Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Adder on <01-08-15/0049:24>
-
Hey all,
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the concepts behind the matrix. I'm mostly familiar with previous versions of the (wired) matrix though I won't lie and pretend a lot of my understanding isn't based off of the old Genesis game.
Here are some of the questions I have so far:
1. What is a grid? No, really? Based on the rulebook's explanation I imagine it to be similar to a cellular network. For example, there are towers scattered around the city (e.g. Seattle) that are constantly transmitting/receiving information. Great, that makes sense. If there are two grids (for example Seattle Local Grid and SomeLocalCompany Private Grid) they may both be available in some areas of the city, or maybe just one (for example, a part of the city that has none of that company's offices), or neither (on the city outskirts, deep inside a large building, underground..). If I am in a location that only has access to one grid (e.g. the public grid), can I jump to another grid? If I use the Seattle Grid to connect all the way around the world to the London public grid and the Seattle grid goes down (terrorists, malfunction, whatever) do I lose connection to the London grid? I hope it makes sense why the actual implementation of the grid matters.
2. What is a global grid? Similar to question #1 above, I'm presuming that a global grid is a network of ridiculously large, powerful transmitters/receivers placed around the world.
3. What is a host? The rulebook states that there is no physical presence for a host, and that it's made of the Matrix itself. Does that mean there is no physical object in the real world that "defines" the host? I mean, something has to store what the host "is" and what is "in" it. That could either be the Matrix grid itself, or a machine that connects to the grid (analogous to a RL web server).
4. If a small company had a single computer that they wanted only accessible within the confines of their building, how would that be implemented?
Thanks for reading! I hope my questions don't seem too trivial or silly.
-
Hey all,
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the concepts behind the matrix. I'm mostly familiar with previous versions of the (wired) matrix though I won't lie and pretend a lot of my understanding isn't based off of the old Genesis game.
Honestly, a lot of people have the same issue. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it completely, because there seem to be times when I think I've got everything put into these neat little boxes and then someone comes around with an idea that I hadn't prepared my neat little boxes for and things go tits up. I'll do what I can to explain what I can, but there may be contradictions. I think the only person on these forums that has any solid understanding of the utility and limits of the Matrix is Xenon, but I haven't seen him post for a while.
1. What is a grid? No, really?
Grids are a throwback to the older rules (anything prior to 4th edition). Basically, you have to imagine that there is a massive telecommunications network, called a grid, that handles all telecommunications traffic in an area. There are global grids, which are owned by the Big 10, local grids usually limited to a region like Seattle, and public grids which are practically ad-hoc mesh networks (aka: terribad). All these grids mesh with each other and work with each other, but if you have to hop a grid there is latency.
This is similar to the current Internet in that there are network backbones, all connected to each other. If you want to go to Google.com, for instance, you end up bouncing off your ISP and a few other places before you actually get to your destination. Note that when I say "destination" I mean your goal server. All data that you send and receive to and from that server has to travel along all those hops.
So you've got a commcode, which is the Shadowrun equivalency of an IP address. This is what ensures that your data is routed to your device correctly. You connect via your grid to the Matrix as a whole (which is the combination of all grids and Hosts). If you're in Seattle and you subscribe to the local grid (medium lifestyle or above) then you have no need for extra hops unless you try to access something that is located on a different grid. Let's say you want to access Seattle's official Host. The Host would most likely be located on the local grid, and therefore you have no noticeable latency or problems. After you get done paying for your parking ticket, you decide to find a local Ares gun store in order to buy a gun to shoot the idiot that parked in your spot. You are still on the local grid, but you find the Ares host and log in. Since the Ares host is on the Ares grid, you might receive a little latency while making the connection.
Hosts are whole new thing though - they're like private sub-grids. So once you're connected to the Host, you have no more Noise while you're in the Host.
2. What is a global grid? Similar to question #1 above, I'm presuming that a global grid is a network of ridiculously large, powerful transmitters/receivers placed around the world.
I think I covered that in my first answer - if you have additional questions though, I'd be happy to tackle them.
3. What is a host? The rulebook states that there is no physical presence for a host, and that it's made of the Matrix itself. Does that mean there is no physical object in the real world that "defines" the host? I mean, something has to store what the host "is" and what is "in" it. That could either be the Matrix grid itself, or a machine that connects to the grid (analogous to a RL web server).
Good question. We don't know what a Host is physically composed of, if anything. Basically, a Host is a sub-grid. You might visit the Seattle government's Host as in the above example, which is a sub-grid of the local Seattle grid. And then you might go to the Ares Host, which is located on the Ares grid.
4. If a small company had a single computer that they wanted only accessible within the confines of their building, how would that be implemented?
Not at all currently. Sort of. We don't have rules for how to develop or manage Hosts yet. That will be out with Data Trails, I would imagine. For now, just assume that someone like a mom-and-pop-shop could go and rent Host space from the grid that they're subscribed to. That is pretty much how I have been treating it.
Thanks for reading! I hope my questions don't seem too trivial or silly.
These are the questions we all have, honestly. I spent some time trying to adapt what I could for technomancers from 4th edition's Unwired, but I couldn't even begin to try to adapt anything else. The technomancer stuff breaks the rules of the Matrix by default, so I took some liberties with that. Because the biggest change to 5th edition is, in my opinion, the changes related to the Matrix, I've been Jonesing for the Data Trails book since day one. So at least you know you're not alone in this. :)
-
What I think Grids are are a priority system for data. This is why communicating to devices right next to each other but on different grids suffer a -2 to Matrix actions, because the devices are only communicating with each other when they have idle time. This way the entire Matrix is still running on a mesh network like in SR4, but paying for priority Grid access gets your data a higher priority. Like the public grid has its data packets prioritized the lowest, which is even why it has a -2 even when communicating between 2 devices on the public grid. But who knows if that's how it really works. Hopefully Datatrails will clarify.
As for Hosts, they're build on cloud computing. So they're mass distributed processing existing on hundreds of dozens of devices. This way it'd pseudo still work with my theory of what Grids are. But its also possible that Hosts are build on the very backbone of whatever runs the Matrix, if my assumption is wrong.
-
What I think Grids are are a priority system for data. This is why communicating to devices right next to each other but on different grids suffer a -2 to Matrix actions, because the devices are only communicating with each other when they have idle time. This way the entire Matrix is still running on a mesh network like in SR4, but paying for priority Grid access gets your data a higher priority. Like the public grid has its data packets prioritized the lowest, which is even why it has a -2 even when communicating between 2 devices on the public grid. But who knows if that's how it really works. Hopefully Datatrails will clarify.
That's sort of how I envisioned it as well. I think of it as a 3G vs. 4G and different providers.
The public grid has access only to the lower bandwidth and low priority equivalent of 3G, which is why it's always so slow and laggy. Whereas talking to other devices across grids is like an AT&T Phone calling a Verizon Phone (although vastly more complicated, it's not just a call). The two providers have to talk to each other and provide a key to allow access to each other, as well as coordinate data priority levels, thus giving some lag and a penalty.
-
In Splintered State, Brackhaven Investments HQ have 2 hosts.One is accessible wirelessly (security host) and one is accessible only with a direct connection (data host).So I Imagine a small company would do the same thing.A small server room with a private host.
Not an expert on the Matrix or rl computers though :/
-
4. If a small company had a single computer that they wanted only accessible within the confines of their building, how would that be implemented?
There aren't currently rules for it, but the core book mentions, "executives have learned to store some of their private data in wired nodes, meaning the runners have to track down those specific pieces of machinery..." (SR5, p 53) as well as "hardwired security" (ibid, p. 15), so these things certainly exist.
-
So to be clear, if the grid you are currently on goes down, you would also lose connection, yes? As would any intermediary grid between you and the destination grid?
Also, if I connected to a fantastic grid from a lousy one, shouldn't my traffic still be capped to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the lousy grid)?
It's hard for me to design the matrix component of runs as a GM. Even something as simple as the runners breaking into a small office and collecting data from a computer leads to all sorts of odd questions. Is the computer also a host? Is it accessible from the grid? Is it only accessible when you're close to it? Wouldn't that require it's own transmitter/receiver (basically, wi-fi) and it would kind of be its own grid? I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but it's actually the really mundane nuts and bolts I'm having trouble with.
I'm actually a web/software developer for a living so I tend to see all things from that perspective.
Let's imagine another example, like a bullet train traveling through a remote area. The train can be controlled from the Matrix, and passengers can also use the train's "wi-fi" to connect to more distant grids. How would this be implemented?
Is the train a host? Is the train a grid? Is there a computer on this train that I could destroy to "destroy" the host?
-
Now, if the hardware you connect through is bad (few scattered nodes passing on data), that's a horrible noise penalty.
It might also mean a specific grid is not available.
You do not get a penalty to the grid your on just because of a temporarily bad connection, though, that'd be just noise.
As for wired nodes:
Bar turning off the wireless, you can put your server into a signal blocking box and have it only accessible by a throwback terminal that may(or not) be plugged into with other devices.
Means when your Rigger goes to sleep, the data is save unless someone crashes into the building and carves up the server housing to grab the harddrives (use autodestruct-triggers).
-
So to be clear, if the grid you are currently on goes down, you would also lose connection, yes? As would any intermediary grid between you and the destination grid?
This doesn't happen with the Matrix. There is enough redundancy that the whole thing can stay afloat indefinitely. At least that's the theory. After the Jormungandr attack, the corps were looking for a perfect solution. They developed the mesh network design from 4th edition. Then they realized they made the whole thing too hackable, so they went with a median solution that is found in 5th edition.
Also, if I connected to a fantastic grid from a lousy one, shouldn't my traffic still be capped to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the lousy grid)?
You are talking about working across grids. Let's take that example from before. You're on the Seattle local grid and want to access the Ares host on the Ares grid. If you don't move to the Ares grid, you get a -2 penalty to your actions while on the Ares grid. This would mostly apply to hacking attempts, as legal actions don't require tests. It's an abstract way to represent the difficulty and latency that comes with moving data across two sources that aren't normally linked.
It's hard for me to design the matrix component of runs as a GM. Even something as simple as the runners breaking into a small office and collecting data from a computer leads to all sorts of odd questions. Is the computer also a host? Is it accessible from the grid? Is it only accessible when you're close to it? Wouldn't that require it's own transmitter/receiver (basically, wi-fi) and it would kind of be its own grid? I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but it's actually the really mundane nuts and bolts I'm having trouble with.
I'm actually a web/software developer for a living so I tend to see all things from that perspective.
Forget everything you know and focus on the little bits of the Matrix that we do know about. As a system administrator, I know the feeling of looking at the Matrix rules and wanting to pull my eyelids off in frustration. The solution was to simply acknowledge that the Matrix is basically a totally fantastic land of make believe. It does not make sense at all, and it might not ever. When designing Matrix assets for my opposition forces, here's what I do.
Design the host
Design the spider
Determine if the spider is constantly attending the host
Host notes are written like this:
Host Name, device rating
Attack X, Sleaze X, Data Processing X, Firewall X
IC: <list of IC>
If the spider is attending the host, I run it like an NPC would do. If the spider is not attending, or working from off-site, I usually give the IC a chance before bringing in the spider to mop things up. I always run Patrol IC at all times. If the Patrol IC suspects something is wrong, it usually triggers a low-level alert. This may or may not alert the spider, depending on the owner of the host in question. If the Patrol IC knows that something has happened, such as from being attacked by a hacker, it will bring in the big guns. It triggers a system-wide alert, which will alert the spider and begin launching IC. I usually run an instance of Binder and Black IC in that scenario.
Let's imagine another example, like a bullet train traveling through a remote area. The train can be controlled from the Matrix, and passengers can also use the train's "wi-fi" to connect to more distant grids. How would this be implemented?
Is the train a host? Is the train a grid? Is there a computer on this train that I could destroy to "destroy" the host?
The train most likely is neither a host or a grid. The grids are everywhere at all times. If nothing else, there are satellite uplinks that allow connectivity to the Matrix through magical means. :P So the people on the bullet train can access the Matrix simply by connecting their device to the grids. Once you stop looking at all the technical holes in the Matrix rules (you could drive a Roadmaster through most of them) the whole thing is really rather simple and almost elegant.
It's a shame that it's not more technically feasible though - but then, back in the early days of Star Trek communicators were practically magic too.
-
Am I right in considering that essentially a spam zone reduces your matrix connection (causes noise) by reducing the 'bandwidth' available to you, whereas a static zone reduces the 'bandwidth' available to everyone?
I would presume it'd be 'realistic' to consider the noise level for a matrix action as being the maximum of the noise at the source and the noise at the target. Due to the mesh nature of the matrix we can (usually) ignore the route between the two. Considering just the source area would be a little unbalanced, making it almost always best to be sat in an ivory tower with perfect comms, considering just target area would make it almost always best to be sat in the middle of nowhere. Adding the two together would seem to be reducing bandwidth much further than that available.
-
In Splintered State, Brackhaven Investments HQ have 2 hosts.One is accessible wirelessly (security host) and one is accessible only with a direct connection (data host).So I Imagine a small company would do the same thing.A small server room with a private host.
Not an expert on the Matrix or rl computers though :/
Sadly that doesn't actually work once logic is applied to it. The pre-written stuff in Shadowrun is often plagued with stuff that doesn't actually work, in my experience. Nobody's perfect I suppose. The issue is, even if they do have a physical server that can only be accessed by standing next to it and plugging in... That's worthless.
It can't do anything and it's about as useful USB drive chained to a desk. If it was connected to anything else, you could use that to enter it (that's how accessing a wired network in Shadowrun works) and since it's explicitly not, it has no way to contact anyone or anything. Again, if it was connected to anything else (which would be required for it to alert anyone about things) then you could use that connection to breech it. If it's just a digital lockbox in the basement, once a hacker is plugged in, they can go to town on it. It can launch all the IC it wants-- A decent decker with Fork and Hammer will probably be able to crush the IC faster than it will be launched, and doesn't have to worry about being discovered. Once he has whatever info he wants, too, he just resets his deck to wipe his overwatch score and leaves.
TL;DR: Cutting a device off from all communication can actually make it much more vulnerable.
A paper book written in a cypher and kept in a nightstand would probably be a better way to keep information hidden.
-
In Splintered State, Brackhaven Investments HQ have 2 hosts.One is accessible wirelessly (security host) and one is accessible only with a direct connection (data host).So I Imagine a small company would do the same thing.A small server room with a private host.
Not an expert on the Matrix or rl computers though :/
Sadly that doesn't actually work once logic is applied to it. The pre-written stuff in Shadowrun is often plagued with stuff that doesn't actually work, in my experience. Nobody's perfect I suppose. The issue is, even if they do have a physical server that can only be accessed by standing next to it and plugging in... That's worthless.
It can't do anything and it's about as useful USB drive chained to a desk. If it was connected to anything else, you could use that to enter it (that's how accessing a wired network in Shadowrun works) and since it's explicitly not, it has no way to contact anyone or anything. Again, if it was connected to anything else (which would be required for it to alert anyone about things) then you could use that connection to breech it. If it's just a digital lockbox in the basement, once a hacker is plugged in, they can go to town on it. It can launch all the IC it wants-- A decent decker with Fork and Hammer will probably be able to crush the IC faster than it will be launched, and doesn't have to worry about being discovered. Once he has whatever info he wants, too, he just resets his deck to wipe his overwatch score and leaves.
TL;DR: Cutting a device off from all communication can actually make it much more vulnerable.
A paper book written in a cypher and kept in a nightstand would probably be a better way to keep information hidden.
I thought the data server in Splintered State had the purpose you describe : It's only there to store data,and workds as a digital lockbox that has more than enough physical protection ( guards,sensors etc).And IMHO it worked perfectly.At least it did in my table.
So cutting a device off from all communication makes it more vulnerable once the decker has access to its physical location.Which is not an easy task for the decker.That's why the greatest banks on the planet are in orbit , right?(At least I think they are, I may be wrong :P)
-
Well, you can have it connected by wire to a high rating host with a spider, so the device is accessible through the matrix, but dare trying to get at it.
Then, a properly walled structure probably has a noise rating of +1, which means to have decent chances of hacking, the attacker needs to be reasonably close, which is what the corps want, so they can shoot them better once they find them.
You can also completely seal off information for the night so that a remote rigger (some third party security service) to be called by the night guards when needed is all that's necessary, saving on personnel costs for sentitive but not absolutely crucial data; If you don't need it for those 10 hours, no need to pay for active security.
-
Am I right in considering that essentially a spam zone reduces your matrix connection (causes noise) by reducing the 'bandwidth' available to you, whereas a static zone reduces the 'bandwidth' available to everyone?
I would presume it'd be 'realistic' to consider the noise level for a matrix action as being the maximum of the noise at the source and the noise at the target. Due to the mesh nature of the matrix we can (usually) ignore the route between the two. Considering just the source area would be a little unbalanced, making it almost always best to be sat in an ivory tower with perfect comms, considering just target area would make it almost always best to be sat in the middle of nowhere. Adding the two together would seem to be reducing bandwidth much further than that available.
Basically yes - it's all about how you want to interpret the Noise rating. Personally, I see it as too much traffic clogging the pipes so to speak. The problem is when you start to consider the jammers also create Noise rating, but don't actually bock communications. According to Aaron, jammers block wireless bonuses. *eyeroll*
I'm of the opinion that Noise is Noise. If you have more Noise than you have Device Rating then you lose your connection to the Matrix, which kills your wireless bonuses too.
-
Also, if I connected to a fantastic grid from a lousy one, shouldn't my traffic still be capped to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the lousy grid)?
No, because grids have nothing to do with the things of the same name from older editions which people keep bringing up: A grid is an set of devices with the only function that two devices on different grids get a -2 when interacting with each other. Also note that all grids are global, there is nothing stopping you from jumping straight into the Emerald City grid (Seattle) from the South Pole. Location, routing, and anything else you might associate with old telephone grids (or pre-SR4 matrix) do not play any role, it's a purely artificial subdivision of devices.
-
I thought the data server in Splintered State had the purpose you describe : It's only there to store data,and workds as a digital lockbox that has more than enough physical protection ( guards,sensors etc).And IMHO it worked perfectly.At least it did in my table.
So cutting a device off from all communication makes it more vulnerable once the decker has access to its physical location.Which is not an easy task for the decker.That's why the greatest banks on the planet are in orbit , right?(At least I think they are, I may be wrong :P)
It's much harder to get someone into an orbital bank than a terrestrial building-- Let me put it this way. Early runners are supposed to be able to pull it off (with some assistance, but that's largely transportation). A place where people work and enter and leave, even well watched, it still hundreds of times easier to penetrate.
And, no. The decker doesn't have to be next to it, actually. Someone or something with a data tap needs to be. There's no benefit to plugging right into it, since either way you're going against its host attributes. Sure, there can be some Noise... But not that much. Not more than 3, which every decker can ignore completely. At most you'll have a relatively small penalty to your die pool.
In Splintered States the thing is even in a Faraday cage, meaning it's ensured that it has no possible way to communicate to anyone what you're doing to it. This does protect it from my data tap idea, however. Unless whomever places the data tap turns off the Faraday cage as well...
Despite all the hustle and bustle the book presents, this job would likely be best performed by one Face approaching the server room (with a microtransceiver letting them talk to the decker on the team) and then doing as I said. Have them pose as IT with the decker filling them in with technical terms they need if it comes up during conversation. None of the employees know about the secret server you're looking for, so it's unlikely they'd have any reason to suspect you. I doubt there's even a camera pointed at the Faraday cage for the same reason-- It's hidden.
Heck, an elf technomancer/face could probably do this by themselves.
-
Thank you so much for replying everyone! Especially Namikaze, with very detailed answers.
So how should I implement something like the train? Is it just going to be a device?
Also, I have a question about the physical world/matrix interweaving. If I'm on a street, I can see (through AR) many symbols, signs, etc. If I'm in front of a store, I can access their host (maybe?) and make purchases "online".
If I am physically in front of an office building, and they are not intentionally trying to broadcast their matrix location, can I find it out?
-
Thank you so much for replying everyone! Especially Namikaze, with very detailed answers.
So how should I implement something like the train? Is it just going to be a device?
Also, I have a question about the physical world/matrix interweaving. If I'm on a street, I can see (through AR) many symbols, signs, etc. If I'm in front of a store, I can access their host (maybe?) and make purchases "online".
If I am physically in front of an office building, and they are not intentionally trying to broadcast their matrix location, can I find it out?
A train will be an icon just like a car is an icon. It will probably be on the grid of its owner (assuming a megacorp owns it).
You don't even need to be physically near the store to buy items off the Matrix as long as you have some sort of way of seeing in AR. I would have some sort of SIN check occur, depending on the type of store.
An office building broadcasting nothing at all would be pretty unusual and may draw more attention than the presumably-secretive owners want. A Matrix Perception check can be used to spot things running silent. It's possible that the building has aspects running publicly and other parts of it running silent. There are also examples of Matrix-dead buildings running all their traffic through relay boxes.
-
I thought the data server in Splintered State had the purpose you describe : It's only there to store data,and workds as a digital lockbox that has more than enough physical protection ( guards,sensors etc).And IMHO it worked perfectly.At least it did in my table.
So cutting a device off from all communication makes it more vulnerable once the decker has access to its physical location.Which is not an easy task for the decker.That's why the greatest banks on the planet are in orbit , right?(At least I think they are, I may be wrong :P)
It's much harder to get someone into an orbital bank than a terrestrial building-- Let me put it this way. Early runners are supposed to be able to pull it off (with some assistance, but that's largely transportation). A place where people work and enter and leave, even well watched, it still hundreds of times easier to penetrate.
And, no. The decker doesn't have to be next to it, actually. Someone or something with a data tap needs to be. There's no benefit to plugging right into it, since either way you're going against its host attributes. Sure, there can be some Noise... But not that much. Not more than 3, which every decker can ignore completely. At most you'll have a relatively small penalty to your die pool.
In Splintered States the thing is even in a Faraday cage, meaning it's ensured that it has no possible way to communicate to anyone what you're doing to it. This does protect it from my data tap idea, however. Unless whomever places the data tap turns off the Faraday cage as well...
Despite all the hustle and bustle the book presents, this job would likely be best performed by one Face approaching the server room (with a microtransceiver letting them talk to the decker on the team) and then doing as I said. Have them pose as IT with the decker filling them in with technical terms they need if it comes up during conversation. None of the employees know about the secret server you're looking for, so it's unlikely they'd have any reason to suspect you. I doubt there's even a camera pointed at the Faraday cage for the same reason-- It's hidden.
Heck, an elf technomancer/face could probably do this by themselves.
An elf technomancer/face wouldnt go near Brackhaven Investments for obvious reasons :p
Unless he has face sculpt
Anyway, getting in and out of a building with good matrix and physical security and different levels of clearance in order to find a datafile which is stored separately is not a walk in the park.At least it wasnt for my players and I should say that even though they are new in shadowrun, they are experienced gamers.There were motion sensors in the server room, guards were patrolling each floor and there was no way you could obtain clearance for all the HQ floors.
-
An office building broadcasting nothing at all would be pretty unusual and may draw more attention than the presumably-secretive owners want. A Matrix Perception check can be used to spot things running silent. It's possible that the building has aspects running publicly and other parts of it running silent. There are also examples of Matrix-dead buildings running all their traffic through relay boxes.
I guess what I'm asking is what is the typical matrix security setup of an average non-retail office? One that has no reason to make themselves accessible outside of the building (since work is all done by employees in house).
-
I guess what I'm asking is what is the typical matrix security setup of an average non-retail office? One that has no reason to make themselves accessible outside of the building (since work is all done by employees in house).
There would be a host for the building, though the host might be rented cloud space. The host would manage (at a minimum) the security systems, access logs, archival, and probably employee programs (since you wouldn't want any data being stored on the employee's commlink or whatnot). There have been numerous references in the fiction of terminals still existing, though we have no rules for terminals. Assume that the employees come in to work using their commlinks for identification purposes. They would maybe have physical keycards, biometric locks, or combination pads to access the more secure parts of the building. These would, of course, be the parts the shadowrunners want to get into. Once the employee is in the building, their presence is logged and tracked as they go to their terminal to begin work. The employee most likely works in AR for normal work, but might pop into VR with trodes or a datajack for more intense stuff, like collaborative programming and research simulations. At the end of the employee's shift, probably 10-12 hours, the employee leaves the way they came in.
From the outside, the building would have a host (probably silent, but maybe not if they're expecting visitors like delivery people). The commlinks of the employees would be visible, though the building might use wifi-negating paint to block the signals for security reasons. Any devices in and around the building, like security cameras and access points (maglocks, etc.) would definitely be running silently. The device is probably slaved to the host, but might not be if it's easily accessible. Any device that can be connected to physically is a back door into the host, so expect any devices that are slaved and accessible to be using motion detectors on their cases at the minimum.
Some security devices are passive and don't necessarily require access to the host in order to function. Examples would be pressure plates and induction pads (typically found in grassy areas). A great security setup will minimize access points, maximize visibility, and attempt to funnel a would-be intruder to a pre-determined location. For instance, you might put up a bunch of bushes that hide monowire. If the intruder notices the monowire, they skirt around the bushes. But the only access points between the bushes have induction material to detect weight and the body's electromagnetic field. All of these devices are passive, meaning they really don't need to be online at all and won't have any kind of matrix presence.
-
Some security devices are passive and don't necessarily require access to the host in order to function. Examples would be pressure plates and induction pads (typically found in grassy areas). A great security setup will minimize access points, maximize visibility, and attempt to funnel a would-be intruder to a pre-determined location. For instance, you might put up a bunch of bushes that hide monowire. If the intruder notices the monowire, they skirt around the bushes. But the only access points between the bushes have induction material to detect weight and the body's electromagnetic field. All of these devices are passive, meaning they really don't need to be online at all and won't have any kind of matrix presence.
How would such devices (pressure pads more than monowire) communicate an alarm to the host, though?
For an "average, non-retail office", that seems like a lot of security to my mind.
-
How would such devices (pressure pads more than monowire) communicate an alarm to the host, though?
For an "average, non-retail office", that seems like a lot of security to my mind.
The magic of wires! Just kidding. Kind of. It is a good question.
I would agree, it seems a bit over the top for an average office; then again, the "average office" that a runner would go against is likely above average.
-
Oh I wasn't thinking of just Joe Wageslave's office - I was thinking of "Joe Wageslave's office that houses crucial files". And also just talking about security in general.
As to how it communicates - wires. There are only disadvantages to having pressure pads and other passive security measures wirelessly active.
-
As to how it communicates - wires. There are only disadvantages to having pressure pads and other passive security measures wirelessly active.
And the disadvantage of wires is datataps !
-
And the disadvantage of wires is datataps !
Which is why for pressure plates and pressure meshes, I bury the wires. :P
-
Parachutes, man. Parachutes.
-
And levitation! And zip lines! Actually, I think zip lines are the most fun way to enter a facility. Especially if it's over a large distance and I get to do a thing where some of the rope begins to fray over time. *cackle*
-
Well, I think you guys probably figured this one was coming... Resonance Veil.
Very vaguely defined in the rulebook. What exactly is it capable of? How do I prevent it from being abused? The technomancer in my group wants to go buy a super expensive object and then RV the cash register to make it look like the transaction is approved.
-
Well, I think you guys probably figured this one was coming... Resonance Veil.
A preemptive warning: Resonance Veil's ambiguity leaves it very much in the GM fiat realm. All the answers I'll provide will be what I do at my table. We have a TM who does use the ability, and I think we've found a nice balance with it.
Very vaguely defined in the rulebook. What exactly is it capable of?
It's capable of almost anything that fits the description of "make the target believe something has happened in the Matrix." So basically, you can disguise an icon (not that it helps a LOT because icons can already look like almost anything), but the best uses are for things like making the target think your icon has logged off the Host or jacked out completely. It's also useful for making an icon (like say a Patrol IC) think that another icon (best if it's a user) is attempting to hack something. It's a great distraction.
How do I prevent it from being abused?
You have to sit down and talk with your player about what kind of expectations you have. That's always the first step to stemming any potential abuse. More specifically, the illusion can be broken, and will be broken the second the technomancer stops sustaining the complex form. And there are logs of almost every action in the Matrix - if the character uses the ability for something overt that can be easily contradicted, the character's actions might come back to bite them in the ass.
The technomancer in my group wants to go buy a super expensive object and then RV the cash register to make it look like the transaction is approved.
Case in point of something incredibly overtly obvious. The cash register might come up as approved, but it would be pretty easy to notice that the item hasn't actually been paid for. Assume that all of these transactions (particularly expensive ones) use some form of escrow. Escrow is a transactionary element that all shadowrunners should become familiar with anyway. Mr. Johnson can deposit the whole payment for a run into escrow, and that way everyone can keep their eyes on the prize so to speak. It's not unrealistic for someone to use a PayPal type system for payment verification. This would be a VERY fast escrow, but it's still escrow in the strictest sense. Player is supposed to pay for item, and convinces the escrow account that the payment has been sent through. Escrow account attempts to send money through to the payee, and finds the money's not there. Unless the technomancer is hacking the escrow account they won't be able to control both points of the transaction.
-
Thanks for the excellent reply as always. Could you give a concrete example of using resonance veil on a device that exists in the physical world? Could you imagine it being used to bypass a keypad by indicating the correct combination was entered, for example?
Also, unrelated, do Technomancers have both hot-sim and cold-sim modes as well? Additionally, do they suffer the normal drawbacks to trying to hack while in AR "mode" (i.e. lowered initiative)?
-
Also, unrelated, do Technomancers have both hot-sim and cold-sim modes as well? Additionally, do they suffer the normal drawbacks to trying to hack while in AR "mode" (i.e. lowered initiative)?
SR5 page 251:
"As a technomancer, you can only use AR and hot-sim VR (the only way you can use cold-sim VR is by using a cybredeck or commlink—ew)."
And yes, they would use the appropriate initiative (Reaction + Intuition for physical / AR, Data Processing/Logic + Intuition and 4d6 for hot-sim VR).
-
Thanks for the excellent reply as always. Could you give a concrete example of using resonance veil on a device that exists in the physical world? Could you imagine it being used to bypass a keypad by indicating the correct combination was entered, for example?
Let's stick with your maglock example. Technomancer decides to try to use Resonance Veil to convince the maglock that someone has entered the correct code. A few things you need to know first, such as the Intuition of the last person that programmed the maglock. I'd assume this is going to be a person with at least a 4 Intuition. Data Processing is always the same as the Device Rating, which can vary from maglock to maglock. For the purposes of our simulation, let's go with a maglock rating 4. This isn't going to be super-easy, but it won't be incredibly hard either.
First the technomancer chooses the Level, which in this case is going to be a 6. He then rolls Software + Resonance, which let's say is a total dice pool of 11, with a limit of the Level (6). I'm just going to use random.org to come up with the number of hits here. The technomancer rolled really well and got 6 hits! The maglock then rolls it's 8 dice (Intuition 4 + Data Processing 4) and gets only 2 hits. *cue sad trombone sound*
The maglock then rolls a Matrix Perception test, using it's Device Rating in lieu of the Computer skill. In order to see through the deception, the maglock would have to get 4 hits or more. So that's a total of 8 dice ("Computer" 4 + Intuition 4) and gets 3 hits. *cue sad trombone* It was close, but not good enough to break the deception of the Resonance Veil. The technomancer has successfully fooled the maglock into thinking that someone has entered the correct code, then rolls his fading attributes (I use my own advanced technomancer rules to change the fading attributes, by the way) against 5 points of fading damage.
-
Doesn't change the numbers, but you could also assume the maglock had just been set and then no one cared, in which case, per pg 237 Core rulebook, it'd use Device Rating in place of Intuition
"If a device is completely unattended, the Device Rating stands in for any Mental attributes an icon needs but doesn’t have. For example, a device that an owner sets and forgets, like a door lock, uses its Device Rating in place of Intuition as part of the defense pool against a Control Device action."
-
The maglock then rolls a Matrix Perception test, using it's Device Rating in lieu of the Computer skill.
Why would the maglock make a perception test? What reason would the maglock have to think it was being sold an illusion?
Even if the target has reason to believe what it’s seeing is fake, it needs to make a Matrix Perception Test with a threshold equal to your net hits to see through the illusion.
-
I think the maglock would actually report that it received a successful code but wouldn't unlock still...because...reasons... But any spider that looked at the access log of the maglock would see that it just successfully accepted the code, and would assume that it had just opened. So the Spider might physically come down to see if there was some kind of weird problem with it, which is when the Shadowrunners jump him and knock him out.
Otherwise, Puppeteering is suppose to handle making a maglock open.
-
Why would the maglock make a perception test? What reason would the maglock have to think it was being sold an illusion?
The maglock wouldn't need to make a perception test. But if there was a reason that the maglock's software would detect an error, it would roll according to the example I gave above. If a maglock's software was correlated with thermal detection sensors, it might notice that a person isn't actually present to enter the codes. I can't think of a lot of other scenarios in which the maglock would roll perception at all, maybe a glitch?
I think the maglock would actually report that it received a successful code but wouldn't unlock still...because...reasons...
LOL Very eloquent. :P
Otherwise, Puppeteering is suppose to handle making a maglock open.
Puppeteer is a guaranteed spoof command action. Resonance Veil is substantially more limited and gives the device an opportunity to break through the illusion relatively easily. Honestly, Resonance Veil is better when used against IC and Agents, and you're right that Puppeteer is really the ideal complex form for this kind of situation.
-
1. Is there an additional advantage to directly connecting to a device besides the lack of noise/grid modifiers?
host can have a practically unlimited number of devices slaved to it, but because of the direct connection hack you rarely see more devices than can be protected physically.
The bolded text makes it sound like there's more to it than that.
2. You can spot a host from any distance. However, how would that process even work? Let's say I know there's a company called Foo Incorporated, and that they have a (non-silent) host on the same grid as me. Can I just automatically find it? Do I need to make a search first?
-
1. Is there an additional advantage to directly connecting to a device besides the lack of noise/grid modifiers?
Once you're directly connected to a device that is slaved to a host, you have full access to the host. Therefore, it makes sense to have only the devices that can be secured against physical intrusion slaved to the host. The rest would just be on the grid, and report to the host (without actually being slaved). Being unslaved to the host means the devices are more susceptible to wireless hacking, because they will likely have smaller defensive dice pools, but it's a small price to pay for host integrity.
2. You can spot a host from any distance. However, how would that process even work? Let's say I know there's a company called Foo Incorporated, and that they have a (non-silent) host on the same grid as me. Can I just automatically find it? Do I need to make a search first?
You can automatically find it. Hosts ignore the rules for physical location to your character, as they have no physical location. A host running silently would require a Matrix Search action though. Also, it's clear you've done some programming (aside from HTML) in the past - Foo Bar Zot. :)
-
When you have a PAN or WAN the master protects the slaves by allowing them to use the master's superior firewall and/or willpower for defense against an attack. Directly connecting to a slave device bypasses this protection and it left to its own defenses. Also, putting a mark on the device puts a mark on the master which should be a whole lot easier than getting a mark on the master directly (especially when it is a host.)
-
2. You can spot a host from any distance. However, how would that process even work? Let's say I know there's a company called Foo Incorporated, and that they have a (non-silent) host on the same grid as me. Can I just automatically find it? Do I need to make a search first?
You can automatically find it. Hosts ignore the rules for physical location to your character, as they have no physical location. A host running silently would require a Matrix Search action though. Also, it's clear you've done some programming (aside from HTML) in the past - Foo Bar Zot. :)
Spotting a host that runs silently is a Matrix Perception test, not a Matrix Search.
SR5 page 235, Matrix Perception section:
"You can always spot a host from anywhere on the planet without a test, assuming the host isn’t running silent."
-
Spotting a host that runs silently is a Matrix Perception test, not a Matrix Search.
Right, that's why I asked about non-silent (there's got to be an easier term- loud?) hosts.
My reasoning is thus: there must be hundreds of thousands of hosts in the world, if not millions (or even billions!).
If you're trying to find the host for the political organization "Elect Bob Shmoe!" in a tiny village in Tanzania, which is one insignificant host in an ocean of hosts, you can instantly find that? That just seems odds to me. Maybe it's because I'm digging too deep about this but I can't even imagine how that would work in practice.
Also, it's clear you've done some programming (aside from HTML) in the past - Foo Bar Zot. :)
Haha yea, I'm a full-stack web developer as my day job with a CS degree so I certainly hope I've done some programming before. I heard FUBAR is also a military term too, so you never know... but I doubt they'd use it in an example context.
-
As the quote from the book says, Adder:
"You can always spot a host from anywhere on the planet without a test, assuming the host isn’t running silent."
No, it may not make the most sense, but that's pretty definitive. You are free to make a houserule that requires a Matrix Search test, for example. I'd put the threshold at 1 for any publically available host, and 3 for any non-public host if I were to make such a change.
-
Spotting a host that runs silently is a Matrix Perception test, not a Matrix Search.
Yep - derp on me for that. :P
-
3. The rules state that you add to the overwatch score every 15 minutes.
Is it intentionally supposed to be exactly 15 minutes, or is that just a guideline? For example, if a player starts a stopwatch before they begin their first illegal action and expect to finish their work before 15 minutes are up, can they rely on that? I was wondering whether a house rule of 5 + 3d6 (that will average 15.5 minutes) makes sense or whether the game designers intentionally wanted it to be exactly 15 minutes.
4. Should it generally be assumed that most people's weapons are matrix-enabled? Or running "loud"?
-
3. The rules state that you add to the overwatch score every 15 minutes.
Is it intentionally supposed to be exactly 15 minutes, or is that just a guideline? For example, if a player starts a stopwatch before they begin their first illegal action and expect to finish their work before 15 minutes are up, can they rely on that? I was wondering whether a house rule of 5 + 3d6 (that will average 15.5 minutes) makes sense or whether the game designers intentionally wanted it to be exactly 15 minutes.
It starts when they begin their first illegal action, then adds 2d6 every 15 minutes thereafter. I usually find my first one is when I jump off the public grid onto a better grid.
4. Should it generally be assumed that most people's weapons are matrix-enabled? Or running "loud"?
I think that's probably a GM call. In our game it tends to be that most are wireless enabled but running silent.
-
I play it as every 15 minutes once you do something illegal. Given that most things in Shadowrun take place in 3-second increments, it only really comes into play when the decker states that he's going to sit on the grid for hours on end getting marks on every conceivable device out there. It's a device for the GM to prod things along more than anything in my experience.
All non-throwback guns are devices and in most jurisdictions, you have can't legally run them silently (Shadowrunners scoff at your laws!). Some icons (including guns) display separately from their owner's persona, even if those icons are part of a PAN.
-
It starts when they begin their first illegal action, then adds 2d6 every 15 minutes thereafter. I usually find my first one is when I jump off the public grid onto a better grid.
Is that actually correct? The descriptions for Brute Force and Hack on the Fly explicitly say that they do not alert GOD like they normally would.
That also implies that you can attempt to gridhop infinite numbers of times without triggering attention...
-
It starts when they begin their first illegal action, then adds 2d6 every 15 minutes thereafter. I usually find my first one is when I jump off the public grid onto a better grid.
Is that actually correct? The descriptions for Brute Force and Hack on the Fly explicitly say that they do not alert GOD like they normally would.
That also implies that you can attempt to gridhop infinite numbers of times without triggering attention...
It is correct. Once you start an illegal action, you start leaving traces and digital footprints in the Matrix. That's what GOD and demiGODs are looking for.
The greatest ninjas in the world can’t walk through the desert without moving some sand, and the best hackers in the world can’t hack the Matrix without leaving tiny clues to their passing. GOD and the demiGODs are on the lookout for these kinds of clues, but luckily the Matrix is a really big place, with plenty of places to hide. They’re good, though, and they’ll get you eventually. The more hacking you do, the easier you are to find.
So, even though it doesn't alert them, they are still sweeping for traces of hackers/illegal actions. That's why the timer starts.
-
Actually it states that grid hop sleaze failures and brute force successful attacks don't alert the grid owner or it's demiGOD as they normally would (when attacking other icons). It says nothing about not starting overwatch.score.
Edit - The metagame way to look at it is this: If neither GOD nor anyone else were notified by success or failure, and if overwatch did not start, what would be the point of requiring rolls or making better grid access a perk of medium+ lifestyle (or lower with grid subscription in run faster). It doesn't cause much issue, just a slightly larger overwatch score and you can't have only public grid access, hack onto a better grid and then do a matrix search for hidden data without the -2 from public grid.
-
My reasoning is thus: there must be hundreds of thousands of hosts in the world, if not millions (or even billions!).
If you're trying to find the host for the political organization "Elect Bob Shmoe!" in a tiny village in Tanzania, which is one insignificant host in an ocean of hosts, you can instantly find that? That just seems odds to me. Maybe it's because I'm digging too deep about this but I can't even imagine how that would work in practice.
How long does it take to get the results of a google search for "Elect Bob Schmoe" in a tiny village in Tanzania today? Then take everything we know about the internet and networking and computers and bin it. This is 60 years in the future in an alternate universe where there is magic. To say that you can find a piece of information that is actively advertising it's existance instantly doesn't seem that far fetched to me.
-
Okay, so to confirm- attempting a grid hop (without permission) starts the timer, but does not increment your score. Yes?
edit: as a corollary, you could still attempt the grid hop many times with minimal. Since it doesn't add score you could easily do like 20 attempts in like a minute. Obviously that cuts down on your remaining time to do other things, but compared to the normal consequences of illegal Matrix actions grid hopping is far less dangerous.
2nd edit: Since you can reboot whenever unless you're link-locked, if your first illegal action was to grid hop, you could phrase your instructions to the GM as such:
"I attempt to grid-hop. If I fail, I reboot. Then I try again. Repeat until I hop grids on my first try."
That would conceivably always get you into the grid on your first try, maximizing your remaining time until the first increment.
-
Why do you think you wouldn't get overwatch from the grid's successes as normal? The only thing happening here unusually is that normally with a successful brute force attack you gain marks and notify the victim, on a grid hop you just gain marks. With a Hack on the Fly if you fail you notify the victim, here you do not. You are still using Attack and Sleaze actions, and still start Overwatch and get a score equal to the defending grid's successes.
However, you are right that it's probably worth rebooting if you aren't under time pressure and fail. As no one has noticed you in this case, you'll not have anyone put on alert, so there is no loss.
-
It starts the timer and increments your score. It does not alert the demiGOD that an illegal attempt has happened. Basically, your timer starts. Also, the defense dice (4 for local grids; 6 for global grids) have a chance to add to your OS. Each hit that they get when defending adds to your OS. And yes, your second edit would work. Except, if you fail to grid-hop, you kind of have built your decker wrong, or have the worst luck ever. 4 or 6 dice to defend is nothing.
-
Except, if you fail to grid-hop, you kind of have built your decker wrong, or have the worst luck ever. 4 or 6 dice to defend is nothing.
Heh, the GM was amazed last week when I failed to grid hop to a local grid (4 dice) with my decker (18 dice). Was getting all excited, then I said "then I reboot and try again".
-
Except, if you fail to grid-hop, you kind of have built your decker wrong, or have the worst luck ever. 4 or 6 dice to defend is nothing.
Heh, the GM was amazed last week when I failed to grid hop to a local grid (4 dice) with my decker (18 dice). Was getting all excited, then I said "then I reboot and try again".
It's not that it's impossible, but it's so insignificant in 99.99999% of situations that it doesn't matter, as you can just reboot. Although that is pretty funny.
-
It starts the timer and increments your score. It does not alert the demiGOD that an illegal attempt has happened.
I think that's the part that I'm a bit confused about. Does this mean that whenever someone fails an illegal action in a host the demiGOD is "alerted"? Does that have any rules impact or is that just up to the GM to implement the followup? And grid hopping would not trigger whatever that action normally would be.
-
If you perform an illegal action (Attack or Sleaze), you create ripples in the Matrix and your OS starts to tick.
There are separate penalties for failing a Brute Force or Hack on the Fly action, as noted in the core book. Those penalties do not apply to the Grid Hop action.
-
If you perform an illegal action (Attack or Sleaze), you create ripples in the Matrix and your OS starts to tick.
There are separate penalties for failing a Brute Force or Hack on the Fly action, as noted in the core book. Those penalties do not apply to the Grid Hop action.
Specifically, if you succeed on Attack action or fail on a Sleaze action, you immediately notify the owner of the thing you were trying to hack that someone's trying to hack him.
So, if you're trying to hack a grid, and then you're supposed to notify the owner of the grid that he's being hacked, what happens? You might think that maybe GOD should immediately show up or something. Those sections of the Brute Force and Hack On The Fly writeups are just saying that you don't do that.
-
Could you give an example of "hacking a grid"? Grid Hop requires zero marks, so there's no risk of failing a Hack on the Fly roll prior to rolling Grid Hop.
-
1. Is there an additional advantage to directly connecting to a device besides the lack of noise/grid modifiers?
Once you're directly connected to a device that is slaved to a host, you have full access to the host. Therefore, it makes sense to have only the devices that can be secured against physical intrusion slaved to the host. The rest would just be on the grid, and report to the host (without actually being slaved). Being unslaved to the host means the devices are more susceptible to wireless hacking, because they will likely have smaller defensive dice pools, but it's a small price to pay for host integrity.
I actually (finally) found the ruling I was looking for: " If a slaved device is under attack via a direct connection (as through a universal data connector), however, it cannot use its master’s ratings to defend itself."
That's what I actually meant, but you might not have realized that from the vague way I worded my question.
Specifically, if you succeed on Attack action or fail on a Sleaze action, you immediately notify the owner of the thing you were trying to hack that someone's trying to hack him.
Thank you, that's what I was looking for.
-
Can you use the public grid with a commlink that has no SIN set?
-
It starts the timer and increments your score. It does not alert the demiGOD that an illegal attempt has happened.
I think that's the part that I'm a bit confused about. Does this mean that whenever someone fails an illegal action in a host the demiGOD is "alerted"? Does that have any rules impact or is that just up to the GM to implement the followup? And grid hopping would not trigger whatever that action normally would be.
Okay. There are two types of Illegal Actions, at least as defined by the Matrix. Attack and Sleaze Actions. Whenever someone succeeds at an Attack action, the device's firewall notifies it's owner and any nearby authorities (the Host, the local demiGOD, or even GOD itself if that is what's appropriate) that an attack has happened. This doesn't mean you are instantly spotted, just that they know they are under attack. The effort in attacking the device also creates ripples, which the demiGOD is looking for (it's always looking for it, they are trying to constantly monitor and boot out hackers). Whenever someone fails a Sleaze action, the device they failed to hack gets a Mark on them, and the owner is instantly aware that they were being attacked. The effort in trying to subtly hack the device also creates ripples, which the demiGOD is looking for.
The specific part about not notifying anyone comes from the following descriptions.
Brute Force
(Complex Action)
Marks Required: none
Test: Cybercombat + Logic [Attack] v. Willpower + Firewall
You can use this action to mark a target without obtaining the normal permissions you need. This is the action for hackers emphasizing their Attack over their Sleaze, making it related to Hack on the Fly.
If you succeed in this action, you place one mark on it. You can have up to a maximum of three marks per icon. If you wish, you may also inflict 1 DV of Matrix damage to the target for every two full net hits, if the target can take Matrix damage, which is resisted with the target’s Device Rating + Firewall.
Before rolling, you can declare that you are trying to place more than one mark. If you try for two marks in one shot, you take a –4 dice pool penalty on the attempt. If you try for three marks in a single swipe, you take a –10 dice pool penalty.
You can also use this action to hop to a grid for which you don’t have legitimate access. The defense dice pool in this case is 4 dice for a local grid or 6 dice for a global grid. If you succeed, instead of putting a mark on the grid, you hop to that grid immediately. Using Brute Force to hop grids successfully doesn’t alert the grid or its demiGOD the way most successful Attack actions do.
That last paragraph means that if you succeed when using Brute Force on a grid only, you won't alert the grid owners or the grid's demiGOD.
HACK ON THE FLY
(Complex Action)
Marks Required: none
Test: Hacking + Logic [Sleaze] v. Intuition + Firewall
You can use this action to mark a target without getting the normal permissions. This is the action for hackers emphasizing their Sleaze over their Attack, making it an analog to Brute Force.
When targeting an icon, you put one mark on it, up to a maximum of three marks per icon. Additionally, every two full net hits counts as one hit on a Matrix Perception Test, so you can get some info along with your mark.
Before rolling, you can declare that you are trying for more than one mark. If you try for two marks in one shot, you take a –4 dice pool penalty on the attempt. If you try for three marks in one go, you take a –10 dice pool penalty.
You can also use this action to hop to a grid for which you don’t have legitimate access. The defense dice pool in this case is 4 dice for a local grid or 6 dice for a global grid. If you succeed, instead of putting a mark on the grid, you hop to that grid immediately. Using Hack on the Fly to hop grids unsuccessfully doesn’t alert the grid or its demiGOD the way most unsuccessful Sleaze actions do.
If you fail a Hack on the Fly against a grid only, then you won't get a Mark on your device, alert the grid owners, or the grid's demiGOD.
Can you use the public grid with a commlink that has no SIN set?
Yes.
-
Thank you for the thorough response (with citations!) 8-bit!
-
Could you give an example of "hacking a grid"? Grid Hop requires zero marks, so there's no risk of failing a Hack on the Fly roll prior to rolling Grid Hop.
8-bit covered this pretty well, but if you use Brute Force or Hack On The Fly on a grid to gain access illicitly, those are Attack and Sleaze actions respectively.
You can't use Grid Hop to jump to a grid you don't have permission to be on.
-
Could you give an example of "hacking a grid"? Grid Hop requires zero marks, so there's no risk of failing a Hack on the Fly roll prior to rolling Grid Hop.
8-bit covered this pretty well, but if you use Brute Force or Hack On The Fly on a grid to gain access illicitly, those are Attack and Sleaze actions respectively.
You can't use Grid Hop to jump to a grid you don't have permission to be on.
I should have been clearer: I was talking about using Hack on the Fly to hop grids, not the Grid Hop action. At my table we just say I'm hopping a grid and then roll Hack on the Fly--I don't think anyone has ever legally performed a Grid Hop action.
-
Is it possible to turn wireless completely off on a non-throwback device (e.g. a gun)?
-
Is it possible to turn wireless completely off on a non-throwback device (e.g. a gun)?
Yes, it is.
Turning It Off
Toggling an individual device’s wireless functionality off is a Free Action, as is toggling all of your wireless devices to “wireless off.” You lose wireless bonuses, but the items can no longer be wirelessly hacked. Otherwise, you can rely on your team’s hacker to provide wireless defense to your personal area network and get the best of both worlds, keeping your wireless bonuses on while maintaining a defense from the digital world.
-
Regarding the universal data connector port that virtually all devices have, the rulebook states that it needs to be "easily accessible". Does that mean insecure?
For example, let's take a cop car. Would the UDC port be someplace like under the dashboard where you would need to unlock the door to get to it? Or would it be someplace on the exterior (under the car, the trunk, under the hood)?
How about a door? The book has an example of a decker going up to a door on the exterior of a building and directly connecting to it. This seems odd. Why wouldn't the UDC at least face inward?
-
Probably because one of the contractors was crap at his job. It happens ::)
-
3. The rules state that you add to the overwatch score every 15 minutes.
Is it intentionally supposed to be exactly 15 minutes, or is that just a guideline? For example, if a player starts a stopwatch before they begin their first illegal action and expect to finish their work before 15 minutes are up, can they rely on that? I was wondering whether a house rule of 5 + 3d6 (that will average 15.5 minutes) makes sense or whether the game designers intentionally wanted it to be exactly 15 minutes.
It's every 15 minutes on the dot, plus every time the person makes an illegal action on a grid. House rules are always good though, and I think your house rule is reasonable. It certainly keeps the decker on their toes.
4. Should it generally be assumed that most people's weapons are matrix-enabled? Or running "loud"?
This depends on your table. At my table, unless my players explicitly tell me their items are silently running, I assume they're "loud." Before we do anything with a run, I always ask my players to tell me what gear they have, where they have it, whether or not it's wireless, whether or not it's hidden, and what their PAN configuration(s) look like. That usually pretty well clears up any issues with gear before we have them. None of this "Oh yeah, I brought that grenade that normally stays at home!" stuff.
-
Regarding the universal data connector port that virtually all devices have, the rulebook states that it needs to be "easily accessible". Does that mean insecure
In a word, yes.
I don't know the Shadowrun history of it, but it's the logical extension of the current security services wanting backdoors in all computer and telephony equipment and networks. In the sixth world, as in ours, that is also opening backdoors for any other hackers. It is a dystopian world view, after all.
The charitable way of looking at it is that perfect security is rarely a good plan in most circumstances. If you cannot get in from outside, and something happens to those inside, you actually want to be able to get in to help them!
-
The charitable way of looking at it is that perfect security is rarely a good plan in most circumstances. If you cannot get in from outside, and something happens to those inside, you actually want to be able to get in to help them!
That's probably even more reinforced after the whole Renraku Arcology incident.
-
10. You normally get a -2 penalty for trying to target something on another grid.
If you're trying to brute force or hack on the fly to grid hop, does that -2 penalty still apply? Since your target IS another grid?
11. If you're inside a building that 'is" a host, but you're just a random guest walking through, is your commlink distinguishable from the host? i.e. Can you be targeted separately?
12. What counts as an "Attack" or "Sleaze" matrix action? Any action that has either one as a limit?
13. Convergence reboots your persona. Technomancers cannot be rebooted except by themselves. Does this means convergence dumps them into AR mode but doesn't reboot them (i.e. they retain GOD score and marks)?
-
14. Let's say I want to hack into someone's commlink and find and copy a file onto my deck. What actions do I need to do?
Start with Hack on the Fly to mark the commlink. Now I want to find the file (one of the many on his device). What action is that? Then after I find the file, I need to... put a mark on the file and use Edit File to "copy" it?
15. Technomancer question. If you have threaded a sustained complex form (e.g. diffusion of an attribute) and want to do it again, do you have to rethread?
16. If you are sustaining a Diffusion of Firewall on a target for -1, then do the Diffusion again for -2, do they override each other? Or stack? Do you have to maintain focus (-2 per sustained form) for both?
17. For noise penalties that are situational (spam and static zones), does this apply to you, the target, or both being that zone? For example, if I was in a neutral zone (no special modifiers) but my target was 99m away in the city downtown (-1 noise), do I suffer a -1 penalty when interacting with them? How about vice versa?
18. Since the primary use of "level" in Complex Forms affects the limit and the fade damage, can you conceivably "bypass" this by threading a form at Level 1 and using Edge to "Push the Limit" and remove the limit? This would lead to a full power form with no limit and only one potential damage. Of course this is limited by your Edge, but I wanted to confirm this is not exploitative or an undesired combo by the designers.
-
10. You normally get a -2 penalty for trying to target something on another grid.
If you're trying to brute force or hack on the fly to grid hop, does that -2 penalty still apply? Since your target IS another grid?
Yup, and that stacks with other penalties, like working from a public grid.
11. If you're inside a building that 'is" a host, but you're just a random guest walking through, is your commlink distinguishable from the host? i.e. Can you be targeted separately?
Yes. Your commlink is out there floating in the ether of the Matrix, tethered by whatever grid you happen to be subscribed to. However, if your persona is "in" a host (I really don't know of a better descriptor for this behavior) then it's no longer on the grid and therefore cannot be targeted or identified except from something/someone also "in" the host.
12. What counts as an "Attack" or "Sleaze" matrix action? Any action that has either one as a limit?
Yup. A Matrix Action that uses the Attack rating as a limit is an "Attack" action. Same for Sleaze.
13. Convergence reboots your persona. Technomancers cannot be rebooted except by themselves. Does this means convergence dumps them into AR mode but doesn't reboot them (i.e. they retain GOD score and marks)?
Well, the 12 points of damage will usually ensure they are unconscious at the least. But honestly I don't have a rulebook answer here. My gut tells me to go with the idea that they are knocked unconscious for a few minutes to "reboot."
14. Let's say I want to hack into someone's commlink and find and copy a file onto my deck. What actions do I need to do?
Start with Hack on the Fly to mark the commlink. Now I want to find the file (one of the many on his device). What action is that? Then after I find the file, I need to... put a mark on the file and use Edit File to "copy" it?
Finding the file is a Matrix Search action. Getting a MARK on the file is either Brute Force or Hack on the Fly. Then Edit File to copy the file.
15. Technomancer question. If you have threaded a sustained complex form (e.g. diffusion of an attribute) and want to do it again, do you have to rethread?
If you are trying to use a different Complex Form, yes. If you're using the same Complex Form and trying to get different hits, yes. If you're using the same Complex Form and don't care about increasing hits, there's no reason to let go of a perfectly good sustained Complex Form.
16. If you are sustaining a Diffusion of Firewall on a target for -1, then do the Diffusion again for -2, do they override each other? Or stack? Do you have to maintain focus (-2 per sustained form) for both?
You can do Diffusion of Firewall for -1, then decide you want to do better. You drop the Complex Form and try again. This time, you get lucky and get -2. You cannot just keep stacking Diffusion of X to cripple an opponent.
17. For noise penalties that are situational (spam and static zones), does this apply to you, the target, or both being that zone? For example, if I was in a neutral zone (no special modifiers) but my target was 99m away in the city downtown (-1 noise), do I suffer a -1 penalty when interacting with them? How about vice versa?
You calculate Noise for yourself only. But your opponent will also have Noise penalties (unless they've reduced the penalty somehow) if they choose to retaliate or otherwise act.
18. Since the primary use of "level" in Complex Forms affects the limit and the fade damage, can you conceivably "bypass" this by threading a form at Level 1 and using Edge to "Push the Limit" and remove the limit? This would lead to a full power form with no limit and only one potential damage. Of course this is limited by your Edge, but I wanted to confirm this is not exploitative or an undesired combo by the designers.
This is totally legal. Many of us have come together and were trying to work out a system of "reagents" for technomancers to use in a fashion similar to how mages can use reagents. Setting the limit on Threading and Compiling being the primary applications. None of that is canon though, and it's completely in house rule territory. If you want to check out the technomancer rules that I adapted from 4th edition, look in the GM's Toolbox forum.
-
17. For noise penalties that are situational (spam and static zones), does this apply to you, the target, or both being that zone? For example, if I was in a neutral zone (no special modifiers) but my target was 99m away in the city downtown (-1 noise), do I suffer a -1 penalty when interacting with them? How about vice versa?
It isn't entirely clear from the rules. If I was GM'ing I'd take noise from spam/static zones as equal to the highest value of noise of source and target.
That's based on my interpretation of the matrix as a sort of wireless Metropolitan Area Network / Peer-to-peer Mesh network. As a result your communication bandwidth is a balance between the number of other local wireless devices and how active they are. If there is more traffic than the devices can handle you have noise. In a static zone this is because there are few devices in the mesh network. In a spam zone it's because whilst there are many devices, the traffic is higher. As traffic for most matrix actions would be two way, I think the available bandwidth will be restricted to the highest of the values, as it's a mesh network, there are many paths between them so no need to worry about noise elsewhere.
(Not relevant for this question, but I see grids as being tagged traffic, like trunks in a VLAN, but across the matrix. Getting between them means going via a 'router', or making a device act as one, hence the cross grid penalty. Public grid is flagged as low priority for it's handling at all nodes, hence the standard penalty. I see the actual matrix devices as a distributed peer-to-peer parallel processing architecture. You have small relatively low power (for the time) devices, but as few are in high use, they can be called upon to provide calculation power for other devices. As such you have a lot of power for the weight/size/heat, but are more vulnerable from hacking (as you don't have 100% control over your own device, or that being used for calculation), and won't function well in a high noise area. As the actions are taken by a local cloud of devices, rather than your device alone, that is why it takes GOD time to track you down through overwatch. It also explains why there are bonuses for being on the matrix, as only then are you using the power of other devices to perform calculations.)
-
11. If you're inside a building that 'is" a host, but you're just a random guest walking through, is your commlink distinguishable from the host? i.e. Can you be targeted separately?
Yes. Your commlink is out there floating in the ether of the Matrix, tethered by whatever grid you happen to be subscribed to. However, if your persona is "in" a host (I really don't know of a better descriptor for this behavior) then it's no longer on the grid and therefore cannot be targeted or identified except from something/someone also "in" the host.
Adder, keep in mind that hosts technically do not have a physical location. So while a particular building may have a host with all (or some) of it's devices slaved to it, a character being inside said building does not influence his electronics in any particular way. Hosts are entirely constructs of the matrix.
13. Convergence reboots your persona. Technomancers cannot be rebooted except by themselves. Does this means convergence dumps them into AR mode but doesn't reboot them (i.e. they retain GOD score and marks)?
Well, the 12 points of damage will usually ensure they are unconscious at the least. But honestly I don't have a rulebook answer here. My gut tells me to go with the idea that they are knocked unconscious for a few minutes to "reboot."
I see no reason why convergence won't affect Technomancers according to the given rule, as no exceptions are listed in the convergence or Technomancer sections. Remember that GOD employs Technomancers, and that the description from the Grid Overwatch Score section on page 232 does not specifically list that GOD uses the Reboot Device action, stating instead:
"First, they hit you for 12 DV Matrix damage, which you resist normally. Then they force your persona to reboot, erasing all of your marks and dumping you from the Matrix (causing dumpshock if you were in VR at the time). As if that wasn’t enough, they also report your physical location to the owner of the grid you were just using and the host you were in (if you were in a host), so you might have to deal with some real-life security forces coming to track your ass down."
The bolded section is important since Reboot Device would not work on a decker's persona (a deck used to access the Matrix ceases to be a device and becomes a persona instead; page 234-235) or a technomancer's living persona. It is fair to assume that GOD has access to protocols as yet unavailable to "normal" deckers and technomancers, given that they essentially have the power to inflict 12DV of Matrix Damage (resisted normally, but without a defense roll) by cutting you off from the Matrix, rebooting and potentially dumpshocking you in the process.
14. Let's say I want to hack into someone's commlink and find and copy a file onto my deck. What actions do I need to do?
Start with Hack on the Fly to mark the commlink. Now I want to find the file (one of the many on his device). What action is that? Then after I find the file, I need to... put a mark on the file and use Edit File to "copy" it?
Finding the file is a Matrix Search action. Getting a MARK on the file is either Brute Force or Hack on the Fly. Then Edit File to copy the file.
Technically, finding the file (or indeed any Matrix Icon) is a Matrix Perception test; the Matrix Search action is only used to search for information about a topic, and never for individual icons. Using Matrix Search to find icons, be they hosts, files, or persona, while perhaps appropriate, is strictly houserule territory.
SR5 page 218:
"Every icon in the Matrix is one of six things: a persona, a device, a PAN, a file, a host, or a mark."
SR5 page 241, Matrix Perception:
"This versatile and important action is used both for finding icons in the Matrix and for analyzing Matrix objects."
SR5 page 241, Matrix Search:
"You search the Matrix for information about a topic."
-
Technically, finding the file (or indeed any Matrix Icon) is a Matrix Perception test;
Damn it! That's the second time I've gotten those two backwards. >.<
-
Sorry, another question about Matrix architecture.
Let's go back to the train example. Let's say the train has a rig-in point in the lead engine car. It also has doors on the end of each car, and there are multiple cars.
Would it be reasonable to consider the lead engine car and every other door as "devices"?
If you could remotely open and close all the doors from the lead engine car, would it be reasonable to slave those doors to the lead car?
Now, what would prevent someone sitting in their apartment 10km away from hacking into that lead engine car and then accelerating the train to its doom? The noise penalty is only 3 (which is easily avoidable, the common program Signal Scrub reduces by -2 already) and I don't see even a below-average decker from being able to establish three marks and using Control Device to accelerate the train before GOD shows up. And that is the worst case scenario where accelerating the train is considered a Complex Action (a Simple Action would only require 2).
edit: Related question: I've been considering making the train part of a host specific to just that train, and all devices on that train. If that host had a WAN that all the devices belonged to, could you still hack a device on that WAN without being "in" the host?
-
A rigger jacking into the train would make it impossible to remotely hack (see Control Override, p 265). Now, not every single train is going to have a rigger on board--that would be pretty cost prohibitive--but every train is certainly going to have the 2075 version of positive train control, and that system is likely going to be entirely offline, for obvious reasons. The runners would have to physically disable to PTC mechanisms on the train before a decker could send it off the tracks.
I'm on the fence as to whether or not I'd have the doors of a train be wireless. They aren't today and automation works fine the vast majority of the time. If I decided to go with wireless, I'd slave the doors to the train itself.
-
Kincaid is right. Once you have a rigger in there, the device being rigged is indeed unhackable. The hacker would have to first deal enough damage to the rigger's persona to eject them from the device.
As far as the setup for this train goes, I would just make all the doors have maglocks that respond to specific MARKs or RFID tags. The rigger can then focus on driving the train, and not have to open every door in the passenger cars. A high-security door might be under the rigger's control though. I would probably provide a lockdown mode for the train that locks all the doors at once, and can be activated via the rigger or a physical panic button.
As far as what stops a hacker from causing this kind of havoc? Firewalls and GOD. Put the train on one of the Big 10 grids, which most hackers won't be on without having already built overwatch score. This will give the hacker at least -2 dice to all actions. The hacker then has to spend time finding his target device and then hacking it. All of which accumulate overwatch score. The hacker has to play for time, because GOD is watching. Additionally, the train is moving very fast, so the hacker might develop substantial Noise from one turn to the next. Consider increasing the Noise rating by 1 every turn, to make it obvious that this is a losing proposition.
The best way to hack the train is to get on board the train. And that's the whole point of the new Matrix changes - to get hackers more involved physically.
-
Hi all! First time poster, relative newbie at SR5e. I'm really learning a lot from this thread. Thanks to Adder for starting and everyone for offering very useful commentary.
I play a Technomancer in my current game and I've had some difficulty understanding exactly what's required to do various things. It seems as though SR5e isn't' built to accommodate much "hand waving"; meaning if I wanted to do something like the example in the book of stealing songs off someone's iPod, it's not as simple as "make a dice roll...okay, you get it." There's multiple steps involved, with lots of modifiers, etc. that make even simple things complicated. Obviously, the GM can do the hand-wave thing, but it still seems complicated. I'm hoping I'm making it more complicated than it is.
That said, I'd like to pose a scenario and ask someone to explain the steps involved with making it happen.
The team was taking part in the Steppin' Up adventure. We decided that the easiest way to get onto the movie set was to pose as extras hired by the production company. To that end, we decided to hack a local talent agency who worked with the producers and put ourselves on the list of actors for the shoot. Here's what I did as the "hacker":
1 - Hung out at the local SoyBucks waiting for the agency to close. Before leaving the shop, I wanted to hack my coffee + danish onto someone else's bill and erase my bill from the system. This assumed that I didn't pay up front for the vittles.
2 - Tap the surveillance camera outside the back door of the agency and set it on a 10 minute timed loop so we could slip in undetected.
3 - Once inside, jack into the agency's mainframe and...
3a - Find the file(s) related to our desired movie and add our names/IDs/whatever to the list of extras.
3b - Produce ID cards with our assumed identities and pictures to show to security on-site.
3c - Add ourselves to the payroll for our roles in the movie. Our payments would be wired to previously created fake (temporary) accounts. The idea here is that we'd have a backtrace for the production company should they pay us.
4 - Erase all signs of our having been there.
Task #1 went as follows:
- Use Hack on the Fly to jump to the Seattle grid. Took penalties for noise for being in a spam zone (downtown).
- Gain access to the SoyBucks host. Since it's a SoyBucks, it was free (limited) access.
- Use Hack on the Fly to hack into the POS and gain a MARK on it.
- Use Matrix Perception to find the list of active tabs waiting for settling.
- Use Hack on the Fly to gain a MARK on the tab's file.
- Use Edit File to adjust the bill.
- Use Matrix Perception to find my tab.
- Use Hack on the Fly to MARK my tab.
- Use Edit File to delete my tab.
That's a whole lot of stuff for such a simple process. Did we go about it correctly? What (general) steps would we have taken to achieve the other tasks?
Thanks for any assistance that can be offered regarding this.
-
You only need to make Matrix Perception tests if the icon you are looking for is hidden. Assumably your bill wouldn't be hidden, so you just see it with no test. It also might not be required that you mark the POS, since files/icons associated with that device are icons that are just kind of tacked on to the device. You do however need to mark the file. But the file might not even be in the POS, but in the host, but GM discretion here.
Though, thinking it over, you could mark the POS and then spoof a command to the file, showing that the POS deleted the file. But that'd only work in the file was not on the POS, since I don't think you can spoof a device into doing an action on itself. Though, that is what command device is for. So maybe you could command device the POS to delete the file, if the file is on the POS.
But edit action on the file is the far more logical way. So I think you handled it correctly. Though, if the file was protected, then you'd have some trouble since you'd need to break the protection which is an attack action, which would alter the owner. But seeing how that file was probably actively being used, I don't think it make sense that it'd have been protected, or have a data bomb on it, or extra security measures.
2 - Tap the surveillance camera outside the back door of the agency and set it on a 10 minute timed loop so we could slip in undetected.
This is easy, and maybe a bit harder than you think. You need 1 mark on the camera. And then to do an successful edit action every combat turn. I'd just let your agent handle this, so you don't need to waste too much time doing it.
3 - Once inside, jack into the agency's mainframe and...
3a - Find the file(s) related to our desired movie and add our names/IDs/whatever to the list of extras.
3b - Produce ID cards with our assumed identities and pictures to show to security on-site.
3c - Add ourselves to the payroll for our roles in the movie. Our payments would be wired to previously created fake (temporary) accounts. The idea here is that we'd have a backtrace for the production company should they pay us.
I'd put that on the company host. Find a terminal, hardline into use the direct connect exploit to get access to the host. I'd say they should be one file with all that stuff on it, not that it logically makes sense to have all that stuff on one file, but I just don't want the run to take longer than it needs to.
Hacker runs silent so that patrol IC doesn't seem him doing illegal actions. How difficult it is to find the file will be up to GM discretion. Spot with no test, a simple action Matrix perception test, or an extended Matrix Search test. All depends on how challenging the GM wants to make this. I might not entirely recommend an Matrix Search test, since it kind of slows the game down, but sometimes it makes epic hacks more epic.
Odds are the file is protected. So you'll need to break the protection, which will alert the IC to actively look for you and launch more IC and alert a corp spider.
After that, do your edit action. It sounds like you want to do quite a bit of editing, so maybe 3 tests. Which will take about 1 turn while in hot sim.
After that, maybe some misdirection and find some random movie script or pre-special effect movie cut, or whatever really, break the protection on that, and steal the data. That'll probably be another 2 IP. Then after that jack out before you need to worry about the IC and spider, then run like the dickens before anyone realizes what's going on.
-
Time to revive this fun little thread:
How exactly are Patrol IC supposed to work?
Patrol IC acts more like an agent than other intrusion
countermeasures. Its job is to patrol a host, scanning
people’s marks and looking for illegal activity using the
Matrix Perception action on all targets in the host. While
the act of placing a mark is an illegal activity, the act of
simply having a mark is not. Once you have the mark,
you are considered a legitimate user. Patrol IC has no
attack, but it shares its information with its parent host.
Since the Patrol IC doesn’t use Attack actions, it doesn’t
take Matrix damage when it fails. Most hosts have Patrol
IC and keep it running all the time.
Whenever you do an illegal action, do you do an opposed Matrix Perception test against them (rules for silent running)? When exactly does the Patrol IC do anything?
Let's say you are facing a host that you don't have access to. You use Hack on the Fly to get a mark. You enter the host and are not running silent. If the Patrol IC sees you, does it do anything? Since you already have a legitimate mark?
Also, is the Edit File matrix action an illegal action? Because it doesn't use Attack or Sleaze, but it seems weird that you can just spam Edit File attempts (e.g. looping a camera) and not accrue overwatch score or anything.
-
No idea on Patrol IC, to be honest, I've wondered that myself and it seems very much like it's up to the GM with little hard and fast to go on.
Any action that does not use Attack or Sleaze is indeed a legal action as far as the matrix in general and GOD, demi-GOD, hosts, and IC in particular are concerned.
Keep in mind that sensitive files are likely protected, and breaking protection is very much overt since its an attack action.
-
This is how I play Patrol IC. They see everything running in the host that is not silent. Unless they have a reason to suspect someone is silent, they won't bother looking for silent running icons.
Because they see everything not running silent, they can see if an icon is interacted with. So if something weird happens, like say a camera feed is edited, but no one is around. It'll make a Matrix perception test to see who just made the edit, which is now an opposed test if the hacker is running silent, otherwise the IC spots them. If the IC spots them and it sets off alarms and launches more IC. Otherwise the IC just assumes its a glitch in the system and ignores it.
If you make an attack or fail a sleaze action then the Patrol IC knows something is up and will actively look for silent running icons to spot the hacker. In the case of a failed sleaze, he just spots the hacker instantly.
I like it this way, because it means the Patrol IC isn't all omnipresent and the hacker can possibly make it in and out without setting off any alarms. However, there are still problems with things like editing registries to add your team's face to a VIP list and remain unnoticed as an example, because as soon as you crack the file protection the Patrol IC will see it.
Maybe the Patrol IC can't notice something as specific as that when attacked. Maybe they just register an attack just happened in the host and have no idea which file was attacked. And if a file is edited, it doesn't know which file was edited...I don't know. Matrix is weird still.
-
Well, one cannot identify something running silently if they don't know something about it in the first place. So the Patrol IC cannot search for silently-running icons. However, I still think that Patrol IC should be able to look for MARKs on the host. If nothing else, this encourages hackers to take that risk of getting multiple MARKs in one action. Hopefully you finish your job before the Patrol IC finds your MARK(s) on the host.
-
Edit file isn't an illegal action, but to edit it you need a mark on the file, and putting that there will be an illegal action unless you had legal marks already. You can't put illegal marks there without being in the host. But getting in will have been an illegal action, assuming your marks weren't invited, so you'll already have started overwatch and you score will be increasing from time.
However, Patrol IC doesn't HAVE to use that logic, on pg 247 Security Response, "When a host spots you doing something unauthorized, llegal, or just something it doesn’t like, it informs its owner (or its owner’s designee, like an employed security spider) and launches whatever IC programs it has to fight off the intruder." So you could have in a high security host something like a whitelist separate from marks. In such a case the players might want to try something like finding and editing this file on one occasion, and then coming back and hacking on another. Then maybe that file is manually checked every day, or every few days, or whatever. Depends how difficult you want things.
I think the key thing though, is to check your defence logic against everyday activity. If you set of an alarm by editing a file connected to a camera feed, then if your camera is switched on, it's generating an alarm, so probably not good logic for your IC to use. I think as a GM if I did want to set up a particularly tricky logic train, I'd also want to give the players access to information about it, like the indentify of the security spider. Maybe they can get them drunk enough to talk about it!
-
Well, one cannot identify something running silently if they don't know something about it in the first place. So the Patrol IC cannot search for silently-running icons. However, I still think that Patrol IC should be able to look for MARKs on the host. If nothing else, this encourages hackers to take that risk of getting multiple MARKs in one action. Hopefully you finish your job before the Patrol IC finds your MARK(s) on the host.
Interesting, I never really noticed the caveat that one has to know at least one feature about an icon to be able to spot it running silently, and you also have to be aware that there are even any icons running silently nearby.
This brings up a some other potential issues, of course. Let's take an example just for the heck of it and look at how the book explains this.
Scenario 1:
I am a police officer on watch outside the entrance of a courthouse, and my specialty is matrix support. Every now and again I check for hidden icons with a Matrix Perception Test (asking whether there is an icon running silent within 100 meters as per page 235) because I am concerned about hackers and unlicensed concealed weapons. The result of my Matrix Perception Test is "Yes" because a hacker just walked into my sphere of influence with his deck running silently.
Resolution:
According to the book on page 235 and 236 this is actually fairly straight forward; because I know there is an icon running silent out there, I now simply have to find it by rolling Computer + Intuition [Data Processing] v. Logic + Sleaze. Assuming I win the test, I spot the icon.
But, this doesn't seem to follow with the "If you know at least one feature of an icon running silent, you can spot the icon (Running Silent, below)." Surely knowing that there is an icon running silent is not knowing "at least one feature of an icon running silent", right? So when does this ever become applicable? I think this section is both in agreement and disagreement with you here, Namikaze, because it both suggests that you need to know at least one feature of an icon running silently to be able to spot it, and also that you ask whether any icons are running silently nearby with a single hit on a Matrix Perception Test.
If the book does allow a character to spot an icon running silently with a single hit from a Matrix Perception Test followed by an opposed test, the same scenario as above could be applied to Patrol IC as I see it. When a hacker first enters a host the Patrol IC gets to roll a Matrix Perception test, and if successful roll to see if it notices the icon running silently. This, to my mind, would be the 4th Edition equivalent to an analyze program scanning icons entering a node, and this is a very reasonable first line of defense in my opinion.
Moving on to marks; while Patrol IC certainly seem to be able to look for marks, is that actually useful information? As per Matrix Perception on page 235, one question you can ask is for "the marks on an icon, but not their owners". Is knowing the mark an icon uses enough to identify the icon itself? Doesn't that seem to break with the "but not their owners" part of that very statement?
So, say the Patrol IC tries to spot a new (and potentially unrecognized or unauthorized) mark on the host it's guarding; would the mark itself be running silent if the hacker that placed it was? If the Patrol IC spotted the mark, what could it do with that information, assuming the hacker is running silent and hasn't attracted any obvious attention?
-
Well, one cannot identify something running silently if they don't know something about it in the first place. So the Patrol IC cannot search for silently-running icons. However, I still think that Patrol IC should be able to look for MARKs on the host. If nothing else, this encourages hackers to take that risk of getting multiple MARKs in one action. Hopefully you finish your job before the Patrol IC finds your MARK(s) on the host.
Interesting, I never really noticed the caveat that one has to know at least one feature about an icon to be able to spot it running silently, and you also have to be aware that there are even any icons running silently nearby.
I've mostly seen that interpreted here as being able to slim down the number of hits by knowing a feature, such as "look at persona icons running silently", "look at icons running silently that just attacked me". Otherwise you are picking randomly between them all, which can be a lot!
Moving on to marks; while Patrol IC certainly seem to be able to look for marks, is that actually useful information? As per Matrix Perception on page 235, one question you can ask is for "the marks on an icon, but not their owners". Is knowing the mark an icon uses enough to identify the icon itself? Doesn't that seem to break with the "but not their owners" part of that very statement?
So, say the Patrol IC tries to spot a new (and potentially unrecognized or unauthorized) mark on the host it's guarding; would the mark itself be running silent if the hacker that placed it was? If the Patrol IC spotted the mark, what could it do with that information, assuming the hacker is running silent and hasn't attracted any obvious attention?
Marks can't run silent (pg 236). All it'd know would be that the mark had appeared, it wouldn't know whose it was nor whether it was legally or illegally placed. (Unless there was additional security, such as a whitelist file, that it could compare with.)
-
But, this doesn't seem to follow with the "If you know at least one feature of an icon running silent, you can spot the icon (Running Silent, below)." Surely knowing that there is an icon running silent is not knowing "at least one feature of an icon running silent", right? So when does this ever become applicable? I think this section is both in agreement and disagreement with you here, Namikaze, because it both suggests that you need to know at least one feature of an icon running silently to be able to spot it, and also that you ask whether any icons are running silently nearby with a single hit on a Matrix Perception Test.
Simple: run the scan in AR, and target every person you can see. If you can see the person, you can look at them in AR and say "show me their icons." It's time-consuming and droll, so you'd probably use an Agent to assist you.
Moving on to marks; while Patrol IC certainly seem to be able to look for marks, is that actually useful information? As per Matrix Perception on page 235, one question you can ask is for "the marks on an icon, but not their owners". Is knowing the mark an icon uses enough to identify the icon itself? Doesn't that seem to break with the "but not their owners" part of that very statement?
I can't speak with certainty, but based on several mentions throughout the books of "owner's MARKs" and things of that nature, I suspect there will be some differentiation between MARKs when Data Trails comes out. If my hunch is correct, it would mean that Patrol IC might be able to differentiate between having a MARK that you acquired legitimately vs. illegally.
So, say the Patrol IC tries to spot a new (and potentially unrecognized or unauthorized) mark on the host it's guarding; would the mark itself be running silent if the hacker that placed it was? If the Patrol IC spotted the mark, what could it do with that information, assuming the hacker is running silent and hasn't attracted any obvious attention?
MARKs are only visible to the person that placed the MARK, with the exception of having found one via a Matrix Perception test (pg. 236). The Patrol IC's Matrix Perception test initially just tells you how many MARKs are on the host. A second Matrix Perception test will reveal the information about the MARKs (such as who owns the MARK, where it came from, etc.).
-
Intriguing.
In that case, the police officer scenario I posted previously would seem to be quite plausible. I would then at the very least play Patrol IC as rolling Matrix Perception to see if it's able to spot any decker attempting to enter the host while running silent; this seems like logical security design to my mind.
As for what else Patrol IC does, I'd say that is probably up to how fiendish the GM wants to be. You could run periodic Matrix Perception Tests at set or random intervals (once per combat turn, for example, or on a result of 6 on a d6 or some such), or after an illegal action is performed, or never unless an overtly illegal action is performed.
I'd probably run Patrol IC as checking the door, so to speak, looking for icons running silently which would trigger a mechanical roll when a decker attempted to silently enter the system at the very least. In order not to slow down the game too much I'd probably just make the Patrol IC check only after an active alert (i.e. a successful Attack action or failed Sleaze action) and then periodically once per combat turn after that. Feels like a solid compromise between risk of discovery and flow of play to my mind.
-
While the act of placing a mark is an illegal activity, the act of simply having a mark is not. Once you have the mark, you are considered a legitimate user.
Based on that line, I don't think spotting a mark will throw up any warning flags. Even if the Patrol IC saw your mark it wouldn't register it as odd.
What I'd like to do is define a reasonable pattern of behavior for Patrol IC that is not too time-consuming or difficult for the hacker as well.
How does this sound?
1. Patrol IC automatically examines all "loud" icons every turn. If you are a loud icon and do not have a mark on the host, then you are unauthorized and it triggers the alert. (I don't know if this is a valid scenario- is there a way to enter a host without having at least one mark?)
2. Patrol IC will scan for silent icons "periodically". That depends on host configuration, security level, "alert status" of the host. For example, if another hacker just broke into the system and was caught, Patrol IC would constantly scan for silent icons which might catch me even though I haven't done anything yet.
3. If the Patrol IC spots a silent running icon, it will check if they have a mark. If they have a mark they will ignore them, but they're still spotted so an illegal action would automatically be detected. (You could change this so that any silent running icons are always illegal and immediately trigger an alert but that feels a little harsh).
4. Whenever an illegal action is committed, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test to detect the aggressor. Spotting will result in an alert. Even not spotting could result in increased "alert status", see #2 above, depending on the host.
5. Whenever some other custom-defined action is taken, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test as above in #4. This is configured by the host. For example, if there's a super special file that only the owner should be able to edit, that would count as an "illegal action" and trigger #4's test. Note that a host -defined illegal action does not increase overwatch score.
How does that sound? Is it too harsh, or too easy?
-
I don't think you can enter a host without having a mark. I think you could be in a host without one if it was removed after entry, though, for example by a security spider.
I like the idea of silent running being 'illegal' in a high security host, but not generally, though.
Bear in mind that they'll probably have to mark the file to edit it, as well as crack it's protection possibly, both of which would be illegal, even if the editing wouldn't.
Custom reasoning per host sounds reasonable. It's not supported by the Patrol IC text on pg 248, but is by the first paragraph of Security Response on pg 247.
-
I'd probably run Patrol IC as checking the door, so to speak, looking for icons running silently which would trigger a mechanical roll when a decker attempted to silently enter the system at the very least. In order not to slow down the game too much I'd probably just make the Patrol IC check only after an active alert (i.e. a successful Attack action or failed Sleaze action) and then periodically once per combat turn after that. Feels like a solid compromise between risk of discovery and flow of play to my mind.
I honestly don't think any illegal actions should provoke a Matrix Perception Test since they already have downsides on success or failure.
-
I think Patrol IC should not care if you enter a host, silent or not. Because you have a mark so it means you're a "legal" user. And if you're silent then it shouldn't know you entered, since that's the point of running silent.
I also don't think Patrol IC should make perception tests on illegal actions, because illegal actions already come with downsides. If its a successful attack action, the Host knows to start looking for who just attacked it. If its an unsuccessful sleaze action then it marks the hacker and knows to start launching IC to deal with the hacker.
But legal Matrix actions that are performed from silent running persona's is strange. And that is when the Patrol IC should try to find the hacker or report it as a false positive or glitch and ignore it. Legal actions done while not running silent should be recorded and leave a data trail that the hacker won't want, which is why they won't want to not run silent and make a legal Matrix action, or maybe they would because they don't care if the IC spots them and would rather have that +2 dice.
There needs to be some risk to being in a host, obviously or else the corp would never use them. But it can't be so risky that the host instantly starts launching more IC and alarms go off and the entire run goes to drek, or else the Matrix becomes too much of a liability and no one will want to play it.
-
I suppose some hosts would have their IC performing matrix perception tests on "legal" personas in order to check their last matrix action. If that action happens to be hack on the fly, the IC would likely be instructed to interpret that as a non-legal user.
Which of course makes it very important for a hacker to do some boring legal matrix actions as soon as he has hacked his way inside a host, as to hide his intend.
-
While the act of placing a mark is an illegal activity, the act of simply having a mark is not. Once you have the mark, you are considered a legitimate user.
Based on that line, I don't think spotting a mark will throw up any warning flags. Even if the Patrol IC saw your mark it wouldn't register it as odd.
What I'd like to do is define a reasonable pattern of behavior for Patrol IC that is not too time-consuming or difficult for the hacker as well.
How does this sound?
1. Patrol IC automatically examines all "loud" icons every turn. If you are a loud icon and do not have a mark on the host, then you are unauthorized and it triggers the alert. (I don't know if this is a valid scenario- is there a way to enter a host without having at least one mark?)
For a decker I don't think this is possible; I'm wondering if a Technomancer could achieve this with the use of Puppeteer or Resonance Veil, but I somehow doubt it.
2. Patrol IC will scan for silent icons "periodically". That depends on host configuration, security level, "alert status" of the host. For example, if another hacker just broke into the system and was caught, Patrol IC would constantly scan for silent icons which might catch me even though I haven't done anything yet.
I think this is fair. Scan every icon on entry, and periodically scan if an active alert is issued (i.e. failed sleaze or successful attack). In the case of a failed sleaze, though, the host gets a mark on you anyway, so in theory your cover is already blown as anyone can automatically spot an icon they have marked. That being said, a clever and fast hacker could potentially have time to erase the mark and hide before the IC got a chance to look for the offender, so it makes sense that Patrol IC actively look for hidden icons when an alert is issued.
3. If the Patrol IC spots a silent running icon, it will check if they have a mark. If they have a mark they will ignore them, but they're still spotted so an illegal action would automatically be detected. (You could change this so that any silent running icons are always illegal and immediately trigger an alert but that feels a little harsh).
I like this, though this is somewhat like 1 in that it's seems difficult, if not impossible, to enter the host without a mark in the first place.
4. Whenever an illegal action is committed, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test to detect the aggressor. Spotting will result in an alert. Even not spotting could result in increased "alert status", see #2 above, depending on the host.
That's a little too much in my opinion.
5. Whenever some other custom-defined action is taken, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test as above in #4. This is configured by the host. For example, if there's a super special file that only the owner should be able to edit, that would count as an "illegal action" and trigger #4's test. Note that a host -defined illegal action does not increase overwatch score.
How does that sound? Is it too harsh, or too easy?
This is more reasonable to me. You could even have honeypot files set up to always trigger an alert if modified in any way (heh), but a custom response certainly should keep players on their toes as long as they have some way of finding out about potential traps. Good recon should pay off.
I'd probably run Patrol IC as checking the door, so to speak, looking for icons running silently which would trigger a mechanical roll when a decker attempted to silently enter the system at the very least. In order not to slow down the game too much I'd probably just make the Patrol IC check only after an active alert (i.e. a successful Attack action or failed Sleaze action) and then periodically once per combat turn after that. Feels like a solid compromise between risk of discovery and flow of play to my mind.
I honestly don't think any illegal actions should provoke a Matrix Perception Test since they already have downsides on success or failure.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Nearby guards get perception tests to hear the silenced gunshot that you just took, and astrally perceiving or projecting mages get a chance to spot spells you just cast whether the action was successful or not. The fact that an action has consequences should not preclude further consequences, necessarily.
I think Patrol IC should not care if you enter a host, silent or not. Because you have a mark so it means you're a "legal" user. And if you're silent then it shouldn't know you entered, since that's the point of running silent.
This comes down to system design in my opinion. If you have a corporate host where running silent is off limits, icons that are running silent should be something that Patrol IC looks for. Is it applicable to all hosts? No. But it should certainly be allowed for some where higher security is desired.
I also don't think Patrol IC should make perception tests on illegal actions, because illegal actions already come with downsides. If its a successful attack action, the Host knows to start looking for who just attacked it. If its an unsuccessful sleaze action then it marks the hacker and knows to start launching IC to deal with the hacker.
I agree with this in principle, but some illegal actions set off the equivalent of alarms. A successful Sleaze and a failed Attack should not cause Patrol IC to look for icons running silent because it wouldn't know. But a failed Sleaze is something a Host would already know about, and a successful Attack is very overt but the cause may not be known, so Patrol IC looking for a culprit at this point makes perfect sense to me.
But legal Matrix actions that are performed from silent running persona's is strange. And that is when the Patrol IC should try to find the hacker or report it as a false positive or glitch and ignore it. Legal actions done while not running silent should be recorded and leave a data trail that the hacker won't want, which is why they won't want to not run silent and make a legal Matrix action, or maybe they would because they don't care if the IC spots them and would rather have that +2 dice.
There needs to be some risk to being in a host, obviously or else the corp would never use them. But it can't be so risky that the host instantly starts launching more IC and alarms go off and the entire run goes to drek, or else the Matrix becomes too much of a liability and no one will want to play it.
This gets too complex too quickly for my taste, which is why I'd run Patrol as checking everything at the door (first line of defense) and periodically after an active alert (second line of the defense). GOD notifying the host that a breach is underway (Covergence, and last line of defense) is the extreme prejudice option.
-
I suppose some hosts would have their IC performing matrix perception tests on "legal" personas in order to check their last matrix action. If that action happens to be hack on the fly, the IC would likely be instructed to interpret that as a non-legal user.
Which of course makes it very important for a hacker to do some boring legal matrix actions as soon as he has hacked his way inside a host, as to hide his intend.
I'm not a fan of that interpretation either because it feels as cheesy as having the Patrol IC look for hidden icons every IP. Its basically a way to say, hacking should not be allowed in this game because every host will always see you no matter what and thus you can never hack anything. So it either slows hacking down to a crawl, which SR5 has done a great job at not letting happen, or it makes hacking too dangerous.
-
I suppose some hosts would have their IC performing matrix perception tests on "legal" personas in order to check their last matrix action. If that action happens to be hack on the fly, the IC would likely be instructed to interpret that as a non-legal user.
Which of course makes it very important for a hacker to do some boring legal matrix actions as soon as he has hacked his way inside a host, as to hide his intend.
I'm not a fan of that interpretation either because it feels as cheesy as having the Patrol IC look for hidden icons every IP. Its basically a way to say, hacking should not be allowed in this game because every host will always see you no matter what and thus you can never hack anything. So it either slows hacking down to a crawl, which SR5 has done a great job at not letting happen, or it makes hacking too dangerous.
I don't think anyone is advocating Matrix Perception tests every IP, I'm certainly not. For me, it's once upon entry (like a guard would attempt to spot someone trying to sneak past them), and then once every Combat Turn only after an active alert has been issued.
-
I'm not sure I agree with this. Nearby guards get perception tests to hear the silenced gunshot that you just took, and astrally perceiving or projecting mages get a chance to spot spells you just cast whether the action was successful or not. The fact that an action has consequences should not preclude further consequences, necessarily.
While I would like it if Matrix Perception worked exactly like normal Perception tests, it sadly does not. So I don't think it is an equivalent for Patrol IC to make Matrix Perception tests for every action, though that may not necessarily be a bad way of handling it. But I don't really want to make that many tests for every action.
This comes down to system design in my opinion. If you have a corporate host where running silent is off limits, icons that are running silent should be something that Patrol IC looks for. Is it applicable to all hosts? No. But it should certainly be allowed for some where higher security is desired.
The problem is that why wouldn't ALL hosts be set up like that? Which then makes hacking too big of a liability. There has to be a reason why hosts don't look for silent running icons every turn. There is the reducing dice pool for making the same test, which is probably that reason. Which means that hosts should only look for hidden icons if it suspects that there are hidden icons to look for.
This gets too complex too quickly for my taste, which is why I'd run Patrol as checking everything at the door (first line of defense) and periodically after an active alert (second line of the defense). GOD notifying the host that a breach is underway (Covergence, and last line of defense) is the extreme prejudice option.
Well, how often is periodically? Checking the door isn't a bad idea. But I just don't think it fits thematically, because you should be able to enter a host not running silent and have your persona blend in with all the other personas in the host. You got examples of that in the fluff from Buddy walking around Crashcart's host in 2XS and talking with information IC to that dwarf decker who name I forgot in Frost and Fire would talked with an AI managing the host at the start of the book. So hiding in plain sight in a thing and I don't want to take that away from the setting.
-
The problem is that why wouldn't ALL hosts be set up like that? Which then makes hacking too big of a liability. There has to be a reason why hosts don't look for silent running icons every turn. There is the reducing dice pool for making the same test, which is probably that reason. Which means that hosts should only look for hidden icons if it suspects that there are hidden icons to look for.
Are all Windows servers today patched with the latest security updates? Are all SQL servers hardened against code injection? No. There are variables in system design in general and system security in particular, and varying levels of host ratings is one way the game tells us how "hardened" a host is.
Well, how often is periodically? Checking the door isn't a bad idea. But I just don't think it fits thematically, because you should be able to enter a host not running silent and have your persona blend in with all the other personas in the host. You got examples of that in the fluff from Buddy walking around Crashcart's host in 2XS and talking with information IC to that dwarf decker who name I forgot in Frost and Fire would talked with an AI managing the host at the start of the book. So hiding in plain sight in a thing and I don't want to take that away from the setting.
Like I said:
I don't think anyone is advocating Matrix Perception tests every IP, I'm certainly not. For me, it's once upon entry (like a guard would attempt to spot someone trying to sneak past them), and then once every Combat Turn only after an active alert has been issued.
Furthermore, the check for icons running silent would turn up nothing on a hacker entering the host normally with a mark. The suspicious activity is the act of running silent, and that is what may throw up a red flag that warrants further investigation. I'm certainly not advocating taking that option away, though I think it's certainly a dangerous method of hacking because the second you fail a Sleaze action or succeed an Attack action the host should by all rights be all over you.
-
I think Patrol IC should not care if you enter a host, silent or not. Because you have a mark so it means you're a "legal" user. And if you're silent then it shouldn't know you entered, since that's the point of running silent.
That certainly sounds the default, from the Patrol IC text.
I also don't think Patrol IC should make perception tests on illegal actions, because illegal actions already come with downsides.
According to the Patrol IC text on pg 248 that is the job of Patrol IC.
There needs to be some risk to being in a host, obviously or else the corp would never use them. But it can't be so risky that the host instantly starts launching more IC and alarms go off and the entire run goes to drek, or else the Matrix becomes too much of a liability and no one will want to play it.
A host doesn't instantly launch IC. Per pg 247 It can only launch one IC per combat turn, at the start of the combat turn. You may well have a couple of actions after you set the alarms off before the first dangerous IC turns up. Depending on the policies of the host owner (which you should have researched) you might well be facing something non deadly.
Edit - One thing worth thinking about when you are setting the frequency of which Patrol IC does it's checks is that false alarms (glitches) happen remarkably often, if you were rolling three a combat turn. If someone has to check them all out, you'd probably tone down the frequency, or you'd have many false call outs per day!
-
Edit - One thing worth thinking about when you are setting the frequency of which Patrol IC does it's checks is that false alarms (glitches) happen remarkably often, if you were rolling three a combat turn. If someone has to check them all out, you'd probably tone down the frequency, or you'd have many false call outs per day!
I'm not sure this is necessarily a valid argument. Take the door check example; you could reliably buy hits as a GM and never risk a glitch or critical glitch. A high enough rating host could be problematic even with bought hits.
Another thing that bothers me about the assumption that a glitch will eventually happen is that it relies solely on probability. Over a long enough time frame sure, you'll get some glitches, but that doesnt necessarily mean that such an event will occcur at the time when the PC Decker makes their entrance.
All of that being said, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to Patrol IC.
However, I thought about what Deathstrobe said in the car on my way home, and I have to say that my own argument is a little hypocritical. I argue that Patrol IC checking Icons as they enter the host would be similar to a physical guard checking to see if he spots someone trying to sneak by him.
I maintain my above stance that the guard and patrol IC will both eventually glitch and critically glitch their rolls from a probability point of view but I've never seen anyone argue that the guard should somehow suffer the glitch and critical glitch when performing perception tests even though he does so constantly for all intents and purposes.
However, where my argument falls on itself is the periodic check I've suggested; physical guards don't normally roll to search for intruders after an alert is sounded, and certainly not every initiative pass or even combat turn. So the challenge to my mind becomes coming up with an approach to matrix security that doesn't bog down the game but that could potentially throw a wrench in the plans while maintaining some semblance of "realism".
How one goes about this is honestly beyond me at this point. I just hope Data Trails clarifies how the designers thought this whole thing should work.
-
Edit - One thing worth thinking about when you are setting the frequency of which Patrol IC does it's checks is that false alarms (glitches) happen remarkably often, if you were rolling three a combat turn. If someone has to check them all out, you'd probably tone down the frequency, or you'd have many false call outs per day!
I was thinking about that, and I think Patrol IC glitches should actually be GOOD for the player. If the Patrol IC glitches the perception test and launches IC (even if it hasn't spotted the player), that just makes it worse when the player is eventually spotted and gets hammered by lie four IC simultaneously. I would probably rule a glitch on the perception test to delay the next check, buying the player more time.
I think we are all in agreement that having marks is not actually illegal, yes? If the Patrol IC noticed I have three marks on a file, that's fine, because having a mark is never bad (excluding custom-defined behavior).
Regarding scanning on entry, I agree that if you enter in while silent running the Patrol IC does not get a chance to scan you.
So regarding my original proposal:
1. Patrol IC automatically examines all "loud" icons every turn. If you are a loud icon and do not have a mark on the host, then you are unauthorized and it triggers the alert. (I don't know if this is a valid scenario- is there a way to enter a host without having at least one mark?)
2. Patrol IC will scan for silent icons "periodically". That depends on host configuration, security level, "alert status" of the host. For example, if another hacker just broke into the system and was caught, Patrol IC would constantly scan for silent icons which might catch me even though I haven't done anything yet.
3. If the Patrol IC spots a silent running icon, it will check if they have a mark. If they have a mark they will ignore them, but they're still spotted so an illegal action would automatically be detected. (You could change this so that any silent running icons are always illegal and immediately trigger an alert but that feels a little harsh).
4. Whenever an illegal action is committed, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test to detect the aggressor. Spotting will result in an alert. Even not spotting could result in increased "alert status", see #2 above, depending on the host.
5. Whenever some other custom-defined action is taken, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test as above in #4. This is configured by the host. For example, if there's a super special file that only the owner should be able to edit, that would count as an "illegal action" and trigger #4's test. Note that a host -defined illegal action does not increase overwatch score.
Is the only objection here how frequently #4 occurs? I could tune that to be "the first illegal action in a Combat Turn", which of course encourages people to be in hot-sim VR and rewards good initiative in general. More initiative = more actions you can perform without a check.
On a somewhat related note, if there's a device that is slaved to a host in a WAN and I direct connect to the device, am I in the host? Could I immediately start interacting with files in the host? That's one way to possibly get in without a mark if that is true.
P.S. I'm surprised there aren't more GMs weighing in. My characters run into at least one host literally every run. The Patrol IC behavior question comes up every time :-(
-
However, where my argument falls on itself is the periodic check I've suggested; physical guards don't normally roll to search for intruders after an alert is sounded, and certainly not every initiative pass or even combat turn. So the challenge to my mind becomes coming up with an approach to matrix security that doesn't bog down the game but that could potentially throw a wrench in the plans while maintaining some semblance of "realism".
It's an issue with Matrix Perception more generally, it's one of the reasons I suggested this : http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=19312.0
-
I missed out on all this conversation today, so I will avoid putting in my two cents. I don't feel like getting caught up completely. Patrol IC are a weird thing though, that's for sure. My expectation is that Data Trails will give us more actions, more opportunities, and possibly more IC and such.
-
I missed out on all this conversation today, so I will avoid putting in my two cents. I don't feel like getting caught up completely. Patrol IC are a weird thing though, that's for sure. My expectation is that Data Trails will give us more actions, more opportunities, and possibly more IC and such.
Damn, I was thinking this whole time "where's Namikaze to the rescue with a well-thought out explanation?" :-(
-
I missed out on all this conversation today, so I will avoid putting in my two cents. I don't feel like getting caught up completely. Patrol IC are a weird thing though, that's for sure. My expectation is that Data Trails will give us more actions, more opportunities, and possibly more IC and such.
I'm not expecting Data Trails to resolve anything. This has always been an ambiguous part of the rules, or else we could say, "Well it worked like this in 3rd/4th so naturally it must work like this in 5th." But its always been left open. Which is annoying. But then again, we did get Spirit Index in Street Grimoire which has always been left open to GM interpretation in previous editions.. So who knows.
-
After a certain point, it's tough to make rules about how things interact because so much of that comes down to GM fiat. If you want Patrol IC to check every pass, it makes sense on a certain level (You had one job!) but it means the GM is going to be rolling a *ton* of dice and it will drag down gameplay. Some tables may be totally fine with that and more power to them; other tables may want to keep the pace and action of a white-knuckle Matrix run moving and balk at the idea.
In my game, deckers have essentially two options: sneak or bluff (I guess they could assault things as well, but they all take Hack on the Fly over Brute Force). You can enter a host with a mark(s) and using a wrapper program to make it look like you belong or you can run silently and hope to avoid detection altogether. Bluffing gets you in trouble if you perform an action or go someplace that isn't allowed for your icon--a delivery man's persona isn't going to wander into the host's research notes and mark files, for example. When you "break character," the Patrol IC rolls. Running silent comes with its own advantages, so whenever you accrue OS, I have the Patrol IC roll. It's not perfectly symmetrical--you could accrue OS "in character" and I wouldn't roll--but it's worked fine so far.
-
I missed out on all this conversation today, so I will avoid putting in my two cents. I don't feel like getting caught up completely. Patrol IC are a weird thing though, that's for sure. My expectation is that Data Trails will give us more actions, more opportunities, and possibly more IC and such.
Damn, I was thinking this whole time "where's Namikaze to the rescue with a well-thought out explanation?" :-(
LOL I'll pour through the stream of stuff this afternoon and give you my opinion. Bear in mind it's just an opinion though. :)
-
Alright Adder, I promised I'd look things over and here's what I've got. :)
1. Patrol IC automatically examines all "loud" icons every turn. If you are a loud icon and do not have a mark on the host, then you are unauthorized and it triggers the alert. (I don't know if this is a valid scenario- is there a way to enter a host without having at least one mark?)
This sounds right, but I don't think there's any way for a person to enter a host without a mark. At least, not yet. It's possible we'll see some stuff with the deep dives that have been hinted at.
2. Patrol IC will scan for silent icons "periodically". That depends on host configuration, security level, "alert status" of the host. For example, if another hacker just broke into the system and was caught, Patrol IC would constantly scan for silent icons which might catch me even though I haven't done anything yet.
This is what I envision the Patrol IC's primary job is going to be. I agree that this all depends on the security level and alert status of the host. Generally, I wouldn't do more than one scan per turn just to prevent bogging things down in the Matrix. Also, I would assume that any icon that the Patrol IC has already scanned is on the "okay" list and won't be re-scanned unless something changes. Such as a security elevation, or one of the triggering events mentioned below.
Here's how I see the Patrol IC working, step-by-step:
- Hacker enters host using Brute Force
- Patrol IC immediately elevates the security level by 1 (corresponding security protocols are followed)
- Patrol IC begins scanning for silent icons
- If the Patrol IC finds a silent icon, it raises the security level by 1 again (corresponding security protocols are followed)
- Hacker enters host using Hack on the Fly
- Patrol IC scans the new icon in the host (if running "loud")
- Patrol IC scans for silent icons
- Patrol IC finds a silent icon, it raises the security level by 1 (corresponding security protocols are followed)
Once the Patrol IC has scanned your icon, you are clear to travel about the host (assuming you have a mark and aren't skulking about).
3. If the Patrol IC spots a silent running icon, it will check if they have a mark. If they have a mark they will ignore them, but they're still spotted so an illegal action would automatically be detected. (You could change this so that any silent running icons are always illegal and immediately trigger an alert but that feels a little harsh).
It does feel harsh, but that's one of the side effects of breaking into a corporate host. If you get caught sneaking around, security-minded folks will automatically assume you're up to no good. And a host is much like a corp's private turf - they have full extraterritoriality and they will use it. Note that a Patrol IC may not make an alert known system-wide, rather just sending a subtle message to the decker on duty.
4. Whenever an illegal action is committed, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test to detect the aggressor. Spotting will result in an alert. Even not spotting could result in increased "alert status", see #2 above, depending on the host.
In the event that the illegal action is discovered (such as using Brute Force or failing a Hack on the Fly action) then yes, I think this makes sense. The term demiGOD gets used a lot for system administrators of hosts. However, they aren't directly affiliated with GOD and therefore don't have access to quite the same protocols and tools. With that said, breaking into hosts sneakily is really the prefered method of hacking specifically because a host can lock itself down super-quick if needed.
5. Whenever some other custom-defined action is taken, the Patrol IC does a Matrix Perception test as above in #4. This is configured by the host. For example, if there's a super special file that only the owner should be able to edit, that would count as an "illegal action" and trigger #4's test. Note that a host -defined illegal action does not increase overwatch score.
Seems reasonable to me. I don't know if every host requires a specific set of events to be created. You could probably get away with just using the idea that every time the host gets a mark on something, the Patrol IC investigates what that something is.
I just realized I should probably outline what I see as a reasonable security protocol list.
Security level 1:
- Alert the decker assigned to host security
- Decker decides whether or not the threat is a false alarm
- Launch a single instance of White IC (I like Marker and Tar Baby)
Security level 2:
- Alert the decker assigned to host security
- Decker personally investigates the alert
- Launch a single instance of Blaster, Killer, or Sparky IC
- Command Patrol IC to start scanning for silent icons every turn
- Command Tar Baby IC to attack any icon revealed by the Patrol IC
Security level 3:
- Launch instances of all remaining IC available (starting with the deadly stuff and working down from there), remember the host can only launch one IC per turn
- Command Tar Baby to link-lock every icon it can find
-
lots of detailed thoughts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY)
After a certain point, it's tough to make rules about how things interact because so much of that comes down to GM fiat.
LOL I'll pour through the stream of stuff this afternoon and give you my opinion. Bear in mind it's just an opinion though. :)
I think now's a good time to mention what my goal is with all of these questions.
I love the world of Shadowrun. I think the rules are partially so ambiguous precisely because the rulebook tries to be so ambitious and give us all of this content. If Shadowrun rules were as fleshed out as say, Pathfinder, I think the rulebook would easily exceed 1000 pages. I mean the magic section of a typical D&D player's guide takes up about a third of the book!
My goal is to provide my players with balanced, understandable and thematically-appropriate rules that stick as close to the intention of the game designers as possible. I can't imagine playing a decker if I had no idea what the Patrol IC did and its behavior wildly varied from one host to another. I need to give my players something they can understand and plan around, otherwise they start feeling like their success feels arbitrary. "Why am I being scanned every turn now when last time it only scanned me once, ever?"
To that end, I have two different phases of investigation:
1. Rules analysis. Did I miss a rule? Is there a rule in another section that answers my question? Is the wording precise enough to answer my question after further discussion?
2. Rules interpretation. When #1 fails to give a complete answer, devise a complete answer based on information found from #1, general speculation on usage ("theorycrafting") and other tables' experiences.
When I originally joined this forum and asked questions I expected a bunch of "you missed a section, here is the correct ruling". That happened maybe 10% of the time. What I typically get is actually "well the rules are a bit unclear, but this how I think it should work/what we do at our table..."
Which is great! That actually is exactly what I'm looking for. I want to know what people do at their specific tables regarding these rules. If I could survey 100 tables and get 100 different opinions on how to interpret the mechanics, that would help tremendously towards me building my own table's solution. I don't really expect anyone to actually know the "true" rules implementation. I would actually be shocked if the game designers knew- there's no way they could have thought of all these different scenarios. I'm just looking for feedback on how people are actually running with these rules.
-
If my players have a relevant knowledge skill, such as Matrix Security, I'll let them get some info on the "default" settings for IC. Also, if a hacker on my team just wants to get info on a host, like what kind of stats it might be using, I'll provide them with the array of default stats for that type of host (assuming they pass a relevant Computer test). Note these are just the defaults, and I make sure my player knows that this information might change. If nothing else, it helps them to make a determination about whether or not they want to poke their neck into a host illegally. Another thing you could try doing is letting the hacker probe the target with Matrix Perception, and maybe learn the device rating of the host. This won't tell them the breakdown of stats, but generally all stat arrays are (Rating +1)/Rating/(Rating -1)/(Rating -2).
While I think having some sort of codified definition of basic information is critical to any GM, I think giving the players too much of that information at once is going to lead to one of two results: information overload, or metagaming. Instead, I try to keep my information to myself and let the players learn the information with appropriate knowledge tests. This puts more emphasis on knowledge skills (active skills double as knowledge skills by the way), and makes the player realize that his/her character is actually knowledgeable about the world.
-
So I just went back and read up a bit on previous editions. And I'm sure the rules do not work for SR5, but if we translate it maybe we can get some ideas or compromises.
SR3: Every hit from a Probe IC adds to the security tally of the decker. Probe IC makes that test for every action the decker does.
So, security tally is basically over watch score except with alarms going off at seemingly random tally levels set by the GM.
So maybe, since OS caps at 40, we can have different host responses at lower levels like this:
0 OS – Patrol IC makes a perception test every time the decker makes an action. If the target is running silent, each hit (not net hit) adds to the targets OS. If running loud, it's assumed to be a legal user.
15 OS – Patrol IC takes notice of the hacker, actively looks for silent targets, or sets of an alert on a loud user. White IC is launched to aid the Patrol.
30 OS – Sets off an alert, regardless of if an intruder was spotted or not. Grey or Black IC is launched to aid the other IC.
40 OS – Host Convergence. Bad things happen.
But the problem is that IC can be suppressed in SR3, which can buy the decker time. In SR5, attacking an IC immediately sets off alerts to the owner. So the problem is that OS is going to build crazy fast, maybe too fast, with this.
SR4. IC actually sees you, but has to figure out if you're not suppose to be there. So apparently I was playing SR4's Matrix wrong forever. Because I always figured you needed to spot an icon with a Matrix perception test to know that it is there. But I guess not. I guess you just need to make the perception test to learn information about an icon. So I guess a spider can just log on, see the hacker and start attacking them without needing to spot them. So this super doesn't apply to SR5, because running silent does make you "invisible."
SR4's Patrol IC description is also super not helpful, because it says it scans icons randomly. So, we just roll a d6, on 1 we make the appose Matrix Perception test? I don't know...that just feels really...lame. But that's kind of how it sound in SR5 too.
-
The thing is that a hacker's overwatch score isn't visible to the host. Or at least, that's what seems to be the case. Because the host is not controlled by GOD, and overwatch score is a construct of GOD, it stands to reason that the host may not be aware of a hacker's overwatch score. With that said, illegal actions in the host do build overwatch score, so the relationship is a murky one. I think using OS as a metric for the GM to determine the level of resistance the hacker faces is a good idea though.
-
This won't tell them the breakdown of stats, but generally all stat arrays are (Rating +1)/Rating/(Rating -1)/(Rating -2).
Is this something unique for your table? I ask because the attributes for Hosts according to SR5 page 247 is somewhat different:
"The ratings of these attributes are usually (Host Rating), (Host Rating + 1), (Host Rating + 2), and (Host Rating + 3), in any order. For example, a Rating 4 host might have Attack 5, Sleaze 4, Data Processing 7, Firewall 6."
-
I started writing the same note, then realised that maybe he meant stats rather than attributes. Though I thought you normally just substitute rating for those. Only matters on defence anyway, as all IC attack with Host Rating x 2 dice.
-
Nope, just doing it from memory late at night so I had the wrong numbers. :P
-
I like using Overwatch Score as a determinant of host behavior. I agree that the connection between GOD and the host is murky, but the host definitely does know when it reaches a certain point since "host convergence" is a thing:
GOD doesn’t track personas inside a host, but it still
keeps tabs on the traffic to and from the host. This
means your Overwatch Score doesn’t change when
you enter a host, and it continues to accumulate while
you’re in the host. If you’re in a host when you reach
convergence, you’re not burned and dumped like you
are out on the grid (Overwatch Score and Convergence,
p. 231). Instead, the host gets three marks on
you and starts deploying IC.
So my current plan is to merge something like Namikaze's, Deathstrobe's, and my own ideas into a new specification for both host and Patrol IC behavior. Will work on that and get back to you soon.
edit: Oh shoot, I forgot that OS is hacker-specific. Uhh... I guess the host behavior will vary based on the highest OS score in it :-)
-
So here is a sample host's behavior:
OS 0-9
OS 10-29 Go to Yellow Alert (if at Green)
OS 30+ Go to Red Alert
Green Alert (normal operation)
- Patrol IC doesn't scan for silent icons
- Patrol IC investigates first illegal action per turn
- Patrol IC monitors for custom condition (e.g. checking a special file for marks) once a turn
- If alarm raised, launches Level 1 IC
Yellow Alert (cautious operation)
- System decker alerted
- Patrol IC scans for silent icons once per turn, but does not launch IC unless an illegal action is committed
- Patrol IC investigates first illegal action per turn
- Patrol IC monitors for custom behavior (e.g. checking a special file for marks) every pass
- If alarm raised, launches Level 1 or 2 IC
Red Alert (high threat response mode)
- System decker alerted
- Patrol IC scans for silent icons every pass and immediately launches IC if spotted
- Patrol IC investigates first illegal action per pass
- Patrol IC monitors for custom behavior (e.g. checking a special file for marks) every pass
- If alarm raised, launches Level 1 or 2 or 3 IC
- (Optional host behavior such as archiving files or rebooting)
Patrol IC
- Launches IC if a spotted icon ("loud" or "silent" but already spotted) performs an illegal action
- No initiative needs to be rolled until Yellow Alert
Level 1 IC
-Acid (Firewall)
-Binder (Data Processing)
-Jammer (Attack)
-Marker (Sleaze)
-Crash (crashes a program)
-Track
-Killer (Matrix damage)
Level 2 IC
-Blaster (matrix + stun damage, linklock)
-Scramble (reboots you)
-Tar Baby (linklock + mark)
Level 3 IC
-Sparky(matix + biofeedback damage)
-Black IC (matix + biofeedback damage, linklock)
I intentionally made Yellow Alert the largest block, and made Red Alert relatively narrow. That's because I don't think a typical host will freak out and send the big guns that quickly, and a hacker could exceed 40 OS as well if they had a lot of things they needed to do which would give Red Alert a larger range of operation.
The reason why I phrased the Alert changes the way I did was because I could see exterior factors changing the Matrix Alert level. For example, if security reported a shadowrunner intrusion in the building, the system decker might just set it to Yellow preemptively. Or if someone had tipped the host's owner off ahead of time of a possible attack.
The system is also designed to minimize rolling for quick matrix "drive bys". If you're going in to quickly hack a door and pop it open, you will likely not accrue enough marks to even send you into Yellow Alert. Only a dedicated Matrix run will force the GM to keep track of Patrol IC initiative and do more opposed tests.
You can also configure your host anyway you like, of course. Maybe a high-security Renraku data vault host has Yellow as their normal operating procedure, and spike to Red as soon as they hit 20.
Thoughts?
-
I really like it. :)
EDIT - Just noticed that you listed Level 3 IC in your protocols, but didn't label any IC grouping as "Level 3." I assume you mean the Deterrent IC, but maybe left an old version of the name in there?
-
If something like this is not in data trails catalyst s doning it wrong.
Well done!
-
EDIT - Just noticed that you listed Level 3 IC in your protocols, but didn't label any IC grouping as "Level 3." I assume you mean the Deterrent IC, but maybe left an old version of the name in there?
Whoops, thanks, fixed it. Yea originally I had them categorized by support/deterrent/vengeance based on functionality, but that just made it more awkward to deal with.
edit: I also forgot to include the scanning for illegal actions at Yellow/Red. Added now. Every turn for Yellow, every pass for Red.
Also an edit to put in the fact that lower level IC can be spawned at higher alerts (though obviously stronger IC are likely to be launched first).
-
Mmm. Party IC.
-
More fun questions, and these are actually quite complicated in my mind.
if you get a mark on a slave you also get a mark on the master.
This happens even if the slave was marked through a direct connection,
so be careful about who you give your slaved devices to.
The virtual space inside a host is separate from the
outside grid. When you’re outside of a host, you can’t interact
directly with icons inside it,
None of the devices can be accessed without first gaining
access (via a mark) to the Host itself. The Host then
becomes the Master for all of the devices within it, thus
providing the same protection as a WAN.
To make a direct connection, a hacker must
have a physical (wired) connection to the device, which
necessitates close physical proximity. With this connection,
the hacker can target the device separately from its
Master, and thus gain marks on the device or its Master
while making tests against the much lower Rating of the device.
You need a grid to access the Matrix.
Questions, with my answers as I understand it so far.
1. Can hosts contain devices that are not slaved to them as a WAN?
I don't think so.
2. If you mark a host (or any master), do you mark all of its slaved devices?
I think no?
3. If you add a mark to a device in the host, does that add a mark to the host?
Amazingly, yes, I think so.
4. If you have two marks on the host and zero marks on a device, and you add a mark to a device, do you now have three marks on the host?
A more specific version of #3, but I think yes?
5. If I direct connection to a WAN slaved device, am I "in" the host? i.e. can I see other icons in the host and interact with them?
I think yes?
6. Once I direct connect to a device, can I jump from there to a grid?
This is super confusing. Since exiting a host puts you on the grid you came from and there WAS no starting grid, I'm going to say no.
7. If you are someplace with literally no Matrix access (e.g. a Faraday cage) and you direct connect to a device... does that work? Can you still interact with it via Matrix actions? (since the rules explicitly say you need to have a grid to use the Matrix)
I have no idea.
8. Once in a host, are all non-silent icons immediately visible to me? Let's say it was a host containing all the of data Renraku has, stored in non-archived files. Could I just immediately find any file that I was looking for?
I want to say no, but I think the answer is yes? Perhaps sculpted hosts (with "walls") make the answer to this less weird.
Thoughts?
You may also find this link (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/45959/can-physical-devices-be-hidden-inside-a-host-in-sr5) useful.
edit: removed some questions I already found the answer to
-
1. I agree; by virtue of how hosts work, once you enter a host you are considered directly connected to it and every icon in it, which implies that everything is connected through a WAN.
2. I believe this is a common misconception. If you obtain a mark on a slaved device you also gain a make on the master. The reverse is not the case, however.
3. Yes, this is correct; see above. The so called direct connection exploit relies on gaining a direct connection to a device slaved to a host in order to hack a mark on the device, thereby gaining a mark on the master.
4.No. See above where Master-Slave relationships are concerned.
5.First of all, there's a big difference between having a direct connection and having a direct neural interface. The former is a hacking term describing a way to circumvent host ratings and noise, the latter describes the interface between brain and electronic devices like smartguns, cyberware, and sense enhancements.
As for being connected to a device equaling being in the host; no. You have to enter the host to take any actions against icons within it, with the sole exception of a device you have a direct connection to.
6.Even when directly connected to a device you remain on a grid (or in a host); unlike in previous editions, you never actually enter other icons with the sole exception of hosts.
-
Thanks for the answers Herr Brackhaus, and my apologies on the DNI terminology.
I also immediately edited my questions after my first post and replaced a couple of them, not sure if you took that into account in your numbering. I also added a new question just now based on the other thread I read.
edit: and now I added another question :-(
-
1. Can hosts contain devices that are not slaved to them as a WAN?
I don't think so.
Correct. Devices that are connected to a host are part of the host's WAN. A device can still send a signal to a host, and vice versa though. The advantage to putting a device outside the WAN is that physically tampering with the device doesn't automatically grant access to the host. The disadvantage is that the device has to communicate via sending messages, rather than just pouring data into the host. Whether this has an appreciable effect on the device, a security decker, or what have you is contested. I wasn't going to talk about this, but I have submitted some ideas for security riggers. If my ideas are approved, having a device that isn't slaved to a host will have much more noticeable effect.
2. If you mark a host (or any master), do you mark all of its slaved devices?
I think no?
Correct. Marking the slave will mark the master, but marking the master does not mark the slave.
3. If you add a mark to a device in the host, does that add a mark to the host?
Amazingly, yes, I think so.
Yup. See above.
4. If you have two marks on the host and zero marks on a device, and you add a mark to a device, do you now have three marks on the host?
A more specific version of #3, but I think yes?
Questionable. My answer would be no, but that's because I see marks as being done in levels. So if you have level 2 marks on a host, and get a level 1 mark on a device, you still only have level 2 on the host. If you have level 2 on the host, but get level 3 on a slaved device, then you get level 3 on the host as well. Honestly, there's no basis for this opinion, it's just how I perceive security working in a situation like this. Hopefully Data Trails will provide some clarity.
5. If I direct connection to a WAN slaved device, am I "in" the host? i.e. can I see other icons in the host and interact with them?
I think yes?
Yes. The way this works is to have you connected to your cyberdeck, then you connect to the device. The cyberdeck generates the persona, which then enters the host via the device's access point.
6. Once I direct connect to a device, can I jump from there to a grid?
This is super confusing. Since exiting a host puts you on the grid you came from and there WAS no starting grid, I'm going to say no.
Only if that device is capable of forming a persona (commlink, cyberdeck, rigger command console), or if you're already on a grid. Otherwise, you'd just get dumped into the meat world again.
7. If you are someplace with literally no Matrix access (e.g. a Faraday cage) and you direct connect to a device... does that work? Can you still interact with it via Matrix actions? (since the rules explicitly say you need to have a grid to use the Matrix)
I have no idea.
I would say yes, but your access is limited to only within the Faraday cage.
Thoughts? These rules accumulated honestly make the system seem pretty broken, since targeting any device in the host marks all the other devices and the host itself. That strikes me as strange.
The intent with this seems to have been to provide a physical method of hacking into a host that has really high stats. It encourages a hacker to get on-site and plug in directly to the terminal, camera, or whatnot. Which is how hacking always had to be done from 1st edition to 3rd edition. 4th edition's hacking was broken in that a kid in Germany with a commlink could hack a Renraku Ultraviolet node in Tokyo without breaking a sweat. I think 5th edition's hacking rules are trying to be somewhere in the middle, and I still hold out hope that Data Trails will give us many more options and much more clarity.
-
1. Can hosts contain devices that are not slaved to them as a WAN?
I don't think so.
I don't think so either. Other than personas. The rules would get too weird if you allow that.
2. If you mark a host (or any master), do you mark all of its slaved devices?
I think no?
Nope. Marking the masters do not mark the slaves. Though, it did work that way in SR4. The Slave/Master relationship has greatly changed since then.
3. If you add a mark to a device in the host, does that add a mark to the host?
Amazingly, yes, I think so.
Yes, because of the master/slave relationship.
4. If you have two marks on the host and zero marks on a device, and you add a mark to a device, do you now have three marks on the host?
A more specific version of #3, but I think yes?
Rules are unclear, but I'd say yes. This also means the fork program which allows you to hack to devices at once is really powerful/dangerous for the master when hacking a slave.
5. If I direct connection to a WAN slaved device, am I "in" the host? i.e. can I see other icons in the host and interact with them?
I think yes?
Not yet, you need to do the enter/exit host action.
6. Once I direct connect to a device, can I jump from there to a grid?
This is super confusing. Since exiting a host puts you on the grid you came from and there WAS no starting grid, I'm going to say no.
Yes, you just go to whatever your default grid is, with all your normal OS you built up while in the host.
7. If you are someplace with literally no Matrix access (e.g. a Faraday cage) and you direct connect to a device... does that work? Can you still interact with it via Matrix actions? (since the rules explicitly say you need to have a grid to use the Matrix)
I have no idea.
To specifically says you don't need a grid if you are direct connected. Specific rules trump general.
SR5 p232
When you use a direct connection, you ignore all noise modifiers and modifiers due to being on different grids or the public grid. It’s just you and the device.
8. Once in a host, are all non-silent icons immediately visible to me? Let's say it was a host containing all the of data Renraku has, stored in non-archived files. Could I just immediately find any file that I was looking for?
I want to say no, but I think the answer is yes? Perhaps sculpted hosts (with "walls") make the answer to this less weird.
Yes, but I also don't like that ruling. So I go with needing to make a Matrix Search test, with rules for rushing the job, with each hit over the threshold able to cut the interval time in half.