Defeating Scramble IC, 3rd Edition Decking Question Options

[Swing Kid]

I have a question for you old-schoolers.

If you defeat Scramble IC that is on a file by attacking it, does that remove the encrypted aspect of the file? Meaning, once it has been suppressed/crashed, can the file be downloaded normallly?

I see in the SR3 rulebook (p228) that it can be attacked and destroyed/suppressed, but I can't tell by the verbage if doing so will make the file accessible.

Also, during such cybercombat, should I just assume that on the IC's initiative, it just tries the Scramble Test that it describes for failed decrypt attempts, or simply have the Scramble Tests happen once/every time it is attacked?

[Link]

If you defeat Scramble IC that is on a file by attacking it, does that remove the encrypted aspect of the file? Meaning, once it has been suppressed/crashed, can the file be downloaded normallly?
I see in the SR3 rulebook (p228) that it can be attacked and destroyed/suppressed, but I can't tell by the verbage if doing so will make the file accessible.

Just like Access & Slave nodes, it appears that crashing the IC through combat leaves the file unprotected.

Also, during such cybercombat, should I just assume that on the IC's initiative, it just tries the Scramble Test that it describes for failed decrypt attempts, or simply have the Scramble Tests happen once/every time it is attacked?

Using SR3/Matrix it's unclear how the IC reacts to being attacked.
VR2 has the IC attempt to destroy the data on every attack action against it.
SR2 Scramble IC

[ Spoiler ]

Scramble IC is usually found in datastores or attached to specific files or programs. It resembles a softly glowing light across the entrance to the datastore or wrapped protectively around the file. If a persona program tries to touch the data, the light glows brighter and gives off a humming sound. Scramble IC can be defeated by deception or decrypt programs, or crashed with combat utilities. It cannot defend Itself, but will attempt to erase the file It Is guarding. It Is unable to do this ifa decker continues to attack it successfully. If the decker does not succeed In the attack during his Action Phase, the scramble IC will erase the file on its next Action Phase. Remember that the IC cannot erase the file as long as it Is successfully attacked or slowed. Fall once, and the file Is history. The decker can download the file that Is protected by IC, transferring both the file and the IC into storage. This adds the Ie’s rating to the decker’s target number for making a transfer In that node. Having downloaded the file, the decker can work on It at leisure. Flies downloaded with scramble IC still attached increase In size by 50 percent. Even If the IC Is transferred with the file, a copy of the IC remains active In the node.
Scramble IC Is not mobile.

[Swing Kid]

Thanks Link, that's great info!

[Kagetenshi]

Also, during such cybercombat, should I just assume that on the IC's initiative, it just tries the Scramble Test that it describes for failed decrypt attempts, or simply have the Scramble Tests happen once/every time it is attacked?

Scramble IC is Reactive, so it doesn't get actions. I don't think it even gets Initiative (the general rule is that Reactive IC doesn't get Init unless specifically noted, and I don't see such a note).

As you note, the question of "what happens when it gets attacked" isn't addressed in either SR3 or Matrix; I think we have to assume that it tries to destroy the data every time it is attacked but not destroyed, as the alternative means that the only cost for going the cybercombat route is that you need to Suppress the IC or eat extra tally afterwards.

Although…

Ugh. Actually, by my reading Scramble IC must be Decrypted (rather than crashed) to "Access any host or slave devices they protect"; it's not clear then what attacking would get you. I don't think the designers had a clear mental model of what was going on, or at the least I don't think there's enough left to reconstruct their intentions.

Edit: though the SR2 passage suggests to me more that crashing it was supposed to remove the encryption.

(My guess is that trying to reify encryption as IC was a bad idea; a conceptually separate data-destroying access-blocker would've been more simple to reason about.)

~J

[Swing Kid]

Yeah, that was about the nature of the debate we had around our table (except referencing SR2 rules - good idea). I appreciate the feedback (especially since it requred referencing old rules).