Fortune
Oct 27 2006, 05:53 AM
As might this ...
| QUOTE (SR4-pg 213) |
Device Rating (Universal)
There are far too many electronics in the world of Shadowrun for a gamemaster to keep track of their individual Matrix attributes. Instead, each device is simply given a Device rating. Unless it has been customized or changed in some way, assume that each of the Matrix attributes listed above for a particular device equals its Device rating.
If a particular device plays an important role in an adventure, the gamemaster should assign a full complement of Matrix attributes to it. If the item only plays a passing role, then a simple Device rating will suffice. The Sample Devices table (p. 214) lists typical Device ratings for common electronics. |
Fortune
Oct 27 2006, 05:55 AM
Note that the Firewall is described as a Matrix Attribute (and listed under the section of that name), and is differentiated from Programs in a number of ways.
In the Matrix Attribute section, which along with Firewall, includes System, Response, and Signal, any restrictions to specific Attributes are clearly listed in each section. No restriction exists in the case of the Firewall Attribute. Neither is Signal limited by System or Response, but a restriction exists as to implant limits. The Response section only states that it is affected by the number of Programs running, while the System section is the only one that mentions being limited to Response, and that specifically only refers to System itself.
Jaid
Oct 27 2006, 04:01 PM
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) |
| QUOTE (Jaid @ Oct 26 2006, 06:05 PM) | as far as system limiting firewall, system limits what the OS can run. firewall is part of the OS. it is not run by the OS, it *is* the OS.
and on a side note, i swear i remember seeing a comment about system not limiting firewall when i read through the whole book... i can't for the life of me find it now... |
You've hit it already. Firewall is not running as a program, but is part of the OS itself.
|
no, i mean i remember reading a place that explicitly says "firewall is not limited by system or response", not just rules that support and prove that point, but rather an explicit statement.
of course, i haven't been able to find that statement anywhere since... =\
GrinderTheTroll
Oct 27 2006, 05:07 PM
| QUOTE (Jaid) |
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Oct 26 2006, 09:31 PM) | | QUOTE (Jaid @ Oct 26 2006, 06:05 PM) | as far as system limiting firewall, system limits what the OS can run. firewall is part of the OS. it is not run by the OS, it *is* the OS.
and on a side note, i swear i remember seeing a comment about system not limiting firewall when i read through the whole book... i can't for the life of me find it now... |
You've hit it already. Firewall is not running as a program, but is part of the OS itself.
|
no, i mean i remember reading a place that explicitly says "firewall is not limited by system or response", not just rules that support and prove that point, but rather an explicit statement.
of course, i haven't been able to find that statement anywhere since... =\
|
It's okay, Fortune has done a good job of nailing the points IMO.
Xenith
Oct 27 2006, 05:32 PM
Alright, heres my take on it;
Firewall is not limited by system nor applicable to the response limit
The number of programs run before response decreases is greater than the response rating. And there is no spiral of doom, the response goes down only by 1 per multiple thereof; which limits system, program ratings, and the next multiple of response decrease. A response of 0 crashes the commlink or perhaps crashes random programs (though generally the highest base ratings first).
So a commlink with a response of 4 can run 10 programs before it crashes or ends random programs. A commlink with 6 response can run 21 programs. And so on.
Blade
Oct 27 2006, 05:47 PM
My take on this issue : wait for the FAQ for the official answer.
There's no way you can prove anthing about it with the BBB.
ZenOgre
Oct 29 2006, 07:21 AM
voted the exceed option. and as for load, count the number of progs and total them once, then apply that as a neg modifier on those circumstances. (avoids the downward spiral that is well famed here.)
but i'm with a few others here in wait for an official faq and possibly the unwired expansion.
laughingowl
Nov 1 2006, 07:57 AM
Rules (atleast 1.3) are quite clear:
| QUOTE (BB4 page 224) |
Additionaly, if a device is running more programs at once then its system rating, reduce the response on that device by 1 per (system) programs.
|
System 1 can run 1 program with no loss.
So you do alot of swapping out, on a piece of crap.
Jaid
Nov 2 2006, 12:36 AM
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
Rules (atleast 1.3) are quite clear:
| QUOTE (BB4 page 224) |
Additionaly, if a device is running more programs at once then its system rating, reduce the response on that device by 1 per (system) programs.
|
System 1 can run 1 program with no loss.
So you do alot of swapping out, on a piece of crap.
|
| QUOTE (BBB page 212 @ Response) |
For every x number of programs you have actively running,
where x = System rating, your Response is reduced by 1. So if
you’re running 10 programs with a System 5, your Response
will be reduced by 2. |
this text, with example, says otherwise.
the official rules is that you may run up to system -1 programs before response degradation occurs. not that i like those rules, but that's how it is. (personally, i prefer allowing up to system programs, which i am guessing you also prefer)
it could be that they intended the above quote to be slightly different, however, and add in the "when running more programs at once than it's system rating' clause, since your quote still causes a second response degradation at 10, rather than 11.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.