If by "NPC" you mean "tool," then I agree with you. I don't know how it works at your table, but at ours, the owner of the agent does the decision-making and dice-rolling. I mean, I have yet to hear anyone say that the vehicle they send home on auto-pilot is an NPC.

The person who caught you was wrong. Quote me where in the rules it specifically says that "in-such-and-such case, the Attribute no longer applies when making a roll that utilizes an Attribute's skill."

The fact that you've been rolling such a small dice pool could explain why your hackers have been taking so long on extended tests. You can do a Data Search roll without the Browse program, it just takes longer because you don't have the additional dice that the Browse program gives. And even in the case of a Logic 1 Hacker, you still add the 1 Logic die. Logic doesn't just get replaced. That doesn't make sense.

Wesley:
I'm quite sure that Cain is right about dice pools used when using a program, otherwise there wouldn't be no reason for the offered rules tweak of using attributes in matrix tests(from Unwired).
Only think I'm questining is why wouldn't you use the normal defaulting to attributes rule if the character doesn't have the skill used in the test.

Firing a pistol, in this case agility + pistols, the ares predator adds no dice

Rating+Rating = Dice Pool

in the matrix you have computer+program (a program is gear), having Logic+computer+program breaks the rating+rating=dice pool, having computer+program does not, it just replaces the attribute with the gear.


If it is Logic+computer+program to my knowledge it is the ONLY test to pull from three separate ratings. Which leads me to believe this is incorrect.

EDIT one of the reasons it can be just computer+program is that it has always been this way since 1e. rating+rating = dice pool for matrix tests. I know 4e changed a lot I just don't see that this changed.

I'm looking at the Unwired rules right now and I can't make sense of what they're saying. I'll need to digest this. I'm just not getting where it says to remove the Attribute from the test.

EDIT: If that were the case then the Matrix would be the only aspect of the real life/virtual reality/astral plane triumvirate that is Shadowrun that ignores base Attributes with skill rolls.

DOUBLE EDIT: I also apologize if I'm coming off willfully stupid or harsh, especially to you Cain. I'm just getting frustrated at the communication impasse. I'm going to walk away from this thread for a bit and see where it goes.

TRIPLE EDIT: I just read the entire Matrix section in the BBB and I couldn't find one good "in-game" example for or against my position. Damn. That's the problem with implied rules. They're waaaay too open to interpretation.

It doesn't come out and say it in the BBB, its implied by the examples and the computer+program. Thats Cain's problem (not to put words in your mouth bud) the rules for the matrix are not clearly stated and can be interpreted.

EDIT

Yes, but thats legacy for you. Good or bad, I believe thats what they wanted. As to WHY? until the designers release a document telling why they did what they did we can only speculate. I for one would love such a document because then I can agree and disagree with the decisions made and move on. Right now we get forum debates because we as a community have different ideas as to what the less clear rules mean.

I thought I covered that? In specific cases, you use the Data Search skill + applicable program. The BBB gives other program examples as Scan and Sniffer.

The problem here is that it's a secret test, and the GM rolls. Here's what it says on page 220:

So, the GM is making a bunch of secret rolls, just like he would for an NPC. You've essentially put it back in the hands of the GM, which is what we're trying to avoid: we want deckers as viable PC's, not nerfed or overwhelming ones.

Don't worry about being frustrated; like I said, I originally thought like you did. But upon careful examination of the rules, I discovered I was wrong.

In any case, just look at every example of forming a dice pool in the game. One of the strengths of SR4 is that the rules are written pretty well. They tell you clearly what goes into a specific dice pool for specific actions. If it were Logic + Skill + Program, they'd tell you that.

I'm not relegating Hackers to NPCs at all. Hell, I play a hacker regularly. I have never run into the problem you are discussing about a dungeon in a dungeon. Agents are tools.

My hacker cracked his and gave them to the rest of the team so he wouldn't have to answer a question every time they wanted to know some piece of information he considered trivial. (He's uncouth) Now they do their own data searches.

In games I've run, several people have bought agents at CharGen (even ones who weren't at my table with my hacker). Why? Because agents mean never having to say you're sorry. Have the agent doing data searches to help feed you information when talking to contacts. Have the agent scan your comm-call to see if someone is tracing you. Paranoid? Have the agent constantly redirect trace on every phone call.

Agents are tools, as much as the shotgun you use to kill security guards.

For more specific information on Defaulting in Computer tests:


Thus, as we have already said a dozen times, when defaulting it's attribute -1 and since the program attribute specifically replaces your personal attribute (Rating - 1) would be perfectly reasonable.

Alright. Program Rating replaces Attribute. Got it. I don't understand it as it contradicts the spirit of the whole Skills chapter in the BBB but if that's the rules, that's the rules. My apologies guys.

I've done that a few times myself; but let's see what Unwired has to say on the subject:

So, we see the developers themselves saying that using agents instead of deckers is "missing out" on the fun of the matrix.

Once again, we're looking for a compromise position. We certainly don't want deckers to overwhelm certain parts of the game, leaving other characters to sit on their thumbs; but we also don't want to miss out on the fun possibilities the matrix provides.


What happens if you have no program?

No apologies necessary. That's an easy mistake to make, and it is counter to the rest of the system.

This makes me sad, I was honestly hoping I was wrong...

You are quoting out of context. That test is to leave a browse program running in case the data you are looking for shows up. Effectively, that's if you are seeding a node with agents because you expect the data to arrive there. Using an Agent for Data Searching, uses rating + Browse.

Logic-1, I know it makes little sense and its not clearly in the rules but it is the logical conclusion (pun intended)

Don't you dare come back with the whole "who needs programs" argument, cus that will start another 3 pages of debate.

Barring any research to the contrary, here is how I have run it:

No Program + No Skill = Shit out of luck.
Program + No Skill = Program - 1
Skill + No Program = Skill

It makes sense that if you can script-kiddy and trust the program to do it for you, then you should be able to flex your skill and be handicapped that you don't have the program to help you.

If the world's best hacker (Rating 7 with aptitude) mugged a bum after escaping from prison--I think he should have a chance to do something. No programs means he won't be nearly as good as he could be with his tricked out comm and programs with custom options, but he can at least try. If he can try, then anyone else can too.

Don't make me the pull the trigger on the gun to my head, Tete.

I seem to recall reading a bit in Unwired that states that if you don't have the program for a specific action, you can't perform that action. Don't recall where, though, but I'd bet dollars to dinars that it's in there.

Yes, you're right. However, it is still, by RAW, a secret test. That means the GM rolls, not the player.

Can you quote for me where it says it is a secret test. I've read the section on p. 213-214 that discusses agents. Nowhere does is mention a secret test.

It's on p220, under the Data Search Skill:

Cain--As mentioned before, that is quoted out of context and only for when you load an agent to monitor a node for data. Data Searches follow standard guidelines per pages 213-4. Do you have any other quotes?

There are lots of ugly little landmines like that lurking in the rules. For example, the rules on success tests on page 56 are apparently used by the magic success tests on page 173, but not by the identically named magic success tests on page 174. The multiple contradictory vehicle combat rules are kind of cute too, etc. We are not just making this shit up.....

The use of a program in place of an attribute is a similar to drone ratings replacing attributes (example: Drones and Sensors, BBB 239) and that is far from a contradiction.

As to magic, you'll need to be more specific. I am not finding a contradictory rules there either.

There are contradictory vehicle combat rules in the English version of the RAW?

Net hits on page 56 are the number of hits that exceed the threshold. On page 173 The Magic + Spellcasting success test must generate at least one net success or the spell fails. The success test on page 174 they define the threshold for the success test as the OR. But the example at the bottom of the page (the ONLY example of spellcasting) they get no net hits, which means that per the rules that the game actually provides the spell fails. However the developers don't seem to actually use use the rules they provide, so the spell works....

So does a magic success test require a net hit or not?

Ok, at least the German wording is a bit odd. Lets try:

- As a base condition you need one hit on the spellcasting test, which may be a net hit due to active counterspelling, else the spell fails.

- In some cases you need more (net) hits, enough to beat the OR in this case. The default for the spellcasting rules is an opposed test, so the terms used reflect that.

The example of thresholds on page 56 shows 4 hits vs a threshold of 2 resulting in 2 net hits. On page 173 they clearly say you need a net hit for the spell to work in a success test, and on page 174 they imply that you don't. They also clearly say that anywhere you are using ORs is a success test, as you only use OR against inanimate objects that don't resist spells. But it's a magic success test that doesn't follow the magic success test rules. . . .

The game has other similar crazy bits where someone apparently glued together several writers work at the last second and sent it to the printer without reading it.

I'm going to reply in the spirit that you are truly confused as opposed to be purposefully obtuse on this.

This example is for an unopposed success test. To see an example of an opposed success text. Page 57 discusses opposed success tests.

Again, the difference here is an unopposed success test and an opposed success test. Example: On a willing recipient, the mask spell is unopposed. On an unwilling recipient, it becomes an opposed test.

Indirect area of effect spells simply dish out their damage to an area. (Like explosives and grenades)
All other combat spells require a net success (comparable to a gunshot. Reaction vs hits. 0 net successes = miss (indirect) or fizzle (direct))

The second half of the example is simply an example of how to effect an object instead of a person. It also contracts a direct combat spell being used on an inanimate object (pg 56) as opposed to an indirect combat spell against an inanimate object (pg 196).

Could the rules have been written clearer, far more concise and been more linear? yes.
Are they contradictory? No.

There is no such thing in the rules as an opposed success test. There are success tests (which are not opposed) and opposed tests (which are). IMNSHO the rules would work better if they had built opposed tests as extensions of success tests, but they don't. The concept of thresholds ONLY applies to success tests. Why, I have no idea - but that is what they wrote.

A spell on an inanimate object is magical success test with a threshold. But it uses different rules than that given in the book for magical success tests. These are never actually explained but you are supposed to figure out from vague hints.

Oh, yes.

There are actually slightly more than two sets of vehicle combat rules: Tactical Combat and Chase Combat, plus a wrinkle I'll get into in a bit. Tactical combat basically just adds rules for vehicles into normal ranged combat. It still gets a bit bogged down, however, if you've got a lot of drones and vehicles interacting with pedestrians. The problem here is that you can't accomplish a lot of things without going into Chase Combat; for example, you can't "Cut Off" someone in tactical combat.

Chase combat is supposedly designed for combat solely between vehicles. The first problem here is that it operates on a totally different timeframe than normal combat, each Combat Turn representing 1 min of time, as opposed to 3 seconds. This means the actions of normal characters is going to get very confusing.

The second issue is that the speed and type of the vehicles isn't factored in anywhere. For example, in one of the last games I was in, a bunch of go-gangers on motorcycles were trying to chase us in a souped-up Eurocar Westwind. I don't recall exactly how fast the Westwind went, but a quick look suggests that it has a base of 240, with engine customization, for a total of 288. It also has a base acceleration of 20/60, and NOS. The fastest bike in the books, the Suzuki Mirage, has a top speed of 200 and an accel of 20/50. Given that we're tearing down the highway at top speed, there's no way the go-gangers should be able to catch up with us, even assuming that they're all on top-speed, modified racing bikes, and not choppers.

However, playing by the book, it's all abstracted into a single Opposed vehicle roll at the start of the turn. So, they were able to keep up with us, despite the fact we had a significant speed advantage. They could be chasing us on Dodge Scoots, and it wouldn't matter; if they beat us at the Vehicle test, they get to set the range. Since ranges are abstracted, this means they can suddenly move from Long Range into Close Range, allowing them to theoretically jump onto our car.

Let's make this even more ridiculous. According to the BBB, you can exceed your top speed, although exactly what you roll and how much faster you go is more "GM Discretion". Let's say that our car is able to reach a nice, even speed of 300. They're still catching up, though, because they're doing good on the opposed Test. I then had a Force 10(!) spirit use the movement power on us.

3000 meters/turn= 3,600 KPH, or about 2246 mph or us Americans. That means we suddenly jumped to Mach 4.6.

Technically, this shouldn't matter; we'd need to beat them at three successive turns (requiring a minimum of three minutes) in order to Break Off. The GM, however, decided at this point that the rules were screwball, and simply let us get away.

To complicate the fact that speed isn't an issue, neither is vehicle type. So, a Dodge Scoot can stay in close combat range of a fighter jet, if the driver rolls better than the pilot. Again the fighter jet requires a minimum of three minutes to get away, by the RAW.

Even worse than that, however, is that the rules assume just one type of vehicle interaction: a chase. It doesn't model dogfighting very well, and it really isn't meant to handle a situation with more than two groups involved, one trying to chase down the other. In a drone war, you could have all kinds of vehicles moving about, each trying to accomplish different things. The rules completely fall apart when you involve three or more groups, each trying to accomplish something different.

But the worst problem is the fact that it moves things to a different timescale. That really complicates interactions with normal combat, and makes it difficult for a person to jump into the round. For example, what happens if your driver decides to draw off the incoming enemy vehicles, while you fight the opposition? You have to resolve one combat before you can handle the other; they can't be run side-by-side, and a lot of time could pass for the pedestrians while the high-speed vehicles take several minutes to resolve everything. And the actions of passengers have been immensely slowed; they have to go on Chase time, which means they don't get nearly as many actions as they would normally. Someone pumping suppressive fire would get off substantially less rounds per minute, which means full-auto weapons suddenly suffered a massive drop in their rate of fire.

This also means it's extremely difficult to ambush a vehicle. Let's say you're luring a chasing vehicle into a trap. Your street sam, with 4 IP's, is packing a rocket launcher. Well, first of all, the chase rules assume that you want to get away, so you'd have to make some house fixes to drive in a way that'd convince the other guy to continue chasing you. But because of the different timescales, the street sam theoretically has the chance to get off dozens of shots, since he's operating at 3 sec/turn, and the vehicles are at 1 min/turn. You can try and fix this by forcing things into one timescale or another, but that can lead to just as many problems, and would basically be unfair to one side or the other.

Now, for the final problem: There's a third set of vehicle rules in the Rigging section of the matrix chapter. This is mostly a list of Rigger actions that are meant to be done during cybercombat. The main problem here is that it doesn't say which type of combat it applies to: Chase or Tactical. I assume it's meant for Tactical, but some of it could apply to Chase as well. The problem is that even if it applies to both, the timescale issue means you can't do some things as quickly as you could normally.

How to fix this? I'd personally dump the Chase rules, and move everything back into normal combat. That'd still take a fair amount of tweaking, since you now have to calculate ranges normally, instead of abstracting them; you'd need to do a lot of math to compensate for the differences in speed between vehicles.

Use the chase combat rules for chase combat, and the tactical combat rules for everything else. If something needs to be resolved in tactical combat, going for the other system is a pretty dumb idea.

Now you may be missing a modifier for vehicle speed in chase combat, but that is in no way a rules contradiction or a relevant version difference.

The point is that the rules are contradictory, or at least mutually-incompatible. Because of the timescale difference, you cannot integrate normal and chase combat together.

It also doesn't help when one type of combat turns into the other. You've suddenly got to reconcile two different timescales, when the Citymaster chases your motorcycle into the ambush site. Or when the passengers leap from their vehicle onto ya car, and start engaging in personal combat.

Neither system works very well for modeling mixed/pedestrian combat, and both bog down when there's more than a few vehicles involved, especially if they're all doing different things.

You are not supposed to use both systems at the same time.

What do you do when one turns into the other? Or worse, when you have to run two combats simultaneously?

If one turns into the other, I change the system. As easy and logical as that. Anyone who leaves tactical combat with a vehicle can try to escape after tactical combat is resolved. If someone distracts security by fleeing, you can describe the success of that action by having pursuit vehicles crossing the tactical combat area. You are really having two sequential fights, not a single large encounter with two different scales of movement and two different scales of time. That could never work.

Simultaneous combat within one system is not really a problem. The number of locations should be limited, else noone will be able to track the action.

It doesn't help when you have a mixed vehicle/pedestrian combat, though. You can't Cut Off or Break Away in tactical combat, those rules are only for Chase combat.

Let me try this scenario on you: you have a team of runners, which includes a drone rigger. They're going up against a mixed force of people and drones. The drone combat, which may include flying vehicles, will range all over the place, and be running at the same time the other characters fight it out. Let's say that the drones are fighting for air superiority. Their combat has to take place at the same time as the regular combat, because the winning drones will immediately join the fray. However, we can't do that, because they're using the Chase Combat rules.

So, we have two combats running simultaneously; one on the ground, and one in the air. Let's complicate things further. To help his side in the air, one of the teams summons a spirit, and orders to to attack the enemy drones. Now, in the middle of a chase combat round, we have to add a spirit, who operates in tactical combat. If your option is to switch systems, you'd need to drop out mid-round, and start things from scratch.

Also, the other problem is that Chase Combat simply doesn't work very well. It doesn't model dogfighting effectively, and it doesn't take into account many other factors. Chase combat is only useful when you have two parties, one chasing the other, on more-or-less equally matched vehicles. Introduce three parties or more into the mix, and the rules start to break down.

The drone combat might substantially extend the fighting area. Yet the drones are doing tactical combat. Should one of the parties try to flee, you can resolve that with chase combat, but in that case you have to resolve the rest of the tactical combat first. The key is that the chase combat rules are not general vehicle combat rules. Drones are very capable of tactical combat, and that is what you use for vehicle combat. Read the text under "vehicle combat" in the main book.

Now if there is actual chase combat, and someone conjures a spirit, that spirit has to act in chase combat time. Chase combat is an abstract system to resolve, well, chases. So for example, if the fleeing party changes their minds and wants to fight, they allow themselves to be catched and you change to the tactical system. It´s almost funny how all those maneuver tests can get meaningful if you think about the possibilities.

Technically speaking, a spirit cannot engage in Chase Combat; you need to make Vehicle tests, which a spirit cannot do.

So, let's assume we handwave that rule away, and substitute something else. We're still faced with the fact that spirits are designed to run in tactical time, and not Chase time. By not allowing it to use its powers as often, we're nerfing the spirit; but if we allow it to act 20 times per turn, it's overpowered.

Okay, let's even ignore that problem, too. Now, we've got a problem, because there's three entities involved in the combat, and the rules are designed for only two. We have Team A, who wants to get away; Team B, who wants to catch them and get away from the spirit, and Spirit C, who wants to catch Team B.

The way the rules work is that each driver makes a Vehicle Test, with the winner deciding the ranges for that round. Now that we have three entities at work, how do we decide this? If Team B beats Team A, but not the spirit, what happens? I actually don't want to get into the minutae of what happens with each possible permuation; I think you get the point.

Now, let's complicate this further, by adding in a fourth entity: a drone, sent to back up Team B. Now we have even more permutations that are possible. We can make this even worse, by having Team B summon a spirit of its own. See how things start to fall apart? What's more, each combat turn, ranges can change dramatically; you can jump from Long Range to Close range instantly, just by winning the opposed test.

I'll add in another matter: when you're within Close range, you're within jumping distance of the other vehicle. Leaving aside the silliness of someone jumping off one fighter jet onto another, what happens if we have a guy jump from one vehicle to another, and engage the passengers in combat? We're still running a chase, but now we've got a simultaneous tactical combat to deal with.

If you're forced to jump back to tactical combat, then that means the chase rules aren't working.

Let's even try to model a dogfight. Using these rules, the winner gets to set the engagement range; but what happens if both want to be in the same range category? Even if you win the roll, the other guy gets the range he wants. So, there's no advantage in winning the roll; your better piloting skills don't matter.

And this, of course, doesn't address the other issues. The examples so far have assumed vehicles of similar type and speed. What happens when one has a tremendous speed advantage over the other? By the rules, this doesn't matter; it takes four minutes to get away, at the very least, even if one is traveling at a speed of 60, and the other is going Mach 4.6.

And what happens if a car is trying to chase an aerial vehicle? The aerial vehicle should have a significant advantage; but according to the rules, this doesn't matter. We can even add in a huge speed difference; a chase between a Dodge Scoot and a fighter jet depends on the vehicle skills, not speed and elevation.

The bottom line is that the chase rules only work for a very narrow set of circumstances; and even then, they don't work very well.

So decide to not run it in chase combat time. If the spirit is fast enough compared to the chased vehicle to conduct meaningful tactical combat, so be it. A constant shift between physical and astral space comes to mind. It can´t be overpowering as spirits can´t fare better than in tactical combat.

The problem is that we need to swap from one to another, then back again. Or ignore Chase Combat entirely; but that means we're ignoring and/or house ruling yet another huge section of the rules.

Sorry, added a bit to my answer while you were responding. And no, it is not ignoring or houseruling anything, it is just using tactical combat as long as spirits are involved. My suggestion of running spirits in chase combat time was an (unintentional) houserule.

Ok, gotcha.

The issue here is the problems with switching back and forth between systems. Let's try a few examples:

We have two parties, one chasing the other. A clear case for chase combat, yes? One side conjures a spirit, and sends it after the other. If I understand you correctly, at this point we drop out of Chase combat, and go into Tactical. They deal with the spirit, but continue the chase while everything's going on. Since we're in normal combat now, the relative speeds of vehicles matter; the pursuing vehicle is forced to drop back quite a ways, because it's not as fast.

They deal with the spirit, and resume Chase Combat. The pursuing vehicle has a better driver, and wins the opposed test. That means he gets to set the range, and chooses Close Range. So, he's suddenly teleported from almost a kilometer back, to within 5 meters. Now, one of his teammates jumps from his car onto the other, and engages them in normal combat. Once again, we're forced to drop out of Chase combat mid-round, and switch to normal combat.

See what happens? We're constantly flipping back and forth from one type of combat to another. This is not only a nightmare when it comes to timekeeping, it's a struggle to keep the rules straight, and causes a number of breaks in common sense.

Oh, and here's one more situation for you to ponder. Technically, in Chase Combat, each *driver* is supposed to make an opposed test. What happens when we have two go-gangs involved in a chase? With ten drivers per side, we end up with too many possible permutations of who's able to enter what range with who. Technically speaking, the winner is supposed to set the ranges for everyone; but that doesn't work when there's more than two drivers involved.

You can only resolve that logical conflict within the game system if you add a rule about relative speeds to chase combat.

The true way is IMO a call by the GM. If realism does not allow the pursuer to keep up with the escapist, there is no chase combat. Yet I know from previous exchanges that you dislike GM calls. I say don´t compromise with me, compromise with ease-of-use.

A lot of systems have flaws like this.

One partial solution would be to limit the range changes to one category per test. You can get a little further away, or a little closer, but no sniper-range to melee-range and back again.


Aside:
Anyone ever play 7th Sea? Movement isn't even defined in that game, except that you stop if you go up a level. A legless beggar is just as fast as a racehorse.

For ease-of-use, I find it easier to dump Chase Combat in its entirety, and resolve things using normal combat. That does mean, however, I need to house-rule in certain aspects of Chase Combat, such as the ability to Cut Off or Break Away. The end result is that my vehicle combat system may look nothing like yours, and we end up discussing different games.

That will work, and make our vehicle combats more similar. I have absolutely no problem with vehicle integration or logical contradictions because I use tactical vehicle combat as default. Chase Combat is really a special case, and one that does not come up often for our game. I´m favouring storytelling solutions for matters that can be run at that level of abstraction.

But for your tactical vehicle combats:
- Cut off is a maneuver test, and the rules work in both timeframes (if your tactical position permits the attempt).
- Breaking off does not need a special rule. Just use maneuver-, perception/sensor- and stealth tests, per RAW (tip: bring a generic city map to the game). The party in question needs to break LOS, and then to hide. Breaking LOS will of course require some dramatic piloting moves...

In general, I'm not a big fan of needing to use maps. Especially for the Shadowrun system; it's not easy to convert meters/turn into miles per hour. You'd end up having to micromanage exact distances on the map.

If that's the way you feel, why don't you dump Chase Combat as well? It's it amounts to a useless section of the rules, why not ignore it?

Also: Breaking Off shouldn't just require loss of LOS. If you've got a huge speed advantage-- such as my Mach 4.6 car-- it should be automatic. Also, if you're going ground vs aerial vehicle, the aerial vehicle should be able to rapidly get out of chase ranges. In both cases, they might still be able to see me, but have no hope of catching up.

I don´t need to dump a rule because I am rarely using it.

And your point about a massive disparity between opponents is exactly what makes the chase rules rarely used. I don´t permit the use of the chase rules if the pursuer has no chance of keeping up.

But if it's rarely used, you've essentially already dumped it. Add to the fact that the rules simply don't work very well, and they may as well be removed.

Use the metric system, then. It's the international standard, anyway.

Always calculate in SI. And always check your units.