NEWS

Can an RCC be slaved to another RCC?

  • 13 Replies
  • 849 Views

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« on: (20:05:40/08-31-18) »
Since the RCC can slave other devices to it, and since it functions as a commlink, is it possible to slave an RCC to another RCC?

I have a Rigger who has come by a second RCC, and my thought was to take the secondary RCC and run the programs for my recon drones on it, then slave it to my primary RCC which will be running programs for my combat drones. Is this possible?

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2425
« Reply #1 on: (20:13:54/08-31-18) »
No daisy-chaining PANs.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
« Reply #2 on: (20:25:26/08-31-18) »
It has been tossed around for a while, but - as far as I know - Kill Code is the first source to make it official:

Quote from: Kill Code, page 34, PANs/WANs sidebar
PANs consist of only devices, whether slave or master, and no device can be both slave and master.

This also means you can't link your commlink to the Team PAN to use for communications, because all of a sudden your Image Link device and Sound Link device and / or Subdermal Mic stop working since your commlink can't be Master to your devices anymore.
You have to link the individual devices instead.

If you couldn't tell, I think this is a stupendously silly ruling.  ;)

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #3 on: (21:59:25/08-31-18) »
Well, that is just unfortunate...

I guess I'll have to run them separately and switch between them then.

PiXeL01

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2258
  • Sheltering Orks in Osaka
« Reply #4 on: (22:34:11/08-31-18) »
You can connect them simultaneously to your data jack
If Tom Brady’s a Spike Baby, what does that make Brees and Rodgers?

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 8532
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #5 on: (05:49:46/09-01-18) »
It has been tossed around for a while, but - as far as I know - Kill Code is the first source to make it official
[...]all of a sudden your Image Link device and Sound Link device and / or Subdermal Mic stop working since your commlink can't be Master to your devices anymore.
First source to make it explicit isn't the same as first source to make it official. The terminology was always that devices form a PAN through the master-slave relationship, and there is nothing to support daisy-chaining to begin with.

And no, they don't stop working. These devices aren't 'slave or no work'. However, they are more easily hacked if not protected by a master. But if you believe that personal devices not slaved to your commlink cannot communicate with your commlink, it explains why you're insisting it's a bad rule, rather than a rule that forces you to make decisions on what to protect and makes it a good idea not to use a cheap comm to protect your stuff. It's why my HTR PR5 teams use 2 Cyberdecks to cover the 8 people and can slave only 3 pieces of gear per person, so need all the communication stuff embedded in their armour. Which is a nice push to gear inside the armor: It's 1 device instead of multiple, so it means you can slave more stuff basically. Smartgun, TacNet and Armour slaved to Rating 4 Cyberdeck = 4 people protected per Cyberdeck.

Also, you don't HAVE to connect your commlink to a team PAN to be able to talk with each other! These devices and their functions work fine even without being connected through a PAN. Heck, Microtransceivers don't even need the Matrix! You can slave your communication gear to a Rating 5 commlink for some extra protection, while slaving your Image Link and Smartgun to the Decker's Cyberdeck for better protection, or slave the commlink to the Deck with the IL and SG but not slave the earbud.



Enough said, because let's stay on topic: The second RCC cannot be slaved to the first while supporting drones, but you can still have 2 RCCs for 2 sets of Drones, allowing more autosofts per RCC. So it's still quite useful. By the way, don't forget you can use Virtual Machine on RCCs. =)
CorpSec when an alarm is triggered;: "This is so sad, Alexa play Shoot The Runner"

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #6 on: (04:47:00/09-02-18) »
The only problem with the 2 RCCs idea is that you can't log in and control two RCCs at the same time. You can only form you persona on one device at a time, so you would need to reset the second RCC if you want to switch over and control that one...

 (On the Daisy-Chain topic)
I think the rules have been moving away from the idea of "everyone slave your devices to the decker" mentality.

It makes more sense to me that everyone controls their own stuff, and if you have a decker that serves as Overwatch on Matrix defense, they are simply keeping an eye on everyone else's PANs to check for extraneous MARKs. Honestly, that's a better defense in the current Matrix rules anyway, because if an enemy decker does get a MARK on somebody while everyone is slaved into one giant group that's a risk for everyone, but if everyone takes care of their own stuff then only one person is at risk at a time.
« Last Edit: (04:48:39/09-02-18) by Kiirnodel »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 8532
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #7 on: (05:08:42/09-02-18) »
The main weakness in not slaving to a deck is no Sleaze.
CorpSec when an alarm is triggered;: "This is so sad, Alexa play Shoot The Runner"

Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
« Reply #8 on: (06:51:55/09-02-18) »
The only problem with the 2 RCCs idea is that you can't log in and control two RCCs at the same time. You can only form you persona on one device at a time, so you would need to reset the second RCC if you want to switch over and control that one...

That would be a bad idea.  A device that you form your Persona on can not be part of a PAN.  If the rigger formed his/her Persona on a RCC, any and all Drones slaved to it would no longer be slaved or receive any benefits from the RCC.

A rigger has to form their Persona on a Commlink (or Deck, but come on.  What character has the cred for a "spare" Deck?) and then "ride" the RCC networks.
In a very bad analogy, the RCC networks act almost like Grids at that point.

(On the Daisy-Chain topic)
I think the rules have been moving away from the idea of "everyone slave your devices to the decker" mentality.

That is only because the Wireless Bonuses were never really worth the vulnerability you created for yourself.  And the more Matrix stuff Catalyst puts out, the worse the situation gets.  (They keep making it more punishing to be Wireless On, without giving any real benefit.)

The only real exception is team communications.  Self quoting here:
One of the first rules of combat is "don't allow your comms to be compromised."  If one of your team's comms gets hacked, the rest of the gear being protected hardly matters at that point.
Feel free to click through to read the rest of the tip of the iceberg as to why this is a Stupendously Silly™ ruling, if you want.

It makes more sense to me that everyone controls their own stuff, and if you have a decker that serves as Overwatch on Matrix defense, they are simply keeping an eye on everyone else's PANs to check for extraneous MARKs. Honestly, that's a better defense in the current Matrix rules anyway, because if an enemy decker does get a MARK on somebody while everyone is slaved into one giant group that's a risk for everyone, but if everyone takes care of their own stuff then only one person is at risk at a time.

The big problem here is, it takes 1 Complex Action to inspect 1 team members PAN Master for extraneous MARKs.  I mean, unless your GM allows the Decker to take a "snapshot" of each PAN Master and run a Matrix Perception - "Any of my teams PAN Masters that has extra MARKs."
Baring the GM being nice, then the Decker is just playing Wack-A-Mole.  While they are looking at teammate A, teammate B gets hacked.  When they move to look at teammate B, teammate A gets hacked.  While they are dealing with teammate B, teammate A get's pwned.
At that point you are better off declaring "y'all are on your own," and / or not even running a Decker in the team.
« Last Edit: (06:53:48/09-02-18) by Iron Serpent Prince »

HP15BS

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 123
« Reply #9 on: (10:52:38/09-02-18) »
... so need all the communication stuff embedded in their armour. Which is a nice push to gear inside the armor: It's 1 device instead of multiple, so it means you can slave more stuff basically. Smartgun, TacNet and Armour slaved to Rating 4 Cyberdeck = 4 people protected per Cyberdeck.

What makes you think that housing 5 different devices in armor lets you treat those 5 devices as 1 device instead?  ???

Is there a section of RAW to support this view that I missed?
To Deckers the Foundation really is a crazy place from Alice in Wonderland. How does that stuff just happen? How do they work when everything about them defies logic?
Then a Techno comes, high 5's Caterpillar, takes a swig of Mad Hatter's tea, & wanders away chatting up White Rabbit.
- Marcus Gideon

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #10 on: (19:45:31/09-02-18) »
That would be a bad idea.  A device that you form your Persona on can not be part of a PAN.  If the rigger formed his/her Persona on a RCC, any and all Drones slaved to it would no longer be slaved or receive any benefits from the RCC.

A rigger has to form their Persona on a Commlink (or Deck, but come on.  What character has the cred for a "spare" Deck?) and then "ride" the RCC networks.
In a very bad analogy, the RCC networks act almost like Grids at that point.

Where are you getting this idea from? An RCC acts and functions like a commlink (Basic description of RCC on page 266. The device you form your persona on can absolutely be the master of a PAN (otherwise the idea of everyone slaving devices to the Decker master would be completely useless, because then the Decker couldn't do any sort of decking...)

People seem to be under the false impression that Personas formed on devices cause that device to no longer function. The icon is subsumed on the matrix, but nothing says that it ceases to function as a device. The rules explicitly mention using an RCC to enter VR and jump in (interchangeably with commlinks).

Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
« Reply #11 on: (20:20:44/09-02-18) »
Where are you getting this idea from?

To self quote here from another thread where I am discussing this:

Until we get some clarification, we have Aaron declaring a Persona isn't a device any more.
And Kill Code making it clear that PANs are only devices.

About five years ago, there was a "discussion" about what happens when a Persona is formed on a device.  Aaron* made a ruling that when a Persona is formed on a device, it ceases to be a device.  It is a persona.  (To be clear, since several people have acted like I believe in these rulings, I consider this a Stupendously Silly™ ruling.)

While there was some time where a Persona could still be a Master in a PAN, Kill Code makes it clear that a PAN is only devices.  Combined with Aaron's ruling, that means a Persona can't be a part of a PAN.

*To be clear as well, I do not agree with any of the rulings I know from this person.

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #12 on: (20:46:22/09-02-18) »
If a Persona formed on a commlink means that it can't form a PAN, then the whole concept of a PAN is impossible.

If a person is essentially logged in on their commlink, ready to use it to navigate the Matrix (probably 95+% of all Matrix users) then they have formed their persona on that device. And a PAN is formed with the commlink as the master. If you can't create a PAN while you have your persona logged in, then you can't create a PAN, full stop.

PANs require devices, that's fine. That means that personas that aren't formed on devices can't be part of a PAN (technomancers, sprites, etc). But a commlink (or deck) is the basis of where a PAN forms from, and you have to create your Matrix persona on your commlink, so those two things can't be mutually exclusive.

PingGuy

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 99
« Reply #13 on: (11:35:58/09-04-18) »
About five years ago, there was a "discussion" about what happens when a Persona is formed on a device.  Aaron* made a ruling that when a Persona is formed on a device, it ceases to be a device.  It is a persona.  (To be clear, since several people have acted like I believe in these rulings, I consider this a Stupendously Silly™ ruling.)

While there was some time where a Persona could still be a Master in a PAN, Kill Code makes it clear that a PAN is only devices.  Combined with Aaron's ruling, that means a Persona can't be a part of a PAN.

*To be clear as well, I do not agree with any of the rulings I know from this person.

I posted in the other thread, but I see your point more clearly here.  I think you are conflating the device with its icon.  The device's icon changes to the persona's icon when the hacker uses the device to access the Matrix.  That is to represent the hacker inside the Matrix, without leaving the deck immediately target-able.  If they were separate, the persona icon would fly around the Matrix while the deck icon stayed at its physical location.  That would allow another hacker to target the deck at its location while the owning hacker was off somewhere else in the Matrix.  That would be a problem.

A cyberdeck/commlink/RCC doesn't stop being an cyberdeck/commlink/RCC when you start using it, it just stops being an unattended device that is represented by its own icon.  The device is what is allowing the hacker to be there, and the handling of the icon is important, but the device is still there doing what it does.  If you use the Wrapper program or the TM version of such on a cyberdeck/commlink/RCC, does that device stop being a cyberdeck/commlink/RCC?  Of course not, it just has a different icon now.

Hence, the changing of an icon shouldn't break a PAN.  The device is still doing what it was built to do, and what you may have paid a lot of nuyen for it to do.