Hmmm interesting... So this basically means that it can be a deliberate choice to leave a device unslaved (not unlike 5th Edition, now that I think about it): Apart from the slave limit, access to a slaved device = access to the whole PAN, including the other slaves. Meanwhile, unslaved devices are practically defenseless, but a hacker has to chew through each of them seperately.
Hackers would probably want to first gain User or even Admin access on a network that have a lot of devices they plan to interact with (since while they are considered User or Admin they can legally control them without their individual control actions generating overwatch score on their own). This would be resolved via a single Brute force / Probe+Backdoor Entry action followed by individual Control Device actions.
But most of the time they would probably skip the whole User or Admin access for individual devices that are not part of any network. Instead they would probably just impersonate a legit user and send instructions to the device to have it act on (this is an illegal cracking action, but since the device is not part of a network it will probably not have any dice to defend with and thus the action will not generate overwatch score from opposing hits). This would be resolved via unopposed Spoof Command actions.
And
this is the part were the whole current RAW (and RAI?), and especially that way too low slave limit, just becomes really weird (unless the devs
want to promote complicated commlink daisychains, which I doubt). I mean, the missing firewall Attribute is one thing, but a
completely unopposed roll? This makes any form of hacking a total joke. As Xenon mentioned, it wouldnīt even start OS. Furthermore, the Attacker will also generate Edge
every single time , as long as he brings a combined Attack+Sleaze of 4 or higher to the table.
I have a strong feeling that this sentence is the sticking point about the whole thing:
P. 179: "A persona actively defending for a device or host can use the other pool with the device or host attributes."
And boy, is it
sticky...
First: Whatīs the point of that sentence in its current form anyways? If I (i.e. my persona) defend for a host or device, why would I want to use the (likely, lower or even nonexistent) pool of the target I want to defend?
The one that the target would use anyways? Shouldnīt this be the other way around - the target using the personaīs attributes,
including the mental attributes?
- Could it be that this sentence is supposed to be read as: "If a persona actively defends for a device or host, you can use the pool of your persona ("the other pool"), BUT (alternatively?) with the Matrix(!) Attributes of the device or Host."?
- This is at least what happens in the example on p. 178, so...
Second: What is "actively defending" supposed to mean? There is no Matrix action associated with it, so it seems to be some kind of passive state. How do I declare it? Is there a limitation?
- Is it the same as a Master-Slave-relationship? Is it something I initiate by putting the device in my PAN (which may or may not be the same as a MS-relationship, argle bargle...).
- Do I need to have an active Persona and monitor the Matrix in VR/AR? Is this the "point" of the whole thing: To force users to watch out for their stuff in person?
Not gonna lie, Iīm starting to get quite disappointed with the current state of the Matrix rules (Both the english and german ones). That whole "devices donīt heave any defenses without belonging to a network" might have been all fine and dandy, but combined with the slave limit (afaik, it was added by Errata?), the whole thing thing
absolutely falls apart for all forms of "consumer electronics". RAW, the 6th would be practically littered with 100% unprotected wireless devices.
Is this really supposed to be the actual RAI or are we all missing something here?