Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: &#24525; on <08-12-17/1205:19>

Title: WANs and Direct Connections
Post by: &#24525; on <08-12-17/1205:19>
If you are in a Host that has a WAN, you are considered directly connected to all devices in the WAN. page 233

If a slaved device is under attack via direct connection it cannot use its master's ratings to defend itself.

Why aren't WAN slaves in their master's host? Why bother slaving if you don't protect them after a decker gets inside? What am I missing?
Title: Re: WANs and Direct Connections
Post by: Jack_Spade on <08-12-17/1216:26>
Because the rules are a mess.

But I guess the initial thought was: Cracking the host is difficult enough, but once you are past the defenses of the host you have free reign until you are spotted by IC.
Public accessible hosts therefore should never be part of a WAN.

As far as protection for gear goes, having a high rating comlink with a modded on Agent to look after them is much more secure in most cases.

Title: Re: WANs and Direct Connections
Post by: Mirikon on <08-12-17/1230:59>
Because the nostalgia train hit the Matrix like a ton of bricks, but didn't account for the differences in tech between 1st and 5th editions?
Title: Re: WANs and Direct Connections
Post by: &#24525; on <08-12-17/1324:12>
*eyeroll* mk thanks guys
Title: Re: WANs and Direct Connections
Post by: ShadowcatX on <08-15-17/0825:53>
The rules do make a certain level of sense. In general security is designed to keep people out of where they aren't supposed to be, once you are inside things are designed to be user friendly, it is a balance of "making things secure" vs. "letting stupid people be able to do their jobs".

Also, in general, corps know a basic lock isn't going to stop a Shadowrunner from breaking in, but it might slow them down a bit, which might be enough.