NEWS

[SR6] Hacking devices within PANs / Hosts -> one or two hacks?

  • 65 Replies
  • 7092 Views

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 745
« Reply #15 on: <04-06-20/1037:29> »
TBH, I think most of this is all nice and well. I rather have my PC hackers a bit OP instead of that slow-ass high-risk-low-reward dredge from the previous Editions. As long as the opposition offers hacking opportunities and doesnīt have hacker, rigger or host support themselfes, even a hacker can easily and reliably disable weapons, communication with just a few actions and even without the bloated dice pools for high-end hackers. And why not? Other Archetypes can do worse without requiring a "teched-up" opposition.

And for non-hacker PCs: Well, NPC hackers arenīt that common. If youīre too paranoid to use your wireless bonuses, thatīs understandable. But you can risk it. You can still delay potential hackers by going silent. You can still react by turning off the wireless functionalities. And, most importantly, you can always ask your teamīs hacker or rigger for help.

That being said: That slave limit still seems a bit silly when you keep the stats of regular Commlinks in mind. Are "consumer" PANs really supposed to be comprised of only 1-3 additional devices at best? That seems awfully small considering how many everyday objects have wireless functionality. Can I even properly use these without putting them inside my PAN?

Or am I missing something here? Is there supposed to a difference between having a device as a part of the PAN, having the device slaved to the PAN and "protecting them" (with your own mental attributes) or is all of that the same?
« Last Edit: <04-06-20/1039:03> by Finstersang »
"Firing Line adds a ton of Perks that modify Attack and Defense ratings"

"Cool, does this mean that the whole AR/DR comparison has a bigger impact now?"

"Haha No :D"

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4542
« Reply #16 on: <04-06-20/1056:41> »
TBH, I think most of this is all nice and well. I rather have my PC hackers a bit OP instead of that slow-ass high-risk-low-reward dredge from the previous Editions. As long as the opposition offers hacking opportunities and doesnīt have hacker, rigger or host support themselfes, even a hacker can easily and reliably disable weapons, communication with just a few actions and even without the bloated dice pools for high-end hackers. And why not? Other Archetypes can do worse without requiring a "teched-up" opposition.

And for non-hacker PCs: Well, NPC hackers arenīt that common. If youīre too paranoid to use your wireless bonuses, thatīs understandable. But you can risk it. You can still delay potential hackers by going silent. You can still react by turning off the wireless functionalities. And, most importantly, you can always ask your teamīs hacker or rigger for help.

I like the cut of this jib.

Quote
That being said: That slave limit still seems a bit silly when you keep the stats of regular Commlinks in mind. Are "consumer" PANs really supposed to be comprised of only 1-3 additional devices at best? That seems awfully small considering how many everyday objects have wireless functionality. Can I even properly use these without putting them inside my PAN?

Or am I missing something here? Is there supposed to a difference between having a device as a part of the PAN, having the device slaved to the PAN and "protecting them" (with your own mental attributes) or is all of that the same?

It's a bit of rules-lawyerly gymnastics on my part to argue that you can "protect" a device without "slaving" it.  A completely unofficial opinion, that.  But it's a bit of arbitrarily-created middle ground between flatly ignoring the device limit rule, and having to daisy chain lots and lots of commlinks for a single user of modern gear.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2994
« Reply #17 on: <04-06-20/1124:38> »
Yeah, buy 20 Commlinks, slave one thing to each Commlink, toss the Commlinks in a bag, make the NPC Hackers hack 20 different PANs to find your stuff.  Wheeee!

Or log into the public library host in Melbourne and leave your Persona parked there.

Or, do the sane thing, ignore the limit of protected devices, let the Decker/Rigger/TM handle the Matrix stuff.

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1054
« Reply #18 on: <04-06-20/1212:32> »
My preference is this (and I think I left the rules vague enough to allow it since I couldn't just eliminate device limits which ate down right silly considering that has progressed to the point that hard disk memory is irrelevant why would connectivity be an issue beyond distance and signal lag which is what noise covers)

Device limit is how many devices you can have slaved to you PAN and therefore share a firewall and matrix defense and be fully protected  ... but the amount of devices that you can "link" is unlimited.
However this opens up the fuzzy territory of what happens when someone hacks one of my linked but not slaved devices? Well a linked device is vulnerable but even though it it is linked to your PAN hacking it does not get past the PAN firewall because said device is not "inside" that firewall. Swapping devices in out of your PAN between slaved and linked is at most a minor "change device aetting" action. So most devices you carry or own can be easily interacted with but don't really need "protected" most of the time.

Also as a side note regarding the Pegasus ruling regarding device rating and attributes ... using that rule would require adding a commlinks device rating to its D/F pool. I would use dr/2 added as evenly as possible... so a Meta Link becomes 1/1 but the Transys Avalon becomes 6/4.
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

jtkirk22

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 33
« Reply #19 on: <04-06-20/1227:17> »
Thanks for your detailed answer!

Just one question:
see the Host Hacking Example sidebar on pg 178- the host has no spider so it rolls 0 dice for Willpower/Intuition to defend against hacking
Probe lists two dice Pools: Willpower + Firewall OR Firewallx2. Does that example mean, that the Firewall attribute of the Host is = 1. And the Host rolls Firewallx2 = 1x2?

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4542
« Reply #20 on: <04-06-20/1304:14> »
Thanks for your detailed answer!

You're welcome!  As you've seen, your questions ended up spinning off some 2nd order questions that have been of interest to the forum :D  So thank you, too!

Quote
Just one question:
see the Host Hacking Example sidebar on pg 178- the host has no spider so it rolls 0 dice for Willpower/Intuition to defend against hacking
Probe lists two dice Pools: Willpower + Firewall OR Firewallx2. Does that example mean, that the Firewall attribute of the Host is = 1. And the Host rolls Firewallx2 = 1x2?

It's an implicit assumption that when there's a choice between two dice pools offered, you use the better/larger of the two.  In that example on pg. 178, the spider-less host has a firewall of 2. The host can resist probe with 0 Willpower + 2 Firewall, OR 2 Firewall + 2 Firewall.  Obviously the 2+2=4 dice pool is what you use rather than the 0+2=2 dice pool.  That example doesn't go beyond the probe step, but naturally following a probe you'd want to do a backdoor entry.  That does not have an option to pick between resistance dice pools: it MUST be willpower+firewall.  In this expanded example, the host must roll 0+2=2 dice because there's no spider to lend the host a willpower stat.
« Last Edit: <04-06-20/1309:02> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 745
« Reply #21 on: <04-06-20/1359:17> »
My preference is this (and I think I left the rules vague enough to allow it since I couldn't just eliminate device limits which ate down right silly considering that has progressed to the point that hard disk memory is irrelevant why would connectivity be an issue beyond distance and signal lag which is what noise covers)

Device limit is how many devices you can have slaved to you PAN and therefore share a firewall and matrix defense and be fully protected  ... but the amount of devices that you can "link" is unlimited.
However this opens up the fuzzy territory of what happens when someone hacks one of my linked but not slaved devices? Well a linked device is vulnerable but even though it it is linked to your PAN hacking it does not get past the PAN firewall because said device is not "inside" that firewall. Swapping devices in out of your PAN between slaved and linked is at most a minor "change device aetting" action. So most devices you carry or own can be easily interacted with but don't really need "protected" most of the time.

Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.

Also as a side note regarding the Pegasus ruling regarding device rating and attributes ... using that rule would require adding a commlinks device rating to its D/F pool. I would use dr/2 added as evenly as possible... so a Meta Link becomes 1/1 but the Transys Avalon becomes 6/4.

Huh, thatīs actually a pretty good houserule even without the Pegasus rules change (which, for once, I donīt really donīt like in this case). Iīd limit that to "nuclear" setups with a single commlink, though. I.e., when used in conjunction with a cyberdeck to form a persona, the D/F pool of the Transys Avalon would still be 3/1.   
"Firing Line adds a ton of Perks that modify Attack and Defense ratings"

"Cool, does this mean that the whole AR/DR comparison has a bigger impact now?"

"Haha No :D"

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1054
« Reply #22 on: <04-06-20/1439:11> »
My preference is this (and I think I left the rules vague enough to allow it since I couldn't just eliminate device limits which ate down right silly considering that has progressed to the point that hard disk memory is irrelevant why would connectivity be an issue beyond distance and signal lag which is what noise covers)

Device limit is how many devices you can have slaved to you PAN and therefore share a firewall and matrix defense and be fully protected  ... but the amount of devices that you can "link" is unlimited.
However this opens up the fuzzy territory of what happens when someone hacks one of my linked but not slaved devices? Well a linked device is vulnerable but even though it it is linked to your PAN hacking it does not get past the PAN firewall because said device is not "inside" that firewall. Swapping devices in out of your PAN between slaved and linked is at most a minor "change device aetting" action. So most devices you carry or own can be easily interacted with but don't really need "protected" most of the time.

Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.

Also as a side note regarding the Pegasus ruling regarding device rating and attributes ... using that rule would require adding a commlinks device rating to its D/F pool. I would use dr/2 added as evenly as possible... so a Meta Link becomes 1/1 but the Transys Avalon becomes 6/4.

Huh, thatīs actually a pretty good houserule even without the Pegasus rules change (which, for once, I donīt really donīt like in this case). Iīd limit that to "nuclear" setups with a single commlink, though. I.e., when used in conjunction with a cyberdeck to form a persona, the D/F pool of the Transys Avalon would still be 3/1.

Oh I don't think it would be a major issue, would need played with to see. Even then the Avalon would be somewhere between a rating 2 and 3 cyberjack and still not have access to the edge actions or initiative boost, and can't do VR without additional gear.
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6358
« Reply #23 on: <04-06-20/2111:54> »
Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.
Hackers would probably want to first gain User or even Admin access on a network that have a lot of devices they plan to interact with (since while they are considered User or Admin they can legally control them without their individual control actions generating overwatch score on their own). This would be resolved via a single Brute force / Probe+Backdoor Entry action followed by individual Control Device actions.

But most of the time they would probably skip the whole User or Admin access for individual devices that are not part of any network. Instead they would probably just impersonate a legit user and send instructions to the device to have it act on (this is an illegal cracking action, but since the device is not part of a network it will probably not have any dice to defend with and thus the action will not generate overwatch score from opposing hits). This would be resolved via unopposed Spoof Command actions.
« Last Edit: <04-06-20/2115:26> by Xenon »

jtkirk22

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 33
« Reply #24 on: <04-07-20/0239:29> »
Just one question:
see the Host Hacking Example sidebar on pg 178- the host has no spider so it rolls 0 dice for Willpower/Intuition to defend against hacking
Probe lists two dice Pools: Willpower + Firewall OR Firewallx2. Does that example mean, that the Firewall attribute of the Host is = 1. And the Host rolls Firewallx2 = 1x2?

Mental attributes:
Okay, so you never ever replace a mental stat of a dice pool that is required for a matrix action check with a device stats (e.g. willpower <=> firewall)? The check is made with the stat that is mentioned in the matrix action - whether or not the defending device has mentals attributes. Right?

Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.
Hackers would probably want to first gain User or even Admin access on a network that have a lot of devices they plan to interact with (since while they are considered User or Admin they can legally control them without their individual control actions generating overwatch score on their own). This would be resolved via a single Brute force / Probe+Backdoor Entry action followed by individual Control Device actions.

Controlling slaved devices:
I am not 100% sure, but I believe your assumption is wrong. In my understanding, controlling a device requires both:
a) You need to grant the access level needed for a matrix action (e. g. User)
b) You need to perform the individual matrix action needed (e. g. if you want to edit a file, you still need to do the "edit file" action including all checks).

"Reading files":
There are a lot of matrix actions, but I miss an action for "reading files" (e.g. watching video from a hard drive, listen to recordings, reading text files, etc.). Does this require no action/check, as long as this data is neither protected nor containing a data bomb?

House-Ruling devices without attributes:
Code: [Select]
If a device has no attributes, the Data Processing
and Firewall rating of the device is equal to their
device rating (GERMAN core rules, p. 245).

As we know, this German rule is not planned to be within upcoming Errata. But we also know that there are two problems:

  • the limited amount of slaves for kommlinks
  • any device that does not have attributes explicitly mentioned seems defenseless against hackers (because their attributes are "0").

There are a several clever house rules in this thread that try to treat these problems. But these changes impact the difficulty of hacking (because it makes hacking harder).

1.) So, I ask myself: Is it intended by the core rules that devices without attributes are defenseless? If yes, then I would ignore the German rules that use device rating as DP/F attributes. If no, then I would use it.

2.) Using the rule changes the game.

  • a) It puts kommlinks in that awkward situation that their DP/F rating is lower than their device rating -> house rule needed.
  • b) All devices that have no attributes listed get a DP/F rating equal their device rating. That boosts the defenses of all such devices.
  • c) Hacking gets harder (because all other devices get higher stats). So, I assume that Cyberdecks/Cyberjacks also should be adjusted, shouldn't they?

Would do you think about that?
« Last Edit: <04-07-20/0435:41> by jtkirk22 »

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6358
« Reply #25 on: <04-07-20/0446:38> »
The check is made with the stat that is mentioned in the matrix action - whether or not the defending device has mentals attributes. Right?
If you go through the list you will notice that most opposed tests either don't use a mental attribute at all (just opposed by matrix attributes) or let you substitute the mental attribute for a matrix attribute (often the Firewall rating of the network the device is connected to).

But yes, when it comes to opposing Matrix Perception (both for when finding a network that is trying to hide as well as analyzing individual icons), Backdoor Entry (but not Brute Force or Probe), Control Device (but only in cases where there is no test associated with the device) and Spoof Command (against devices that does not have an auto pilot) you would either use the number of dice equal to the mental attribute of the 'owner' or corporate hacker (also known as a 'spider') currently defending the Host OR use 0 dice (if the device is unattended and does not have an 'owner' actively defending them or if there is no 'spider' defending the Host network).



I am not 100% sure, but I believe your assumption is wrong. In my understanding, controlling a device requires both:
a) You need to grant the access level needed for a matrix action (e. g. User)
b) You need to perform the individual matrix action needed (e. g. if you want to edit a file, you still need to do the "edit file" action including all checks).
I am not sure what part you are disagreeing with here (or if we are saying the same thing).

Are you arguing that you need to take another Brute Force or Probe+Backdoor Entry action against every single device and file on the network after you are already became a User or Admin on the network...?

What I am saying is that:
  • Unless you are happy with just using Outside actions (which include both legal actions such as Matrix Perception or Send Message and illegal actions such as Spoof Command or Data Spike) you first need to gain access. To the whole network. By using Brute Force or Probe+Backdoor Entry. Once.
  • Once you are considered a User or Admin on the network you can start using actions against individual files and devices that require User Access (both legal actions such as Edit File or Control Device and illegal actions such as Crack File) or Admin access (both legal actions such as Format Device or Reboot Device and illegal actions such as Crash Program or Trace Icon).



There are a lot of matrix actions, but I miss an action for "reading files" (e.g. watching video from a hard drive, listen to recordings, reading text files, etc.). Does this require no action/check, as long as this data is neither protected nor containing a data bomb?
There is no test involved if you wish to listen to, view, or read data that is not protected or hidden in any way.

Once you already have the correct Access level (most files probably require that you are considered a User, but there are probably also many public files that can be listen to, viewed, or read by not having any access at all) you only need to take further tests if the data is protected in some way (encryption, data bomb...) or if you wish to edit, copy or delete it.

I guess, for extra clarity, they could have added a Read File with a 'No Test'-flag (similar to how they have a Send Message action with a 'No Test'-flag on it), but at the same time they were also trying to save word-count. And to be fair, there was also no explicit Read File action in 5th edition, either.



Edit:
...the limited amount of slaves for kommlinks
If you find this to be an issue then either just house rule that:
  • You can slave an unlimited amount of devices to your PAN
  • Or that the limit only applies specifically to drones and vehicles


Edit2:
any device that does not have attributes explicitly mentioned seems defenseless against hackers (because their attributes are "0")
This just mean that wireless enabled devices that are not part of a Host network or a PAN will be less protected against hackers. This is intended. This was also the fact in previous edition as well. Not sure what you are trying to fix.
« Last Edit: <04-07-20/0502:16> by Xenon »

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 745
« Reply #26 on: <04-07-20/0934:47> »
Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.
Hackers would probably want to first gain User or even Admin access on a network that have a lot of devices they plan to interact with (since while they are considered User or Admin they can legally control them without their individual control actions generating overwatch score on their own). This would be resolved via a single Brute force / Probe+Backdoor Entry action followed by individual Control Device actions.

But most of the time they would probably skip the whole User or Admin access for individual devices that are not part of any network. Instead they would probably just impersonate a legit user and send instructions to the device to have it act on (this is an illegal cracking action, but since the device is not part of a network it will probably not have any dice to defend with and thus the action will not generate overwatch score from opposing hits). This would be resolved via unopposed Spoof Command actions.

And this is the part were the whole current RAW (and RAI?), and especially that way too low slave limit, just becomes really weird (unless the devs want to promote complicated commlink daisychains, which I doubt). I mean, the missing firewall Attribute is one thing, but a completely unopposed roll? This makes any form of hacking a total joke. As Xenon mentioned, it wouldnīt even start OS. Furthermore, the Attacker will also generate Edge every single time , as long as he brings a combined Attack+Sleaze of 4 or higher to the table.

I have a strong feeling that this sentence is the sticking point about the whole thing:

P. 179: "A persona actively defending for a device or host can use the other pool with the device or host attributes."

And boy, is it sticky...


First: Whatīs the point of that sentence in its current form anyways? If I (i.e. my persona) defend for a host or device, why would I want to use the (likely, lower or even nonexistent) pool of the target I want to defend? The one that the target would use anyways? Shouldnīt this be the other way around - the target using the personaīs attributes, including the mental attributes?
  • Could it be that this sentence is supposed to be read as: "If a persona actively defends for a device or host, you can use the pool of your persona ("the other pool"), BUT (alternatively?) with the Matrix(!) Attributes of the device or Host."?
  • This is at least what happens in the example on p. 178, so...

Second: What is "actively defending" supposed to mean? There is no Matrix action associated with it, so it seems to be some kind of passive state. How do I declare it? Is there a limitation?
  • Is it the same as a Master-Slave-relationship? Is it something I initiate by putting the device in my PAN (which may or may not be the same as a MS-relationship, argle bargle...).
  • Do I need to have an active Persona and monitor the Matrix in VR/AR?  Is this the "point" of the whole thing: To force users to watch out for their stuff in person?

Not gonna lie, Iīm starting to get quite disappointed with the current state of the Matrix rules (Both the english and german ones). That whole "devices donīt heave any defenses without belonging to a network" might have been all fine and dandy, but combined with the slave limit (afaik, it was added by Errata?), the whole thing thing absolutely falls apart for all forms of "consumer electronics". RAW, the 6th would be practically littered with 100% unprotected wireless devices.

Is this really supposed to be the actual RAI or are we all missing something here?
« Last Edit: <04-07-20/1011:48> by Finstersang »
"Firing Line adds a ton of Perks that modify Attack and Defense ratings"

"Cool, does this mean that the whole AR/DR comparison has a bigger impact now?"

"Haha No :D"

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1054
« Reply #27 on: <04-07-20/1039:23> »
On my phone so I may not go as deep in detail as needed so bear with me ...

actively defending just means it needs to be part of a network

Having a choice of what set of attributes you use works both ways ... as a player you will almost always want to use your persona because you will better off, but this also means that a spider working in a host doesn't need hot shot gear when they can just using the host attributes.

As general statement I can say I never intended to have such low slave limits in fact I wanted no limits at all. I also never wanted devices to be completely defenseless on their own. But not everything I wanted made it in to the final version ... including errata.

IF you wanted to house rule something that worked as I originally designed the new matrix system. Then add device rating to all commlink firewalls, ignore device limits, and allow all devices to have firewalls equal to their rating.
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4542
« Reply #28 on: <04-07-20/1057:01> »
Just one question:
see the Host Hacking Example sidebar on pg 178- the host has no spider so it rolls 0 dice for Willpower/Intuition to defend against hacking
Probe lists two dice Pools: Willpower + Firewall OR Firewallx2. Does that example mean, that the Firewall attribute of the Host is = 1. And the Host rolls Firewallx2 = 1x2?

Mental attributes:
Okay, so you never ever replace a mental stat of a dice pool that is required for a matrix action check with a device stats (e.g. willpower <=> firewall)? The check is made with the stat that is mentioned in the matrix action - whether or not the defending device has mentals attributes. Right?

Right.  If the defense pool is Willpower + Firewall, then nothing ever subs in for Willpower in place of Willpower.  (Device Rating and Host Rating both used to sub in for absent attributes in 5e- this is a deliberate change)

Quote
Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.
Hackers would probably want to first gain User or even Admin access on a network that have a lot of devices they plan to interact with (since while they are considered User or Admin they can legally control them without their individual control actions generating overwatch score on their own). This would be resolved via a single Brute force / Probe+Backdoor Entry action followed by individual Control Device actions.

Controlling slaved devices:
I am not 100% sure, but I believe your assumption is wrong. In my understanding, controlling a device requires both:
a) You need to grant the access level needed for a matrix action (e. g. User)
b) You need to perform the individual matrix action needed (e. g. if you want to edit a file, you still need to do the "edit file" action including all checks).

Ok, 95% of the time what you want is Spoof Command, not Control Device.  If you want a maglock to open, that's Spoof Command.  If you want a traffic light to change, that's Spoof Command.  If you want a grenade to explode inside the other guy's launcher, that's Spoof Command.  You only need Control Device if you're using sustained control over a device, like remotely driving a drone or firing a remote weapon platform.  Pretty much, if what you want to do doesn't involve rolling a non-matrix skill to "control" the device and only takes one action to resolve, that's Spoof Command.

Quote
"Reading files":
There are a lot of matrix actions, but I miss an action for "reading files" (e.g. watching video from a hard drive, listen to recordings, reading text files, etc.). Does this require no action/check, as long as this data is neither protected nor containing a data bomb?

That action is Edit File. (yes, even just reading it without copying/changing/deleting the data)

Quote
House-Ruling devices without attributes:
Code: [Select]
If a device has no attributes, the Data Processing
and Firewall rating of the device is equal to their
device rating (GERMAN core rules, p. 245).

As we know, this German rule is not planned to be within upcoming Errata. But we also know that there are two problems:

  • the limited amount of slaves for kommlinks
  • any device that does not have attributes explicitly mentioned seems defenseless against hackers (because their attributes are "0").

There are a several clever house rules in this thread that try to treat these problems. But these changes impact the difficulty of hacking (because it makes hacking harder).

1.) So, I ask myself: Is it intended by the core rules that devices without attributes are defenseless? If yes, then I would ignore the German rules that use device rating as DP/F attributes. If no, then I would use it.

Yes, the intent is that unattended devices are supposed to be essentially helpless vs hacking.  Note that the assumption though is generally everything WORTH hacking should be either part of a PAN or defended by a Host, though.  But a can of Dragon Piss? Sure, it's defense pool is 0+0=0 dice to defend against hacking because it's unlikely that anyone would bother to add it to their PAN nor would the host running the vending machine it came from likely bother with protecting the cans inside it, too.

Quote
2.) Using the rule changes the game.

  • a) It puts kommlinks in that awkward situation that their DP/F rating is lower than their device rating -> house rule needed.
  • b) All devices that have no attributes listed get a DP/F rating equal their device rating. That boosts the defenses of all such devices.
  • c) Hacking gets harder (because all other devices get higher stats). So, I assume that Cyberdecks/Cyberjacks also should be adjusted, shouldn't they?

Would do you think about that?

Well, house rules always need to be evaluated for these kinds of 2nd order "ripple" effects.  However, it's my opinion that flatly ignoring the number of devices limit is the rare house rule that meshes into the canon just fine without causing problematic implications.  Yes, if there's no limit then DP doesn't mean much for people who don't take matrix actions (I see that as not problematic) and it also means that Riggers can control an infinite number of drones (maybe so, but there's still influences elsewhere that keep that number from being truly infinite: riggers still don't have infinite nuyen, nor does any table have time to allow one player to resolve infinite actions during combat)
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

jtkirk22

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 33
« Reply #29 on: <04-07-20/1243:40> »
I am not sure what part you are disagreeing with here (or if we are saying the same thing).

Hehe...yes, we were saying the same thing. Just mixed it up, because of my bad English - sorry! (Thanks btw. for all your fantastic help on reddit! Helped so much!)

IF you wanted to house rule something that worked as I originally designed the new matrix system. Then add device rating to all commlink firewalls, ignore device limits, and allow all devices to have firewalls equal to their rating.

Will do so. Sounds reasonable and seems to fix some things decently.

Quote
"Reading files":
There are a lot of matrix actions, but I miss an action for "reading files" (e.g. watching video from a hard drive, listen to recordings, reading text files, etc.). Does this require no action/check, as long as this data is neither protected nor containing a data bomb?

That action is Edit File. (yes, even just reading it without copying/changing/deleting the data)

This is TERRIFIC! Looking for that answer for so long!!Thanks!