[shuriben]

I agree. Marks flow up, not down. So you can't erase marks IC have on you with your marks on the host, even though the IC inherited the mark from the host. You have to mark the IC proper.
Hence, what more than one mark on a host would do for you?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

The IC's MARKs are the Host's MARKs.  Any dissent on that?

BUT!  Are MARKs on the Host MARKs on the IC? (I say no...)

The IC in a host and the host itself share marks, so if one
IC program marks, they all do, and so does the host itself.

It doesn't explicitly say that your own marks on the host are replicated on the IC's icon when it spawns.. but that's the way that makes sense to me.  Mark sharing is mark sharing... although admittedly reciprocity isn't something that has strong precedent in the mark rules...

[PingGuy]

If that is true, then the benefit of having more marks on a host is that you will have those marks on the IC that spawn.  I forget which matrix action it is, but one of the attacks does more damage if you have marks on the target.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

If that is true, then the benefit of having more marks on a host is that you will have those marks on the IC that spawn.  I forget which matrix action it is, but one of the attacks does more damage if you have marks on the target.

*shrug* I suppose you could read it that IC spawns 'clean' with no marks, regardless of how many you have on the Host.  It honestly never occurred to me to look at it that way.. it's obviously beneficial for the player to say IC=Host for marking purposes, but also as the GM I don't see it as really breaking things if IC spawns with marks already there. So what if you kill it? It'll just be back next turn anyway.  You're inevitably going to lose... you have to just finish up what you're doing and GTFO once IC has been launched.


Another thought with regards to hacking devices downstream for the express purpose of marking the host itself while using lower DR values than the Host's own Rating:
A throwaway line in the fluff caught my attention.

When you’re outside of a host, you can’t interact
directly with icons inside it, although you can still
send messages, make commcalls, and that sort of thing.
Once you’re inside, you can see and interact with icons
inside the host, but not outside (with the same caveat for
messages, calls, etc.).

 I'll admit I'm looking for a reason to close a loophole I don't like, but still despite that skin being in the fight I think this line of thought could have merit:

While you're inside the Host, you can't see icons outside the Host.  So it comes down to whether the icon for the slaved devices is outside or inside the Host.  And they have to be outside the Host because we already know you can mark devices slaved to a Host without first hacking the Host.

So since they're outside the Host.. while you're inside the Host you can't even target its slaved devices with the Brute Force/Hack on the Fly Matrix Action.  The quote allows "some" matrix actions across the Host's 'threshold', with the implicit example of the Send Message Matrix Action.  I'm not convinced that Brute Force/Hack on the Fly fall into that same bucket.

Any holes in that logic?

Edit: To clarify: In order to hack a device downstream to get the mark on the host upstream, from inside that host for the purposes of just avoiding the host's rating... I'm saying it really looks like you have to rule Brute Force/Hack on the Fly is the same "sort of thing" as sending "a message or commcall".  That's in my opinion an unsound leap to make.  And I'm saying because of this, at the very least it's an inherently judgemental call subject to table variation as to whether you're able to mark a slaved device from inside the Host.

Edit Edit:  On thinking about the implications, I'm even more convinced I'm reading it right.  Because if you can mark a slaved device from inside that same host, you have to also be allowed to snipe marks at spiders/IC from outside the host... and if you can do so much as put marks on things across the Host's 'threshold', why can't you just edit files inside the Host from outside the Host?

[PiXeL01]

There’s the possibility that the icons of slaved devices can be seen both inside and outside devices.
That or you are allowed to target devices you can physically see despite their icons being hidden inside a host on the matrix.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

There’s the possibility that the icons of slaved devices can be seen both inside and outside devices.

Are there any precedents of an icon being in two places on the matrix at once?  You're never on two grids at once, you're always on one grid, and only one grid.  And the way I read the text on Hosts, you're either in or out.  Completely binary.

That or you are allowed to target devices you can physically see despite their icons being hidden inside a host on the matrix.

While you can "see" across grids (taking a -2 dice penalty for doing so) you can't "see" across a Host's 'threshold'.  When I say 'threshold' I'm using shorthand for "from outside a Host into the Host, or from inside a Host to outside the Host".  And when it says you can't see in/out across the Host's 'threshold', there's no exception given for the Host's own slaved devices.  Ergo, there isn't one.

The text does call out the possibility of still having having some matrix connectivity across the 'threshold' to icons that you cannot otherwise perceive (and therefore target with Matrix Actions), specifically "commcalls and messages" and "such things".  Way I see it the legality boils down to does hacking marks fairly count as "such things".  And I don't think it fairly does.

To elaborate: I'd consider the Control Device matrix action targeting a slaved Device from inside the master Host fairly in the "such things" bucket with "commcalls and messages".  But in contrast, not Brute Force/Hack on the Fly.

[PiXeL01]

The more I think about it the only difference between a PAN created by a device and a WAN created by a host is that you can actually breach the Host to circumvent the protection given. Devices are always present on the matrix as a whole, slaved or not and cannot be hidden inside hosts like files or personas.
If you are inside a host you can only affect devices slaved to the host and the persona and files found within. This prevents sniping in either direction.

This is also supported I think by how the Foundation is structured with a node for slave control.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I'd say the mechanical difference between a WAN and PAN is that you can enter a Host but you can't enter a Commlink.

It's explicitly stated: If you're inside a Host, you can't see icons outside that Host.  No room for opinion or interpretation thus far.  In fact, you couldn't do ANYTHING via the matrix across that line if it weren't for the added caveat: despite being unable to see icons across that demarcation, you can still send those unseen icons "messages", "commcalls", and "that sort of thing". 

Looking at what Matrix actions are allowable across the inside/outside Host line of demarcation, it's Send Message and whatever else counts as "that sort of thing".  The fact that you have a direct connection is moot; from inside a Host you still can't see the Icon for slaved devices to target it with Matrix Actions other than Send Message and whatever else counts as "that sort of thing".

[Hobbes]

There’s the possibility that the icons of slaved devices can be seen both inside and outside devices.
That or you are allowed to target devices you can physically see despite their icons being hidden inside a host on the matrix.

You should be able to Use Device and such on any Device you have a Mark on, in our out of a Host.  In a Host, Devices Slaved to the Host almost have to have an Icon in the host.  Otherwise normal users would have a difficult time using things slaved to the Host while going about everyday work. 

Makes sense from a security point, makes no sense from a usability view though.  And nearly every written missions/module list off devices that the host controls/you can access from inside the Host.  I think the common ruling at the tables I've played at has been that Slaved Icons are visible from inside the Host, but it only comes up every now and then.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well the beauty of the RAW on not being able to see beyond a Host's "event horizon" is you can (imo) reasonably extend the "that sort of thing" clause to actions like Control Device which would logically have to work from a fluff point of view (how can the slaved devices work otherwise?) while simultaneously denying the loophole of just marking the lowest DR device slaved to the host for the express purpose of indirectly marking the host upstream without having to roll against the host's own innate rating.

It simply can't be the RAI that once you're in a host, its own rating is no longer relevant vs being further marked.

[Marcus]

The IC's MARKs are the Host's MARKs.  Any dissent on that?

Agreed.

BUT!  Are MARKs on the Host MARKs on the IC? (I say no...)

I mean marks on the host are way stronger and much harder then marks on the IC iirc. (lol)

My understanding looking for a file in host, it is a matrix perception from inside the host. Data search is googling something, enough success on a data search MIGHT identify the host, or probably a starting point to track down the host.

I'm going with Matrix Search because for me, the rule section saying when to use MS inside a Host seems to cover the general situation. Though if you know enough about the file itself that you can find it without going through the contents, Perception makes sense. (Hey, I just need to spot the file icons with red marks for military-grade and green marks for biohazards, right? And the central eye because that one manager is a twat who considers himself a watchman.)

From software stand point your method makes more sense. I just like to emphasis VR visual. To me the matrix will always be a giant game of dynasty warriors. Mowing down IC dressed as Chinese peasant spear men.

(oh, and hello, there!)

Welcome!

[shuriben]

It simply can't be the RAI that once you're in a host, its own rating is no longer relevant vs being further marked.

Why can't it be? I would say marks on a host are useless when you're inside it, because those marks don't flow downstream to the ICs or slaved devices. (If they do, it would trivialize a good chunk of host invasions: you would just have to put three marks on a low rating slaved device to have three marks on everything inside the host).
What kind of action for which two or three marks are needed would you envision against a host?

[Michael Chandra]

Since you can't command/attack the Host, and any action inside it (such as illegal editing) still faces its ratings, there's indeed no point to extra marks as far as I can tell.

[Finstersang]

Since you can't command/attack the Host, and any action inside it (such as illegal editing) still faces its ratings, there's indeed no point to extra marks as far as I can tell.

That´s the main point here. It´s a weird and counterintuitive weakpoint, but it´s going nowhere RAW. The only benefit would be that the Host security would have a harder time to remove your Marks. That´s almost neglegible. 

This would only be somewhat of an issue if you have, let´s say, a houseruled Matrix Action at your table that needs more mark than one on a host or a situation where the GM demands more Marks on the for some story driven mumbojumbo ("To install the custom Malware your Johnson gave you, you need 3 Marks, and it only works during the weekly data dump from 22:30 to 22:32"). Which is neglegible as well. 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Some good points were made about the limited value/need for marks on a Host beyond the 1st anyway.

Honestly it looks to me like you have to start picking which rules to ignore in favor of other ones. Because I don't know how you're even supposed to get 2 or 3 marks from inside a Host onto the Host's slaved devices when you can't even target them with actions other than Send Message and "similar actions".

Sounds like some of us prefer to reconcile it by ignoring the inability to see icons outside the Host (if only when they're slaved to that Host).  I'd rather keep that, and fudge actions that fit into the "actions similar in nature to Send Message" being possible from the Host, which in turn necessitates the 2 or 3 marks as needed on the Host to execute Control Device actions on the Host's slaved devices.