This post goes into more detail about why I think a Technomancer still gets his Matrix Perception bonus while jumped in rigging a drone.

Straight out the box Technomancer rigging any drone.

Technomancer "jumps in" to his drone to investigate a building. According to the section of 4A page 245 all his actions are now Matrix Actions.

Rigger starts looking for a way in and the GM calls for a Perception Test.

Because everything the rigger does is a Matrix Action it would normally be
Computer+Analyze+Technomancer Perception Bonus +Hot Sim

However the riggers chart on page 247 says that a jumped in perception test is

Sensor+Perception

If you are going to still allow the hot sim bonus because it is a matrix action then you have to also allow the TM Matrix Perception bonus because it is still a Matrix Perception check and the "jumped in" rules just say it uses a different Skill + Attribute.

Hot-sim yes, you're controlling the drone over the matrix.
Matrix perception no, you're not trying to perceive something in the matrix.
Matrix perception is strictly for observing matrix only phenomenon.
While doing a sensor test you're perceiving non-matrix objects through the sensors of a drone.

The hot sim bonus applies because "All actions by a rigger who has jumped into a drone (or other device) are considered Matrix actions, and receive the benefi t of the +2 bonus due to hot sim VR use" (4A, p. 254). However, Matrix Perception only covers "If you wish to specifically examine an ARO, users, programs, IC, nodes, files, etc." (p. 228), which a rigger peering through drone sensors obviously does not. So while a Perception test through a drone is considered a Matrix action, it is not a Matrix Perception test

And to avoid the next point of confusion from rigger table right away: The entry "Sensor + Gunnery" for firing as a jumped-in rigger is wrong, standard Gunnery is Reponse + Gunnery. Sensor + Gunnery is the pool for passive sensor targeting.

Yes, that point got hashed out in Bushwackers derailed full auto alt rules thread.

OK, didn't read that one

That is debatable... a general rule is established that response is used for this and that. But the targetting rules provide a specific rule that a different stat is used. And this also requires completely ignoring that to even detect a person using vehicle sensors the sensor perception test must be made at the -3 in the first place. No you just assume because you have a cheap video camera... the rigger sees it through the drones senses... instead of being subject to the perception rules as everything else is.

The general rule is always overridden by the specific rule in RAW. So no I don't accept your argument that all attacks by a drone aren't based on sensors. The only way you can draw this is to rely on a general rule... which is specifically contradicted by every example of specifics in the book.

p156 resolving rocket fire from drones, the rigger table, passive targetting, etc. All specifically say sensor. Nowhere is gunnery mentioned in the same sentence as response.

Sensor tests even make it clear to detect a person... the rigger MUST make a sensor test... if the rigger cannot make the sensor test. He's firing blind... so yes i don't buy that response 6... sensor 1... gets away with response + gunnery.




As for your other point... multitasking adept power and the technomancer power do not make perception tests free actions... they make 'observe in detail' a free action. IE: one very specific perception test becomes a free action. This does not include other actions such as active targeting sensor lock-on which are defined as simple actions.

And yes... hotsim bonus yes... matrix perception no. matrix perception is something very specific in the rules it's the qualities of the node... the matrix stats and features. Not two words from two widely separated sections which just happen to go together. The SR authors unfortunately are very loose with diction. (hence 3 different meanings of mystic armor in 3 different sections, and two different meanings of device rating in two different sections).

Only if you want to lawyer away a plain statement. The rules are clear: Gunnery is a skill linked to Agility, Agility is replaced by Response when jumped in. Sensor targeting is presented under a different heading and it is explicitly stated that it can be used to help.

If you claim that something which is described as "can be used for help" is, contrary to all established rules of English semantics, in fact mandatory, I suppose you also believe that teamwork tests are also mandatory?

Because I argue that the can is used because it's used for passive targetting as an option to active targetting.

The 'can' represents that there are two choices between active or passive and that the first one isn't the only one. Again i point to the rules because nowhere anywhere does it list response with gunnery... only by ignoring the specifics in the book and falling back to the general can you make this argument. Again ignoring that the specific rules can contradict and override a general rule.

Like i said... it is quite debatable... and a reasonable argument can be made. We won't agree... I won't convince you and you won't convince me. But the issue is not as clear cut as made out to be. (also it's normally a lot easier and cheaper to upgrade sensors than response).

Don't point, read them


Obviously, the first "can" does not establish a choice between active and passive targeting, but between using or not deciding to "use the vehicle’s Sensor Attribute to help with Gunnery".

While were arguing semantics.
Help implies assisting in a task not performing a task.
It says pretty clearly that you use relevant skill+drones/vehicles relevant matrix/physical stats for all jumped-in rigging actions.
But it doesn't help that the given example is a gunnery test using longarms...

Yes I do read them Sengir... active targetting can help the normal baseline passive targetting.

My point is that the wording is ambiguous. I was only arguing that the earlier assertion that it can't be argued is not correct. A reasonable argument can be constructed that passive targetting is the baseline for all vehicle gunnery tests... why because every example and table and direct reference in the book does it that way. It establishes a specific rule.

The first sentence establishes a premise that sensors can be used actively to help targetting... it then presents two options... the normal baseline operation... or spend an action and enhance.

Since a specific rule exists the general rule is inoperative. Again ambiguous.

While it may be an either or fallacy... the rules aren't clear enough to say so. And it entirely relies on figuring out the intent of the author. Since every single other occurance in the book uses sensor and not response... i think that's a pretty clear statement of intent.

There is exactly ONE other part in the BBB where this comes up, a table which is intended to provide a summary. Detailed rules > summary


There is nothing ambigious, the wording is explicit and clear: Sensors can help with targeting, there are two ways to do that. Not "sensors are used for targeting and can also improve the aim by [text for active targeting here".

You are only trying to shoe-horn your wishful thinking into the rules, like pseudoscience adherents claiming that "there is scientific controversy".

Newsflash! Perception Tests(the category) and Perception(the skill) are not the same. There are numerous cases within the rules that gives bonuses to Perception Tests, that also apply to Matrix Perception and Astral Perception.

That being said, a test can be both - a Matrix Test that is also a Vehicle Test rolling Physical Perception(not matrix). So in this case you're rolling Sensor+Perception+hotsim+other relevant bonuses like control rigs.




I'd like to point out that Gunnery is Agility Linked. You roll Agility+Gunnery in ALL circumstances, before any sort of stat swapping is involved. For example, in older vehicles that do not have a Sensor.
Jumped in, Agility gets replaced. It may be replaced again, but sensor targeting isn't mandatory, just an option.



Our group's covered this fairly reliably. We realized there's a really dumb situation with the core rules, involving a 3 man car. There's a driver(which we don't care about), a passenger firing out the window with an LMG, and gunner on the turret in the back mounting an absolutely identical LMG.
Both shooters use different actions and weapon skills to fire the exact same guns. In particular, the turret gunner with the MORE stable firing platform, can't shoot twice.

Our solution to fix all of these issues was simple: You declare the attack test with the skill of your choice, which means that you have a choice between an actual specific weapon skill, or one very versatile gunnery skill.
For drones, since the shooty autosoft mimics a specific weapon skill, are able to fire twice because they are NOT using gunnery. However, that option is also available to them: Nothing stops a Gunnery Autosoft for being taken for Gunnery, the skill instead of Heavy Weapons or whatever.


Common Rolls For Riggers isn't ALL rolls for riggers.
Case in point: the full Defense Entry doesn't include the Evasive Driving option. It should be "as above + Piloting". The table only provides one of two options at a glance, and leaves the other one in the main rules.
It does the same thing with sensor targeting, assuming assuming for you which option you're using, because it doesn't have room for both.
Shit, doesn't even have room for "+/- Handling" which IS included in defense rolls,(attacks against vehicles, page 170).

Do you know why that table wasn't in 4th edition? Because the covert ops maneuver didn't EXIST until Unwired happened, and was completely ripped out of the book and pasted into Anniversary.... and they couldn't even bother to reprint the covert ops autosoft in the autosoft section.

Perhaps another case of catalyst not knowing their own shit, which should be surprising to no one.
In other words, that 'table' is as useful as the FAQ.