[X] My Assistant

[Fatum]

Then it'd defeat the point of having the Matrix and Magic be two different systems with opposed philosophies. The idea is that Matrix effects, meat and tech. While Magic effects the astral and meat. Magic is emotions and life, and the Matrix is cold calculating machines.

You are claiming that sammies should be paying for their extra abilities (by being hackable).
Why shouldn't the Awakened?
What does Matrix have to do with that need?

[DeathStrobe]

So, my firewall prevents the devices in my PAN from interacting with each other without a Matrix uplink? Is it cutting tight-beam communications and wired connections, too? It's a bit too fire- for my liking, if such.

That's possible. Maybe the firewall is also accessing cloud resources to ensure your anti-virus or whatever is working. And interesting idea I had not considered.

Please try to keep track; I am my suggestion of plugging a leak is related to stopping your gear from ratting you out to GOD, as you suggested. The NPCs plugging it will change exactly nothing for a hacker.

I don't understand what you're arguing for then. Please elaborate.

For the fourth Marxist time, that'd require access panels across your body for invasive implants like wired reflexes. This is simply not realistic.

In what way is it unrealistic? You have two ways to solve repairing bricked cyber. One is that you can either have access panels to repair the damage, or you have to go under the knife every time you need some repaired. They both sound playable, but one sounds like its much easier to deal with than the other, and cheaper

Sure, except not a single sane mega would agree to having others' operatives in its network with elevated rights.

Well, I guess its a good thing that they have their own G-men to do the upgrades for them.

You seem to completely misunderstand the purpose and authority of the CC. It's a gentleman's club; it wields no power of its own - only as much as megas invest into it. And while yeah, it can interfere to stop a full-scale corporate war, those are not anywhere near common for a caught operative that can be traced to the source. Not for fear of the CC, but for the good old fear of escalation given mutual assured destruction.

The CC's role is to ensure that the status quo remains. Why do you think Art Dankwalther got a rod from God? I recall Aztechnology also being threaten with a thor shot too, for all their blood magic fiasco. So if they say out with the old Matrix, and in with the new. They pretty much can.

Why aren't they pure magic, while you're at inventing far-fetched excuses for CGL bullshit?

What is so hard to believe about a new wireless protocol being software driven? Do you honestly think that the general CPU will be completely replaced with specialized CPUs? With general CPUs becoming more and more powerful, things like dedicated GPUs or sound cards or whatever, are going the way of the dinosaurs. While it's true that dedicated hardware will usually outperform a general CPU, it is not a leap of logic to assume that a general CPU can handle, on its own, the routing and network functions of a dedicated device.

You can by now; there are however a few cases of hardware still being incompatible, despite years-long usage. Such as wifi.letters, for instance. EDGE and LTE - oh, here's a good example for your wireless. Why don't you update your LTE-incompatible cellphone into compatibility?

While cellphones are a pretty good analogy for commlinks, you know they're more than just a smartphone. I am not an expert at the true differences between, LTE, Wifi, Bluetooth, WiMAX, etc etc, but lets assume that pretty much the entire long wavelengths electromagnetic spectrum, that being microwaves and radio waves, are all incorporated into the Matrix. So we can assume that all commlinks have the hardware to send and receive these signals as packets. So now the difference is how each device interprets the packets. If the New Matrix sees an old packet, it'll just ignore it. If it sees a new packet, it will read it for itself, or send it along to the next device. Is that a leap of logic?

[DeathStrobe]

You are claiming that sammies should be paying for their extra abilities (by being hackable).
Why shouldn't the Awakened?
What does Matrix have to do with that need?

The awaken do pay for that. Astrally perceiving or even having an active foci opens themselves up to astral threats. Wards are more problematic for them too, as it deactivates foci and sustain spells. Like wise, ware reduces their magic, which hits them harder than a mundane would be, and also opens themselves up to the Matrix.

[Koekepan]

In what way is it unrealistic? You have two ways to solve repairing bricked cyber. One is that you can either have access panels to repair the damage, or you have to go under the knife every time you need some repaired. They both sound playable, but one sounds like its much easier to deal with than the other, and cheaper

I have a better idea: come to Doctor Workgood, the cyberdoc who makes it right! Never worry about being bricked again, it'll work right first time, every time. Strictly cash in advance.

What is so hard to believe about a new wireless protocol being software driven? Do you honestly think that the general CPU will be completely replaced with specialized CPUs? With general CPUs becoming more and more powerful, things like dedicated GPUs or sound cards or whatever, are going the way of the dinosaurs. While it's true that dedicated hardware will usually outperform a general CPU, it is not a leap of logic to assume that a general CPU can handle, on its own, the routing and network functions of a dedicated device.

Wow, OK, so I have to jump in here. First off: what you are describing is one half of a cycle of hardware functions being decentralised and recentralised, a process which has happened multiple times in the past and which will undoubtedly happen again. That said, if you want to have something which is going to perform a single, dedicated purpose, in a single, dedicated way, then it turns out to be faster, cheaper and more efficient to do it with dedicated hardware. Why buy the whole computer when all you need is a dedicated device? Why deal with all the crap of a computer's support needs when you can have a set-and-forget dedicated device? There is your reason - maintenance and running costs. Ten bucks a year sounds like nothing - until you multiply it by ten thousand. Suddenly, it's real money.

On the other hand, if you want a generalised CPU to be constantly engaged with all the bandwidth you can possibly cram down it, alongside all its buses, with no acceleration hardware available, you'll be producing a system much less powerful than it should be, net. This is why serious machines today, in the real world, have things like accelerator cards, protocol-aware cards, and we're not even talking about all the fancy stuff you can plug into an actual mainframe.

Seriously, before you make those arguments, look at the reality of the situation. To put it another way, if Renraku came up with a do-it-all-in-software commlink which is cheap! Easy! And fast! Horizon would come up with one with a couple of accelerator chips added, and it would be almost as cheap! Easier! And so very much faster! Because dedicate hardware is more efficient for excellent reasons, and good to mass produce.

While cellphones are a pretty good analogy for commlinks, you know they're more than just a smartphone. I am not an expert at the true differences between, LTE, Wifi, Bluetooth, WiMAX, etc etc, but lets assume that pretty much the entire long wavelengths electromagnetic spectrum, that being microwaves and radio waves, are all incorporated into the Matrix. So we can assume that all commlinks have the hardware to send and receive these signals as packets. So now the difference is how each device interprets the packets. If the New Matrix sees an old packet, it'll just ignore it. If it sees a new packet, it will read it for itself, or send it along to the next device. Is that a leap of logic?

Even better plan: I shall now use Old Matrix and I shall be unhackable because everything ignores what I use! DeathStrobe, maybe this wasn't your plan, but I'm starting to look at SR5 as the Land of Opportunity! This is going to be so awesome, I'm hyperventilating while I sit here.

[DeathStrobe]

I have a better idea: come to Doctor Workgood, the cyberdoc who makes it right! Never worry about being bricked again, it'll work right first time, every time. Strictly cash in advance.

Mechanically, that's what throwbacks are for.

Wow, OK, so I have to jump in here. First off: what you are describing is one half of a cycle of hardware functions being decentralised and recentralised, a process which has happened multiple times in the past and which will undoubtedly happen again. That said, if you want to have something which is going to perform a single, dedicated purpose, in a single, dedicated way, then it turns out to be faster, cheaper and more efficient to do it with dedicated hardware. Why buy the whole computer when all you need is a dedicated device? Why deal with all the crap of a computer's support needs when you can have a set-and-forget dedicated device? There is your reason - maintenance and running costs. Ten bucks a year sounds like nothing - until you multiply it by ten thousand. Suddenly, it's real money.

On the other hand, if you want a generalised CPU to be constantly engaged with all the bandwidth you can possibly cram down it, alongside all its buses, with no acceleration hardware available, you'll be producing a system much less powerful than it should be, net. This is why serious machines today, in the real world, have things like accelerator cards, protocol-aware cards, and we're not even talking about all the fancy stuff you can plug into an actual mainframe.

Seriously, before you make those arguments, look at the reality of the situation. To put it another way, if Renraku came up with a do-it-all-in-software commlink which is cheap! Easy! And fast! Horizon would come up with one with a couple of accelerator chips added, and it would be almost as cheap! Easier! And so very much faster! Because dedicate hardware is more efficient for excellent reasons, and good to mass produce.

This is the future. There probably is little to no difference between dedicated and general CPUs. Its not like this is something that I came up from nowhere.

Even better plan: I shall now use Old Matrix and I shall be unhackable because everything ignores what I use! DeathStrobe, maybe this wasn't your plan, but I'm starting to look at SR5 as the Land of Opportunity! This is going to be so awesome, I'm hyperventilating while I sit here.

Well, there are a few problems off the top of my head. You can't hack anything or communicate with anything. Software degrades over time, so all programs will become useless after some point in time.

[Koekepan]

This is the future. There probably is little to no difference between dedicated and general CPUs. Its not like this is something that I came up from nowhere.

It doesn't matter if they're exactly the identical same chips coming off the exact same identical line in the exact same identical batch. Not at all. It's the purpose to which they're put - and actually in many cases while the central chip doing much of the heavy lifting in, say, a router, is not that different from a chip in a server, there is no reason to believe that it mightn't be cheaper to use a dedicated chip to do protocol conversions. But even if they are identical, if the cost of the chip is a nuyen or two including the packaging, why on earth wouldn't you have circuitry dedicated to different tasks running in parallel, in a dedicated fashion? It's a cinch that the market would go for it at all levels except the very lowest end. However, just the fact that the chips are the same doesn't mean that the electronics are - in fact, in a dedicated unit they certainly wouldn't be. Software-based networking? Maybe, but at the very least you're looking at a huge upgrade worldwide on a timeline it would be generous to call tight.

Moreover, if you want your system to be resistant to interference (like any good megacorp) then you're sure as hell not going to want it to be easily rewritten. You want it to keep doing exactly what you told it to do until you, and nobody else, tells it different. That means that your systems modifications (whatever form they take) will hinge on a hardware switch, or at the very least presentation of credentials (probably quorum-based) which render the rewrite intelligible.

If all it takes to change The Entire Matrix™ is a few hours and a global patch, then no wonder shadowrunners run roughshod over it all.

Well, there are a few problems off the top of my head. You can't hack anything or communicate with anything. Software degrades over time, so all programs will become useless after some point in time.

Software only degrades if the media on which it is stored degrades. Otherwise it continues working just fine if the running environment does. This is why there are so many pieces of software which were written in the 1960s which are still running in banks and utilities today, fifty years later. COBOL, FORTRAN, ALGOL, you name it. They're around. If all you want is one piece of dedicated hardware to keep doing its dedicated thing, and you don't want it communicating with the Matrix or vice versa, just make sure you have it backed up and you're ready to rock. You can tell the opposing team's decker by his expression of frustration, and shoot him last because he poses no immediate threat.

[Redjack]

it continues working just fine if the running environment does.

An "understatement" does not begin to properly frame your response. The more integrated the environment becomes, the more these antiquated systems become the critical failure point or inconsequential. ergo: Their ability to be a functional component of the environment degrades into obsolescence.

[DeathStrobe]

It doesn't matter if they're exactly the identical same chips coming off the exact same identical line in the exact same identical batch. Not at all. It's the purpose to which they're put - and actually in many cases while the central chip doing much of the heavy lifting in, say, a router, is not that different from a chip in a server, there is no reason to believe that it mightn't be cheaper to use a dedicated chip to do protocol conversions. But even if they are identical, if the cost of the chip is a nuyen or two including the packaging, why on earth wouldn't you have circuitry dedicated to different tasks running in parallel, in a dedicated fashion? It's a cinch that the market would go for it at all levels except the very lowest end. However, just the fact that the chips are the same doesn't mean that the electronics are - in fact, in a dedicated unit they certainly wouldn't be. Software-based networking? Maybe, but at the very least you're looking at a huge upgrade worldwide on a timeline it would be generous to call tight.

Moreover, if you want your system to be resistant to interference (like any good megacorp) then you're sure as hell not going to want it to be easily rewritten. You want it to keep doing exactly what you told it to do until you, and nobody else, tells it different. That means that your systems modifications (whatever form they take) will hinge on a hardware switch, or at the very least presentation of credentials (probably quorum-based) which render the rewrite intelligible.

If all it takes to change The Entire Matrix™ is a few hours and a global patch, then no wonder shadowrunners run roughshod over it all.

Fine, then it wasn't a software update. It was a very expensive hardware update that gets us to the same point in SR5. I prefer my interpretation, that all CPUs have become general and that the protocols can be updated with software. But if you want the Corp to spend XXX-nuyen on the upgrade. That seems less possible, but makes sense.

Software only degrades if the media on which it is stored degrades. Otherwise it continues working just fine if the running environment does. This is why there are so many pieces of software which were written in the 1960s which are still running in banks and utilities today, fifty years later. COBOL, FORTRAN, ALGOL, you name it. They're around. If all you want is one piece of dedicated hardware to keep doing its dedicated thing, and you don't want it communicating with the Matrix or vice versa, just make sure you have it backed up and you're ready to rock. You can tell the opposing team's decker by his expression of frustration, and shoot him last because he poses no immediate threat.

That is not what I meant. The degrading isn't actually that the software stops working, but that it looks worse and worse each year because new software comes out to make the old stuff look obsolete. I think the rules for it where in Unwired.

[Koekepan]

An "understatement" does not begin to properly frame your response. The more integrated the environment becomes, the more these antiquated systems become the critical failure point or inconsequential. ergo: Their ability to be a functional component of the environment degrades into obsolescence.

That's the entire point. If you don't want something interacting with your environment, that's a definite advantage. Granted, it may constitute security by obscurity, but if there's no equipment in your target corporate office which will interact with your functional equipment, then they have no way of exploiting it short of physical removal or destruction. That's a hell of a boost in a world where an opposing decker would expect to otherwise brick, disable or exploit the samurai's equipment.

[Redjack]

That's the entire point.

I'm sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how integrated environments are, even in 2013, let alone in the 2070's and how those much of a vulnerability those antiquated systems are; I must disagree with you.

[Koekepan]

I'm sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how integrated environments are, even in 2013, let alone in the 2070's and how those much of a vulnerability those antiquated systems are; I must disagree with you.

OK, I'll bite:

please explain precisely how a system which is protocol incompatible with another system can be turned on a dime so as to be used to exploit the other system.

In fact, let's make this example specific and concrete so that you can point out exactly where my argument falls down.

System A (the one you want to attack): a Nokia N770 with its wireless (including bluetooth) turned off, using maemo, on which I'm running scripts which take periodic pictures of my environment, do a pattern-match, and ditch the ones I don't want to keep. If it recognises a pattern I care about, it ... let's say it generates a tone. That's my combat warning system for whatever it is I care about. Maybe a face. Maybe some text. Doesn't really matter.

System B (your tool of choice): an iphone 5, tricked out with the latest iOS, and all its wireless turned on like a christmas tree.

My contention: under combat conditions, in the timespace available during a typical shadowrun combat engagement (what the hell, let's be generous and call it ten minutes), your iphone will not serve as a functional vehicle for a software-based exploit permitting you take control of system A, subvert the function of system A, interrupt the function of system A, or otherwise prevent system A from performing the service for which I intend to use it. The fact that my System A isn't the new hotness with respect to connecting to the corporate wireless system where I'm infiltrating is entirely irrelevant as long as it is doing what I want it to do. The notion that these environments are somehow "integrated" may be true. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure you will shortly explain it.

In fact, I'd go further and point out that if you have a device built to use 1900 MHz, and I'm using a device operating at 810 MHz, it really doesn't matter if they are otherwise as identical as two peas in a pod - you need to do serious changes to yours to even have an operational data connection to mine, let alone a meaningful software exploit. Under combat conditions you have no easy way in. If your system is programmed to use time division multiplexing, and mine is frequency division, you have another hill to climb. If your system sends data in big-endian order, and mine is little-endian, you have yet another hill to climb. Compatibility is a big deal in real world planning and purchasing decisions because overcoming incompatibilities is a monumental pain in the butt on hardware as well as software levels. Even something as simple, allowing for identical networking behaviours, as incorrect assumptions on buffer size affecting packet length can monumentally screw things up - not speculation, this is real world observation. Details matter, which is why network administrators have jobs. And project managers. This is why "system integrator" is a job description which generally goes paired with a six figure salary offer.

But I await your explanation with bated breath. System B owns System A in ten minutes under combat conditions. How?

[Redjack]

But I await your explanation with bated breath.

You start with conversations about COBOL systems running banks, but then want an use case with cell phones. How in the world did you get from A to B in that conversation? Phones using outdated/unsupported spectrum cannot even be considered "in the environment" or relevant to the conversation and it definitely doesn't make them secure. It makes them worthless.

In combat in Shadowrun, only you propose your team communicating with radios or iPhones. While your opposition is using state of the art communication and surveillance gear your team will be relying solely on their sniper and squelching the mic on a radio to pass information. Your opposition using drones, tacnets and continual communication will thwart your attempts.

I get that you have some level of expertise in cell phones and related technologies, but tone down the arrogance and talk to us rather than down to us.

[Koekepan]

I get that you have some level of expertise in cell phones and related technologies, but tone down the arrogance and talk to us rather than down to us.

OK, here's the set of principles I'm trying to make clear:

• As long as it works for what I need it to do, the technological family, or generation, or functional principle does not have to be the latest and greatest. It can even be improvised and as long as it works, that's what matters. A rifle chambered in .45-70 Government is no less lethal just because Custer's men used that cartridge, and a .22WMR is no more lethal for having been designed after WWII.
• The corollary is that if I get something useful and functional from a commlink which happens to be fundamentally incompatible with everything around me, it is no less functional within the scope of the needs which it satisfies, and in fact its resistance to exploitation can be an actual feature, rather than a bug, even if it was on the market in 2065 rather than 2075.

Here's an example: I have a PDA so old that it has no wireless capability at all. None. Not even a tiny bit. I can put information on it which could be of great value, such as instructions for repairing something, notes on animal husbandry, directions to a friend's house. The fact that some dweeb with more time on his hands than common sense can't connect to it wirelessly and turn it into a cornucopia of lies, pornography, or pornographic lies suits me just fine.

[Redjack]

Here's an example: I have a PDA so old that it has no wireless capability at all. None. Not even a tiny bit. I can put information on it which could be of great value, such as instructions for repairing something, notes on animal husbandry, directions to a friend's house. The fact that some dweeb with more time on his hands than common sense can't connect to it wirelessly and turn it into a cornucopia of lies, pornography, or pornographic lies suits me just fine.

A Tavor has so many engineering benefits in it that, as a tactical weapon, you can't simply dismiss it over an Uzi. At the same time, your lack of wireless and current technology (in game) makes it impossible for you to interact with AR, get pay data off target systems, utilize & benefit from a tacnet, receive video feeds from various recon/surveillance inputs, etc. I get that you want to minimize the threat vector to your team from a wireless threat. I just think that the complete nullification path you have selected makes your team ineffective outside of the barrens or any company able to afford reasonably current counter-infiltration security. It also removes any data steals from your team's list of operations.

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally opposed to what appears to be the SR5 connect everything to the matrix and pray mind-set, but unless I'm missing something, your recommendations are the exact opposite.

[Nath]

You do realize that both of you can find an unlimited amount of real-life examples that will "prove" you right?

Whatever the item is, utility is only a fraction of performance, that only very rarely get close to 1:1. That fraction depends on goals, skills, and circumstances. The corollary is that performance can increase without increasing utility. Despite what the ads may tell you.

If I use a gun to shot door-to-door salesmen by surprise when I open my door, the Tavor is marginally better than the Uzi. If I use to a gun to fight heavily armed insurgents at intermediate range in a dense urban environment, it is a lot better. If I use cellphone to receive videos and perform pattern recognition on them, the latest smartphone is way better than than the one I bought last year. If I use it to send text message, it does me no good.

As far as we know, the Fifth Matrix did not come with a breakthrough in tactical communications or cyberware augmentations. It's just a security update that closed some gaps, and opened others. Security and reliability upgrade increase performance over time, by increasing uptime. But such performance "increase" will often only be assessed as an average over time. It doesn't not guarantee it will not fail you at the worst moment, or actually be more prone to failure the way you use it (like, say, using a smartphone to coordinate firefight against security units with electronic warfare capabilities, rather than simply uploading party videos).

[Koekepan]

OK, I really think you aren't getting my meaning, so I'll break this down by sentences.

A Tavor has so many engineering benefits in it that, as a tactical weapon, you can't simply dismiss it over an Uzi.

False analogy. I'm not talking about Tavor vs Uzi. I'm not even talking about smartlinked Tavor vs unlinked Tavor. I'm talking about Tavor linked wireless, vs Tavor linked wired and shielded. See? One affords remote access, the other does not. The one operates in a necessarily electronically vulnerable state while the other does not.

At the same time, your lack of wireless and current technology (in game) makes it impossible for you to interact with AR, get pay data off target systems, utilize & benefit from a tacnet, receive video feeds from various recon/surveillance inputs, etc.

• No, AR works fine, it just isn't talking to wireless sources. Your AR will still show you how many bullets you have left, where your anticipated impact point is, where your sonic analysis locates enemies and where your DR inertial/visual analysis location system puts you on your map overlay.
• Communicating with target systems can do fine, just not wirelessly - worst case use a shielded hood over your aerial, and slip it over the target system's aerial, or alternatively tap a physical line.
• Use a tacnet - granted, if you don't have strictly directional non-Matrix communications enabled. But there's no real reason you couldn't.
• Of course you can receive data - just not in Matrix form. If you're passively receiving it, so much the better. Depending on the source and the circumstances a direct optical feed might suit you just fine.

Do all these things mean that you maybe have to work a little harder? Use your technical skills to get what you want instead of what someone else wants you to have? Sure. So you put some points in technical competence rather than another die of asskickfu. Big deal.

I get that you want to minimize the threat vector to your team from a wireless threat.

True.

I just think that the complete nullification path you have selected makes your team ineffective outside of the barrens or any company able to afford reasonably current counter-infiltration security.

Ineffective? I strongly doubt it. Marginally less effective in corner cases where there's no meaningful electronic opposition? Arguably, but please note from the above that most of the advantages can be substituted with a little work. More effective when the opposition doesn't expect my team to have no Matrix vulnerabilities, or consequently underestimates the facilities which are at their disposal? Definitely.

It also removes any data steals from your team's list of operations.

It does no such thing. Scenario: two teams of two. Sammie Samurai and Alex Adept handle cover and maybe distraction, while Isaac Infiltrator and Devlin Decker cozy up to an aerial on a wirelessly connected data library (details insignificant in this context). Both teams are in operational electronic silence. Devlin unscrews the aerial, and pops on a matching connector which leads to a shielded cable which acts as a waveguide. Now he's not broadcasting anything, but has direct signal access to the target machine - and has just disabled that machine's ability to squawk to the rest of the world. Fifteen seconds of electronic rape later, both teams evac. Done.

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally opposed to what appears to be the SR5 connect everything to the matrix and pray mind-set, but unless I'm missing something, your recommendations are the exact opposite.

I think you missed a lot. See above.

[Redjack]

False analogy. I'm not talking about Tavor vs Uzi. I'm not even talking about smartlinked Tavor vs unlinked Tavor. I'm talking about Tavor linked wireless, vs Tavor linked wired and shielded. See? One affords remote access, the other does not. The one operates in a necessarily electronically vulnerable state while the other does not.

• As long as it works for what I need it to do, the technological family, or generation, or functional principle does not have to be the latest and greatest. It can even be improvised and as long as it works, that's what matters. A rifle chambered in .45-70 Government is no less lethal just because Custer's men used that cartridge, and a .22WMR is no more lethal for having been designed after WWII.
• The corollary is that if I get something useful and functional from a commlink which happens to be fundamentally incompatible with everything around me, it is no less functional within the scope of the needs which it satisfies, and in fact its resistance to exploitation can be an actual feature, rather than a bug, even if it was on the market in 2065 rather than 2075.

You are extremely frustrating to have a conversation with when you contradict yourself. You present firearms technology to support your position in one post. I present an argument that debunks your position and you then take off and take my argument completely out of context.

[Redjack]

[*]No, AR works fine, it just isn't talking to wireless sources. Your AR will still show you how many bullets you have left, where your anticipated impact point is, where your sonic analysis locates enemies and where your DR inertial/visual analysis location system puts you on your map overlay.

Actually it doesn't: You just reduced AR to nothing more than a face HUD rather than a rich interactive, layered, immersive technology.

[*]Use a tacnet - granted, if you don't have strictly directional non-Matrix communications enabled. But there's no real reason you couldn't.

If you are not sharing data between a certain number of tacnet members (surely you're not running optic cables between each of you) this just doesn't work... and I know you're not suggesting that... Or, if you are, I think you need to reread what a tacnet is.

[*]Communicating with target systems can do fine, just not wirelessly - worst case use a shielded hood over your aerial, and slip it over the target system's aerial, or alternatively tap a physical line.

Oh come on. You're just messing now and have given up on a conversation.

[DWC]

Don't forget that Shadowrun's mechanics don't actually allow you to use radio communication that doesn't go through the matrix. Evidently, when the new matrix was deployed, all the shadowrunners and the military threw away all their old, reliable technology to embrace the inherently insecure new system.

[Redjack]

Don't forget that Shadowrun's mechanics don't actually allow you to use radio communication that doesn't go through the matrix. Evidently, when the new matrix was deployed, all the shadowrunners and the military threw away all their old, reliable technology to embrace the inherently insecure new system.

Not to be argumentative, but I disagree with that. I would submit that matrix technologies give you things you cannot get from radio alone. I would submit that mutual signal range is an expression in the rules of blending radio communications + matrix technologies, that do not go "through the matrix", per say.

[qis]

If I had a player so paranoid that he would disconnect from the matrix entirely, I'd set the following restrictions:

• He has no access to external data at all (maps, documents, etc.).
• If he chooses to download some data before the run starts, he will be hacked because of his outdated software with well known vulnerabilities.
• He can only communicate with his teammates by speaking, hand gestures and body language.
• Great suspicion when usually connected hardware is found in upper class districts during covert operations. (Have to think it through.)

I did not finish the SR5 rulebook yet. Where does it say that you can have wired hardware at all? Assuming that you don't, I'd say:

• It's either extremely exotic or extremely old.
• If it's old, why is it still working? Expect serious malfunctions!
• If it's exotic, how did your character get it and who "installed" it?
• Increase the essence cost. You had to be chopped up pretty good to lay those wires.

The whole point of the new matrix rules is to make deckers useful during a firefight, just like mages were all the time.

Another question about the rules: Can a decker "protect" his teammates from an enemy decker? Not just attack him to draw his attention, but actively prevent him from bricking your chummer's hardware.

EDIT: Ah yes, you can try a walkie talkie but be prepared to use outdated encryption. Even now days access points scan for and locate rogue signal sources. It shouldn't be difficult for an enemy rigger to detect, locate and spy on you.

[Moirdryd]

Happy Hogswatch all!

Now, with that out of the way. I think people are reading both too much and not enough into the new Matrix. One simple fact is, as yet, we know very little about it save for the chapter in the core book. However, I do recall back in SR3 (and even in bits of Virtual Realities) where it used to talk about the Matric touched every aspect of life, how everyone and everything was cross referenced in the system to within a nanometer of its existence. The new Matrix I think reflects those concepts very very well. Now, I hate most if the implementation of Wireless Boni ad can totally get behind hardwiring and direct connecting (especially in the case of plenty of Cyberware) but I can also see that in the dystopian cyberpunk future that is Shadowrun 207X that the new Matrix touches all forms of wireless traffic signals, including Radiowaves. All that traffic by default passes through the Matrix because the new matrix system intercepts it all. Sure a decker of gman can't brick a two way radio, but they can triangulate its position with barely any effort. So you have to use New Tech, with new protocols, software, encryptions etc that broadcasts through the Matrux securely.

Also, in terms of the Matrix being Unifed from all Corps, despite what the background info currently says, yeah right. The Corporate Court is The unified face of the Megas and we all know how accurate and True that is (towhit, not very) and the new Matrix is a creation of that entity... So while it may all look very all for one you can bet (and it's hinted at) that the Megas are still just as shady, canny and closed as every. But then the Matrix is there to benefit them at the expense of Joe Wageslave. I'm sure Data Trails will help us clarify this Orwellian monster when it releases...

[Heath Robinson]

I did not finish the SR5 rulebook yet. Where does it say that you can have wired hardware at all? Assuming that you don't, I'd say:

• It's either extremely exotic or extremely old.
• If it's old, why is it still working? Expect serious malfunctions!
• If it's exotic, how did your character get it and who "installed" it?
• Increase the essence cost. You had to be chopped up pretty good to lay those wires.

The whole point of the new matrix rules is to make deckers useful during a firefight, just like mages were all the time.

Page 421, see the headings 'Turning it Off' (which contains an important Matrix rule) and 'Throwbacks'.

Edit: Typoed the page number and, of course, didn't noticed until hours later.

[qis]

Page 241, see the headings 'Turning it Off' (which contains an important Matrix rule) and 'Throwbacks'.

Looks like I've been completely wrong. I thought bodyware, especially cyberlimbs, are controlled by a device attached to your brain. As far as I can see, cyberlimbs have no wireless bonuses at all, which indicates that they are connected to the nerve endings of the original limb.

From a roleplaying point of view, this is particularly interesting. It should be a unique experience when you install new hardware. You'd have to learn to use it from scratch, learn how to open that hidden compartment and how to slide those hand razors.

Still, I feel a need to punish those "my cyberzombie is immune to all hacking attempts" players. How would you handle this? (I'll write my own thoughts about this when I have finished the book and planned my campaign.)

[Abschalten]

Still, I feel a need to punish...

Yeah, you lost me right there. Your players are very lucky.