[markelphoenix]

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.

[Gareth]

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!

[penllawen]

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!

[Michael Chandra]

Sorry: Pan, host or solo.

[penllawen]

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.

[Banshee]

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.

[penllawen]

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."

[Banshee]

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

[penllawen]

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.

[Typhus]

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. 

[Banshee]

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

[penllawen]

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?

[Gareth]

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.

[Typhus]

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. 

[Banshee]

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.