It's not the same. Spoofing means changing the transmitted credentials of your commlink to match those of another commlink.

Disguise (which is a form of artistry) is under Intuition for the same reason Artisan is -- because the designers know how bad art students are at math.

Not quite. The argument (in the book) is that *all* that computer stuff is basically you directing programs, which then handle the crazy-fast stuff. There's no *option* to slow down and do it yourself; it simply doesn't exist. And this is an argument (for my pet position) against *any* attribute involvement, not just Logic.

So, we're already throwing that aside if we're talking about Logic vs. Intuition. I think Tyro's point was that Intuition is a little closer to the baseline.

Maybe program + skill, hits capped by logic + intuition?

We're not really having the argument over whether or not attributes apply at all, we're discussing which attribute is more relevant if you decided to go with the Attribute + Skill option. The book's insistence that attributes are useless for hacking has already been discounted. Also they totally lie, since Intuition determines your Matrix Initiative. If things were really, as they say, "too fast for attributes" your Matrix Initiative would just be based on Response, since even your Intuition would be unable to keep up.

So, having thrown that out, Tyro's assertion is that Intuition is closer to the baseline, but I find that to be unsupported by the hacking mechanics and contrary to the game mechanics in general. For a large number of reasons as listed above. The argument for Intuition being made here is that Hacking is "too fast for Logic," which, as an assertion, only leads back toward the "too fast for attributes" argument from the book as opposed to actually supporting the position that Intuition is a better fit than Logic. There's nothing in the rules that implies that Logic can't be done quickly, and there's nothing in the rules that implies that Hacking can't be done slowly.

Plenty in the fluff, though.

Well, except for your arguments: Logic's description, and Logic's linked skills.

That's probably not a bad idea from a purely mechanical standpoint. You'd have the option of relying more heavily on one or the other if you wanted, or evening out both. It would also lead to good hackers having both Intuition and Logic, but really great hackers weighing more towards Logic for building their own hardware and software.

Of course, balance-wise, you could easily start play with Intuition + Logic of 10+, making the hit cap moot.

Did I mention that I hate hit caps?

That *is* balance, though, because you invested so much in those stats.

I do like that most people would have a cap of 4-6 anyway, which is probably a solid number of hits for low-to-mid hackers. Hit-capping profiles that go below 3 or 4 are the really egregious ones, to me.

What's wrong with hit caps?

Logic + Intuition of 4-6? 6 would be dead average. I'd expect a hacker to have 8 or higher without sweating too much over the build points.

I know it's not party line, but I see the attribute spread like this (adjust as necessary for metatypes):

1 - Deficient
2 - Low average
3 - High average
4 - Above average
5 - Developed/Gifted
6 - Superior/Genius
7 - World-class

That's what I said, Epicedion: 4-6 would be the effortless majority of low-to-mid hackers (definition: anyone using computer skills). We've been talking about how Logic is everyone's dump stat, after all.

Your logic is messed up. You can only go as fast as the slowest link. Initiative should be based upon the slowest link speeds not the fastest. If you have two fiber networks connected by a POTS line you don't calculate based on the fiber network speed. It's that POTs line that is the slowest link that should be considered for calculations. Since the brain is slower than the computer and you are the one taking actions Intuition over Response is the appropriate value to use for initiative.

If you want to use Response for Initiative, then we're at a state where the user is at best giving mild directions to a program while it works at blinding speeds. In the sense that vehicle combat turns are equivalent to 20 combat turns. So to then should hacking function where the user gets an action say every 20 matrix turns to order his programs but each matrix turn is performed solely by programs and hardware. You would then need to probably get rid of AI characters since they should, and rightfully so, be acting 20 times for every one that a meatbody hacker gets.



There's nothing in the rules that says Logic can be used quickly.

--

People are just suffering some dissonance with hacking using rules that operate out of the "normal" Attribute + Skill method for checks so the goal is the make the hacking system align with that rational.

No Dissonance is required (The System works as published after all), Just Personal Taste. Some people like the systems to match up. No more need for there to be 50 different systems for 50 different thinkgs, like in SR3.

That would be dissonance, no? There's essentially four or five sets of rules in Shadowrun 4th Edition, meat body, magic, hacking, vehicles, and technomancy(?). While most of those use the attrib+skill method, hacking doesn't. Drawing that in line with the rest would be trying to "correct" that dissonance.

Except that the mind is able to handle levels of details and information that computers are not. Sure, we're slow at doing math (that's what the Math SPU is for)

I think that intuition vs Response for initiative should be based on which ever is lower. I will tell you that even today there are times when my typing is actually faster than what the computer can display on the monitor. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it used to, but it still does. If I had a direct wire from my brain to the computer, with no need for my fingers to translate, I'm pretty sure that i could flood this poor computer.

Matrix perception should be:
Intuition+perception max hits rating of analyze program. The program does it's best to show you what it sees, but you have to perceive it. What I would allow though, is attention co-processors to work in the matrix.

It's entirely based on the functional difference between logic and intuition. Intuition is what the human mind was bred and raised on. It doesn't follow logic and can be used when there are gaps of input and predictions can be made. Logic is logic. It doesn't vary. +-*/ is logic. Logic translates between systems because it doesn't vary. If you took a 100% logical construct and showed it a new logic, it would be able to use it instantaneously and without error. The problem with logic is that it relies on having those variables. If you have a highly advanced model to predict something with a computer you either have EVERY variable known, you're using assumption to fill the variable blanks, or the coder is putting his or someone's intuition into the software (yet still in a logical format) in order to allow for predictions to be made on partial data.

But the rules are all the same, if you bring Matrix in line, as you indicated... All have the Same mechanics at that point. It is a preference, not dissonance. Again, the core system works. I am not fixing something that is BROKEN. I am changing one thing to another thing I prefer over the base system, using an Optional Rule.

Heheheh...

You seem to be implying that Logic isn't a normal thing for people to have. You're misunderstanding the Logic/Intuition split. One side is reason and critical thinking, the other side is instinct, empathy, and perception. They're clearly divided this way in the rules.

I'm not implying anything. The human brain doesn't function solely on logic. If you can find me a human that claims to think solely in logic and I'll show you a dirty liar. Reasoning involves making jumps where you encounter gaps in data. Logic, when it comes across gaps in data, stops.

And we're back to equivocating the names of the stats with what they actually do in the game.

Think about it this way for a moment:

There are two major categories for attributes (physical and mental). Those are broken down into two subcategories each, each consisting of an active and reactive component. These components are aspects of the same thing. By that I mean the active stat is imposed on the world, and the reactive stat is self-oriented.

Strength is active, Body is reactive (aspects of something that means "in-shape")
Agility is active, Reaction is reactive (aspects of Dexterity).
Charisma is active, Willpower is reactive (aspects of Personality).
Logic is active, Intuition is reactive (aspects of Intelligence).

Basically, one stat is for making things happen -- affecting others, affecting the world. The other stat is for reacting to others, the environment, bullets, etc. Logic is in the first group, Intuition is in the second.

Even skills like Shadowing and Tracking are about reacting to what someone else is doing.

Hacking is all about imposing your own designs on the target computer system. Hacking isn't done reactively.

Bleh. I really hoped we'd avoid this whole 'which is better?' thing with Logic and Intuition. It seems perfectly clear to me that choosing either for hacking is wholly arbitrary and equally acceptable. Or both, if you wanna make things complicated, the way mages and technos have MAD. There's ample evidence in the rules that Logic is for calm, dry work, and Intuition is for messy, stressful situations. Logic is explicit, conscious reasoning; Intuition is gut, subconscious reasoning. Hacking is somewhere in the middle, so just take your pick.

I don't agree that hacking isn't reactive, or even that active/reactive is a meaningful or useful distinction here.

One benefit of using Intuition is that it might make Tymeaus stop calling his hacker a 'cyberlogician'. Cyberintuician doesn't exactly ring right, so he'll he forced to call it a hacker like everyone else.

Which Yera has shown to you, and you irresponsibly discard, that what the attributes do in the game do not properly mesh with the concept you espouse.

I don't agree with this, since anything can make a situation messy and stressful. For example, you would still use Logic + Automotive Mechanic to build a car from scavenged parts in a junkyard with improvised tools under the extreme threat of having to use the car to drive away from a nuclear blast that's going to go off in 3 hours, all while being occasionally shot at by snipers. That would be pretty messy and stressful. Here, solve this math problem in 2 seconds or else the building will explode.

And that sort of thing is where I see the blur that's being put on Intuition vs intuition -- certainly some intuition would be involved with selecting parts from the junkyard, rapidly approving or discarding things as usable/unusable based on instinct or gut reaction or hunch. But you still wouldn't roll Intuition + Automotive Mechanic, just as you don't roll Reaction + Pistols to shoot someone who runs around the corner at you, because that's not how the system is really designed to work.

Logic is the stat used to do logicky stuff better. Computers are logicky stuff. There's a reason that hackers are portrayed as myopic shut-ins that occasionally get lost in the supermarket.

Well there's no reason to be rude about it.

Epicedion, you'd also get a huge (probably crippling) penalty for that Automotive Mechanic work. And if someone runs around the corner, that's a Surprise Test (Intuition + Reaction).

My point is that there's plenty of reason to say that computers simply *aren't* 'logicky stuff' in 2070. Or, again, that both views are equally arbitrary.

I agree on the surprise test, but that's the reaction-level part of the encounter, just as Intuition+Response is used for the reaction-level part of a Matrix encounter, which was my point there. You still shoot with Agility + Pistols.

I honestly can't think of any reason why computers wouldn't be logicky stuff in 2070. It's all still logic gates and basic mathematical processes, just at a huge scale compared to today (as the scale today is huge compared to when the concept of the Matrix was conceived). The brain is a pretty complicated piece of meat. There's no reason to think that it shouldn't interface directly with a purely logical system using its most developed logic centers.

Again, the point is that it's *not* logic gates. Not for the user, at all. The programs are doing all that.

I also think you're pinning too much on the Logic=Agility, mental-mirrors-physical idea. No one's saying that Agility isn't for accurate movement of your body. And I *can* see Logic as filling that role… but so could Intuition. It really doesn't matter, they're both arbitrary. Even if we calculated that Intuition was a 40% 'good fit' and Logic was a 60% 'good fit' for the roll of attribute-based-hacking, that's no reason to argue that Logic and only Logic is possible.

Ah hah! Now we got to the root of your problem. The notion that hackers can and do fall outside of view of them is the problem. You find it unacceptable that the methodology a hacker uses to hack a system is anything but logical.

We (meaning I) did talk about that earlier. I think Tyro suggested that you could use one or the other, or that you'd be limited by the lower one, etc. Score another point for RAW matrix rules: the character can play it nerdy or zen as they see fit.

I think the system was designed in a mental-mirrors-physical paradigm.



I don't have a problem. From a RAW standpoint, Hacking is a Logic-linked skill:





The Intuition + Logic idea for a cap wasn't bad, per se, to involve everything. But like I always say, I hate hit caps.

It *is* odd that they made 'hacking' a device (circuit board of a door lock) the same skill as hacking a computer system. And by 'odd', I mean wrong.

well, it's because everything is a computer, and organized from a central location. If you're 'hacking' it by hotwiring, that's called hardware.

That's what I thought. What is 'hacking a device directly', then?

you're accessing it's onboard computer. Because everything has a computer, and wireless turned on.

I mean, can you give an example? AFAIK, it's hacking for matrix, and hardware for devices. Anything with an 'onboard computer' is a peripheral node. I'm looking through the book…

Where is that line even from, Epicedion? I realize this is all just an aside, because Hacking (a device) isn't related to Hacking (nodes); I'm just curious.

Hey, Being a Cyberlogician is more than being a Hacker... They even have a Cyber Suite that points this out...

Hehe, I know. I mean, I don't *agree*, but I know where you read it. It's just a normal dude with an Encephalon, facrissake. Technically, it's nothing to do with hacking at all.

I have always seen a "Cyberlogician" as a Battlefield Coordinator. Keeping the unit working at its fullest potential, using Drones and Tacnet for maximum versatility. But yes, it is really just a Hacker with an Encephalon and a few other neat doo-dads.

Besides, Cyberlogician sounds so much cooler than just plain-jane Hacker.

Except that in the rules, best I can tell, there are no Logic+Hacking checks. There does happen to be Intuition+Hacking checks.

Because by the Rules, Hacking is normally combined with a Program. If you look at the Optional Rules, Hacking is combined with Logic, not Intuition.

We're specifically talking about changing the rules.

That line is from SR4 p223. Sorry about the lack of reference, I thought I'd added that. They don't really clarify that all too well, so I imagine it's made for the rare instance that you'd work with a physical terminal, with a monitor and everything.

From what I can tell, this line has been removed from SR4A, probably to avoid confusion. My go-to flip-through book is SR4, since I find reading digital copies for any length of time tedious.



Where exactly would there happen to be Intuition + Hacking checks?

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I never use SR4 'classic' any more, to avoid confusion.

Indeed. "Classic" is no longer Mainstream ...

SR4A pg270.

That is ONLY for learning a Skill or improving it. It has absolutely nothing to do with actually USING the skill...

You're reaching pretty far for that one.

I thought hacking on the fly used intuition?