Jane R. Technomancer has a Hacking skill of 3. She Threads two Complex Forms: her Stealth CF she raises from its original rating 5, and she makes a brand new Exploit CF. For each Threading test she gets three successes (raising Stealth to 8, and making a new Exploit CF at 3), and sustains both. She then uses her Exploit CF to hack a node, with the node using Stealth as a Threshold to detect her, as normal.



I have no idea what the answer to this is.

Okay, I know the debate is probably going to end up being whether you take a -2DP for the sustaining of the complex form itself. I say no. On threading Exploit you would have to take a -2 to DP because of the threaded Stealth, but once it is threaded, it is stupid to count the Exploit sustaining against the Exploit pool, just the Stealth sustaining would take away dice.

I see no reason for a DP mod to stealth since it is not a DP, but rather a rating acting as a threshold.

Also, Threading is not defaulting, so no need to take a -1 default penalty.

This will be soooo awkward.

Per FAQ sustaining penalty of threaded Complex Forms does not apply to the threaded CF.

Stealth is used as a threshold, not as a dicepool, so it is not affected by sustaining penalties at all when the node tries to detect you. Neither would that penaltie apply when stealth is substracted from a dice pool in the track action. It would apply however when opposing matrix perception, because that's actually a dice pool.

hi

for your Roll an Exploit you get:
Skill + CF 3 -2 (for sustaining Stealth)

the -2 for sustaining the Exploit CF don't apply here, see FAQ


the Threshold for detection is your Stealth rating and since that isn't a test roll you don't get any penalty here, because your Stealth Rating is 8, only on a test you get the -2 for sustaining.

Right. The central issue is whether people believe the FAQ, which would suggest the sustaining penalty for the Exploit test itself would be -2 or even -0, or if you believe the book, which says the sustaining penalty is -4.

In either case, sustaining penalties probably wouldn't apply to the Threshold in the second, so I agree the Threshold there should be 8.

We believe in the Word.

Actually, I don't see any reason why not to believe in the FAQ. It's up there for like a long time, if it was wrong, it would be corrected by now. Also, per FAQ threading makes sense, which is kind of what I want.

On the same token, though, I don't see any reason why not to believe in the book. It's up there for like a longer time, if it was wrong, it would be corrected by now.

I don't see the book to be wrong, just missing few words. The Devs don't see that warranting an Errata, or the Errata guys are a little behind schedule, with the Fanpro change and all.

You do realize that BBB and FAQ can be right at the same time, right? They don't contradict each other.

Yeah per FAQ the sustained thread doesn't count for itself. No defaulting since the hacking skill is there. Stealth would only get one for hiding from an Observe in Detail action, and then it would be 9 (skill 3 + form 8 - 2 sustained).

Having a sustained thread count against itself would pretty much finish technomancers off if that were the case. "I thread a rating 3 program from scratch for 1 dice." Was pretty important line that got left out of the BBB, I can't remember if there has been an erratta yet to add the necessary line, or if it only exists in the FAQ.

It only exists in the FAQ.

And it's not like technomancers are helpless when it comes to the -2 sustaining penalty either. They can use a registered sprite to sustain the thread for them (IIRC), and, unlike mages, sprites are FREE to register.

Yeah sprites can be used, but I prefer to play a technomancer not a sprite farmer. I use sprites for monotonous tasks that I don't want to waste my time on (monitoring security), or when I need back-up since nobody else on my team is adequetly matrix savvy. I usually sustain my own forms, unless I'm in a position where I need multiple forms and can't afford the -2's. To each their own.

The idea of a sustaining penalty applying to the form you're sustaining hurts my delicate sensibilities.

Obviously you aren't taking into account the amount of time it would take to edit in all the errata presented in FAQ. The biggest problem is that things would shift around, and I get the feeling the reason there is an FAQ, and not just a revised edition of BBB is because they don't want to spend the time and money to do that.

Also, if this were spells, that -2 would apply, example: Infiltrating with Invisibility. However, when you are threading a complex form, it could be from 0, thus you have successes achieved on Threading test -2. That is stupid. Threading is not just a DP augmentation, but a complete replacement (at times) for the CF itself. Giving the DP a -2 just sucks balls for already weakened TMs.

It is an FAQ. FAQs are not about changing the rules; they're about answering questions about the rules as they already are.

Let's go to another website, say Newegg. Now, I want to buy a new mouse. I see "Free Shipping." Hey, all right, I click "Buy." It even says on my receipt that shipping is $0. Then my credit card bill comes a month later and I see my credit card was charged $30 extra for shipping. So I contact the company, wondering why I got charged extra for shipping, when the website and the receipt say that shipping is free. "Oh," they say, "we decided that 'Free Shipping' really means, 'Free to charge you whatever we want Shipping.' We put it in our FAQ, but it would take too much time to update our website and receipts. Have a nice day!"

Fortunately Newegg doesn't do this; they're a great company and I love buying from them (No I'm not a sellout at all! ). If they did I probably wouldn't buy from them; I'd be constantly wondering what new rules they'd come up with while I wasn't looking, and how they'd bury it in a place I wasn't looking for new rules.

It's a similar problem with SR4. Though, granted, it's much less serious and dire in nature than the above mentioned scenario, it's still a bait-and-switch, and one I have no patience for. I have no idea when some line dev is going to decide that he suddenly doesn't like one of the books and decide to change the rules in an "FAQ" entry, and it's a turn-off because I really don't want to deal with either 1) having to constantly check the website and comb through all the FAQ entries looking for unknown and unasked-for rules changes, or 2) having to wing it when a player brings up a previously-unknown "FAQ" rules change in a game. Combine this with the historical insanity and game-breakage allowed into previous iterations of the "FAQ", and there is no doubt in my mind that the "FAQ" rulings, good or bad, will not have any place in my games.


FWIW, I agree that sustaining a thread should not impact the technomancer who is using that thread to add to his dice pool, and is a very good house rule. On the same token, I also think that the same thing should apply to a mage casting a spell: if, for example, a mage is casting a Hawkeye spell, a spell specifically designed to make him see better, he should not be taking a -2 penalty to visual Perception tests for sustaining the spell, and for the exact same reason. Invisibility with Infiltration; Analyze Device with the device being analyzed; Magic Fingers with whatever skill is being Finger'd, none of them should suffer a sustaining penalty for doing what they are designed to do. Just like a technomancer with his Threaded Complex Form.

I would have no problem with changing the rules to include this; I'd even welcome it. The thing is, it is a rules change, not a rules clarification, and so it has no place in an FAQ, which is supposed to be a place for people to go when they don't understand the rules in the book, not when they don't like them and want them changed to suit the whim of a line developer.

You are right that the FAQ should be nothing but a clarification of rules. Unfortunately, It seems the SR4 rulebook was poorly edited/playtested and they felt that certain things should be changed (Threading, EX/EX ammo, Flechette rounds, etc.). Instead of changing the book, they added those to FAQ. I understand your frustration with even considering that we all have to not only read and understand the book, but then go onto the website and get the rest. It should all be in the book/pdf. Unfortunately, we are all still waiting on that, and so for now, FAQ vs RAW is going to be an unresolved issue.

Actually, out of the three things you list, only the changes to Threading are dealt with in the FAQ. The other two changes appear in the Errata, where they are supposed to be.

Well, it looks like I just IQ'ed myself.
Sigh, I am so sick of rules ambiguity and unofficial changes. Still, I would like to believe (whether it is right or not) that I can take the FAQ interpretations as RAW, even though I can no longer debate that they are.

Well you certainly can, but I'd be very, very careful doing that, as the "FAQ"s rule-changes are neither fact-checked nor balance-checked, and there is the distinct possibility of it killing your game at some point in the future if you're not careful.

I'd really much rather we had someone in charge of the FAQ who didn't feel the need to change the rules willy-nilly, or at least someone who would read the rules they were answering questions about. Heck, just crowd-source the FAQ to Dumpshock; lord knows most of us have nothing better to do than argue incessantly over minutiae.

I find the FAQ explanation sensible, only a -2 DP mod applies. There is no defaulting mod because a (threaded) CF is present.

Stealth itself can´t be impacted by a DP mod, and it is not a rating mod.

As much as I love the idea and feel the need for CGL to put this community to work, I don't even want to imagine the arguments that would happen if we actually had power over it.

As for balance issues regarding sustaining costs for Threading CF's: they are not the same as spells. This is crucial to note, since almost all their abilities have a parallel with mages. First off, there are only 22 total CFs that can ever be learned, while mages have as many spells as the GM wishes to design. Also, they can thread any of these CFs from nothing if they want, it does not have to be previously learned. In fact, due to the limit of Logic * 2 CFs at char gen, to accomplish all tasks you will have to Thread some CFs from nothing. Now there is at least one more thing that is important to note about spells that TMs do not have, foci. Spells can be sustained with foci, CFs cannot. Spellcasting hits can be increased with foci (Power focus), threading cannot.

A normal spell casting test will be:
Magic + Spellcasting + Mods

A threading will be:
Resonance + Software + Mods

Also note that to increase a TMs threading pool, either his skill must be raised, he takes a specialization (thus breaking the skillgroup), he increase Resonance (expensive), or he gets Cyber/Bio augmentation (which reduces the oh so crucial Resonance). A mage can, at char gen, have a force 2 Power focus, and a few Force 3 Sustaining foci already bonded for not too much. Not only will they have +2 more dice in the pool, but sometimes they will not even have to suffer the sustaining penalty due to foci.

Though the FAQ may not be RAW, I fee that they did get this right.