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

[RHat]

Bricking someone's gun could be considered a 'debuff' - setting their spine on 'SPLODEY' is definitely an attack.

And where in the rules does it say that? There's one reference to something like that outside of rules text, and that's a very foolish fluff addition that's pretty much entirely divorced from the rules - either you ignore it, or you houserule something in, and I'd seriously suggest the former - I don't know what the hell the writer on that line was thinking.

RHat, I'm just curious, are you on Catalyst's payroll?

No, and frankly I resent the implication of the question - and it doesn't exactly do your argument any favours as it suggests that you're completely unable to answer what should be a fairly simple question.

At the end of the day, the problem with the existing bonus/gear hacking rules is as follows (go ahead and stop me if you take issue with any of the following):

- The fluff suggests something that is not at all supported in the rules, and this suggestion has caused people to take these rules to mean something they don't.
- The choice was made to make the bonuses restore old functionality; this was a poor decision that REALLY should have been caught on review of the chapter. Either those changes should be made or they shouldn't; once a decision is made you can't go trying to tread both paths.
- Many bonuses aren't as attractive as, perhaps, they should be.
- There's no clear means for a hacker to make a piece of technology do something other than it was intended to; the options are limited to what a legit user would do or damaging the equipment solely for the sake of damaging the equipment.
- Little to no effort is made to explain how or why the bonuses work in-setting, leading people to be confused by or frustrated with rules that as written do not work in a fashion consistent with their understanding of the game-world.
- They completely ignore the complexities of the various ways you can connect devices together (a simple "if your devices are directly connected, one of them is considered the master while the others are considered slaved, conferring all the benefits and disadvantages thereof; a slaved device is visible as being connected to the master device in the Matrix (if the master device is online) and as such can still be subject to any Matrix action targeting a device" would have done wonders on that end)

On the flipside, there are a number of advantages that I see as a very important step in the right direction:

- They provide a general case option for the hacker in combat
- They make having wireless on or off an actual decision, rather than the "set hacking to OFF" of SR4
- They help (or at least could help) establish a setting point that the Matrix is orders of magnitude more powerful than the modern Internet, and that as such things that are largely theoretical, completely hypothetical, or completely unheard of today can be accomplished or even commonplace in 2075.
- They help make all three spheres of the game relevant to everyone, and make it easier to make effective and impactful use of the serious Matrix threats (see: dissonant technomancers, entropic sprites, malicious AI's, and whatever the hell the deal is with Sybil)
- They help integrate the Matrix specialist in with the team and establish or make reciprocal various dependencies within the team, fostering a more cooperative game overall.

[BigGreenSquid]

No, and frankly I resent the implication of the question - and it doesn't exactly do your argument any favours as it suggests that you're completely unable to answer what should be a fairly simple question.

RHat, please take a look at my posts on this thread. I would like to see the development of a viable TacNet and have posted almost exclusively towards that end. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that some folks are intentionally steering the thread back into a swirling blackhole. It is a circular argument where both sides say the same thing over and over, talking past one another without end. Moreover, it seems like some people who are towing the company line, would rather mire things down in endless circular fighting than let any workable changes be developed as they might be construed as undermining the RAW.

At the end of the day, the problem with the existing bonus/gear hacking rules is as follows (go ahead and stop me if you take issue with any of the following):

- The fluff suggests something that is not at all supported in the rules, and this suggestion has caused people to take these rules to mean something they don't.
- The choice was made to make the bonuses restore old functionality; this was a poor decision that REALLY should have been caught on review of the chapter. Either those changes should be made or they shouldn't; once a decision is made you can't go trying to tread both paths.
- Many bonuses aren't as attractive as, perhaps, they should be.
- There's no clear means for a hacker to make a piece of technology do something other than it was intended to; the options are limited to what a legit user would do or damaging the equipment solely for the sake of damaging the equipment.
- Little to no effort is made to explain how or why the bonuses work in-setting, leading people to be confused by or frustrated with rules that as written do not work in a fashion consistent with their understanding of the game-world.
- They completely ignore the complexities of the various ways you can connect devices together (a simple "if your devices are directly connected, one of them is considered the master while the others are considered slaved, conferring all the benefits and disadvantages thereof; a slaved device is visible as being connected to the master device in the Matrix (if the master device is online) and as such can still be subject to any Matrix action targeting a device" would have done wonders on that end)

I agree with you. I think there were some "rule of cool" ideas that just fell flat on their face in the implementation phase. I 1000% agree with your assessment "There's no clear means for a hacker to make a piece of technology do something other than it was intended to; the options are limited to what a legit user would do or damaging the equipment solely for the sake of damaging the equipment." The whole point of being a hacker is to make technology do things the manufacturer did not intend. My perception after reading the matrix rules, was the devs did their hacker research by talking to someone who had jailbroke their iPhone. Sticking with the cellphone metaphor, a hacker is not going to be content with merely adding some 3rd party apps and a little customization. A hacker will take an android phone, load a custom rom (or even a full version of linux to run aircrack-ng), put a full firewall in place, direct access the radio, and a myriad of other things the manufacturer never thought of and your carrier would like to charge you for.

- They help (or at least could help) establish a setting point that the Matrix is orders of magnitude more powerful than the modern Internet, and that as such things that are largely theoretical, completely hypothetical, or completely unheard of today can be accomplished or even commonplace in 2075.

I will grant you your basic premise, however technology is not magic and one can only stretch suspension of disbelief so far. Had the dev's bothered to go down to even their local technical college and talked to their InfoSec guys and then gone and talked to a physical security contractor they would have found an amazing level of overlapping ideas. Why? On the InfoSec side, we didn't make this shit up as we went along, the basics of security principles were established 1000's of years ago and are rather platform neutral.

If I am a security professional of any stripe, legal or illegal, why would I broadcast to the world what devices I have? If I am a network operator, why wouldn't I conceal the entire contents of my network behind the biggest, baddest NAT/Firewall/Proxy/IDS I could get my hands on?

[Dolanar]

to be fully on topic: Most of what I'd like to see from Tacnets has already been mentioned. I am not so sure about a group pool, to me that seems like, someone could abuse it, or make it seem pointless, perhaps a system that categorizes certain aspects of the tacnet in a team method.

Scout +2 to perception DP's
Leader +2 to Social DP's
Tank +2 to Soak DP's
Decker +2 to software DP's

then add a +2 DP for other specific activities, ontop of the basics such as comms & whatnot.

[RHat]

RHat, please take a look at my posts on this thread. I would like to see the development of a viable TacNet and have posted almost exclusively towards that end. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that some folks are intentionally steering the thread back into a swirling blackhole. It is a circular argument where both sides say the same thing over and over, talking past one another without end. Moreover, it seems like some people who are towing the company line, would rather mire things down in endless circular fighting than let any workable changes be developed as they might be construed as undermining the RAW.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intentions - I think, though, you can understand the inference I was left to draw, yes? Though, of course, I'm now curious as to the actual intent of the question...

And the basic problem here is that to have a productive discussion regarding possible TacNet mechanics, we need a basic agreement on what its purpose in the game even is. If there's no agreement on the fundamental principles driving the design... Well, there's a reason design by committee gets derided in the software world. On question that requires an answer, for example, is whether the tacnet is supposed to be something for the decker to do, or just something that's there that he worries about securing same as everything else the team runs, or in fact something that helps him with that job in addition to all that?

I agree with you. I think there were some "rule of cool" ideas that just fell flat on their face in the implementation phase. I 1000% agree with your assessment "There's no clear means for a hacker to make a piece of technology do something other than it was intended to; the options are limited to what a legit user would do or damaging the equipment solely for the sake of damaging the equipment." The whole point of being a hacker is to make technology do things the manufacturer did not intend. My perception after reading the matrix rules, was the devs did their hacker research by talking to someone who had jailbroke their iPhone. Sticking with the cellphone metaphor, a hacker is not going to be content with merely adding some 3rd party apps and a little customization. A hacker will take an android phone, load a custom rom (or even a full version of linux to run aircrack-ng), put a full firewall in place, direct access the radio, and a myriad of other things the manufacturer never thought of and your carrier would like to charge you for.

To be fair, keep in mind that the guiding principle of the core Matrix for SR5 is simplicity in regards to learning it, running it, and keeping it alongside the main game. It is fair to suggest that most of the options best served by finer detail might have been slated for Data Trails the instant that focus was decided upon.

I will grant you your basic premise, however technology is not magic and one can only stretch suspension of disbelief so far. Had the dev's bothered to go down to even their local technical college and talked to their InfoSec guys and then gone and talked to a physical security contractor they would have found an amazing level of overlapping ideas. Why? On the InfoSec side, we didn't make this shit up as we went along, the basics of security principles were established 1000's of years ago and are rather platform neutral.

If I am a security professional of any stripe, legal or illegal, why would I broadcast to the world what devices I have? If I am a network operator, why wouldn't I conceal the entire contents of my network behind the biggest, baddest NAT/Firewall/Proxy/IDS I could get my hands on?

I think, perhaps, that demiGOD's are the network operator's you're thinking, and they've got hosts to work with - and given the Overwatch Score and Convergence rules, I think we can say that their security measures are extremely effective. And you'll note that one of my issues is the lack of explanation. That said, for reasons why you wouldn't, it's simple: Your usability requirements may trump your security requirements. Security and usability of a system are, roughly, inversely correlated - choices have to be made between one or the other.

[Dolanar]

Well, we do also need to keep in mind the fundamental aspect the devs are working with. Everything has a Price. This is the core principle under which all new content will be built, so it would be safe to surmise that there will no longer be the obvious choices for everything, because now, all the good things we used to enjoy will now have some sort of "fatal flaw" (mind I do not mean literally fatal, but they will now have some higher consequence). So for those of us wishing to continue looking into 5th Ed, we have to keep this core concept in mind as we look at the new material.

[apple]

And no, the decker doesn't damage the *enemy*.

Really? When I was reading the bricking rules said something of being set on fire, sparkling etc. I assume that a sparkling cybereye (in your brain) or a burning reaction enhancer (in your spine) are pretty much ... damaging. What do you think?

Devices that are bricked never fail non-spectacularly. Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming
a brick.

Imagine for a second that this is your math SPU, in your brain ...

There are many options - the most basic and general of which is to act as a scout to provide information on the enemy's position and movements, opening up tactical options and making it easier to target them with indirect fire.

That´s wonderful and it has nothing to do with being able to fight enemies with their primary skill called sneaking.

A plethora of other options open up depending on your other skills

Please list only all options where an infiltrator can kill or damage enemies with sneaking. And please only the situations, where he can do that constantly.

Tell me how that character fits onto a run in the first place, and we'll talk.

A tech guy? Well, you see, there is this old electronic hardware lock/security system. You know before the time of 2070 (in the 50s and 60s they used wired things) and even if the corps would love it, not every system was replaced in these 5 years.

####################################

Regarding the TacNet
1) master/slave
2) increases limit +1 to +2 and +1 to +4 bonus dices (as in SR4) for every two sensor channels to combat related roles. Most professional TacNets for soldiers, runners, cops etc are +1 limit and +2 dices.
3) Can be hacked and the enemy decker can manipulate the data feed to negate the bonuses and turn them into negative rolls and reduced limit due to spam, wrong info, manipulated firing solutions etc.
4) with 3 or 4 marks (or admin access in SR4) the enemy decker can even command the enemy team with the GMs permission according to situation (changing direction, shooting each other, giving his own team additional bonuses) etc).

SYL

[Sendaz]

Really? When I was reading the bricking rules said something of being set on fire, sparkling etc. I assume that a sparkling cybereye (in your brain) or a burning reaction enhancer (in your spine) are pretty much ... damaging. What do you think?
Imagine for a second that this is your math SPU, in your brain ...

Wait, I get a burning sensation in my head right behind the eyes whenever I try to do any math, but I don't have any cyberware up there. Is that bad?

[quentra]

Whether or not you handwave the fluff from the mechanical aspect of bricking, please explain how an extended hardware test can fix bricked implanted cyberware. If you say 'It just happens', I'm calling bullshit. Even if your spine isn't physically set on fire, the /only/ way to fix bricked cyberware is by visiting a goddamn street doc to cut you open.

[Sendaz]

That is a good question. I would say there has to be some kind of hookup capability as your street doc when he does your checkups must be able to look at it.

But nowadays it is probably all done wirelessly.

So if an internal system is knocked offline, where is the reset button since it's a good bet if its bricked it's not taking external signals now so remote commands are out.

You want me to insert the reset key where?!?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well, we do also need to keep in mind the fundamental aspect the devs are working with. Everything has a Price. This is the core principle under which all new content will be built, so it would be safe to surmise that there will no longer be the obvious choices for everything, because now, all the good things we used to enjoy will now have some sort of "fatal flaw" (mind I do not mean literally fatal, but they will now have some higher consequence). So for those of us wishing to continue looking into 5th Ed, we have to keep this core concept in mind as we look at the new material.

Except that the "Price" I am giving up is ludicrous in comparison to the perfect invincibility of going completely Dark. The Wireless bonuses are so stupid as to be laughable in copmparison to not broadcasting at all. I give up NOTHING to go Dark (Especially since my DP's never really took a hit to start with). So... Great Job Catalyst. *shrug*

[Voran]

I do find it odd that now the only way a smartgun offers free action eject/mode change is if its wireless. Or is that a misprint?

[Dolanar]

no its a wireless function of all weapons now, not just those smartlinked

[Voran]

What I mean is its specifically listed as a feature (smartlink heading) if wireless. Though the old, non-wireless smartgun did the same thing, without yknow...wireless.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yep... It is part of the Wireless lunacy. *shrug*

[Sendaz]

It's annoying, but you have to forget what the old versions did or did not do.

*jazz hands* boogity boogity *jazz hands*


Now you need that wireless connection to eject the clip as a free action.

And if you think 'well I will just go find a throwback model or something from back then' well..... it won't do it anymore.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It's annoying, but you have to forget what the old versions did or did not do.

*jazz hands* boogity boogity *jazz hands*


Now you need that wireless connection to eject the clip as a free action.

And if you think 'well I will just go find a throwback model or something from back then' well..... it won't do it anymore.

I cannot remember the last time I actually changed a clip in combat, so it is really pretty irrelevant, in my opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

EDIT: Okay, I remember ONE time I had to reload a weapon in Combat.

[Sendaz]

I cannot remember the last time I actually changed a clip in combat, so it is really pretty irrelevant, in my opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Either this qualifies for TJ Fallacy (because you never need to shoot that much per fight and thus avoid the problem)or your using that 600 round clip again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Either this qualifies for TJ Fallacy (because you never need to shoot that much per fight and thus avoid the problem)or your using that 600 round clip again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

My HACKER used a Hammerli 620s. He only used his gun when he needed to, as he was TOO BUSY HACKING/Coordinating stuff in combat. 350 Karma
My Mage uses an Assault Rifle for his direct fire needs (no real combat spells to speak of), and He has yet to actually expend more than about 40 rounds in a fight. 315 Karma
My Adept Throwing Ninja does not use a Gun (Why should he, his Shuriken are far more effective, with often greater range). 250+ Karma
My Russian Mercenary has had to change Magazines maybe once, I think, in a single fight (AK-147 SMG - 1 Clip +3 Rounds IIRC, and I did not use a Free Action to do so, as he is unaugmented). 20 Karma

That is about it.

Love me that 600 Round Magazine, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

Really? When I was reading the bricking rules said something of being set on fire, sparkling etc. I assume that a sparkling cybereye (in your brain) or a burning reaction enhancer (in your spine) are pretty much ... damaging. What do you think?



Imagine for a second that this is your math SPU, in your brain ...

Go ahead and find for me where that is actually given any rules significance - it isn't. Are you suggesting that if that sentence didn't exist, you wouldn't have an issue?

Frankly, bringing this up when I have recently commented directly on its irrelevancy (it is fluff disconnected from the rules, it is not a rule; so far as my argument is concerned no damage is dealt to the user when gear is bricked aside, possible, from dumpshock) seems like you're trying to put words in my mouth. You're free to houserule that it deals damage based on that bit of fluff, but I don't see why you would - and clearly you don't either.

That´s wonderful and it has nothing to do with being able to fight enemies with their primary skill called sneaking.



Please list only all options where an infiltrator can kill or damage enemies with sneaking. And please only the situations, where he can do that constantly.

You're completely, and perhaps intentionally, missing the point. See above.

A tech guy? Well, you see, there is this old electronic hardware lock/security system. You know before the time of 2070 (in the 50s and 60s they used wired things) and even if the corps would love it, not every system was replaced in these 5 years.

Not "a tech guy", a guy whose only skills are Hardware and the Engineering group - hell, such a character isn't possible in SR5, so I'm having a hard time seeing the relevancy.

Regarding the TacNet
1) master/slave
2) increases limit +1 to +2 and +1 to +4 bonus dices (as in SR4) for every two sensor channels to combat related roles. Most professional TacNets for soldiers, runners, cops etc are +1 limit and +2 dices.
3) Can be hacked and the enemy decker can manipulate the data feed to negate the bonuses and turn them into negative rolls and reduced limit due to spam, wrong info, manipulated firing solutions etc.
4) with 3 or 4 marks (or admin access in SR4) the enemy decker can even command the enemy team with the GMs permission according to situation (changing direction, shooting each other, giving his own team additional bonuses) etc).

SYL

If one of the design goals is to give the hacker something to do in general combat, something that only requires the hacker to act when there is an opposed hacker wouldn't seem to meet that goal, wouldn't you say? Or are you not considering that a design goal here?

[Voran]

heh yeah, my preference in previous editions (and this one) was to have a rifle sorta like how they've got the EBR. A hefty SA rifle (burst+ now) that was used as like a designated marksman rifle. I tended to go for maaaaybe 2 bullets at most per IP which naturally had massive dice pools and could annihilate ...I dunno...entire walls and stuff, with the usual number of successes that popped up.

[KCKitsune]

Please read the rules for using Leadership.

Wait a second... are you saying that ONLY the face can use Leadership?!? Please tell me that you REALLY don't think that?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Wait a second... are you saying that ONLY the face can use Leadership?!? Please tell me that you REALLY don't think that?

Indeed... My HACKER would be using the hell out of those rules. Which I find ironic, since he was the Leadership guy in SR4A, too. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Voran]

Yeah I'd prefer the leadership guy to either be 'the guy in front directing the flow' or the 'guy doing overwatch'. Sure technically the face is good for a rah-rah-rah, but I'd rather has US Ranger GloomyGuts calling shots in a tactical situation than the fucking lawyer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

Wait a second... are you saying that ONLY the face can use Leadership?!? Please tell me that you REALLY don't think that?

... Obviously not, but any character who can make effective use of it is at worst a few skill ranks away from making a decent secondary face. I would appreciate it, however, if you would stop going so far out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying.

[phlapjack77]

I still don't buy the premise that combat is some special snowflake part of the game that everyone has to have special snowflake "class-protected" abilities to participate in. This isn't a class-based game. I'd quote you Rhat but I'm lazy right now, please don't call me out and make me work for this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)