Matrix Combat -multiple attackers Options

[yesferatu]

Is there a penalty for defending against multiple attacks on the matrix?
Standard combat reduces the defense pool by 1 for every attack a character has defended.

Is there such a thing in Matrix combat or does an Icon always get all of their Firewall + Response to defend?

[Karoline]

Is there a penalty for defending against multiple attacks on the matrix?
Standard combat reduces the defense pool by 1 for every attack a character has defended.

Is there such a thing in Matrix combat or does an Icon always get all of their Firewall + Response to defend?

Well, it isn't mentioned in the matrix rules, so I suppose there isn't a problem. I mean, it kind of makes sense. It isn't like you become more and more off balance or have to dodge inbetween multiple bullets or anything.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well, it isn't mentioned in the matrix rules, so I suppose there isn't a problem. I mean, it kind of makes sense. It isn't like you become more and more off balance or have to dodge inbetween multiple bullets or anything.

Though why you would repeat combat rules in a matrix section would be beyond me...
So... We use the standard Combat rules. So, yes, in the Matrix, your defense will degrade against multiple opponents... it makes the most sense... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

[Karoline]

Though why you would repeat combat rules in a matrix section would be beyond me...
So... We use the standard Combat rules. So, yes, in the Matrix, your defense will degrade against multiple opponents... it makes the most sense... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

Do you also get an attack penalty for there being smoke? Can you also only move so many meters per combat turn? Can you charge? Do you get to use your maneuvers in the matrix? Can you take aim? The answer to all of that is no, so I don't see why the singular rule of multiple attackers would transfer over, but nothing else. It isn't like they'd have to repeat the entire combat section to make note of this one rule. Like I said, there really isn't any reason that multiple attacks would be harder to defend against than a single attack because it isn't as though you are being put off balance or having to dodge between multiple bullets or any of those added difficulties.

[Dreadlord]

I might rule that a sculpted system in which Matrix Combat is represented in a virtual combat paradigm like Gladatorial Arena Battles might have the RL Combat mods, but otherwise I do not apply them to Cybercombat.

[Karoline]

I might rule that a sculpted system in which Matrix Combat is represented in a virtual combat paradigm like Gladatorial Arena Battles might have the RL Combat mods, but otherwise I do not apply them to Cybercombat.

It still wouldn't change the code. It's just like setting your icon to being ultra tiny doesn't make you harder to notice.

[yesferatu]

You wouldn't use any of the other combat rules, like range or movement, but you do still use initiative and wound penalties.
If a system has to defend against 5 agents, should it run the response down more than defending against 1.
Does it make sense that a nexus defending against an army of hackers would always use the same response + firewall roll?

I'm 50/50 on it.

[sabs]

Does it make sense that you can be 'on a system' but not affecting it's response at all?

The entirety of the Matrix rules make very little sense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Karoline]

You wouldn't use any of the other combat rules, like range or movement, but you do still use initiative and wound penalties.

Yes, but it says that you use initiative, and it says that you take wound penalties based on your icon's damage track, and normal wound penalties are something that you take on everything, and have nothing directly to do with combat.

If a system has to defend against 5 agents, should it run the response down more than defending against 1.
Does it make sense that a nexus defending against an army of hackers would always use the same response + firewall roll?

I'm 50/50 on it.

Fairly reasonable arguments. I'm more than willing to believe that if you have multiple agents/hackers working together purposefully (AKA teamwork test) you could get a bonus, but otherwise they won't be well timed enough. The first threat will be dealt with and gone and resources recovered by the time the second threat occurs.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Do you also get an attack penalty for there being smoke? Can you also only move so many meters per combat turn? Can you charge? Do you get to use your maneuvers in the matrix? Can you take aim? The answer to all of that is no, so I don't see why the singular rule of multiple attackers would transfer over, but nothing else. It isn't like they'd have to repeat the entire combat section to make note of this one rule. Like I said, there really isn't any reason that multiple attacks would be harder to defend against than a single attack because it isn't as though you are being put off balance or having to dodge between multiple bullets or any of those added difficulties.

Well...

No Smoke Penalties to deal with... So No...
Movement is one node per movement, so again, no.
No real movement, so no charging...
No Aiming you either hit or you do not, so again, no...

But since you still use the rules for combat, multiple attackers (Whether they be IC or Spiders or your compatriots) will still degrade your rolls.

No reason why they would not do so, and definitely within the rules as they are written (They are not contradicted anywhere, and since you use some of the rules, you would use all of the rules)...

As a side note, I could see creating a hacking program that provided such things as smoke penalties and such, if you wanted to do so... they just6 do not exist as of this current ruleset. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Karoline]

But since you still use the rules for combat, multiple attackers (Whether they be IC or Spiders or your compatriots) will still degrade your rolls.

No reason why they would not do so, and definitely within the rules as they are written (They are not contradicted anywhere, and since you use some of the rules, you would use all of the rules)...

But you don't use the rules for combat. You specifically use matrix initiative. You specifically use Attack(BH/BO) + Cybercombat vs Response + Firewall. You specifically use IP. And a couple other rules like soaking damage. While some of these things are similar to combat, it is not the combat rules. Nowhere in the entire matrix section does it say 'use the combat rules from p.xxx'.

I mean, why would they bother going through all these specific rules that are exactly like combat rules, and then leave out this one rule? So no, you don't still use the rules for combat. You use four or so rules that happen to be somewhat similar to part of the combat rules.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But you don't use the rules for combat. You specifically use matrix initiative. You specifically use Attack(BH/BO) + Cybercombat vs Response + Firewall. You specifically use IP. And a couple other rules like soaking damage. While some of these things are similar to combat, it is not the combat rules. Nowhere in the entire matrix section does it say 'use the combat rules from p.xxx'.

I mean, why would they bother going through all these specific rules that are exactly like combat rules, and then leave out this one rule? So no, you don't still use the rules for combat. You use four or so rules that happen to be somewhat similar to part of the combat rules.

Except that it is STILL combat... call it what you will, but if you are hit you take damage... ergo, Combat... Thus the Skill CYBERCOMBAT... what more really need be said there?

[Karoline]

Except that it is STILL combat... call it what you will, but if you are hit you take damage... ergo, Combat... Thus the Skill CYBERCOMBAT... what more really need be said there?

The part where you use the general rules for combat despite no mention of such in the CYBERCOMBAT section.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The part where you use the general rules for combat despite no mention of such in the CYBERCOMBAT section.

And yet your attack programs can have such interesting additions as Area Effect...

Seems JUST like combat to me...

And again, why would you keep adding the same thing in each section, rather than just access the relevant section?

[Karoline]

And yet your attack programs can have such interesting additions as Area Effect...

Seems JUST like combat to me...

When someone cannonballs in the pool, that has an area effect, so swimming is also combat right? I'm not denying that cybercombat is combat, I'm denying that it uses the 'combat' rules from SR.

And again, why would you keep adding the same thing in each section, rather than just access the relevant section?

Because it specifically adds everything that you need for cybercombat. They feel it important enough to reprint attacking, defending, soaking, and initiative. They also don't feel it important enough to add the single line "For other rules concerning cybercombat, refer to the combat section on p.xxx". I'm fairly sure that shows a rather distinct separation of the CYBERCOMBAT rules and the regular combat rules (See, I can capitalize and bold too)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

When someone cannonballs in the pool, that has an area effect, so swimming is also combat right? I'm not denying that cybercombat is combat, I'm denying that it uses the 'combat' rules from SR.

Because it specifically adds everything that you need for cybercombat. They feel it important enough to reprint attacking, defending, soaking, and initiative. They also don't feel it important enough to add the single line "For other rules concerning cybercombat, refer to the combat section on p.xxx". I'm fairly sure that shows a rather distinct separation of the CYBERCOMBAT rules and the regular combat rules (See, I can capitalize and bold too)

And yet I disagree with you on that... There is enough similarity that I would use those combat rules that would apply. In this case, the rule for multiple attackers. And it even makes a lot of sense... A single opponent against a dozen will eventually fall...

It really is okay you know...

[Karoline]

And yet I disagree with you on that... There is enough similarity that I would use those combat rules that would apply. In this case, the rule for multiple attackers. And it even makes a lot of sense... A single opponent against a dozen will eventually fall...

It really is okay you know...

A single opponent against a dozen in the real world will eventually fall. Nothing says that'll happen in the Matrix. I mean, what with physics not applying, and the ability to act at the speed of thought and so on, I don't see why that has to hold true.

I mean, look at it like this. If someone attempts to damage/bypass the firewall (attack program) and fails, why is the firewall weakened? Wouldn't that be a success against the firewall?

You can find as many similarities as you want. Until you find "Use the rules about general combat from page xxx in addition to the rules here." it really doesn't matter.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

A single opponent against a dozen in the real world will eventually fall. Nothing says that'll happen in the Matrix. I mean, what with physics not applying, and the ability to act at the speed of thought and so on, I don't see why that has to hold true.

I mean, look at it like this. If someone attempts to damage/bypass the firewall (attack program) and fails, why is the firewall weakened? Wouldn't that be a success against the firewall?

You can find as many similarities as you want. Until you find "Use the rules about general combat from page xxx in addition to the rules here." it really doesn't matter.

Actually, you can complain about not having said rules in black and white, hard code reality, and that would be completely irrelevant to me. The fact is that it matters to ME how combat is treated in the Matrix. (Note: Firewall is not an opponent, it is treated much like a static Barrier, and Barriers do not degrade unless they are actually damaged. You can damage (or bypass without a roll) a Firewall such that it is ineffective (The program is in Unwired after all)... Just sayin)...

However, What we were talking about were icons in combat... In such a case, it is two (or more) opponents who are attacking each other; in this case, the defender's dice pool should degrade with each attack. JUST like in real combat. Eventually, the defender will be overwhelmed and he will start soaking damage... seems to me that the fluff supports that in each and every edition...

Let me ask you a question here: Do you use the rules for combat when a character is attacked by multiple mages using indirect elemental attacks? By the combat rules, the defense pool will be reduced for each and every indirect elemental attack that is cast at the victim. And yet, no where does it actually say that defense is reduced in the magic rules. You must actually rely upon your understanding of the combat rules to understand that the poools will reduce with each attack. I see this as exactly the same thing in the Matrix...

Anyways... To each his (or her) own, of course, but I prefer using the common mechanics in place to handle such situations. I am not in need of redundant explanations running rampant throughout the books. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Karoline]

Actually, you can complain about not having said rules in black and white, hard code reality, and that would be completely irrelevant to me.

So, what you're saying is that the rules don't matter to you, and this conversation is pointless.

However, What we were talking about were icons in combat... In such a case, it is two (or more) opponents who are attacking each other; in this case, the defender's dice pool should degrade with each attack. JUST like in real combat. Eventually, the defender will be overwhelmed and he will start soaking damage... seems to me that the fluff supports that in each and every edition...

That's a total assumption. You have no idea if multiple opponents in matrix combat are any harder to deal with than a single opponent (Beyond of course the pure fact that there are more opponents). You've never fought anyone in the matrix. You have no idea how things work there. We have only the rules to work with, and the rules on cybercombat make no mention of anything remotely relating to penalties for multiple opponents.

Let me ask you a question here: Do you use the rules for combat when a character is attacked by multiple mages using indirect elemental attacks? By the combat rules, the defense pool will be reduced for each and every indirect elemental attack that is cast at the victim. And yet, no where does it actually say that defense is reduced in the magic rules. You must actually rely upon your understanding of the combat rules to understand that the poools will reduce with each attack. I see this as exactly the same thing in the Matrix...

Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are
treated like ranged combat attacks;

I know the rules for indirect combat spells changed some in 4A which I don't have, so they might have something that more directly references the 'ranged combat rules' but I'd say 'treated like ranged combat attacks' sounds alot like 'reference the ranged combat rules'. Cybercombat however doesn't say anything like 'these attacks are treated like melee/ranged combat attacks'

Anyways... To each his (or her) own, of course, but I prefer using the common mechanics in place to handle such situations. I am not in need of redundant explanations running rampant throughout the books. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Which refer to physical combat. You're welcome to apply rules randomly to other things if you like, but it 100% isn't RAW, and in my opinion isn't RAI either.

[Seth]

A single opponent against a dozen in the real world will eventually fall. Nothing says that'll happen in the Matrix. I mean, what with physics not applying, and the ability to act at the speed of thought and so on, I don't see why that has to hold true.

Absolutely. And if the rules say "cybercombat is different to real combat", then I would have no problems with it.

There seem to be three places you can have combat in shadowrun: the matrix, the astral world and the real world. The rules for combat cover how they work. Modifications to the rules are explained too: for example you use different attributes for astral combat, and use programs for cybercombat. However unless there are rules saying "normal rules for combat don't apply", then I feel that the normal rules of combat apply.

All rules about combat are an abstraction, and one important abstraction is to deal with the issues of multiple combatants. Shadowrun's approach is shared by other game systems and works very well. Your games will be enhanced if you use it. Of course if your GM wants to play a heroic manga style game, then this rule should probably be dropped.

[Karoline]

There seem to be three places you can have combat in shadowrun: the matrix, the astral world and the real world. The rules for combat cover how they work.

No. The rules for combat cover how the real world combat works. The rules for astral combat cover how the astral world combat works. The rules for cybercombat cover how the matrix world combat works.

Nothing anywhere says that the rules for one portion of combat also work in the other portions.

If the cybercombat and astral combat rules were part of the Combat section, I'd totally understand using the rules, but they're part of an entirely different section of the book.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

So, what you're saying is that the rules don't matter to you, and this conversation is pointless.

Nope, I said that the opinion was yours and I did not share it... what you do at your table has absolutely no bearing on what I do at mine (and vice versa of course (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )... In my opinion, the rules for combat are meant to be applied to all facets of combat in Shadowrun. That is why there is a COMBAT SECTION in the book. Thje section is a collection of general rules to apply to all combat.

That's a total assumption. You have no idea if multiple opponents in matrix combat are any harder to deal with than a single opponent (Beyond of course the pure fact that there are more opponents). You've never fought anyone in the matrix. You have no idea how things work there. We have only the rules to work with, and the rules on cybercombat make no mention of anything remotely relating to penalties for multiple opponents.

It IS an assumption, and that was exactly what I said it was... It is my interpretation of the rules and their intent. And as I said previously, it would geet real boring reading the exact same thing over and over (and over) again, especially since they provided a COMBAT SECTION right there in the book with the general rules all laid out for you in one nice, neat, package.

Another example: Spirit combat... do you decrement your Spirits defense rolls when they are in combat for multiple attackers? I do. Yet again, no where does it say that Spirits are beholden to such mundane things. Incidentally, we do the same with Sprites and Agents, and ICONS, and other entities in the Matrix. Which is again, where this conversation started. Multiple opponents are still multiple opponents regardless of the combat venue.

I know the rules for indirect combat spells changed some in 4A which I don't have, so they might have something that more directly references the 'ranged combat rules' but I'd say 'treated like ranged combat attacks' sounds alot like 'reference the ranged combat rules'. Cybercombat however doesn't say anything like 'these attacks are treated like melee/ranged combat attacks'

And yet, I said that they were treated as such in our game, as that is our interpretation of how the combat rules, in general, work... Again, one nice package that applies to all types of combat.

Which refer to physical combat. You're welcome to apply rules randomly to other things if you like, but it 100% isn't RAW, and in my opinion isn't RAI either.

Combat is combat, regardless of whether it is physical, astral, or matrix... it is still combat and all the relevant rules should apply. Of course not ALL rules will apply (There are always special circumstances with each of the types of combat after all), but those that do, should... The application of the relevant combat rules is NOT random in the least.

Your opinion on what is RAW and RAI in this case is just that, Your Opinion, Just like my interpretation is My Ppinion... And please note, I never claimed my interpretation was Fact, I claimed that it makes sense and appears to be the RAI, if not the RAW, and is what we used. I understand that you may not like it, but I never asked you to adopt it either, all I did was explain my position. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

In the end, this is not Highlander... There can be more than ONE interpretation in the end... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Karoline]

Gee TJ, you're backpedaling alot.

Yes, spirits suffer degrading defense pools when they are fighting in the physical world, because that is part of the rules for fighting in the physical world. The rules for combat in the physical world make no distinction on what you are (besides perhaps a bit for drones/vehicles).

I'm not really going to argue this any more. If you don't want to use the rules, then don't use the rules.

[Seth]

In page 230 of shadowrun (I don't have the anniversary edition easily to hand) it says "cybercombat follows the same procedure as other combat". It also says under full defence that the full defence is "same as regular combat".

The following are all defined in the combat section:

• What a combat turn is
• Initiative passes
• Simple, free and complex actions
• The combat sequence: declare attack, situational modifiers, make the opposed tests, armour rules, damage resistance tests, applying damage
• Attacking multiple targets
• Defending against multiple targets
• The difference between stun and physical damage
• Wound modifiers
• Dead mans trigger
• Rules for surprise
• Surprise within combat

To the best of my knowledge these are used in cybercombat and most are not defined elsewhere: the combat section tells you how to do combat, then the specific sections tell you about the variations. As I said if you want to ignore some of these rules: go do it! Changing the combat rules changes the style of the game and that is important. If you are playing a game similar to "the matrix", then I would strongly urge you to remove the defending against multiple targets in the matrix. However be aware that you are doing so.

[sabs]

BTW when I'm running. If you either don't use or fail your Reality Filter roll, then you're in the reality as decided by the Node. Any Spyder/Security Hacker/Agent in the system can for a free action create obstacles/terrain/visibility issues that /do/ cause positive/negative modifiers to combat rolls.

If you win the Reality Filter roll, then not only do you get +response, you get to totally ignore any attempts by the spyder/agent to screw you with terrain/reality.