NEWS

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by Stainless Steel Devil Rat on Today at 19:04:46 »
Giving Cyberjacks extra initiative dice also seems to greatly devalue Hot Sim for deckers.  If you can get +3D6 and four minors in cold sim, then hot sim doesn't look so good in risk vs reward.  It actually makes me want to use Hot Sim as a tactical advantage Edge generator.  Matrix is hurting for non-AR/DR generation sources anyway.  I'd move the VCR edge generator to hot sim too.

"You're in Hot Sim" can win the Circumstantial Edge whenever the GM wants it to.
2
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by Xenon on Today at 18:48:19 »
+3D6 for an R5 or R6 Cyberjack.
There are two tables in the book. They have different numbers.
Page 177 is the correct one.


Noise from distance can be negated ...
Yes.

In which case you can remote control over larger areas.



One of the key things elements to hacking something is that if you can see the icon, you can hack it...
Eh?

The signal originates from the device you used to access the matrix with (for a hacker that would typically be his cyberdeck).

If you are trying to gain access on a network that is 4km away then you have 3 points of noise due to distance. No matter how many drones that are part of your PAN.
3
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by MercilessMing on Today at 18:14:11 »
Giving Cyberjacks extra initiative dice also seems to greatly devalue Hot Sim for deckers.  If you can get +3D6 and four minors in cold sim, then hot sim doesn't look so good in risk vs reward.  It actually makes me want to use Hot Sim as a tactical advantage Edge generator.  Matrix is hurting for non-AR/DR generation sources anyway.  I'd move the VCR edge generator to hot sim too.
4
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by MercilessMing on Today at 16:34:49 »
If the argument against combining RCC + cyberdeck is about noise reduction... well that doesn't seem like a problem unique to RCC's does it? 
5
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by Stainless Steel Devil Rat on Today at 16:26:27 »
On the topic of using a cyberdeck and RCC simultaneously... we've had this conversation already so I know I'm not convincing you of anything here :D   Just want to opine for the readers at large that personally, I do like that the combination is allowed in the CRB.  Without a Sleaze attribute of your own, the Rigger can't realistically pull off running their drones silently.  It doesn't feel right to me to be dependent on the Hacker for cover on this. In fact, I like the notion of a Rigger being the matrix overwatch specialist.  Adds more to the archetype, and even allows more flexibility in team makeup without HAVING to have a hacker for matrix defense.
6
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by Banshee on Today at 16:18:42 »

Noise from distance can be negated through a comination of Satellite Link and RCC of DR 5+ (3+ if you use Signal Scrubber). So the connection between the pilot and the drone would be 0 Noise (at least due to Range).

Let's take noise and range out of the equation for a minute.
One of the key things elements to hacking something is that if you can see the icon, you can hack it. If the drone can see icons (and there's no reason I can see why it wouldn't) then the pilot should be able to hack those icons. So slave your RCC to your Cyberdeck and start hacking your way around the block from the comfort of your couch.

Now let's bring noise and range back in.
If the pilot doesn't have any noise cancelling, then the normal noise for range between the RCC and the Drone applies to all checks made to or through the Drone. If they apply the proper mods to reduce the range noise to 0, then they're hacking their way around the planet.

That is, until they hit a zone of noise that isn't based on Range.

Just added a note about this in the FAQ, I do not allow a RCC and deck to be combined. That was never the intent and I was overridden.
7
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by MercilessMing on Today at 14:35:32 »
Quote
The Matrix Init Bonus for cyberjacks is the extra dice you get when in VR.
So deck-and-jack hackers will have between +3D6 and +5D6 init dice in VR depending on VR mode and jack model, while technomancers will get +2D6 or +3D6.  This power delta is intentional?
8
Rules and such / Re: SR6 Matrix Guide and FAQ
« Last post by dougansf on Today at 14:01:49 »
I am assuming you are talking about reaching 1 major action and 4 minor actions that you can trade into a second major action?

I'm talking about the +5d6 to Init cap (which also affects how many Minor Actions you gain).
+1D6 Base, +1D6 for Cold VR, +3D6 for an R5 or R6 Cyberjack.
Going Hot VR would add 1D6 more, which would exceed the cap.

Sounds like the answer is "No there are no other benefits."

Think of it as noise due to distance representing extra latency / signal loss / lower bandwidth you get when connecting via wifi over the matrix compared to if you would connect directly via a cable.

Remote connecting to devices wireless over the matrix might cause extra latency / signal loss (noise).

Noise from distance can be negated through a comination of Satellite Link and RCC of DR 5+ (3+ if you use Signal Scrubber). So the connection between the pilot and the drone would be 0 Noise (at least due to Range).

Let's take noise and range out of the equation for a minute.
One of the key things elements to hacking something is that if you can see the icon, you can hack it. If the drone can see icons (and there's no reason I can see why it wouldn't) then the pilot should be able to hack those icons. So slave your RCC to your Cyberdeck and start hacking your way around the block from the comfort of your couch.

Now let's bring noise and range back in.
If the pilot doesn't have any noise cancelling, then the normal noise for range between the RCC and the Drone applies to all checks made to or through the Drone. If they apply the proper mods to reduce the range noise to 0, then they're hacking their way around the planet.

That is, until they hit a zone of noise that isn't based on Range.
9
General Discussion / Re: Fun with Surveys
« Last post by 0B on Today at 13:51:46 »
I'm somewhat surprised how well received 5th edition was.  That's the one that killed new editions of Shadowrun for me.  Of course if the quality level had been better I probably would have liked it more.  Well that and if the priority system were better balanced.

If you look at who I polled, most of the discords were 5E LC's. Granted, that's because most LC's are 5E, and there's maybe 6 regular players on the 6e LC. The RPG.net stats (Shown above) don't paint 5e in as bright a light. In fact, it's enough that we can say with p < 0.05 that the opinion of 5E on RPG.net versus all locations surveyed is significantly different. In other words, there is no overlap on the margin of error.

I don't know if this means that the places I surveyed overall like 5e more than "normal" for the online SR community, or if RPG.net likes it less than "normal" for the online SR community. It's also worth noting that the RPG.net results are at the bare minimum for us to make statistical judgements about.

I also would avoid conflating quality with how well liked an edition is.

Agreed.  It was just that quality (or the lack thereof) in the editing and production values is what turned me personally off 5e and subsequent editions.  Didn't mean to imply anything beyond that.

Ope, my bad! And you'll get no quarrel from me on the quality of 5e's editing and layout, nor on 6e's. I just think there are much better metrics on that then this poll.
10
General Discussion / Re: Fun with Surveys
« Last post by jim1701 on Today at 13:40:29 »
I'm somewhat surprised how well received 5th edition was.  That's the one that killed new editions of Shadowrun for me.  Of course if the quality level had been better I probably would have liked it more.  Well that and if the priority system were better balanced.

If you look at who I polled, most of the discords were 5E LC's. Granted, that's because most LC's are 5E, and there's maybe 6 regular players on the 6e LC. The RPG.net stats (Shown above) don't paint 5e in as bright a light. In fact, it's enough that we can say with p < 0.05 that the opinion of 5E on RPG.net versus all locations surveyed is significantly different. In other words, there is no overlap on the margin of error.

I don't know if this means that the places I surveyed overall like 5e more than "normal" for the online SR community, or if RPG.net likes it less than "normal" for the online SR community. It's also worth noting that the RPG.net results are at the bare minimum for us to make statistical judgements about.

I also would avoid conflating quality with how well liked an edition is.

Agreed.  It was just that quality (or the lack thereof) in the editing and production values is what turned me personally off 5e and subsequent editions.  Didn't mean to imply anything beyond that.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10