Why do people think that Technomancers suck? Options

[Dumori]

Surly you could connect to the node via the same port as the data just like modern day firewalls work. if device A only lets data in port 55065 then you could hack in via port 55056 but finding that signal open poet would be hard but no spoofing would be needed. If port 55065 on device A only allowed data form port 42309 on device B in to it then you would need to spoof the fact your from port 42309 on device B.

The signal device example is how i would see most Linking being done. With the 2 device example showing a tired system but both could be made at eather layer of security.

This will need clearing up with unwired but Im almost 100% sure it will be.

[Aaron]

Again, it's really very clear. If you link your devices, then someone can only hack into one by Spoofing themselves as the other.

Except that the FAQ addresses this directly. Your argument seems very weak unless you completely ignore the FAQ ...

Anything the FAQ says about Subscription is pretty much completely irrelevant ...

Oh, you are ignoring the FAQ. Okay, well, I guess we can't really debate this point if we can't agree on the validity of source material. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Doesn't affect Hackers much, because they always just buy all the programs at the same rating and forget about it, but it hurts Technomancers a lot.

Ever played a technomancer? I mean, I would have thought that you, of all people, would be able to build a technomancer that could make nodes dance for you.

[Aaron]

From this example, they use Scan but not Spoof.
(In fact, Spoof says that you have to have seen the signature of whatever you are pretending to be. If Spoof were required it would be very difficult to get in to anything.)

That is correct. We were using the RAW.

The other thought is that everything is presumed to be connected on the Matrix.
So could you search for the node on the Matrix instead?

Possibly. You still would have to do the scan, though, because even though you might find evidence of the node on the Matrix, if you Track it you'll still only narrow it down to an area, and then you're back to scanning.

[Adarael]

Yeah, this has been brought up before. The FAQ directly countermands an explicit rule, which means that either:
1) An explicitly stated rule is wrong, or
2) The FAQ was written while people were not thinking about that explicitly stated rule.

Personally, I'm a proponent of #2. I.E. the rule still holds. Because if #1 is correct, the Spoof program serves no purpose at all, because it's always better to hack something than issue a single-command spoof. It's just very poor thing to have added to the FAQ.

[Ryu]

The FAQ is violating both SR4 itself and SR3 compatibility in multiple places. It does not give a good base. But any discussion on what has to be done should happen after Unwired. Quite a few matters are known for a long time now.

[Aaron]

Yeah, this has been brought up before. The FAQ directly countermands an explicit rule, which means that either:
1) An explicitly stated rule is wrong, or
2) The FAQ was written while people were not thinking about that explicitly stated rule.

Personally, I'm unconvinced that it's countermanding an explicit rule. I think it's at odds with a description in a sidebar.

[cryptoknight]

Personally, I'm unconvinced that it's countermanding an explicit rule. I think it's at odds with a description in a sidebar.

Similar to AR modifiers for combat on page 208
Or the tips for SR3 players on page 52?

All the other side bars are references to rules... why is this one different?

As it stands, without that sidebar, the networks of 2070 have gotten less secure than the networks of 1988. No chokepoints, no Access Control lists... we just stick all of our servers out there and let anybody and everybody hack them from anywhere and everywhere... No centralized network security systems, Network wide Intrusion Detection Systems, nada. It's painfully obvious that the network model that SR operates in is based on somebody's dream model of how the internet is setup, and that all the nodes are Macintoshes or something.

I've got news for all of you... Firewalls exist to keep people out. I seriously doubt you'll ever see the SR network model come to life anywhere other than in a StarBucks.

[Aaron]

Similar to AR modifiers for combat on page 208
Or the tips for SR3 players on page 52?

All the other side bars are references to rules... why is this one different?

I was hoping someone would make this point. I'm also hoping that those who were posting in the "spirits can't be affected by Health spells" thread read it. =i)

As it stands, without that sidebar, the networks of 2070 have gotten less secure than the networks of 1988. No chokepoints, no Access Control lists... we just stick all of our servers out there and let anybody and everybody hack them from anywhere and everywhere... No centralized network security systems, Network wide Intrusion Detection Systems, nada. It's painfully obvious that the network model that SR operates in is based on somebody's dream model of how the internet is setup, and that all the nodes are Macintoshes or something.

I've got news for all of you... Firewalls exist to keep people out. I seriously doubt you'll ever see the SR network model come to life anywhere other than in a StarBucks.

I did a LOT of posting on the subject of networks, current research, and ubiquitous wireless topology a year or two ago (I'm a Cisco instructor, among other things). I'd ask that you pretty please do a search for them, so I don't have to post them again.

[DireRadiant]

As it stands, without that sidebar, the networks of 2070 have gotten less secure than the networks of 1988. No chokepoints, no Access Control lists... we just stick all of our servers out there and let anybody and everybody hack them from anywhere and everywhere... No centralized network security systems, Network wide Intrusion Detection Systems, nada. It's painfully obvious that the network model that SR operates in is based on somebody's dream model of how the internet is setup, and that all the nodes are Macintoshes or something.

You can't imagine that it's standard for a single device to provide services to other devices that in todays world takes a monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, cpu, memory, power supply, network interfaces, modems, routers, hubs, switches, repeaters, broadcasters and a bunch of common devices, while at the same time maintaining some level of security and isolation between all those functions and services?

Is it some magical thing where if these pieces are together in one device it suddenly becomes insecure?

[hermit]

Using international rules, Courier sprites and Diagnosis can replace most other skills as well, or at least negate any defaulting mali and add enough dice to pretend the TM has the skill. Put a commlink into a 'mancer's weapon, put a copy of a sprite with diagnosis in there and have it diagnose the weapon. Adds (Sprite_power*2/3) dice to the weapons test. Same with B/R, electronics, computer, ect. Defaulting to anything not in the athletics or infltration group (for influence, the sprite diagnoses the TM's emotitoy) is fairly easy for a mancer that way.

Thus, the TM's need for specialisation is not so crippling at all. All he needs is good compiling skills, really. add to that a decent threading and more than 1 on physical attributes, and you have a character as rounded as a standard hacker and much, much more powerful in the matrix.

No, I don't see how they suck at all.

[cryptoknight]

You can't imagine that it's standard for a single device to provide services to other devices that in todays world takes a monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, cpu, memory, power supply, network interfaces, modems, routers, hubs, switches, repeaters, broadcasters and a bunch of common devices, while at the same time maintaining some level of security and isolation between all those functions and services?

Is it some magical thing where if these pieces are together in one device it suddenly becomes insecure?

No it becomes insecure when there is nothing that interconnects them for security and they are all stuck out there to fend for themselves. Why in the hell would I put my network devices out there broadcasting wirelessly so that everybody and their brother can access them? Tiered, multi-level chokepoints to control access is where its at. Not the Starbucks model. Protect my data servers behind layers of security servers, not have them do everything at once.

[FrankTrollman]

I was hoping someone would make this point. I'm also hoping that those who were posting in the "spirits can't be affected by Health spells" thread read it. =i)

Since that entire thread was erased for reasons you know very well, bringing it up as a point in an argument is astoundingly immature. You know quite well that we can't get too heavily into that argument without risking the erasure of this thread as well, so talking about it is just using the nuclear option on a discussion that isn't going well for you. You might as well have just Godwinned this thread in the hopes of getting it locked.

The Linked System discussion is over and above the discussion of mere subscription and it's in main body rule text. The Tiered System discussion is in a box of text, but is never countermanded in any part of the main body of rule text. This is in stark contrast to the overview box on page 172 which gives no targeting restrictions as opposed to the very specific targeting restrictions for Health spells on page 199.

You got nothing, and continuing to be insulting about the nothing you have wins you no friends. Calling your opponents "crazy" just because they read the actual rules instead of relying upon presumed author intent is an unpleasant way to conduct yourself. I understand that you're part of the Unwired staff. Good for you. I hope that you made parts of the Matrix rules work better than they do in the BBB. But please don't be a jerk about it. Especially don't be a jerk about defending rules that you seriously didn't write and ought to have nothing whatever invested in.

-Frank

[Cthulhudreams]

Even if it doesn't work that way, can I not just create the same effect with a length of fibreoptic cable.

So <device> <cable> <Commlink> and then order the commlink to only communicate with the device and not pass on external commands.

If the cable defense doesn't work that way, can I not I black hammer anyone with a DNI, by sending their DNI orders via my Simsense module to take this VR feed and put the target into VR, then blackhammer the shit out of them bypassing all the programs in their commlink (including their biofeedback filters and everything else). I can also send their cybereyes a 'spoof' command wirelessly even if they've removed the cybereyes wireless, just as long as they are using a smartgun and a commlink that has a DNI, even if they are not actually connected

This seems retarded.

[Fortune]

Since that entire thread was erased for reasons you know very well ...

I wasn't aware that the thread was erased, nor am I privy to the reasoning behind it. Can you please enlighten me as to why this came to pass?

[FrankTrollman]

I wasn't aware that the thread was erased, nor am I privy to the reasoning behind it. Can you please enlighten me as to why this came to pass?

Short story version:

Peter made a ruling that expressly contradicted the rules of SR4 and was in stark contrast with the way the game has worked in all previous editions and this one. When called upon it, he said that it was supposed to be like that for an unnamed future book. However he actually had named the book in question in an earlier thread, though apparently he wasn't supposed to. I guessed the book in my rebuttal that the book in question shouldn't have to change Shadowrun metaphysics in that manner. And because the book in question is still supposed to be a secret, the entire thread vanished into a black hole.

And yeah, this means that too much discussion into that topic could easily cause this tread to vanish into a black hole, because Peter only made the ruling based on what he's currently considering doing in a book that is still presently secret. And all the threads where he or anyone else have mentioned the book by name have vanished into said black hole.

-Frank

[Aaron]

Since that entire thread was erased for reasons you know very well, bringing it up as a point in an argument is astoundingly immature.

I agree that it would be had I known that the thread had been erased when I posted it (EDIT: I also didn't and still don't know why it was erased). I brought it up because the person with whom I was debating had previously stated that being in a side bar made a rule weaker, contrary to his (then) current stance.

Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, we can't have an honest debate on the topic because we don't agree on the validity of source material. We'd have to debate the validity of the FAQ's ruling and then come to an agreement about that first, and frankly the idea of doing that wearies me.

You got nothing, and continuing to be insulting about the nothing you have wins you no friends. Calling your opponents "crazy" just because they read the actual rules instead of relying upon presumed author intent is an unpleasant way to conduct yourself. I understand that you're part of the Unwired staff. Good for you. I hope that you made parts of the Matrix rules work better than they do in the BBB. But please don't be a jerk about it. Especially don't be a jerk about defending rules that you seriously didn't write and ought to have nothing whatever invested in.

I'm sorry, could you quote the part where I called people crazy? Could you also quote the part where I made assumptions about intent? I don't remember saying "I assume the author meant ..." I was under the impression that I was talking about what I'd been told and what's in the FAQ.

As to my work on Unwired, I haven't posted a blessed thing from that book, nor have I debated anything that directly relates to the parts I was assigned. I'm pretty sure I've never implied that I was more right about something just because the devs happened to like one of my proposals and threw a word count and a contract my way.

If I have made ad hominem attacks, please quote the material and let me know, so I can apologize (via PM, since it's not germane to the thread).

[Aaron]

Even if it doesn't work that way, can I not just create the same effect with a length of fibreoptic cable.

Bingo. Kill the wireless, connect it via fiber. You know, now that I look at it, if you take cabling into account, then Frank's interpretation, Rob's ruling, and the FAQ can all be compatible.

[Aaron]

Peter made a ruling that expressly contradicted the rules of SR4 and was in stark contrast with the way the game has worked in all previous editions and this one. When called upon it, he said that it was supposed to be like that for an unnamed future book. However he actually had named the book in question in an earlier thread, though apparently he wasn't supposed to. I guessed the book in my rebuttal that the book in question shouldn't have to change Shadowrun metaphysics in that manner. And because the book in question is still supposed to be a secret, the entire thread vanished into a black hole.

And yeah, this means that too much discussion into that topic could easily cause this tread to vanish into a black hole, because Peter only made the ruling based on what he's currently considering doing in a book that is still presently secret. And all the threads where he or anyone else have mentioned the book by name have vanished into said black hole.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Is that supposition, or were you in on the decision?

In case my question is misinterpreted, I mean no offense by asking. It occurs to me that it might be good to know how these decisions are made, so it becomes important to know whether you're interpreting or reporting.

[masterofm]

Um... no offense guys, but can you both drop your petty baloney arguing? Obviously you guys have some sort of beef that you might want to consider letting it all out somewhere else. Uuuug I was interested in this thread until the knife to the face it received.....

He was talking about when you said "shine on you crazy diamond" Aaron. Obviously it was meant to be sarcastic and any reader could gleam the spite behind it. Then again this is not one sided, but man does it kill the fun and interesting opinions that other people have.

[Fortune]

Short story version

Much obliged.

[Aaron]

Um... no offense guys, but can you both drop your petty baloney arguing? Obviously you guys have some sort of beef that you might want to consider letting it all out somewhere else. Uuuug I was interested in this thread until the knife to the face it received.....

Yeah, sorry about that. I try to make sure there's some on-topic content and take it to PMs if there isn't.

He was talking about when you said "shine on you crazy diamond" Aaron. Obviously it was meant to be sarcastic and any reader could gleam the spite behind it. Then again this is not one sided, but man does it kill the fun and interesting opinions that other people have.

Holy crap, I didn't even think of that. Yeah, sorry Frank, that wasn't intended to mean you're crazy. It's a phrase from a Pink Floyd song that I use with my friends; I intended it to mean "you do your thing, I'll do mine." I meant the word "crazy" in that sentence in its slang definition (enthusiastic, excellent, awesome), and not to mean "insane." It didn't occur to me that it might not come across that way, sorry about that. Thanks, masterofm.

[masterofm]

*bows* No problem. Sometimes it just takes a 3rd party for understanding to happen, which is why counselors exist IRL. Almost became one myself, but this is neither important or on topic.

As for the question on if Technomancers suck or not the problem, it all boils down to one trick ponies IMOP. If you want to hard cheese a character to do one thing exceptionally well you run into the problem of pushing the "I win" button. Technomancers can rock the matrix, but if you don't invest enough into pushing that button then why not just play a hacker I think is a much more valid point.

I just feel that in the end what kills me is in a game perspective pushing the "I win" button is no fun, and since technomancers are high BP investing characters to do what they do best if you don't make the "I win the matrix" technomancer you have just created a decent hacker for twice the BP. The only difference is that the Hacker will probably have better fleshed out stats and skills to make he/she more versatile. I think the same argument goes for the Pornomancer. The "I win" button might be fun initially but after you ride your one trick pony into the ground what else are you going to do? Is that really fun in the end? Is it fun for all the other players around you? Is it fun for your GM? Does it make an interesting game? I feel like these are much more important questions to answer when thinking about a character. For me a technomancer sucks, because it fails the more important question of, "Does having this character make the game fun?"

[Aaron]

As for the question on if Technomancers suck or not the problem, it all boils down to one trick ponies IMOP. If you want to hard cheese a character to do one thing exceptionally well you run into the problem of pushing the "I win" button. Technomancers can rock the matrix, but if you don't invest enough into pushing that button then why not just play a hacker I think is a much more valid point.

I concur. There's a bit more that a technomancer can do than just run Matrix nodes, but they all have the requirement that the target have or be a device of some sort. You could, for example, send a sprite against an opposing gun emplacement or vehicle, but yeah, you're stuck using non-Resonance abilities to do anything else. Spirits save you if you're up against, say, a bear.

[masterofm]

If you used anti wifi paint would the sprite still be able to enter the devise? I think it is valid that many vehicles are actually given an anti wifi paint job, so the passengers inside the car can't be hacked and forced to say.... I don't know.... drive into a steal wall at 120 mph.

[Aaron]

Good point, although wireless-inhibiting paint and wallpaper is why all of my Matrix specialists carry large-caliber pistols and foam explosives; to punch holes in that stuff. Not sure how effective it would be on a vehicle, though; might need to add incendiary grenades to the list.