into rules now, you need either Jack or Comm with a Deck for a full PAN. If you use both, you can combine them statwise: E.g. a 3/1 comm and a 3/2 Jack could be used for 3/3 stats. (That's ignoring the horrible raw that suggests you can mix your A/S and D/F stats... Because that quite frankly is batshit insane.)
I've been told you use the LOWEST of the two active program stats. So a commlink-cyberdeck combo is very painful.
-
Ooh - also not clear where an RCC fits in here, it has D/F attributes, so possibly replaces a cyberdeck and/or commlink,
Oh yeah -- again, falling back to how 5e described things (as I think 6e is a bit incomplete here) -- it's basically like a cyberdeck, in so far as it's a "commlink + other stuff." Only in this case, the other stuff is drone control, rather than Attack+Sleaze stats. So either device can replace a commlink, but RCCs and cyberdecks cannot replace each other. And neither RCCs or cyberdecks need a commlink to function.
-
I'd say, no time to dig into rules now, you need either Jack or Comm with a Deck for a full PAN. If you use both, you can combine them statwise: E.g. a 3/1 comm and a 3/2 Jack could be used for 3/3 stats.... I've been told you use the LOWEST of the two active program stats. So a commlink-cyberdeck combo is very painful.
Huh. Getting to use the highest individual D/F stats but being stuck with lowest program stat is a bit counter-intuitive.
-
An RCC would fit like a commlink into a PAN, but cannot PAN
Yeah - the PAN rules seem a little restrictive and weird,
As I understand it, commlinks and cyberdecks can host a PAN (or any device with a data processing attribute and GM permission),
The rules don't seem to specify (at least, I can't find it), but I'm guessing that this lets them share a firewall (as you need access to the PAN to access the device)?
There doesn't seem to be any restriction on nesting devices, and some characters carry a lot of devices - so the device limit seems pointless as anything other than an exercise in paperwork... So carrying three commlinks would seem to be effective (indeed, the lowest tier will require several sequential hacks to access this way)...
e.g.:
Devices -slaved to-> Commlink -slaved to-> Commlink -slaved to-> Commlink
-
Data processing is how many slaves you can have in a PAN. So no nesting layers. And yeah all devices share the firewall rating.
-
Data processing is how many slaves you can have in a PAN. So no nesting layers.
The highest commlink -- Rating 6 - has Data Processing 3. In SR5, a commlink could manage (Rating x 3) slaved devices (SR5 CRB pg233). That's a huge shift. Are you sure that's correct? Three devices isn't enough for, well, basically anyone. Doesn't that mandate that almost all characters who aren't operating with active decker "air support" have almost all their gear either in wireless off mode or sitting directly on the Matrix, naked and unprotected?
Edit to add -- MC's quote is indeed RAW -- see my post below. Wow!
-
Data processing is how many slaves you can have in a PAN. So no nesting layers.
Ummm, the layers are all in different PANs, so surely you'd assess each nest individually,
Regardless, penllawen stands - how many commlinks do you need to protect your electronics?
-
Wow, no, MC is correct. SR6 CRB pg175: "Data Processing is the raw computing power of a device. Data Processing governs how quickly a device can operate and contributes to running programs concurrently. The DataProcessing attribute is the limit of many devices you can slave to it."
Quartering the number of devices a non-decker can put in their PAN is quite a big deal.
-
Regardless, penllawen stands - how many commlinks do you need to protect your electronics?
Thinking on... the top cyberjack D/F rating is 9/8.
So how many cyberjacks does your team decker need to have so they can slave all the team's devices and firewall them?! "Hi, I'm Sam Samurai, and I'm carrying a gun plus two flash, two smoke, and two frag grenades. Is that OK?" "Hi Sam, I'm Deckard Decker, and no, no it is not."
-
Data processing is how many slaves you can have in a PAN. So no nesting layers.
Ummm, the layers are all in different PANs, so surely you'd assess each nest individually,
Regardless, penllawen stands - how many commlinks do you need to protect your electronics?
You're either in a PAN or WAN or solo. No nesting.
-
Regardless, penllawen stands - how many commlinks do you need to protect your electronics?
Thinking on... the top cyberjack D/F rating is 9/8.
So how many cyberjacks does your team decker need to have so they can slave all the team's devices and firewall them?! "Hi, I'm Sam Samurai, and I'm carrying a gun plus two flash, two smoke, and two frag grenades. Is that OK?" "Hi Sam, I'm Deckard Decker, and no, no it is not."
Seems like it could be a decision to make Deckers more useful in combat scenarios. If everything can't easily be slaved to a commlink that gets slaved to a Deck to get auto Decker protection, assuming the Decker is willing to let you take up some of his Device Rating, then Deckers just became a greater threat if you truly want that Wifi bonus.
-
Hackers are going to be able to raise hell with this on a public street - most people won't have an RCC, and cars don't have a built-in firewall, and with most people limited to one or two devices slaved to their PAN's...
So, with GridGuide on (presumably meaning that wireless is active), most vehicles in a cities streets will have 2d (average willpower) to defend against hacking attempts using brute force, backdoor entry or control device... And 0d to defend against Tarpit or Spoof Command!
-
You're either in a PAN or WAN or solo
Well, actually, I don't think WANs are mentioned in 6e at all. (I checked the index, the contents, the Matrix chapter, and did Ctrl-F for "WANS" and "wide area" and "wide-area".) So I guess every corp security team patrolling a facility are relying on a PAN through their corp issued commlink! ;)
-
Sorry: Pan, host or solo.
-
Sorry: Pan, host or solo.
Ah, of course. I was thinking in "slaved" terms and although a device is not exactly slaved to a Host, its icon can be inside it, which has similar effects in terms of protection but is a slightly different terminology.
-
For what's it worth, "slaved" devices are just devices that share the same network since there is no longer such a thing as one all controlling master device. PAN's are mobile networks operating off of a commlink or similar device and a Host is a non-mobile device that is much more robust.
Host effectively have no limit to how many devices can share their network as long as those devices stay within range.
PAN's were not originally meant to be as restrictive on number of devices as they ended up (if errata does not get approved to change it a good house rule would be to make it Device Rating x3 for max number of devices)
Also, while I did not write anything specifically about nesting it is a thing ... I see no need for a decker to have to have capacity to network every single little wireless device that the team owns and operates. Each team member should have their own PAN and then the decker (or whoever is being the matrix overwatch defender) only needs to network each PAN to his and therefore provide Firewall for the entire network ... unless someone manages to get a direct connection to one of the subordinate PAN's or devices.
-
Thanks Banshee! Always great to hear it from the source!
Also, while I did not write anything specifically about nesting it is a thing ... I see no need for a decker to have to have capacity to network every single little wireless device that the team owns and operates. Each team member should have their own PAN and then the decker (or whoever is being the matrix overwatch defender) only needs to network each PAN to his and therefore provide Firewall for the entire network ... unless someone manages to get a direct connection to one of the subordinate PAN's or devices.
Oh -- that makes sense to me. I didn't realise MC was wrong when he said "no nesting."
-
Thanks Banshee! Always great to hear it from the source!
Also, while I did not write anything specifically about nesting it is a thing ... I see no need for a decker to have to have capacity to network every single little wireless device that the team owns and operates. Each team member should have their own PAN and then the decker (or whoever is being the matrix overwatch defender) only needs to network each PAN to his and therefore provide Firewall for the entire network ... unless someone manages to get a direct connection to one of the subordinate PAN's or devices.
Oh -- that makes sense to me. I didn't realise MC was wrong when he said "no nesting."
Well MC is right in a way since I didn't write anything one way or another (and I really should have) ... but just giving some insight into how I intended things to work
EDIT: my goal was to make the matrix easier and more fun afterall
-
EDIT: my goal was to make the matrix easier and more fun afterall
A noble goal indeed, and one which -- for my money -- you nailed to the wall.
-
It's threads like these that make me run away from CGL Shadowrun.
The debate about how many devices can be slaved to a commlink is pointless because the idea of a limit is not necessary at all.
Firstly, right now today, I could probably Bluetooth 100 devices to my phone. So what? I can only use 1 of them at a time. 60 years from now, the tech will be even better.
Today, any device I have has a thing called a sleep mode, which turns the device off to save power. Thus, even if my phone/commlink is it's master, it doesn't need to govern fiddly squat every second, since the device is off. As a user, I can choose to wake it up on demand, but again, I'm using a finite amount at once. The device wakes up and connects when I interact with it The idea of measuring how many devices can be connected is not a real need. It doesn't enhance the game, it leads to pointless debates and corners you walk yourselves into.
Get rid of the limit idea altogether. It's pointless and overcomplicates things. It in no way makes the game more fun. It makes it more confusing and bushwhacks table time with discussion like this thread.
If you are going to simplify, then actually simplify, and make sure conversations like these are never needed again. Seriously. Step back and look at this thread. This is a bananas discussion to even be having in the first place.
-
It's threads like these that make me run away from CGL Shadowrun.
The debate about how many devices can be slaved to a commlink is pointless because the idea of a limit is not necessary at all.
Firstly, right now today, I could probably Bluetooth 100 devices to my phone. So what? I can only use 1 of them at a time. 60 years from now, the tech will be even better.
Today, any device I have has a thing called a sleep mode, which turns the device off to save power. Thus, even if my phone/commlink is it's master, it doesn't need to govern fiddly squat every second, since the device is off. As a user, I can choose to wake it up on demand, but again, I'm using a finite amount at once. The device wakes up and connects when I interact with it The idea of measuring how many devices can be connected is not a real need. It doesn't enhance the game, it leads to pointless debates and corners you walk yourselves into.
Get rid of the limit idea altogether. It's pointless and overcomplicates things. It in no way makes the game more fun. It makes it more confusing and bushwhacks table time with discussion like this thread.
If you are going to simplify, then actually simplify, and make sure conversations like these are never needed again. Seriously. Step back and look at this thread. This is a bananas discussion to even be having in the first place.
yep, this was my original intent and concept ... basically it doesn't matter how many devices are on the network, just which ones are active ... my advice run it how you want at home, you won't break my system by using no device limits
-
The debate about how many devices can be slaved to a commlink is pointless because the idea of a limit is not necessary at all.
To be fair, (Device Rating x3) is basically unlimited for PCs, who are unlikely to be using such a shitty commlink that the limit ever matters. But it's low enough that you can occasionally use it for interesting opportunities against schlubby NPCs ("after your Matrix Perception check, you notice this guy's commlink is crappy, so his contact lenses aren't even firewalled! Do you want to hack them?") And that seems fine to me?
-
Get rid of the limit idea altogether. It's pointless and overcomplicates things. It in no way makes the game more fun. It makes it more confusing and bushwhacks table time with discussion like this thread.
I tend to agree here - the limit is unnecessary, and adds needless complexity to electronic security.
-
it doesn't matter how many devices are on the network, just which ones are active
Even that doesn't matter. The user will run into cognitive overload before a device will, and a user can only use one item per turn most often anyway. If there's any rule about any device limit, toss it out of the book entirely on the next pass. It's serving no logical or useful purpose. The commlink can surf the web in VR mode anyway, it's got far more processing power than it needs to "run" or "protect" X devices in active mode at once. There's no discernible functionality this is serving.
I mean, you're the author, by all means, tell me what purpose a limit of any kind really serves here, gamewise. Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here in a bigger picture context.
-
it doesn't matter how many devices are on the network, just which ones are active
Even that doesn't matter. The user will run into cognitive overload before a device will, and a user can only use one item per turn most often anyway. If there's any rule about any device limit, toss it out of the book entirely on the next pass. It's serving no logical or useful purpose. The commlink can surf the web in VR mode anyway, it's got far more processing power than it needs to "run" or "protect" X devices in active mode at once. There's no discernible functionality this is serving.
I mean, you're the author, by all means, tell me what purpose a limit of any kind really serves here, gamewise. Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here in a bigger picture context.
see that's kind of the problem, it's more author by committee ... the primary reason the 6E CRB is so vague and contradictory about device limits is because I didn't include any in the first place, and I can only provide you insight on what I did write and what I intended for it to do.
-
Wow. That actually explains a lot. Thank you.
-
see that's kind of the problem, it's more author by committee ... the primary reason the 6E CRB is so vague and contradictory about device limits is because I didn't include any in the first place, and I can only provide you insight on what I did write and what I intended for it to do.
Can we just have you to rewrite CRB6?
-
What about using a commlink's attributes for attack and sleaze? The book says this is a thing, but the way decks, jacks and links are written this seems wrong.
-
What about using a commlink's attributes for attack and sleaze? The book says this is a thing, but the way decks, jacks and links are written this seems wrong.
The intent is that you can only swap A and S back and forth, or only D and F back and forth.
-
What about using a commlink's attributes for attack and sleaze? The book says this is a thing, but the way decks, jacks and links are written this seems wrong.
The intent is that you can only swap A and S back and forth, or only D and F back and forth.
Which isn't clear from the rules in the book, but was clarified by the author of the Matrix chapter; he goes by Banshee here on the forums, and he's got lots of great insights posted in various threads.
-
The intent is that you can only swap A and S back and forth, or only D and F back and forth.
Not even if you have both a cyberjack and a cyberdeck?
-
The intent is that you can only swap A and S back and forth, or only D and F back and forth.
Not even if you have both a cyberjack and a cyberdeck?
Correct.
-
Actually, iirc, Banshee noted he INTENDED for it to be A<->S and D<->F but he lamented that CRB currently suggests it's free game between all four attributes. I do expect that to be either errataed or houseruled out, though, so I wouldn't depend on that for a build.
-
Actually, iirc, Banshee noted he INTENDED for it to be A<->S and D<->F but he lamented that CRB currently suggests it's free game between all four attributes. I do expect that to be either errataed or houseruled out, though, so I wouldn't depend on that for a build.
Note also that it’s definitely neither an error or an oversight in the rules. It’s not “suggested“ - the rules explicitly state that stats can be freely exchanged in more than one place. So it’s equally possible it won’t get officially changed, as that’s a definite decision someone made that presumably overruled Banshee’s take.
-
Actually, iirc, Banshee noted he INTENDED for it to be A<->S and D<->F but he lamented that CRB currently suggests it's free game between all four attributes. I do expect that to be either errataed or houseruled out, though, so I wouldn't depend on that for a build.
Note also that it’s definitely neither an error or an oversight in the rules. It’s not “suggested“ - the rules explicitly state that stats can be freely exchanged in more than one place. So it’s equally possible it won’t get officially changed, as that’s a definite decision someone made that presumably overruled Banshee’s take.
Not necessarily, I thought the intent of the wording might have been swap A for S and swap D for F, presumably others did too. What the book lacks is clarity, and that may be unintentional. Especially since, if it is free reign, i don't see why you 'need' a deck at all...
-
Actually, iirc, Banshee noted he INTENDED for it to be A<->S and D<->F but he lamented that CRB currently suggests it's free game between all four attributes. I do expect that to be either errataed or houseruled out, though, so I wouldn't depend on that for a build.
Note also that it’s definitely neither an error or an oversight in the rules. It’s not “suggested“ - the rules explicitly state that stats can be freely exchanged in more than one place. So it’s equally possible it won’t get officially changed, as that’s a definite decision someone made that presumably overruled Banshee’s take.
Not necessarily, I thought the intent of the wording might have been swap A for S and swap D for F, presumably others did too. What the book lacks is clarity, and that may be unintentional. Especially since, if it is free reign, i don't see why you 'need' a deck at all...
Yeah. Just get two used Cyberjacks, and you'd be a decker on the really cheap.
-
Or a commlink and be a really crappy decker on the really really cheap
-
Yeah. Just get two used Cyberjacks, and you'd be a decker on the really cheap.
Or four commlinks for a 3/3/3/3 array.
-
And while the rules CAN be read that way, I don't think anyone actually believes the intent is that you should be able to hack by juggling 4 commlinks :D
-
Eh, if a player has good enough athletics to literally juggle them... :P
-
And while the rules CAN be read that way, I don't think anyone actually believes the intent is that you should be able to hack by juggling 4 commlinks :D
Aww, but I wanna... 😢
-
Eh, if a player has good enough athletics to literally juggle them... :P
I can’t wait for 6th Edition stats for Nartaki.
-
Not necessarily, I thought the intent of the wording might have been swap A for S and swap D for F, presumably others did too. What the book lacks is clarity, and that may be unintentional.
And while the rules CAN be read that way, I don't think anyone actually believes the intent is that you should be able to hack by juggling 4 commlinks :D
I disagree, I don’t like it but I think it’s completely unambiguous. Page 174:
“If you're a decker, your Matrix attributes are determined by the device you're using to access the Matrix. If the device doesn't possess one or more of the Matrix attributes, then the applicable attribute is treated as if it were 0. You can rotate all attributes through your persona, even if they originated from different devices.”
-
Not necessarily, I thought the intent of the wording might have been swap A for S and swap D for F, presumably others did too. What the book lacks is clarity, and that may be unintentional.
And while the rules CAN be read that way, I don't think anyone actually believes the intent is that you should be able to hack by juggling 4 commlinks :D
I disagree, I don’t like it but I think it’s completely unambiguous. Page 174:
“If you're a decker, your Matrix attributes are determined by the device you're using to access the Matrix. If the device doesn't possess one or more of the Matrix attributes, then the applicable attribute is treated as if it were 0. You can rotate all attributes through your persona, even if they originated from different devices.”
Correct
However as others have pointed out that was NOT my intention. It was a deliberate change so getting an errata to correct it is unlikely.
I can also say though that the rules and gear were not modified to accommodate the change and thus you end up getting some strange combinations of "allowed" gear ... hopefully that WILL get addressed in either FAQ or errata.
BUT ... if you wanted to run with a house rule that would clear up a lot of that then you could simply go with ...
"You can freely swap the attributes on a device but not between devices." Yes that means the only way to have attack or sleaze is have a cyberdeck EDIT: or be an authorized user operating on a host .. aka security spider/decker
-
However as others have pointed out that was NOT my intention. It was a deliberate change so getting an errata to correct it is unlikely.
Yeah, that was me too :)
FWIW: your original version makes much more sense to me and I can’t understand why it was changed that way. So it goes.
-
Ok, a follow up question/scenario.
Runner team consists of 4 members.
Mr. Heck : team hacker with the following ASDF : 7667 (deck+jack) AR:13 DR: 13
Rick : team rigger with the following ASDF: 0065 (RCC). AR: 0 DR: 11
Alley Sam: team Street Samurai with the following ASDF: 0002 (link) AR:0 DR: 2
Barty the team face/back Up Decker with the following ASDF: 3413 (link+deck) AR: 7 DR: 4
The team decides (wisely) to have the Decker make a PAN which includes the whole team. This means the deckers firewall Attribute now benefits the whole network.
The new team ASDF scores is then:
Mr. Heck: Same
Rick: 0067 (+2 DR)
Alley Sam: 0027 (+7 DR) (Alley Sam switched DP and FW stats)
Barty: 4337 (+6DR) (Barty switched DP and FW stats)
Is This correctly understood?
Now, while the team is doing some snooping around at an execs house, they are spotted by an Enemy technomancer
She is pretty sure she hasnt been spotted by the runners so she decides to take it slow and goes for a probing/backdoor entry.
She Rolls cracking+logic vs mr. Hecks willpower +FW 7( pg 183)
She succeeds and now had admin Access to the runners network.
She decides to snoop every runner with the snoop action. She also decides to use trace icon on the riggers drones and the runners.
Q2: when using snoop action is the roll still against the network? Mr. Hecks willpower and firewall?
Q3: when using trace icon the roll is electronics+ intuition vs willpower+ sleaze.
If she is trying to find Alley Sams location, is it then his sleaze (0) or still Mr. Hecks sleaze (6) and Mr Hecks willpower
When it time to act the Enemy technomancer uses dataspike on Alley Sams smartlinked weapon.
Q4: Her AR is 13, is it compared to Alley Sams DR of 9 or Mr. Hecks DR of 13?
She Rolls her cracking+logic vs DP +firewall.
Q5 : is it Alley Sams dp of 2 or Mr. Hecks dp of 6?
-
Ok, a follow up question/scenario.
Runner team consists of 4 members.
Mr. Heck : team hacker with the following ASDF : 7667 (deck+jack) AR:13 DR: 13
Rick : team rigger with the following ASDF: 0065 (RCC). AR: 0 DR: 11
Alley Sam: team Street Samurai with the following ASDF: 0002 (link) AR:0 DR: 2
Barty the team face/back Up Decker with the following ASDF: 3413 (link+deck) AR: 7 DR: 4
The team decides (wisely) to have the Decker make a PAN which includes the whole team. This means the deckers firewall Attribute now benefits the whole network.
The new team ASDF scores is then:
Mr. Heck: Same
Rick: 0067 (+2 DR)
Alley Sam: 0027 (+7 DR) (Alley Sam switched DP and FW stats)
Barty: 4337 (+6DR) (Barty switched DP and FW stats)
Is This correctly understood?
Now, while the team is doing some snooping around at an execs house, they are spotted by an Enemy hacker.
She is pretty sure she hasnt been spotted by the runners so she decides to take it slow and goes for a probing/backdoor entry.
She Rolls cracking+logic vs mr. Hecks willpower +FW 7( pg 183)
She succeeds and now had admin Access to the runners network.
She decides to snoop every runner with the snoop action. She also decides to use trace icon on the riggers drones and the runners.
Q2: when using snoop action is the roll still against the network? Mr. Hecks willpower and firewall?
Q3: when using trace icon the roll is electronics+ intuition vs willpower+ sleaze.
If she is trying to find Alley Sams location, is it then his sleaze (0) or still Mr. Hecks sleaze (6) and Mr Hecks willpower
Q1: yes
Q2: yes, you're rolling against mr hecks
Q3: a bit fuzzier, I don't directly address this anywhere... so I would say as long as mr hecks is actively concealing his team then yes ally Sam would still benefit from his sleaze which should generally be the case but I would also rule that a single trace action would find all 4 of them in that case (ie you break through mr hecks encryption protocols and see the same position overlay the team does for example)
-
Aaaaw maan, you are fast..... Hmm are you snooping my network?
Ive updated my post with 2 other questions.
I presume the answers would be that its rolled against Mr. Hecks.
And the benefit of the DP scores of Alleys Sams link, is that she can use some nice programs like signal scrub or biofeedback filter.
( Yes, IT turns out that Allay Sam is a female troll Street Sam with high body)
-
I know the authors intention is that you get to slave a huge amount of devices and that the data processing limit was not what he intended, but as the rules look it seem as if you can only have your own personal area network hiding behind your cyberdeck/cyberjack (deckers), living persona (technomancers with living network echo), your RCC (riggers) or your commlink (everyone else).
Tracing the physical location of the rigger's drone inside the rigger's network would in that case be opposed by the rigger's Logic + Firewall of the RCC and to do that the hacker first need to gain access to the Rick's network.
If we go with the reading that you are allowed to daisy chain multiple PANs then it get murky since this is not really how the rules seem to be written. But you would probably end up with a big network hidden behind the hacker's cyberjack that currently run data processing 6 and firewall 7. If the hacker gain access to the network then the hacker have admin access to everything connected to the network. Snooping the network (once) will pick up all matrix traffic sent to and from the entire network (all shared shoulder camera live feeds, instructions sent to drones and camera feeds shared by the drones). Mr. Heck's mental attributes and the Mr. Heck's cyberdeck and cyberjack will do all the defending.
Ninja'd by Banshee himself :o)
biofeedback filter.
( Yes, IT turns out that Allay Sam is a female troll Street Sam with high body)
Even though the wording is strange the intention seem to be that biofeedback filter only protect against biofeedback damage.
-
Aaaaw maan, you are fast..... Hmm are you snooping my network?
Ive updated my post with 2 other questions.
I presume the answers would be that its rolled against Mr. Hecks.
And the benefit of the DP scores of Alleys Sams link, is that she can use some nice programs like signal scrub or biofeedback filter.
( Yes, IT turns out that Allay Sam is a female troll Street Sam with high body)
This where having an uber decker defended network starts to break down and honestly probably more convoluted than it needs to be ... but if gaining access to the network first before attempting the data spike then yes mr hecks would be able to use his DP for allay sam. However dataspike does not require access so you can target the device directly which means ally sam only benefits from mr hecks firewall
-
I'm just a simple guy with a slightly better than simple mind but to me wouldn't you just do it like this?
Decker creates PAN for the team so that the team can benefit from his massive firewall.
Hacker trying to access the PAN needs to break through the decker's firewall. Once done the hacker has to beat the individual firewalls of the devices for each team member. This is simple and makes sense does it not?
-
Once you have admin access on the network you have admin access on the network. No need to gain admin access, again. You are already 'inside' the network.
-
Decker creates PAN for the team so that the team can benefit from his massive firewall.
Hacker trying to access the PAN needs to break through the decker's firewall. Once done the hacker has to beat the individual firewalls of the devices for each team member. This is simple and makes sense does it not?
This where having an uber decker defended network starts to break down and honestly probably more convoluted than it needs to be ... but if gaining access to the network first before attempting the data spike then yes mr hecks would be able to use his DP for allay sam. However dataspike does not require access so you can target the device directly which means ally sam only benefits from mr hecks firewall
Hhmm interesting, after some deliberation I think Im envisioning it as follows. ( I think its a mix of you guys' version- one of the the freelancer).
Matrix stuff, but in a medieval fantasy context:
Each persona/adventurer has his personal armour (primarily firewall, but also DP)
And some adventurers has cool stuff like wands of fireball, or sword of beheadings (attack) or Crazy ninja assassin ring of invisibility ( sleaze).
In This World Mr. Heck (called uberlord Heck here) is the king, he has a Lot of cool gear, and Alley Sam (still called Alley Sam- 'cause thats where she sleeps ) has No weapons and only a rusty pot she can use as armour (FW) or Cook some stuff with (DP).
Now, Uberlord Heck can protect his people by erecting a fancy Castle with a moat and walls of fire. (Giving firewall to his Allies inside and an increased DR because the moat (DP) and firewall).
Anyone standing outside the Castle has to attack well protected inhabitants.
(Like data spiking personas, or throwing tar at Them over the walls). In that case the inhabitants gain the full benefit og the Castle.
But the enemies could also sneak inside the Castle after having spotted the sewer entrance ( probe and backdoor entry)
Or just go #%$ it, and storm the gates (brute force)
Once inside, the Castle doesnt help anymore, the Enemy is either roaming the Castle walls and courtyard (user lvl) or is waiting in the bedroom (admin).
Now any attack Will be against the inhabitants own equipment (All at either user or admin lvl) so attacking Alley Sam with a poisoned dagger Will only be defended by her potted helmet ( DR 2 and 2 Dice to resist dmg)
But attacking Uberlord with a dagger Will be met by his adamantine armour and Shield of shielding.
Naturally its in Uberlord Heck best interest to have the interlopers thrown out or beheaded. So he can have his Castle in peace
biofeedback filter.
( Yes, IT turns out that Allay Sam is a female troll Street Sam with high body)
Even though the wording is strange the intention seem to be that biofeedback filter only protect against biofeedback damage.
Aah yes of course makes a Lot of sense. Would be nice with an errata there.
-
Decker creates PAN for the team so that the team can benefit from his massive firewall.
Hacker trying to access the PAN needs to break through the decker's firewall. Once done the hacker has to beat the individual firewalls of the devices for each team member. This is simple and makes sense does it not?
This where having an uber decker defended network starts to break down and honestly probably more convoluted than it needs to be ... but if gaining access to the network first before attempting the data spike then yes mr hecks would be able to use his DP for allay sam. However dataspike does not require access so you can target the device directly which means ally sam only benefits from mr hecks firewall
Hhmm interesting, after some deliberation I think Im envisioning it as follows. ( I think its a mix of you guys' version- one of the the freelancer).
Matrix stuff, but in a medieval fantasy context:
Each persona/adventurer has his personal armour (primarily firewall, but also DP)
And some adventurers has cool stuff like wands of fireball, or sword of beheadings (attack) or Crazy ninja assassin ring of invisibility ( sleaze).
In This World Mr. Heck (called uberlord Heck here) is the king, he has a Lot of cool gear, and Alley Sam (still called Alley Sam- 'cause thats where she sleeps ) has No weapons and only a rusty pot she can use as armour (FW) or Cook some stuff with (DP).
Now, Uberlord Heck can protect his people by erecting a fancy Castle with a moat and walls of fire. (Giving firewall to his Allies inside and an increased DR because the moat (DP) and firewall).
Anyone standing outside the Castle has to attack well protected inhabitants.
(Like data spiking personas, or throwing tar at Them over the walls). In that case the inhabitants gain the full benefit og the Castle.
But the enemies could also sneak inside the Castle after having spotted the sewer entrance ( probe and backdoor entry)
Or just go #%$ it, and storm the gates (brute force)
Once inside, the Castle doesnt help anymore, the Enemy is either roaming the Castle walls and courtyard (user lvl) or is waiting in the bedroom (admin).
Now any attack Will be against the inhabitants own equipment (All at either user or admin lvl) so attacking Alley Sam with a poisoned dagger Will only be defended by her potted helmet ( DR 2 and 2 Dice to resist dmg)
But attacking Uberlord with a dagger Will be met by his adamantine armour and Shield of shielding.
Naturally its in Uberlord Heck best interest to have the interlopers thrown out or beheaded. So he can have his Castle in peace
biofeedback filter.
( Yes, IT turns out that Allay Sam is a female troll Street Sam with high body)
Even though the wording is strange the intention seem to be that biofeedback filter only protect against biofeedback damage.
Aah yes of course makes a Lot of sense. Would be nice with an errata there.
Yeah, that's an accurate visual I think
-
Ok, a follow up question/scenario.
Runner team consists of 4 members.
Mr. Heck : team hacker with the following ASDF : 7667 (deck+jack) AR:13 DR: 13
Rick : team rigger with the following ASDF: 0065 (RCC). AR: 0 DR: 11
Alley Sam: team Street Samurai with the following ASDF: 0002 (link) AR:0 DR: 2
Barty the team face/back Up Decker with the following ASDF: 3413 (link+deck) AR: 7 DR: 4
The team decides (wisely) to have the Decker make a PAN which includes the whole team. This means the deckers firewall Attribute now benefits the whole network.
The new team ASDF scores is then:
Mr. Heck: Same
Rick: 0067 (+2 DR)
Alley Sam: 0027 (+7 DR) (Alley Sam switched DP and FW stats)
Barty: 4337 (+6DR) (Barty switched DP and FW stats)
Is This correctly understood
Given they are all on one network, is there any reason they can’t use all of Mr. Heck’s attributes? So they would all be 7667?
-
Ok, a follow up question/scenario.
Runner team consists of 4 members.
Mr. Heck : team hacker with the following ASDF : 7667 (deck+jack) AR:13 DR: 13
Rick : team rigger with the following ASDF: 0065 (RCC). AR: 0 DR: 11
Alley Sam: team Street Samurai with the following ASDF: 0002 (link) AR:0 DR: 2
Barty the team face/back Up Decker with the following ASDF: 3413 (link+deck) AR: 7 DR: 4
The team decides (wisely) to have the Decker make a PAN which includes the whole team. This means the deckers firewall Attribute now benefits the whole network.
The new team ASDF scores is then:
Mr. Heck: Same
Rick: 0067 (+2 DR)
Alley Sam: 0027 (+7 DR) (Alley Sam switched DP and FW stats)
Barty: 4337 (+6DR) (Barty switched DP and FW stats)
Is This correctly understood
Given they are all on one network, is there any reason they can’t use all of Mr. Heck’s attributes? So they would all be 7667?
Only for defense... doing anything offensively would still be going through their personal gear
-
Given they are all on one network, is there any reason they can’t use all of Mr. Heck’s attributes? So they would all be 7667?
Only for defense... doing anything offensively would still be going through their personal gear
So they are all on the same network for defense, but not for offense? How does that work with device limits? Do they each count as one device for Mr. Heck, then take care of their own devices with their personal DP?
Sorry about all the questions. In 40 years of RPGs, this is the first game to make me feel old and stupid. 😭
-
Given they are all on one network, is there any reason they can’t use all of Mr. Heck’s attributes? So they would all be 7667?
Only for defense... doing anything offensively would still be going through their personal gear
So they are all on the same network for defense, but not for offense? How does that work with device limits? Do they each count as one device for Mr. Heck, then take care of their own devices with their personal DP?
Sorry about all the questions. In 40 years of RPGs, this is the first game to make me feel old and stupid. 😭
Yes they each count as one for Mr Heck
No worries, and honestly give yourself some credit and don't second guess yourself too much other then a few things here and there about all of done is confirm you had it right. 😉
-
Sorry about all the questions. In 40 years of RPGs, this is the first game to make me feel old and stupid. 😭
Yes they each count as one for Mr Heck
No worries, and honestly give yourself some credit and don't second guess yourself too much other then a few things here and there about all of done is confirm you had it right. 😉
I think I have the rules down well enough to run it if I had any players, but every time I try to guess how a vague rule should be interpreted, I’m wrong. And, apparently, I somehow messed up the quote box. 😀😀
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
Yeah, they kind of got hosed and can't join a PAN until they get Living Nerwork .. which I tried to make a Complex Form so it wasn't locked behind submersion. Skinlink would also allow them to form a direct PAN for their own gear but not join a party network.
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
Yeah, they kind of got hosed and can't join a PAN until they get Living Nerwork .. which I tried to make a Complex Form so it wasn't locked behind submersion. Skinlink would also allow them to form a direct PAN for their own gear but not join a party network.
What about the second part? If they put their devices on someone else’s commlink, can they use them as an owner?
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
Yeah, they kind of got hosed and can't join a PAN until they get Living Nerwork .. which I tried to make a Complex Form so it wasn't locked behind submersion. Skinlink would also allow them to form a direct PAN for their own gear but not join a party network.
What about the second part? If they put their devices on someone else’s commlink, can they use them as an owner?
I would say no, but also say why would they? They can defend their own commlink just fine, with the one small caveat that they can't use their living persona firewall unless they have skknlink or living network which puts them in the same boat as any other runner.
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
Yeah, they kind of got hosed and can't join a PAN until they get Living Nerwork .. which I tried to make a Complex Form so it wasn't locked behind submersion. Skinlink would also allow them to form a direct PAN for their own gear but not join a party network.
What about the second part? If they put their devices on someone else’s commlink, can they use them as an owner?
I would say no, but also say why would they? They can defend their own commlink just fine, with the one small caveat that they can't use their living persona firewall unless they have skknlink or living network which puts them in the same boat as any other runner.
Which means the best defense roll they can have for their devices is 4 dice, right? Compared to the 13-17 dice a decker can give the group, that's pretty weak. I suppose the best would be get a commlink and stick it in the decker's network with your devices on it.
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
Yeah, they kind of got hosed and can't join a PAN until they get Living Nerwork .. which I tried to make a Complex Form so it wasn't locked behind submersion. Skinlink would also allow them to form a direct PAN for their own gear but not join a party network.
What about the second part? If they put their devices on someone else’s commlink, can they use them as an owner?
I would say no, but also say why would they? They can defend their own commlink just fine, with the one small caveat that they can't use their living persona firewall unless they have skknlink or living network which puts them in the same boat as any other runner.
Which means the best defense roll they can have for their devices is 4 dice, right? Compared to the 13-17 dice a decker can give the group, that's pretty weak. I suppose the best would be get a commlink and stick it in the decker's network with your devices on it.
They can still add willpower like anyone else which means thay are most likely in the 8 to 10 range. Not as good as a decker but decent, and yeah if the team has a decker or rigger set up to matrix defense they would be just as well off as anyone else to run their commlink through them just like the other team members would.
-
So, how do technomancers, without the Living Network echo, fit into this? Or are they on their own completely? I assume they would at least be able to hook their devices in, maybe through a commlink? With a commlink they would count as one device for the decker, without all their devices would need to be signed to someone? Could they still control their devices as an owner, even if they are on someone else’s commlink?
Yeah, they kind of got hosed and can't join a PAN until they get Living Nerwork .. which I tried to make a Complex Form so it wasn't locked behind submersion. Skinlink would also allow them to form a direct PAN for their own gear but not join a party network.
What about the second part? If they put their devices on someone else’s commlink, can they use them as an owner?
I would say no, but also say why would they? They can defend their own commlink just fine, with the one small caveat that they can't use their living persona firewall unless they have skknlink or living network which puts them in the same boat as any other runner.
Which means the best defense roll they can have for their devices is 4 dice, right? Compared to the 13-17 dice a decker can give the group, that's pretty weak. I suppose the best would be get a commlink and stick it in the decker's network with your devices on it.
They can still add willpower like anyone else which means thay are most likely in the 8 to 10 range. Not as good as a decker but decent, and yeah if the team has a decker or rigger set up to matrix defense they would be just as well off as anyone else to run their commlink through them just like the other team members would.
Data spike lists DP and FW as defense, no mention of willpower. What did I miss now?
-
No, your right ... I was thinking in more general hacking terms ... but still the point is they are in the same situation as any other runner that doesn't have decker gear
-
True, it’s just they are supposed to fill the decker role. Having a decker and a technomancer in the same group seems redundant
-
True, it’s just they are supposed to fill the decker role. Having a decker and a technomancer in the same group seems redundant
Sort of ... they are actually more of a matrix generalist that can go multiple directions and having both on a team working together can really dominate the matrix.
But yes, and once the get living network they would be just fine running the team matrix defense... which is why I hate that its blocked behind submersion but at least it's a minimal investment and shouldn't take more than 2 missions to get