Yes, but it's important to interpret the rules as the writers intended them. If you interpret them literally, you can get situations like this where the RAW is ambiguous. I think it's clear, though, that the designers didn't intend for someone who successfully masks their aura to a ward to be treated as it's creator for purposes of allowing other people/items through.

In your example, while there are no operational limits to the drone, I'd say that the rules as intended wouldn't allow a nonstop flight from Seattle to Hong Kong.

First, the RAW is not ambiguous. It clearly states what is allowed when you mask yourself as the creator.

Second: I found operational limits. They exist.

Well, I didn't think the RAW was ambiguous, but apparently some people do. And even if it's not ambiguous in this case, there are cases where it is. No system is perfect (hence the errata for the rulebooks), but if you interpret things like the designers meant them, then generally you won't have problems.

And your fly spy with the pay data sinks about ~=90 miles off the cost!

The conversation is still totally valid if we just pretend it happened before Arsenal was released. Still a little curious, WOULD you have let runners do that?

---


Yeah my actual aim was to find get T. to say that you could/not do something not written in the rules to show that inferance is valid, and necessary. Then I got more interested in there play style.

Yes, I would have. I'd probably explain it with fancy batteries or something. No rules for it, doesn't need to impact the game.

Going to the restroom is a good example. Does it happen? Probably. Will I throw a tn modifier because my player hasn't said his character takes a piss for 2 weeks? No.