Wireless bonus rules suck., Lets write the tacnet rules they should have used. Options

[Sendaz]

(because he DID have things to do in combat prior to the change... I know, because I did those things as a hacker).

Indeed.


And would some other hacking you may have done involve a certain Ultrafast Hijacking of a few Stock Exchanges , MR. KNIGHT?!?

*bucking for that journalist spot at KSAF*

[Epicedion]

It is an ignorant SECURITY HOLE that should never have been implemented in the first place; and was only implemented so that a Hacker could be a special snowflake (because he DID have things to do in combat prior to the change... I know, because I did those things as a hacker).

You're mixing in and out of character opinion into an untenable slurry.

[BigGreenSquid]

That largely just seems like a static thing that's just there - unless the enemy team has a hacker of their own, this doesn't actually provide something for you to DO. Also, is there any way for Technomancers to operate one?

It is a device first and foremost. While there are things you can do with it, for the most part it is supposed to provide a secure, hidden communications channel and automatically process combat information and provide threat assessments. If the enemy does not have a hacker, it does just what it is supposed to do.

I actually envision the party face (so long as he picks up some small unit tactics) directing combat through the TacNet. As he is connected to the entire party, and can get a really good idea of what is going on, he should be apply his leadership as needed.

If the enemy does not have a hacker of their own, your party hacker is free to harass the enemy in every way he can. There always has been a myriad of things for the hacker to do in combat. I don't know where this myth of the hacker sitting on his thumb during combat came from... Oh yeah, 3e.

Finally, I don't see any reason why a Technomancer couldn't operate one. As a device he could certainly be its owner/operator and as this isn't a PAN nor does require one to slave himself to the node (although one could) there isn't any reason a technomancer wouldn't be able to take full advantage of it.

[RHat]

It is an ignorant SECURITY HOLE that should never have been implemented in the first place; and was only implemented so that a Hacker could be a special snowflake (because he DID have things to do in combat prior to the change... I know, because I did those things as a hacker).

They were not, however, general case actions, which renders them wholly insufficient.

Kitsune: You can argue the sense of them, sure, but that's an entirely separate conversation whether or not Smartlink would have been changes without the wireless bonuses being in the system. Also note that it is actually sufficient if you just turn them on in combat, because hacking now works on an appropriate timescale for that (plus, combat is lasting longer).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You're mixing in and out of character opinion into an untenable slurry.

Not really, no. The contention is that Hackers had nothing to do in combat, so the decision was made to give them something to do in combat. Sad Fact is, however, that Hackers had PLENTY to do in combat (bolsterd by the argument that the Hacker I played for years ACTUALLY DID HACKING IN COMBAT). There was never any need to add more stuff. Especially stupid stuff that makes absolutely no sense to have connected to the Matrix.

[RHat]

Not really, no. The contention is that Hackers had nothing to do in combat, so the decision was made to give them something to do in combat. Sad Fact is, however, that Hackers had PLENTY to do in combat (bolsterd by the argument that the Hacker I played for years ACTUALLY DID HACKING IN COMBAT). There was never any need to add more stuff. Especially stupid stuff that makes absolutely no sense to have connected to the Matrix.

You've also, on multiple occasions, provided ample reasons as to why the way things go at your table should not be assumed to generalize out to everyone else. And, I reiterate, as those actions are not applicable to general case combat, they're not sufficient.

[Epicedion]

Not really, no. The contention is that Hackers had nothing to do in combat, so the decision was made to give them something to do in combat. Sad Fact is, however, that Hackers had PLENTY to do in combat (bolsterd by the argument that the Hacker I played for years ACTUALLY DID HACKING IN COMBAT). There was never any need to add more stuff. Especially stupid stuff that makes absolutely no sense to have connected to the Matrix.

In one sentence you made an in-game complaint "ignorant security hole that should never have been implemented" and a game-design complaint "only implemented so that a Hacker could be a special snowflake" and that makes it very difficult to tell where you're basing your opinion.

The in-game complaint, and indeed the in-game sensibility, is very easily addressed, since the corps thought they were locking down the Matrix from unauthorized hackers. Introducing security flaws is great when you have total control over them. Then those pesky shadowrunners figured out how to beat the security.

Your anecdotes about what you may or may not have done don't carry a lot of weight, because everyone at this point knows you apply major house rules to everything and play 400 Karma characters. That's great, but most of it can't really apply to the stock primary rulebook of a new edition, or the discussion of the abilities of common characters in a RAW environment.

As for the lack of a need to add more stuff, that's a really fuzzy line. While you may not see a need, probably because of your extensive house rules, that's not everyone's experience with the game. SR4 RAW heavily discouraged breaking out the hacking rules in combat, even for drones, due to the overwhelmingly tedious and complicated series of actions needed, and the painfully vague rules accompanying them.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You've also, on multiple occasions, provided ample reasons as to why the way things go at your table should not be assumed to generalize out to everyone else. And, I reiterate, as those actions are not applicable to general case combat, they're not sufficient.

And you have yet to provide me a reason, that makes sense, as to why a Hacker needs to be as effective as the Samurai IN COMBAT. They have completely different jobs, and Hacking is not combat related, in any way, shape or form, except for very limited things (like tapping communications, for example). Making it so that it IS, just so that the Hacker has something to do is just stupid.

[RHat]

And you have yet to provide me a reason, that makes sense, as to why a Hacker needs to be as effective as the Samurai IN COMBAT.

Which may be because that's never been my contention. Being able to be effective in combat is not the same thing as being as effective as the Sam.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

In one sentence you made an in-game complaint "ignorant security hole that should never have been implemented" and a game-design complaint "only implemented so that a Hacker could be a special snowflake" and that makes it very difficult to tell where you're basing your opinion.

The in-game complaint, and indeed the in-game sensibility, is very easily addressed, since the corps thought they were locking down the Matrix from unauthorized hackers. Introducing security flaws is great when you have total control over them. Then those pesky shadowrunners figured out how to beat the security.

Your anecdotes about what you may or may not have done don't carry a lot of weight, because everyone at this point knows you apply major house rules to everything and play 400 Karma characters. That's great, but most of it can't really apply to the stock primary rulebook of a new edition, or the discussion of the abilities of common characters in a RAW environment.

As for the lack of a need to add more stuff, that's a really fuzzy line. While you may not see a need, probably because of your extensive house rules, that's not everyone's experience with the game. SR4 RAW heavily discouraged breaking out the hacking rules in combat, even for drones, due to the overwhelmingly tedious and complicated series of actions needed, and the painfully vague rules accompanying them.

You still manage to crack me up with your House Rule allegations. You really fail epically in that regard. NO HOUSERULES ARE IN PLAY. Core Rules, augmented by Individual Books. If we are not using a Core rule, it is because we are using an OPTIONAL Rule from one of the books. And of course, you are going to comment on Spirits and resistance using Edge, Right? AND THAT IS NOT A HOUSE RULE. ANY Individual with EDGE may use that EDGE as they see fit. Period. That is IN THE BOOK. Not sure why I have to keep saying that. *shakes head*

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Which may be because that's never been my contention. Being able to be effective in combat is not the same thing as being as effective as the Sam.

And yet a Hacker is effective in combat without adding the special snowflake status that SR5 adds. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Though we are likely arguing past each other at this point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[RHat]

And yet a Hacker is effective in combat without adding the special snowflake status that SR5 adds. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Though we are likely arguing past each other at this point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Not in general - your table may be an exception on this point, as it is on just about any point.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Not in general - your table may be an exception on this point, as it is on just about any point.

I have to admit, I love my gaming table. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Shadow Knight]

Not in general - your table may be an exception on this point, as it is on just about any point.

A hackers job is not combat. But there is no reason a hacker can't pick up a gun. Or tap communications or hack the stuff in the environment to do things like turn off lights or a hack a tacnet or scramble the opposing forces comms or a number of other things. Hacking cyberware is likely not to be the most useful thing for the decker to be doing.

As we keep pointing out Wireless bonuses do not accomplish their design goals and are likely going to be ignored by everyone. Just like they were last time.


If their are not things in the environment that a hacker can hack during combat that is the fault of the GM not the system.

[Dolanar]

I personally just don't see the point of it, ideally in a close knit group, everyone will just slave all of their wireless gear to the team Decker & then it basically comes down to a decker fight & the stronger decker will win.

[RHat]

A hackers job is not combat. But there is no reason a hacker can't pick up a gun. Or tap communications or hack the stuff in the environment to do things like turn off lights or a hack a tacnet or scramble the opposing forces comms or a number of other things. Hacking cyberware is likely not to be the most useful thing for the decker to be doing.

As we keep pointing out Wireless bonuses do not accomplish their design goals and are likely going to be ignored by everyone. Just like they were last time.


If their are not things in the environment that a hacker can hack during combat that is the fault of the GM not the system.

... No, it's not the GM's job to fix flaws in the system. And there's no design reason for a hacker to be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat.

Also, wireless bonuses do accomplish at least part of their goal - given the in-game realities, it makes sense for more people (basically, anyone but some runners) to have wireless on; the actual risk is minimal. Just because players choose to shut off their own wireless (and I suspect that those who do are going to represent a much smaller proportion than you seem to think) doesn't mean that this isn't true.

[SpellBinder]

I personally just don't see the point of it, ideally in a close knit group, everyone will just slave all of their wireless gear to the team Decker & then it basically comes down to a decker fight & the stronger decker will win.

Or the luckiest. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[Shadow Knight]

... No, it's not the GM's job to fix flaws in the system. And there's no design reason for a hacker to be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat.

Also, wireless bonuses do accomplish at least part of their goal - given the in-game realities, it makes sense for more people (basically, anyone but some runners) to have wireless on; the actual risk is minimal. Just because players choose to shut off their own wireless (and I suspect that those who do are going to represent a much smaller proportion than you seem to think) doesn't mean that this isn't true.

No. The GMs job is to provide a good story. A GM providing a good story will have shit the Decker can exploit during combat to give his team an edge. The system trying to force a mechanical solution to a GM failure is not good game design. Better game design would be to tell the GM hey dumbass make sure you give the Decker stuff to hack.. Combat scenes should have things for every to do where they shine.

[RHat]

No. The GMs job is to provide a good story. A GM providing a good story will have shit the Decker can exploit during combat to give his team an edge. The system trying to force a mechanical solution to a GM failure is not good game design. Better game design would be to tell the GM hey dumbass make sure you give the Decker stuff to hack.. Combat scenes should have things for every to do where they shine.

Things to hack, you say? Like, oh, I don't know, wireless gear?

You can't shoehorn environmentals into everything - a lot of the time, that doesn't really work.

[Shadow Knight]

Things to hack, you say? Like, oh, I don't know, wireless gear?

You can't shoehorn environmentals into everything - a lot of the time, that doesn't really work.

And the spot light does not need to always shine on the Decker. Sometimes it should shine on others. Why is shooting a gun not good enough participation for the decker?

[Dolanar]

Its easy to see how, regardless of GM, for some groups hacking an opponent's gear or cyber is a worthwhile option, should it be their default option? If the team can't think of any other options, then why not. However, I personally am considering eliminating the concept of bricking gear. Making it a temporary inconvenience is one thing, but making players waste 400k on cyber is not my idea of fun.

[RHat]

And the spot light does not need to always shine on the Decker. Sometimes it should shine on others. Why is shooting a gun not good enough participation for the decker?

That's a complete misdirect, and at this point either you know that or you're just not listening. A mage CAN pick up a gun and shoot, and that can certainly be good enough. So can a rigger. So can the face. But guess what? They've all got combat options inside their specialty. You still haven't provided any reason why the hacker should be the only one who doesn't get options within his specialty for combat. My contention is that there are no design reasons for this, and thus far you have not even attempted to respond to that.

[Dolanar]

Rhat, if I've read the posts right, no one has said using a gun is the ONLY option available to deckers, but it should not be overlooked as one option available when using other options are not as practical or as useful, even using the new rules for hacking in combat, you knock out a cyberarm? they swap their gun to their other hand. You knock out their gun...who the hell runs with only one gun? now, if you knock out a set of cybereyes...sure that might make someone pause a lil longer but its still not like you've 100% disabled them (I think blind poses a -6 dice penalty or so?)

a Decker should be ready to use a gun just as much as a Mage should if they find themselves in a heavy Background Count area or a Technomancer in a heavy Noise location.

[Aaron]

For what it's worth, limits came well before wireless bonuses in the SR5 development process. Smartlinks did, indeed, have their bonus shifted to limit before they were given a wireless bonus of dice pool.

That said, the process in question began over two years ago. Relative chronologies are relative.

[Fiddler]

Its easy to see how, regardless of GM, for some groups hacking an opponent's gear or cyber is a worthwhile option, should it be their default option? If the team can't think of any other options, then why not. However, I personally am considering eliminating the concept of bricking gear. Making it a temporary inconvenience is one thing, but making players waste 400k on cyber is not my idea of fun.

Bricking gear does not destroy it it just puts it out of comission until repaired p. 228. Permanent bricking only occours if you criticallly glitch on the repair check. I kind of like it but really think the wireless bonuses mostly were rushed to get a bonus for enabling wireless and some may need to be rethought.