I think you nailed it. +1 Internets.

And said advertising has mascots that want you to rip out your eyes and pour on the brain bleach by the tanker truck full.

As a rather newbie GM, I am curious, what does a decker do in combat if there is no cyberware hacking? Is it more of hacking the environment (Like that security camera on the side of the street)? If you could give an example that would really help.

Hacking Drones.
Hacking Tac-Nets.
Providing ECM and ECCM for the Team, such as Tac-Nets.

Traditionally they would duck and cover, or fire back. You can do things like hack vehicles, doors, fire systems, or whatever the objective happens to be can give them something extra to do.

I had a player with a technomancer dronomancer with a not seemingly so impressive dice pool was actually a rather good shot with an Ares Predator IV. Same went for the face character his father played. Fights rarely lasted more than two or three rounds.

Don't forget signals intelligence, which was a huge thing that my character concentrated on as a Cyberlogician. Controlling the flow of communications and intercepting the opposition's communications is a HUGE thing. The character was pretty decent at it. And as others have stated, Tacnets, along with remote sensors, doors, vehicles, drones, etc. My character never lacked for anything to do. And he was also a pretty good shot, for when he needed to actually, you know, shoot something. Hacking cyberware is just stupid.

Nothing against most opponents, but against more technologically sophisticated opponents they have options (though many of those only come up with the addition of advanced rules). Which is, incidentally, a serious problem from a design perspective.

Putting something behind a router means you have to hack the router. Not the stuff behind it because it is not available to hack till you do so. And generally you put strong firewall software on your router. Rather than having put a strong firewall on every piece of cyberware and hardware. Which would be stupid and wasteful and inefficient. By saving money not putting firewall software on every piece of gear you get to put a stronger firewall on the one piece of gear that is vulnerable. Also by putting stuff behind a router means one does not know what is inside the network till they do hack the router.

Why is it the assumption that the decker can't participate in combat? is there some rule about deckers not being able to pick up a gun? You know in seal teams the Medic shoots...so does the com guy and the leader, and the translator. I would think the same would apply to Deckers...

The mage casts, the Rigger rigs, the gunbunny shoots, the melee specialist slashes, the face uses Leadership... There is no possible design reason for the decker to be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat.

Straw Man argument.

Nobody's saying the Decker shouldn't or doesn't have things to do in combat.

What's being said: the options openly provided for deckers are limited and stupid, and too easily countered by simple actions on the part of players. Punishing players for countering a large vector of attacks (hacking) through simple, easily available means (turning off/removing wireless), while also providing themselves the benefit of being far less traceable (a professional necessity), is not only poor design, but illogical and possibly immature. It's "I don't like how you're playing, so I'm making a new rule to punish you."

We've been trying to point out ways this very concept could work better and more logically. We've pointed out situations where the concept just falls flat, contradicting the basic fundamental concepts of the game itself. Some 'ware (the reserve airtank implant) cannot take advantage of its own wireless bonus (specifically the monitor) in some of its core-use situations. And the only reason I can see them saying THAT requires a wireless connection to activate as a free action is because OTHER, more potent ware, couldn't then be justified to require a wireless connection for IT'S free-action activation.

Firmware? Not a problem, BAM, jailbroken is the new standard, since it works better (reflecting modern-day). Even corp elite would be doing that, because it works better and makes business more productive. Corps make it illegal? How many would refuse to overlook such a rule when it benefits them, and selectively choose WHEN to prosecute to cull certain "overpayed" employees when they desire?

And the decker always has. He took control of and manipulated the environment, locking and unlocking doors, retasking cameras and drone turrets, turning on fire suppression systems, and controlling elevators and escalators. He ensured that his team maintained situational awareness and deprived the opposition of that same awareness.

mages casting got heavily nerfed, faces using leadership is not even remotely close to being as useful as just picking up a gun and firing, gunbunny and melee specialist are both roles that are only useful in combat and have to invest points elsewhere if they want to be useful outside of it, and the rigger's area of specialty is arguably combat as well, and certainly isn't useful in many other situations.

in order for the argument that other archetypes get to use their specialty in combat to be valid, i'm going to need to see people using swords to decrypt secure data files and gunbunnys being able to negotiate with the fixer using only their pistol skill without the system breaking, too.

otherwise, well... those who build for a combat specialty should bloody well be able to use it in combat, and those who don't build along similar lines as those specializing for combat tend not to be able to apply their other specialties to combat very effectively. sure, a face *can* use leadership. if they don't mind being less useful than hiring a ganger with a machine pistol to spray suppressing fire randomly, that is.

frankly, the decker's ability to influence a battle has always been much better than a face's (unless of course the face pulls out a gun and starts shooting).

the only one who gets a free pass for combat even when using a very utility-based area of specialty is the magician, and even that has been toned down (though certainly not eliminated) in SR5. every other non-combat specialty isn't exactly awesome at using their specialty in combat. just like the combat specialties are generally not very useful outside of combat.

Also, this is Shadowrun, there is no fixed "class" for you character. You're a mage, but you want to be able to help with getting stuff for the party, invest the points in Charisma based skills (Shaman do it better than Hermetics), You want to do hacking as well as sling spells, get some hacking skills (Hermetics do this better than Shaman). Sure your mage skills suffer, but you can do more than just sling spells.

If you're a street sam, you SHOULD have some skills in either hacking or Face skills. Just being a combat monster is so one dimensional!

That being said, the way advancement mechanics are setup, unless you made a choice during chargen to set yourself up well for 'multi-classing', its generally not feasible to pick up after the fact.

There is no class, but there is Rôle and in your small specialised team you have to fullfill your rôle the best you can. You sure can learn some tricks as a replacement in case of trouble but no one would recruit a mage to do the hacking, except If he is as good as a full Decker...

That is not at all true. The following is, or at least reads to me as, an argument suggesting that deckers shouldn't be permitted to deck in combat.



******



So... There are no fights outside of a corp facility? For something to qualify, it needs to be general case - something that can always work barring exceptional circumstances.



You get to make this argument the day that having someone roll Negotiate against you or not being able to decrypt a file can kill you. Until then, it's completely meaningless - combat is a special case compared to other areas of the game. But, for reference, a gunbunny and melee specialist have things from their specialty that directly lend themselves to other rules - high Agility, high Reaction and Intuition, and in the case of the Melee specialist a high Strength and really high Physical limit - and riggers can do a LOT outside of combat.

Aside from that: Saying that a specialty's usefulness isn't as strong as a combat specialty's is so far from the point you might as well be in orbit. Also, you really underestimate the usefulness of Leadership.



Which does not remove the fact that there is no reason for the decker to be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat. Seriously, I can't believe we're back to this argument...

Which we've already pointed out is a fallacious argument; deckers have plenty they can do in combat. The problems will lie in what the GM allows them to do. In this regard, it's inverse to the Background Count rules. Does the GM allow them to hack the lights? Turrets/drones? Enemy tacnet/communications? The enemy Street Sam's "Mr. Studd" implant that he forgot to slave to his system and left wireless after his night on the town (the enemy face/sam seems distracted, losing his initiative pass and kicking the barrier down in front of him as his pants leg jerks upward)?

The bigger problem in previous editions relating to hacking were the difference in initiative passes between meat and matrix, as well as the need for a jack point to actually hack in. Modern wifi cyberdecks seem to have fixed that, to some degree, though there's no way to FORCE somebody to turn on the wireless for their devices. Any logical system that is required to be hack resistant can simply do so via "disable wireless." This defense will not work for a tacnet (when we get them again), nor for communications.

There has not been a general case example provided.

but its not only the Decker
its the Face too and the Stunt Driver, The Outdoor/Survivalist Guy, its the Safeknacker, the Catburglar,
All of these Rôles aren't predestined for fights and contribute even less than a Decker .
Its not really smart to presume that every Rôle has the same usefulness in a Fight
and its even....un-smarter to force a Rôle on a Char thats not suitable for it

HokaHey
Medicineman

Nope. Face gets combat use of his specialization through Leadership. For Stunt Driver, see Rigger - that being, after all, a concept under the umbrella of the Rigger. Survivalist, Safecracker, and Catburglar are all similarly concepts rather than specializations - the Catburglar, for example, would be a sort of infiltrator/BnE specialist who could contribute to a fight by angling for sneak attacks to get around someone's defense.

And who said anything about the SAME usefulness?

Had a face player do better in combat than he expected to in several runs. He always seemed to do more damage with his light pistol and regular ammo (and sometimes SnS) than he expected, and with (going from memory) a DP of 8 to shoot.

As for the decker now in a fight, favored Matrix action will probably be Data Spike. That is, assuming the decker can get enough spikes off before combat ends. Don't know about you guys but the fights never seemed to last long in my games. Even one group I know that's doing SR5, the decker has done more shooting than decking in a fight; something that's 100% possible in any previous edition of Shadowrun.

The best option will still most likely be shooting rather than data spiking. Situationally, shutting down someone's commlink to isolate them or issuing false orders to draw off potential opposition before a fight might be a strong competitor. Thwacking one person's smartlink in the middle of a firefight probably isn't an efficient use of time.

Having to knock out someone's Wired Reflexes/Reaction Enhancers or Cybereyes will probably mean things have gone pretty sideways and your primary combatants are either incapacitated or unable to cope, and your only option is to level the playing field for your secondary combatants.

The best situations I can think of where combat data spiking will really be helpful are like these:

Pinned down by suppressing fire or a smartgun platform, need to shut off the gun.
Sniper in an inaccessible superior location.
Nearby drone rigger handling multiple drones, need to crash his RCC.

And so on.

I wholly agree. Those who made deckers the favored child for SR5 apparently think otherwise...

Attack 7, Logic 6( 8 ), Cracking 6 and Hammer offers a pool of 14 and damage of 9 + net hits. PR3 Lieutenant gets 9 dice to defend. Assume DR2 for the target item, so 9 damage boxes and 6 dice for soak. All told, there's a 52.65% chance of instantly bricking the item, which can be a pretty useful thing - not as useful as killing the guy, but you probably don't get a 50/50 shot of that. Taking away the enemy lieutenant's primary form of attack, for example, can be very useful.

Looking at this from an IC hackers perspective, yes GOD may want you to have all of your devices appearing in the matrix as icons, even the ones you don't want anyone to know about. However, I'm a hacker. I don't really care what the rules are, if they don't work for me, I'll tweak them until they do.

It is not enough to merely slave my stuff to my cyberdeck. I want more than just a firewall to defend my PAN. Behind my firewall I will set up an IDS and transparent proxy on my cyberdeck, and close all other ports. All traffic through my cyberdeck will be through the proxy. I will then NAT my CommCode/MatrixID/IP address to all of my devices using a point-to-point subnet. In each one of my devices I will drop the signal strength down to a 1m range. At this point all of my devices would be able to be "online," however from the Matrix only my cyberdeck could be seen and anyone would have to come within 1m to detect the broadcast from any devices.

Just because the Matrix wants you to be stupid does not mean you have to play along, especially as a hacker.

I could see a TacNet as a very upgraded version of the modern BFT.

http://www.viasat.com/government-communica...-force-tracking

The TacNet would comprise several interlocking functions. First, using satellite mapping, GPS positioning, and weather/atmospheric information combined with sensor feeds from individual sensor platforms (squad members, drones, vehicles) the TacNet would proceed to build a 3D battlefield map with all known forces.

Second, using the live map the TacNet would calculate fields of fire, plot azimuth/angle trajectories for indirect fire, and offer tactical suggestions.

Using a image link, the TacNet could paint targets (blue=friendly / red=hostile) and provide a color coded transparency/outline in a users vision of targets which may not be visible due to LOS. For example you could see an outline of a soldier hiding behind a tree as long as one sensor platform had eyes on the target. Using targeting information and AR displays, a shooter with a smartgun could fire accurately while remaining almost entirely in a covered position.

Finally, the TacNet encrypts the entire network into a single hidden node. As the TacNet would most likely be run off of the deckers cyberdeck, it would stay hidden as an opposed Computer + Intuition
[Data Processing] v. Logic + Sleaze Test using the cyberdecks sleaze.

Nope
Everything is visible (even Stealth connections) thems the new Rules


You could do this in SR4A (Signals Str0 = 3 Meters) but you can't do that in SR5 anymore.
Minimum is 100 Meters


for not "playing along" You need Houserules (sadly)

HougH!
Medicineman

Completely and utterly immune to it if that lieutenant turns off the wireless (or never had it active to start with). So, now, what is the Hacker gonna do? Oh wait, there is still communications, remote rigged devices and tacnets. EXACTLY what was available in SR4A. NO NEED to make the cyber guy susceptible to the stupidity of wireless bonuses and bricking whatsoever. *shrug*

Naah... just remove wireless form everything that has no need of being on the Matrix in the first place. That is called using throwbacks, and is described in the books. Good luck hacking any of my stuff in SR5. I will make an enemy hacker absolutely useless when it comes to bricking my stuff.

At this point, it will be at least a year before I switch my game over, I'll see if JH backs down from to this retardedness in the matrix splatbook. If not... Well, it will be my turn to become a grognard. Everyone at my table works in IT/telecom and I will not impose this level of stupidity on them.

Indeed...

In a surprise move to encourage wireless use on their weapons line, Ares has announced the innovative 'Use It or Lose It' wireless system being installed in all new firearms for the 2077 lineup.

This simple system revolves around a small, but powerful explosive situated in the middle of the weapon with a detonator that requires constant wireless updates to prevent it from exploding, failure to receive the necessary signals triggers the explosive thus rendering the weapon useless and possibly injuring the obviously criminal element trying to use it in an illegal (offline) mode. Any attempts to disable the explosive itself would likewise trigger detonation.

When asked about what would happen if signal jammers were used to cut off the device from normal Matrix access and potentially trigger an explosion, Junior VP Thomas Hammerill admitted there were "still a few design bugs being worked out" but assured the conference attendees that this would not stop the new rollout in the fall of 2076 and that patches would be provided down the road when a final solution was attained.

That explains the Excalibur.

Thought the nanostorm did that one.

Nothing explains the Excalibur...

+1 internet, absolutely brilliant.

This is exactly what I want to set up rules for. I would also include noncombatants as say yellow. So you can designate innocent bystanders..

Bystanders only count as visual cover.

Which like the guns with various rings etc. to make it so only owners can use them will not sell. as failure to work in life or death situations tends to lead customers to not risk using them at all.

O_O;


Sorry, thought the humor was self-evident on that one.

As to the original topic...

A TacNet might be its own device. If a Commlink is like a smart phone, a Cyberdeck a tablet and a RCC a briefcase, then a TacNet should definitely be the size of a laptop. Moreover, to keep it within 5e retardedness, it functions as a hidden micro-host. It could have three matrix attributes (Data Processing, Sleaze and Firewall) fixed at its device rating and as a host everything "in" it is hidden by the TacNet's sleaze. The stock metaphor for a TacNet would be a Combat Information Center (CiC).

I do like the shared dice pool idea for its simplicity. Another option would allow the TacNet to assist/speed things up. For example:

Street Sam Joe is completely crouching behind cover, but looking in the direction of enemy fire, via his AR display he sees a transparent outline of the terrain in front of him, as well as two enemies completely hidden to his LOS behind a building. The TacNet calculates that if Joe were to move over 2 feet and raise himself up to a 3/4 crouch he would have a clear shot at the third enemy. As a free action Joe confirms the suggestion and paints his target. Looking up he sees a floating box in his AR display and a green dot ahead of him. Raising himself up to the "window", Joe puts his rifle through the window and quickly aligns the red dot of his smart link with the green dot of the TacNet target, pulls the trigger, and drops back down into cover. Joe has executed an extremely well aimed shot, very quickly and bypassed the entire aiming process.

Things a hacker might do to a TacNet:

* Create confusion effects by giving misleading advice such as showing good cover when the spot is actually lined up with an enemy shooter, changing target designations (squad members get painted red) causing friendly fire, causing a smartgun to give incorrect aiming indications, momentarily taking down the squads suppressors/dampeners right before a flash-bang goes off, etc.

* Concealing enemies by removing target designations, actively editing the video feed to a street sams cyber eyes so they do not see the dandelion eater sneaking up on them, cloud the enemy's TacNet with a barrage of AR spam.

* Disable communications

* Feed all of the enemy's TacNet info into your own

Ok but If you add a Tacnet you had to change the combat for Groups without Tacnet or Tacnet down:

-Players aren't allowed to communicate except by using a free action once during each action pass.
-Players cant communicate any information about their gear, state, position or everything else except by using this fre action.
-each player is only aware of what his character know and thus the GM should split the group and separate them physically to avoid inadvertandly provide infirmation.
-players cant target opponent nor designate opponent for their teammate to shoot except by using the speech free action. Any attempt to denominate a target by his physical location to a teammate not standing right by yourself required a Logic+Intuition test ("my left or your left ?")

You see, no need to add rules for a Tacnet, players are already been using a Tacnet around the table.

Indeed, which is a very relevant observation...

That requires those three things to be present - and I wouldn't expect to see them until about some PR5 teams, or possibly 4 in some exceptional cases. Meaning that those things are not general case examples. And really, until about that same point I find it unlikely that someone is running with wireless off.

All that said, we're kind of going in the wrong order here - before considering what a tacnet IS, we need to figure out what it's going to DO. Suggestions, anyone?

+1 to +4 dices and +0 to +2 on limits on attack/defense/infiltration/perception tests depending on how many different sensors are in the ntwork.
-1 to -4 and -0 to -2 on limits on attack/defense/infiltration/perception tests depending on how deep the enemy decker is in the network.

Ah, scrap that. That´s not for SR5. You have matrix bonuses for that.

SYL

You are correct, players can indeed do all of the things you just said, just like someone with access to google can indeed duplicate most, if not all of the functions of a military grade BFT, yet there is a significant difference between what one can cobble together and a system specifically designed for a TacNet function.

First off, all the information being passed by players as you described in transmitted in plain text. It wouldn't take a hacker with a couple hundred thousand nuyen worth of gear to "listen in," but any script kiddie with the equivalent of a police/cell phone scanner picked up at your local stuffer shack would work. Like the modern BFT, a TacNet by its very nature would be on an encrypted/hidden network. Is hackable/detectable? Yes, but that would take a hacker with a couple hundred thousand nuyen worth of gear.

Second, you could definitely use your image link to share what you are seeing with other squad members and in an AR window they could see exactly what you are seeing. Using a downloaded satellite image a group could put into a shared AR window, that shows the location of the entire group, and by putting pins on the map you could designate target locations... All of which is in plain text and requires the user to actively do all of those things.

A TacNet does all of that, in a seamless automatic fashion. By taking the sensor information from every sensor platform on the net, it could build a real-time 3d battlefield map. One that would contain information holes where no/little sensory information is being reported certainly. Using that info, the TacNet could automatically plot targeting/field of fire info. When your buddy is running short on ammo, he does not need to shout out to the net. The TacNet already has all of the squad's logistical information and sends advisory messages to the most tactically viable member who has spare ammo.

Sure, you could, and I am sure most green shadowrunners do, jimmy-rig up many of the functions of a TacNet. Professionals on the other hand will take all of that battlefield information and put it into a package that is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Trying to stay within SR5 as much as possible, I see a TacNet doing several things. First, it functions as a micro-host, hiding and protecting all it its members at its device rating while still providing slaved devices online matrix access.. Second it allows secure communications. Third, it could provide a shared initiative pool based upon its rating. Members of the net could draw from the pool to automatically aim for example. The TacNet could provide team limit and BD pools based upon its rating as well. As a complex action, the TacNet operator could make a leadership or some other test TBD to refresh the pool (it doesn't automatically refresh). These pools, could be attacked and depleted (2 marks) or stolen (3 marks) by opposing hackers. Also, a compromised TacNet would give an opposing hacker complete access to the squad's logistics and allow him to directly attack/manipulate slaved devices.

Finally, a TacNet would require a minimum number of inputs per device rating to operate (additional inputs would exceed the TacNet's ability to adequately process, thus providing no additional bonus. A TacNet who's inputs begin to drop off degrade to the next lower rating that it has the necessary inputs to function at.

I realize this needs some fleshing out, but I think it could be a good starting framework.

Why would you say that? It is common sense, and basic security, that you run with Wireless off. See, you cannot be detected that way if you do. Seems like that will be the rule, rather than the exception, unless you are running something like a Tacnet or Communications (which is obvious, of course, but which do not need to be activated until actually needed). Any Shadowrunner running active is just asking to be shot, found, bricked, etc. Seems pretty counterproductive to me.