Surly you could connect to the node via the same port as the data just like modern day firewalls work. if device A only lets data in port 55065 then you could hack in via port 55056 but finding that signal open poet would be hard but no spoofing would be needed. If port 55065 on device A only allowed data form port 42309 on device B in to it then you would need to spoof the fact your from port 42309 on device B.

The signal device example is how i would see most Linking being done. With the 2 device example showing a tired system but both could be made at eather layer of security.

This will need clearing up with unwired but Im almost 100% sure it will be.

Except that the FAQ addresses this directly. Your argument seems very weak unless you completely ignore the FAQ ...


Oh, you are ignoring the FAQ. Okay, well, I guess we can't really debate this point if we can't agree on the validity of source material. Shine on, you crazy diamond.


Ever played a technomancer? I mean, I would have thought that you, of all people, would be able to build a technomancer that could make nodes dance for you.

That is correct. We were using the RAW.


Possibly. You still would have to do the scan, though, because even though you might find evidence of the node on the Matrix, if you Track it you'll still only narrow it down to an area, and then you're back to scanning.

Yeah, this has been brought up before. The FAQ directly countermands an explicit rule, which means that either:
1) An explicitly stated rule is wrong, or
2) The FAQ was written while people were not thinking about that explicitly stated rule.

Personally, I'm a proponent of #2. I.E. the rule still holds. Because if #1 is correct, the Spoof program serves no purpose at all, because it's always better to hack something than issue a single-command spoof. It's just very poor thing to have added to the FAQ.

The FAQ is violating both SR4 itself and SR3 compatibility in multiple places. It does not give a good base. But any discussion on what has to be done should happen after Unwired. Quite a few matters are known for a long time now.

Personally, I'm unconvinced that it's countermanding an explicit rule. I think it's at odds with a description in a sidebar.

Similar to AR modifiers for combat on page 208
Or the tips for SR3 players on page 52?

All the other side bars are references to rules... why is this one different?

As it stands, without that sidebar, the networks of 2070 have gotten less secure than the networks of 1988. No chokepoints, no Access Control lists... we just stick all of our servers out there and let anybody and everybody hack them from anywhere and everywhere... No centralized network security systems, Network wide Intrusion Detection Systems, nada. It's painfully obvious that the network model that SR operates in is based on somebody's dream model of how the internet is setup, and that all the nodes are Macintoshes or something.

I've got news for all of you... Firewalls exist to keep people out. I seriously doubt you'll ever see the SR network model come to life anywhere other than in a StarBucks.

I was hoping someone would make this point. I'm also hoping that those who were posting in the "spirits can't be affected by Health spells" thread read it. =i)


I did a LOT of posting on the subject of networks, current research, and ubiquitous wireless topology a year or two ago (I'm a Cisco instructor, among other things). I'd ask that you pretty please do a search for them, so I don't have to post them again.

You can't imagine that it's standard for a single device to provide services to other devices that in todays world takes a monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, cpu, memory, power supply, network interfaces, modems, routers, hubs, switches, repeaters, broadcasters and a bunch of common devices, while at the same time maintaining some level of security and isolation between all those functions and services?

Is it some magical thing where if these pieces are together in one device it suddenly becomes insecure?

Using international rules, Courier sprites and Diagnosis can replace most other skills as well, or at least negate any defaulting mali and add enough dice to pretend the TM has the skill. Put a commlink into a 'mancer's weapon, put a copy of a sprite with diagnosis in there and have it diagnose the weapon. Adds (Sprite_power*2/3) dice to the weapons test. Same with B/R, electronics, computer, ect. Defaulting to anything not in the athletics or infltration group (for influence, the sprite diagnoses the TM's emotitoy) is fairly easy for a mancer that way.

Thus, the TM's need for specialisation is not so crippling at all. All he needs is good compiling skills, really. add to that a decent threading and more than 1 on physical attributes, and you have a character as rounded as a standard hacker and much, much more powerful in the matrix.

No, I don't see how they suck at all.

No it becomes insecure when there is nothing that interconnects them for security and they are all stuck out there to fend for themselves. Why in the hell would I put my network devices out there broadcasting wirelessly so that everybody and their brother can access them? Tiered, multi-level chokepoints to control access is where its at. Not the Starbucks model. Protect my data servers behind layers of security servers, not have them do everything at once.

Since that entire thread was erased for reasons you know very well, bringing it up as a point in an argument is astoundingly immature. You know quite well that we can't get too heavily into that argument without risking the erasure of this thread as well, so talking about it is just using the nuclear option on a discussion that isn't going well for you. You might as well have just Godwinned this thread in the hopes of getting it locked.

The Linked System discussion is over and above the discussion of mere subscription and it's in main body rule text. The Tiered System discussion is in a box of text, but is never countermanded in any part of the main body of rule text. This is in stark contrast to the overview box on page 172 which gives no targeting restrictions as opposed to the very specific targeting restrictions for Health spells on page 199.

You got nothing, and continuing to be insulting about the nothing you have wins you no friends. Calling your opponents "crazy" just because they read the actual rules instead of relying upon presumed author intent is an unpleasant way to conduct yourself. I understand that you're part of the Unwired staff. Good for you. I hope that you made parts of the Matrix rules work better than they do in the BBB. But please don't be a jerk about it. Especially don't be a jerk about defending rules that you seriously didn't write and ought to have nothing whatever invested in.

-Frank

Even if it doesn't work that way, can I not just create the same effect with a length of fibreoptic cable.

So <device> <cable> <Commlink> and then order the commlink to only communicate with the device and not pass on external commands.

If the cable defense doesn't work that way, can I not I black hammer anyone with a DNI, by sending their DNI orders via my Simsense module to take this VR feed and put the target into VR, then blackhammer the shit out of them bypassing all the programs in their commlink (including their biofeedback filters and everything else). I can also send their cybereyes a 'spoof' command wirelessly even if they've removed the cybereyes wireless, just as long as they are using a smartgun and a commlink that has a DNI, even if they are not actually connected

This seems retarded.

I wasn't aware that the thread was erased, nor am I privy to the reasoning behind it. Can you please enlighten me as to why this came to pass?

Short story version:

Peter made a ruling that expressly contradicted the rules of SR4 and was in stark contrast with the way the game has worked in all previous editions and this one. When called upon it, he said that it was supposed to be like that for an unnamed future book. However he actually had named the book in question in an earlier thread, though apparently he wasn't supposed to. I guessed the book in my rebuttal that the book in question shouldn't have to change Shadowrun metaphysics in that manner. And because the book in question is still supposed to be a secret, the entire thread vanished into a black hole.

And yeah, this means that too much discussion into that topic could easily cause this tread to vanish into a black hole, because Peter only made the ruling based on what he's currently considering doing in a book that is still presently secret. And all the threads where he or anyone else have mentioned the book by name have vanished into said black hole.

-Frank

I agree that it would be had I known that the thread had been erased when I posted it (EDIT: I also didn't and still don't know why it was erased). I brought it up because the person with whom I was debating had previously stated that being in a side bar made a rule weaker, contrary to his (then) current stance.

Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, we can't have an honest debate on the topic because we don't agree on the validity of source material. We'd have to debate the validity of the FAQ's ruling and then come to an agreement about that first, and frankly the idea of doing that wearies me.


I'm sorry, could you quote the part where I called people crazy? Could you also quote the part where I made assumptions about intent? I don't remember saying "I assume the author meant ..." I was under the impression that I was talking about what I'd been told and what's in the FAQ.

As to my work on Unwired, I haven't posted a blessed thing from that book, nor have I debated anything that directly relates to the parts I was assigned. I'm pretty sure I've never implied that I was more right about something just because the devs happened to like one of my proposals and threw a word count and a contract my way.

If I have made ad hominem attacks, please quote the material and let me know, so I can apologize (via PM, since it's not germane to the thread).

Bingo. Kill the wireless, connect it via fiber. You know, now that I look at it, if you take cabling into account, then Frank's interpretation, Rob's ruling, and the FAQ can all be compatible.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Is that supposition, or were you in on the decision?

In case my question is misinterpreted, I mean no offense by asking. It occurs to me that it might be good to know how these decisions are made, so it becomes important to know whether you're interpreting or reporting.

Um... no offense guys, but can you both drop your petty baloney arguing? Obviously you guys have some sort of beef that you might want to consider letting it all out somewhere else. Uuuug I was interested in this thread until the knife to the face it received.....

He was talking about when you said "shine on you crazy diamond" Aaron. Obviously it was meant to be sarcastic and any reader could gleam the spite behind it. Then again this is not one sided, but man does it kill the fun and interesting opinions that other people have.

Much obliged.

Yeah, sorry about that. I try to make sure there's some on-topic content and take it to PMs if there isn't.


Holy crap, I didn't even think of that. Yeah, sorry Frank, that wasn't intended to mean you're crazy. It's a phrase from a Pink Floyd song that I use with my friends; I intended it to mean "you do your thing, I'll do mine." I meant the word "crazy" in that sentence in its slang definition (enthusiastic, excellent, awesome), and not to mean "insane." It didn't occur to me that it might not come across that way, sorry about that. Thanks, masterofm.

*bows* No problem. Sometimes it just takes a 3rd party for understanding to happen, which is why counselors exist IRL. Almost became one myself, but this is neither important or on topic.

As for the question on if Technomancers suck or not the problem, it all boils down to one trick ponies IMOP. If you want to hard cheese a character to do one thing exceptionally well you run into the problem of pushing the "I win" button. Technomancers can rock the matrix, but if you don't invest enough into pushing that button then why not just play a hacker I think is a much more valid point.

I just feel that in the end what kills me is in a game perspective pushing the "I win" button is no fun, and since technomancers are high BP investing characters to do what they do best if you don't make the "I win the matrix" technomancer you have just created a decent hacker for twice the BP. The only difference is that the Hacker will probably have better fleshed out stats and skills to make he/she more versatile. I think the same argument goes for the Pornomancer. The "I win" button might be fun initially but after you ride your one trick pony into the ground what else are you going to do? Is that really fun in the end? Is it fun for all the other players around you? Is it fun for your GM? Does it make an interesting game? I feel like these are much more important questions to answer when thinking about a character. For me a technomancer sucks, because it fails the more important question of, "Does having this character make the game fun?"

I concur. There's a bit more that a technomancer can do than just run Matrix nodes, but they all have the requirement that the target have or be a device of some sort. You could, for example, send a sprite against an opposing gun emplacement or vehicle, but yeah, you're stuck using non-Resonance abilities to do anything else. Spirits save you if you're up against, say, a bear.

If you used anti wifi paint would the sprite still be able to enter the devise? I think it is valid that many vehicles are actually given an anti wifi paint job, so the passengers inside the car can't be hacked and forced to say.... I don't know.... drive into a steal wall at 120 mph.

Good point, although wireless-inhibiting paint and wallpaper is why all of my Matrix specialists carry large-caliber pistols and foam explosives; to punch holes in that stuff. Not sure how effective it would be on a vehicle, though; might need to add incendiary grenades to the list.

Actually I'm pretty sure cars wouldn't be. Otherwise how are the passengers going to answer incoming calls, check grid-guide for traffic information, call ahead to the restaurant and reserve a table, command their oven to start warming up so its ready when they get home, listen to the radio, watch the trid, play MageCraft, call into work to say you'll be late...

You get the point, in cars that drive themselves, and when everything is wireless, most people aren't going to want to sit there and just stare out the window.

No, he's right on some level. Anti-wifi paint on cars would keep the passengers from being hacked, and it would keep them from being forced to manually drive the car into a wall at 120 mph. However, it wouldn't keep the car itself from being hacked and driven into a wall via the offending hacker. The paint basically would protect the occupants unless the hacker went through the node of the car and hacked them THROUGH the car.

To keep the car from being hacked itself, they'd have to disable all wireless on all parts. And that's just shitty. Who wants a car like that?

Then pimp whatever weapon you use against said bear with a courier sprite that analyses it? Gives you the dice you need to kill the bear dead. No, a mancer, especially one specialising in threading and sprites, is pretty versatile AND comes with an integrated I.WIN button.


Via an isolated, not connected to the car mechanics or passengers (and without the ability to generate a wifi hotspot in the car - if someone wants to link their PAN in the car to the matrix, they gotta use cables) in any way, commlink linked to an antenna that passes through the paint job (connected via fiberoptics, so noone can use the cable as an antenna). Should do the job AND be secure. Data transfer from GG to the car then works via cable connect or data chip.

Oh yeah, the little link inside the car runs an emulator of the Car's ID stuff for the cops and GG, so noone has to be unhappy about unidentified cars.

Check out the Faraday Cage option in Arsenal.

WMS

er... no...

2-4 bonus dice doth not a street sam make. particularly when you have 1 IP, your pistols skill is 1, and your agility is 2.

the bear will squish you like a bug, and there's not an awful lot you can do about it.

No, this won't make the Mancer a primary fighter. Yes, it WILL effectively double his dice and bring him to the pool your average hacker has - 6. All the while running about with his Instant Matrix Win.

Besides, with 6 dice and something that fires bursts, odds aren't so much against the 6 dice mancer (8 dice if he's using smarted weapons,a s he ought to) in the bear match.

i would be quite surprised if the hacker is only throwing 6 dice for a weapon skill of choice. first off all, you're probably looking at 3(5) agility if not more. secondly, he probably also has skillwires rating 3, which means he can easily slot an activesoft for his weapon of choice. that right there is already up to 8, assuming we don't give our theoretical hacker a 4 or 5 in agility (it's not like it's a bad choice to spend BP there after all). now, we need to add in the additional IP or 2 from 'ware, the fact that the hacker likely has the perception DP to actually not get ambushed (attention coprocessors ftw!), and the fact that the hacker probably has a much higher damage resist pool. the bear will have a much harder time dealing with a shadowrunning hacker, especially if it's a combat hacker, as compared to a technomancer.

So your hackers don't even bother to spend their starting ressources on hacking-related stuff, but are conceived as street sams anyway? Well then, they're obviously better fighters than this TM. however, the mancer also has 8 dice with ALL WEAPONS, and on top of that rules the matrix with his 30 dice of doom. and no, he doesn't pay for this by sucking ass in everything else. please, show me a mage or DEDICATED HACKER build that's a much more versatlie fighter than someone who effectively has the firearms group, the B/R group, and anything else device-related (meaning everything that isn't athletics or martial arts - since there're emotitoys, yes, influence is device related too) on 4? I'd really like to see that hacker. Not to mention the TM could, should unwired eventually get out, propably use another IP (I read something about lightning reflexes making a return), so he even has a chance at 2 IP in the real world.

Oh, and while you're at it, also make your hacker build have some 30 dice on matrix actions, will you?

This assumption also includes, implicitly, the idea that a sprite using "analyze" on a gun will increase the TM's diepool to shoot with it, which is an interpretation I would disallow. Knowing more about my gun will not let me shoot better with it any more than knowing more about my knife will let me stab better with it or knowing more about my kitchenware will make me better at being polite.

To stick to your rule interpretation:

0Karma Hacker + x Agents (all cracked&copied) in a Teamwork Test -> infinite dice (>30 )

Technomancer really sucks! they need a huge amount of karma for miserable 30 dice....

q.e.d.

cya
Tycho

Yeah, common sense would say that. Too bad RAW don't.


In a node that crashes, yes. Very effective.

The problem with one-trick ponies is that if they are the only ones doing that particular part of the run (which for the matrix is likely to be the case) they either end up being bored by their very own speciality since they always succeed with their 30 dice, or the difficulty and challenge gets adjusted accross the board, and their 30 dice only net them standard success and failure rates.

If they are not the only ones in their field, then they can easily antagonise the other players by either making their characters feel useless, or by driving up the difficulty of the tasks, and cause the rest of the characters to become collateral damage.

You could interpret the RAW to say that Diagnostics gives bonus dice to use any electronic device, but I prefer to make a more intuitive interpretation of what the power was intended to do, which quite patently isn't to make a smartlink more effective. It doesn't explicitly say that you can't, but to say that you can is absurd. If a player tried to argue that position when I was GMing I'd laugh myself under the table.

The main reason that Technomancers suck in my opinion is just that it is so much cheaper for a hacker to buy their skills, the hardware and software they need. In addition they can implant a bunch of headware to give them an extra boost, and still have BPs left over. Technomancers can't use ware without crippling their Resonance trait, have to blow a huge chunk of BPs on high mental stats to get as good a persona, another chunk to get the CFs, and need the tasking skill group to make them remotely worthwhile.

Sprites are remarkably neat (although when I played a TM, compiling crippled me more often than not), but threading is naff, since any hacker can buy all the programs in the book at rating 5 for :nuyen:78,500 or 16BP (assuming my mental arithmetic is up to scratch. I would love a maths coprocessor, geek that I am), and easily swap them as needed. Meanwhile a threaded program inflicts a sustaining penalty, and potential fading. You can run all the innate CFs you want, but you are restricted to 2*Logic CFs at creation. Assuming a Logic of 5 and a desired rating of 5 it costs 50BP to buy all that you possibly could. Consequently you need to thread quite a lot, since there just aren't the BPs available to buy all the CFs you need to be a decent hacker. Even then you'll want to thread them to get any sort of edge, risking fading (and if you roll anything like me, knocking your PC out).

They had 2 years to FAQ/Erratae that. The problemw as well known, as the Germans indeed changed the text to explicitly exclude vehicles and smartguns. That this DIDN'T make it's way into the international rules hints strongly that boosting vehicles and guns like this is, indeed, what the rule is INTENDED to do.


Why would you? For your average Matrix needs - Search, ect - use a common commlink with common programs on it. No need to waste CF BP on this. You only need CFs for your core competence - at level 5, but not all; most, you can substitute with programs. Thread yourself a killer CF if you combat or sneak, and use sprites when Agents don't cut it. To make up for your lack of skills outside the 'trix, diagnose anything the TM uses for enough extra dice to not suck too terribly, but perform like ana verage characer in a side skill. However, you can do this in ALL side skills save for infiltration and athletics, so on top of all, you're propably more effective from the start than an average hacker.

The fact that noone has bothered to explicitly state that Diagnosis is intended to assist use and build/repair for electronic devices and not to make smartlinks into techno weapon foci, does not automatically imply the reverse.

The way I look at it, assuming that Diagnosis can be applied to a smartlink, you get some bonus dice to operate the smartlink. However, the gun bunny never has to make any rolls to operate their smartlink, a properly functioning smartlink simply provides +2 dice. Hence your Diagnosed smartlink certainly works, and the TM knows exactly how, but that still provides the same +2 dice.

It is only by considering that a smartlink can work better than listed that the obviously broken interpretation you've stated can work.

Ultimately the devs are going to miss stuff, and anyone determined enough can twist ambiguities in the text to their purposes. As far as changing the FAQ or releasing erratas, the devs have limited time, and I'd rather they addressed the more complicated issues first. Stuff like Diagnosis can easily be ruled sensibly by the GM.


Except, quite unambiguously by RAW (SR4 p233), you need a separate set of skills to use a commlink, yet another BP drain. And how many CFs do you think you might need when hacking? Stealth, for sure, Sniffer, Exploit and Spoof to find and get into the system, Attack, Edit, Defuse and Decrypt to do anything worthwhile once you're inside. That's 9 right there. OK, so you thread Defuse, Decrypt and Edit when you need them, but then assuming a soft-maxed TM (Res 5, Software 5), you're looking at a CF rating of 3 or 4 on average, which is less than an equivalent hacker.

Diagnosis only works that way if you consider that any object with an electronic component can be made to function better by improved functioning of that electronic component. This does not really apply to most stuff, most especially combat gear, and what it does apply to is up to the GM. It would take a really permissive GM to allow a sprite to Diagnose some armour say, to grant a damage resistance bonus, but by your logic it can do exactly that.

>show me a mage or DEDICATED HACKER build that's ....a much more versatlie fighter than someone who effectively has the firearms group, the B/R >group, and anything else device-related

Well a possession tradition mage with increased reflexes, analyze device, the foci to run them, and skill wires will rock your TM. Even just being possessed by a spirit of man casting analzye device is better and more versatile. Now a "DEDICATED HACKER" by definition can't do what you ask. However nearly maxing out on hacking only costs about 85 bp for the skills and gear. So even if you pure everything you can into hacking you can still easy shoot like a sam (if not dodge, soak, perceive, and tinker like a sam). That's not to say every hacker will spend 315 BP on combat, but 315 BP is well a lot to spend on secondary focus.

Crashing everything as a simple action is a pretty sweet deal. Especially if you subscribe to Aaron's view about how tiered systems work, because it means you can just instantly crash the entire other teams smartguns, drones, and all their cyberware in a single bound. That is a HUGELY EFFECTIVE tactic and significantly ups the power of agent smith.

My what now? I got up way to early this morning, so I might be missing something, but how does the ability to attack wireless devices individually allow one to crash multiple devices at once?

I assume they say that "tiered systems + free choice of attacked system = not worky". Chrashing the right node would break the network structure.

This would of course not lead to a general reboot. Yet if all PAN devices are linked to the comlink only, crashing the comlink would disconnect the skinlinked weapon and your image link, for example.

Aaron's point is that tiered systems don't provide any seperation from external attackers, and no matter how you layer the cake, I can choose to interact with an arbitrary layer of my choice.

But because I have a huge swarm of agents, I can attack all your systems simultaneously.




because you cannot create any sort of choke point. So I'll crash your gun, commlink AND cybereyes all in one smooth hit. Which is a nice play because you are completely helpless until that reboots.

The really cool thing is routing and connectivity methods are obviously not an issue in Aaron's model (otherwise cables would create the layer effect) so even if you disable the wireless on your gun and eyes, and only link them to each other via a skinlink, I can still attack both of them via your commlink link that is skinlinked to your DNI. It is a hugely effective tactic that makes things kinda funny.

I think you cannot crash the cybereyes, as in blind the user, if it's set to DNI input only, not without hacking into it.

I actually agree with you, because I think thats a tiered system and thus cannot be accessed except via the DNI, which requires me to hack the DNI first or somehow spoof myself as the DNI (I'm not sure that is even possible.)

But Aaron says I cannot, because when Frank says 'tiered systems exist thus you have to spoof because you deny actions' Aaron refutes that.

Thus I can actually cut straight past the tier of your DNI and go directly after the DNI with no intermediaries.

For example, a Tiered system is

Commlink -> DNI -> Cybereyes. Say they are connected wirelessly for the purposes of this discussion.

Frank says that you cannot get at the DNI without spoofing yourself as the Commlink, but Aaron says you can cut directly to the DNI at the bottom of page 2 and repeats himself on page 3 (he is also an unwired author, apparently.)

Now the skinlink scenario may be different if you think the transmission medium makes a difference, but if it does, you can create arbitary tiered systems by just using fibreoptic cable, which means tiered systems are possible, which means that Frank was correct.

You won´t need Defuse, Decyrpt, sniffer, or spoof, you need a Support Operation service plus threading. Anything that is rarely rolled and does not take long to perform can be done with Support Operation. Some more things can be done via other sprite services. I´d personally add Armor and Browse to your list, but there is room now.

Okay, I'm more awake, but I'm still confused, here. Let's look at some things.

Agent Smith attacks, I think we all agree, are going to fugger up whatever you point them at no matter what the opposing topology looks like. This is assuming your GM allows Agent Smith attacks, which means she's likely going to use them against you too, so it's a double-edged sword (not to mention a topic from another thread).

Wireless mesh topology. "Wireless" is the medium used to pass data between devices, "mesh" means every device is connected to every other device. Basically, it means there's a cloud of wireless devices all capable of interacting with one another.

It's not impossible for Frank and Rob to both be right about what Frank is calling a "linked system" or "tiered system" and what is more properly called a hierarchical network. It's the choice of media that makes the difference. You want a hack-proof hierarchical network under SR4? Use fiber optic cable (or a skinlink for your eyeballs) and turn off the wireless on the devices that you want to protect. See, now it's a floor wax and a dessert topping. Incidentally, this point is made in the FAQ, but it doesn't explicitly put the concepts together.

Hacking a "DNI" seems kind of silly to me. First off, I'm fairly certain that there is no "DNI" device, just a number of other devices that use DNI to interface with the brain. If you're talking about a sim module, then yes, that could be hacked, but it could be made safer by deactivating its wireless capability and directly connecting it to your commlink; thus, an attacker must first access your commlink. Ditto the eyes; just use a skinlink.

Frank was sort of right. Had his argument included the bit about turning off the wireless on protected devices, I would have concurred.

Yes, I contributed to Unwired. However, that doesn't magically make me right. I welcome debate. I've been convinced that I was wrong on several occasions, at least one on Dumpshock: I used to believe that you had to do the sniffing and spoofing, but then I was convinced that hacking gets past these defenses.

On the topic of changing my mind on the sniffing and spoofing angle, I actually welcomed it. It makes Matrix specialists like technomancers that much more efficacious.

My reference to CFs was not taking sprites into account. Arguably you could ditch all your CFs, and spend the BPs on compiling and willpower to get sprites and minimise drain, then thread and Support Operation to do everything, but you are still stuffed as far as resisting fading is concerned. The fact remains that you have to sink a lot of BPs into technomancy for it to be worthwhile. If you try and focus on any other area you end up a below average hacker. Unfortunately, like any 1-trick-pony, sinking all your BPs into one area leaves you crippled for anything else.