And where in the rules does it say that? There's one reference to something like that outside of rules text, and that's a very foolish fluff addition that's pretty much entirely divorced from the rules - either you ignore it, or you houserule something in, and I'd seriously suggest the former - I don't know what the hell the writer on that line was thinking.



No, and frankly I resent the implication of the question - and it doesn't exactly do your argument any favours as it suggests that you're completely unable to answer what should be a fairly simple question.

At the end of the day, the problem with the existing bonus/gear hacking rules is as follows (go ahead and stop me if you take issue with any of the following):

- The fluff suggests something that is not at all supported in the rules, and this suggestion has caused people to take these rules to mean something they don't.
- The choice was made to make the bonuses restore old functionality; this was a poor decision that REALLY should have been caught on review of the chapter. Either those changes should be made or they shouldn't; once a decision is made you can't go trying to tread both paths.
- Many bonuses aren't as attractive as, perhaps, they should be.
- There's no clear means for a hacker to make a piece of technology do something other than it was intended to; the options are limited to what a legit user would do or damaging the equipment solely for the sake of damaging the equipment.
- Little to no effort is made to explain how or why the bonuses work in-setting, leading people to be confused by or frustrated with rules that as written do not work in a fashion consistent with their understanding of the game-world.
- They completely ignore the complexities of the various ways you can connect devices together (a simple "if your devices are directly connected, one of them is considered the master while the others are considered slaved, conferring all the benefits and disadvantages thereof; a slaved device is visible as being connected to the master device in the Matrix (if the master device is online) and as such can still be subject to any Matrix action targeting a device" would have done wonders on that end)

On the flipside, there are a number of advantages that I see as a very important step in the right direction:

- They provide a general case option for the hacker in combat
- They make having wireless on or off an actual decision, rather than the "set hacking to OFF" of SR4
- They help (or at least could help) establish a setting point that the Matrix is orders of magnitude more powerful than the modern Internet, and that as such things that are largely theoretical, completely hypothetical, or completely unheard of today can be accomplished or even commonplace in 2075.
- They help make all three spheres of the game relevant to everyone, and make it easier to make effective and impactful use of the serious Matrix threats (see: dissonant technomancers, entropic sprites, malicious AI's, and whatever the hell the deal is with Sybil)
- They help integrate the Matrix specialist in with the team and establish or make reciprocal various dependencies within the team, fostering a more cooperative game overall.

RHat, please take a look at my posts on this thread. I would like to see the development of a viable TacNet and have posted almost exclusively towards that end. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that some folks are intentionally steering the thread back into a swirling blackhole. It is a circular argument where both sides say the same thing over and over, talking past one another without end. Moreover, it seems like some people who are towing the company line, would rather mire things down in endless circular fighting than let any workable changes be developed as they might be construed as undermining the RAW.



I agree with you. I think there were some "rule of cool" ideas that just fell flat on their face in the implementation phase. I 1000% agree with your assessment "There's no clear means for a hacker to make a piece of technology do something other than it was intended to; the options are limited to what a legit user would do or damaging the equipment solely for the sake of damaging the equipment." The whole point of being a hacker is to make technology do things the manufacturer did not intend. My perception after reading the matrix rules, was the devs did their hacker research by talking to someone who had jailbroke their iPhone. Sticking with the cellphone metaphor, a hacker is not going to be content with merely adding some 3rd party apps and a little customization. A hacker will take an android phone, load a custom rom (or even a full version of linux to run aircrack-ng), put a full firewall in place, direct access the radio, and a myriad of other things the manufacturer never thought of and your carrier would like to charge you for.



I will grant you your basic premise, however technology is not magic and one can only stretch suspension of disbelief so far. Had the dev's bothered to go down to even their local technical college and talked to their InfoSec guys and then gone and talked to a physical security contractor they would have found an amazing level of overlapping ideas. Why? On the InfoSec side, we didn't make this shit up as we went along, the basics of security principles were established 1000's of years ago and are rather platform neutral.

If I am a security professional of any stripe, legal or illegal, why would I broadcast to the world what devices I have? If I am a network operator, why wouldn't I conceal the entire contents of my network behind the biggest, baddest NAT/Firewall/Proxy/IDS I could get my hands on?

to be fully on topic: Most of what I'd like to see from Tacnets has already been mentioned. I am not so sure about a group pool, to me that seems like, someone could abuse it, or make it seem pointless, perhaps a system that categorizes certain aspects of the tacnet in a team method.

Scout +2 to perception DP's
Leader +2 to Social DP's
Tank +2 to Soak DP's
Decker +2 to software DP's

then add a +2 DP for other specific activities, ontop of the basics such as comms & whatnot.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intentions - I think, though, you can understand the inference I was left to draw, yes? Though, of course, I'm now curious as to the actual intent of the question...

And the basic problem here is that to have a productive discussion regarding possible TacNet mechanics, we need a basic agreement on what its purpose in the game even is. If there's no agreement on the fundamental principles driving the design... Well, there's a reason design by committee gets derided in the software world. On question that requires an answer, for example, is whether the tacnet is supposed to be something for the decker to do, or just something that's there that he worries about securing same as everything else the team runs, or in fact something that helps him with that job in addition to all that?



To be fair, keep in mind that the guiding principle of the core Matrix for SR5 is simplicity in regards to learning it, running it, and keeping it alongside the main game. It is fair to suggest that most of the options best served by finer detail might have been slated for Data Trails the instant that focus was decided upon.



I think, perhaps, that demiGOD's are the network operator's you're thinking, and they've got hosts to work with - and given the Overwatch Score and Convergence rules, I think we can say that their security measures are extremely effective. And you'll note that one of my issues is the lack of explanation. That said, for reasons why you wouldn't, it's simple: Your usability requirements may trump your security requirements. Security and usability of a system are, roughly, inversely correlated - choices have to be made between one or the other.

Well, we do also need to keep in mind the fundamental aspect the devs are working with. Everything has a Price. This is the core principle under which all new content will be built, so it would be safe to surmise that there will no longer be the obvious choices for everything, because now, all the good things we used to enjoy will now have some sort of "fatal flaw" (mind I do not mean literally fatal, but they will now have some higher consequence). So for those of us wishing to continue looking into 5th Ed, we have to keep this core concept in mind as we look at the new material.

Really? When I was reading the bricking rules said something of being set on fire, sparkling etc. I assume that a sparkling cybereye (in your brain) or a burning reaction enhancer (in your spine) are pretty much ... damaging. What do you think?



Imagine for a second that this is your math SPU, in your brain ...



That´s wonderful and it has nothing to do with being able to fight enemies with their primary skill called sneaking.



Please list only all options where an infiltrator can kill or damage enemies with sneaking. And please only the situations, where he can do that constantly.



A tech guy? Well, you see, there is this old electronic hardware lock/security system. You know before the time of 2070 (in the 50s and 60s they used wired things) and even if the corps would love it, not every system was replaced in these 5 years.

####################################

Regarding the TacNet
1) master/slave
2) increases limit +1 to +2 and +1 to +4 bonus dices (as in SR4) for every two sensor channels to combat related roles. Most professional TacNets for soldiers, runners, cops etc are +1 limit and +2 dices.
3) Can be hacked and the enemy decker can manipulate the data feed to negate the bonuses and turn them into negative rolls and reduced limit due to spam, wrong info, manipulated firing solutions etc.
4) with 3 or 4 marks (or admin access in SR4) the enemy decker can even command the enemy team with the GMs permission according to situation (changing direction, shooting each other, giving his own team additional bonuses) etc).

SYL

Wait, I get a burning sensation in my head right behind the eyes whenever I try to do any math, but I don't have any cyberware up there. Is that bad?

Whether or not you handwave the fluff from the mechanical aspect of bricking, please explain how an extended hardware test can fix bricked implanted cyberware. If you say 'It just happens', I'm calling bullshit. Even if your spine isn't physically set on fire, the /only/ way to fix bricked cyberware is by visiting a goddamn street doc to cut you open.

That is a good question. I would say there has to be some kind of hookup capability as your street doc when he does your checkups must be able to look at it.

But nowadays it is probably all done wirelessly.

So if an internal system is knocked offline, where is the reset button since it's a good bet if its bricked it's not taking external signals now so remote commands are out.

You want me to insert the reset key where?!?

Except that the "Price" I am giving up is ludicrous in comparison to the perfect invincibility of going completely Dark. The Wireless bonuses are so stupid as to be laughable in copmparison to not broadcasting at all. I give up NOTHING to go Dark (Especially since my DP's never really took a hit to start with). So... Great Job Catalyst. *shrug*

I do find it odd that now the only way a smartgun offers free action eject/mode change is if its wireless. Or is that a misprint?

no its a wireless function of all weapons now, not just those smartlinked

What I mean is its specifically listed as a feature (smartlink heading) if wireless. Though the old, non-wireless smartgun did the same thing, without yknow...wireless.

Yep... It is part of the Wireless lunacy. *shrug*

It's annoying, but you have to forget what the old versions did or did not do.

*jazz hands* boogity boogity *jazz hands*


Now you need that wireless connection to eject the clip as a free action.

And if you think 'well I will just go find a throwback model or something from back then' well..... it won't do it anymore.

I cannot remember the last time I actually changed a clip in combat, so it is really pretty irrelevant, in my opinion.

EDIT: Okay, I remember ONE time I had to reload a weapon in Combat.

Either this qualifies for TJ Fallacy (because you never need to shoot that much per fight and thus avoid the problem)or your using that 600 round clip again.

My HACKER used a Hammerli 620s. He only used his gun when he needed to, as he was TOO BUSY HACKING/Coordinating stuff in combat. 350 Karma
My Mage uses an Assault Rifle for his direct fire needs (no real combat spells to speak of), and He has yet to actually expend more than about 40 rounds in a fight. 315 Karma
My Adept Throwing Ninja does not use a Gun (Why should he, his Shuriken are far more effective, with often greater range). 250+ Karma
My Russian Mercenary has had to change Magazines maybe once, I think, in a single fight (AK-147 SMG - 1 Clip +3 Rounds IIRC, and I did not use a Free Action to do so, as he is unaugmented). 20 Karma

That is about it.

Love me that 600 Round Magazine, though.

Go ahead and find for me where that is actually given any rules significance - it isn't. Are you suggesting that if that sentence didn't exist, you wouldn't have an issue?

Frankly, bringing this up when I have recently commented directly on its irrelevancy (it is fluff disconnected from the rules, it is not a rule; so far as my argument is concerned no damage is dealt to the user when gear is bricked aside, possible, from dumpshock) seems like you're trying to put words in my mouth. You're free to houserule that it deals damage based on that bit of fluff, but I don't see why you would - and clearly you don't either.



You're completely, and perhaps intentionally, missing the point. See above.



Not "a tech guy", a guy whose only skills are Hardware and the Engineering group - hell, such a character isn't possible in SR5, so I'm having a hard time seeing the relevancy.



If one of the design goals is to give the hacker something to do in general combat, something that only requires the hacker to act when there is an opposed hacker wouldn't seem to meet that goal, wouldn't you say? Or are you not considering that a design goal here?

heh yeah, my preference in previous editions (and this one) was to have a rifle sorta like how they've got the EBR. A hefty SA rifle (burst+ now) that was used as like a designated marksman rifle. I tended to go for maaaaybe 2 bullets at most per IP which naturally had massive dice pools and could annihilate ...I dunno...entire walls and stuff, with the usual number of successes that popped up.

Wait a second... are you saying that ONLY the face can use Leadership?!? Please tell me that you REALLY don't think that?

Indeed... My HACKER would be using the hell out of those rules. Which I find ironic, since he was the Leadership guy in SR4A, too.

Yeah I'd prefer the leadership guy to either be 'the guy in front directing the flow' or the 'guy doing overwatch'. Sure technically the face is good for a rah-rah-rah, but I'd rather has US Ranger GloomyGuts calling shots in a tactical situation than the fucking lawyer.

... Obviously not, but any character who can make effective use of it is at worst a few skill ranks away from making a decent secondary face. I would appreciate it, however, if you would stop going so far out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying.

I still don't buy the premise that combat is some special snowflake part of the game that everyone has to have special snowflake "class-protected" abilities to participate in. This isn't a class-based game. I'd quote you Rhat but I'm lazy right now, please don't call me out and make me work for this

I think that's what D&D4 was supposed to do.

I'm quite happy to explain the reasoning. Simply put, other then things that your archetype pulls you into (typically variants upon combat), combat is the one thing that's gonna kill you. Relying fully on the Face to handle negotiations is fine, because at worst it's going to start a fight. Relying on the hacker to roll a data search is fine because him botching it is at worst going to make things harder later. Basically, in everything but combat, should the specialist screw things up the consequences might be bad, but they're not going to directly kill you. Combat is a different animal from everything else in the system.

I see your reasoning and why you view combat this way. But I don't agree with this line of reasoning (and I don't think I'm alone (c'mon TJ!)), as it seems to include the unspoken premises that combat is the most important subsystem for every gaming group and that every "class" must have some special ability they can contribute to combat. And I don't think you can put your opinion forward as THE test that must be passed to discuss character relevance.

You still haven't answered why the "Hacker" needs special snowflake "hacker" abilities shat into the rulesystem for combat, when there are plenty of other ways the hacker can already be effective at combat. Not even talking about situational stuff, which is fun, but for instance the simple act of picking up a gun (just like every other PC).

why can't you let the Sam's be the special snowflake for combat and let the Decker be the special snowflake foe hacking and the face be it for social? why do you insist on the Decker stealing the Sam's one place where they shine?

Feels a bit like this edition nerfed everyone but the hacker, where the hacker pretty much is still doing the same stuff as before when it comes to clobbering time.

And as phlapjack77 said, what's wrong with just geeking the opposition? I've seen and heard of plenty of non-combat styled characters still kicking ass despite the fact that their specialty lied elsewhere.

Right. And I'm not against adding some cool "matrix abilities" (note: not "Hacker" specific) that can be used in combat. They just need to make sense and not feel tacked on or forced down the players' throat. Basically, what this thread is supposed to be discussing and I'm totally not

I wish they had added these matrix (tacnet+) abilities, and then also expanded what a non-specialized PC could do in the matrix. Make it so the street sam can also be the guy hacking the doors open(Hudson!)*. Make it so the face or infiltrator can be hacking camera feeds.

*don't start yelling at me again ShadowDragon

It's not stealing the spotlight. It's augmenting a group's combat effectiveness. The samurai is far and away the most rapid and effective kill-the-enemy character -- even more so in this edition since magic isn't quite the combat powerhouse it used to be, and guns are more effective. The hacker can damage the enemy's combat effectiveness and make them easier to kill or less deadly, but the samurai is still top dog for putting them down.

By your above logic, magicians shouldn't be able to use stealth type illusions to help the group infiltrate, or manipulation spells to help the group influence people, because those are the realm of the group's Infiltrator and Face respectively. Hell, the mage can just about replicate anyone's specialty through spells, and that's apparently not a major concern.

I don't think those premises are fundamental to the case - frequency and importance of combat are not relevant to the reasoning at hand; consequence and combat's exceptional status in that matter are what's involved in the reasoning. And I am making every effort I can to be objective. As to the test I'm applying, it's a particular set of conditions, not simply a matter of opinion - I make every effort I can to be objective about these things, as approaching design problems on the basis of personal tastes is an especially terrible habit to get into.



Every non-combat specialty has in-specialty combat options of varying effectiveness. The mage can cast, the rigger can rig, the Face gets Leadership, the infiltrator can make use of his stealth, and so on. To repeat what I've asked on many occasions to get only silence in response, for what design reason do you think the hacker should be an exception from this?



I never suggested that he should be stealing the Sam's place - and you have absolutely no cause for thinking that's what I've been arguing.



Yeah, that would be good - I would prefer a system where a cyberdeck helped you hack better, rather than being absolutely required to get in on the action at all (though, technically, it's apparently legit to use Edge to push the limit in order to hack with a 'link). Plus, actions using Computer or Hardware to be able to do things with your equipment that you normally shouldn't be able to would be kind of awesome.

Don't be misleading - it is a major concern for many how effective magic is. It's just not the topic at hand.

BUT I do agree with your points. I think most of the problems people have are with HOW these extra combat-augmenting abilities were implemented in the rules, which this thread is trying to address. Also, for my own part, I don't like how these new abilities are "hacker-only".

I think you're still focused on "class-specific" abilities, something that shouldn't be considered in class-less SR. Ok, ok, there's the magic/mundane divide, but barring that, every ability you listed is available to every character. Leadership* isn't "Face-only". Rigging isn't "Rigger-only". Face/Rigger/Hacker are just shorthand to help easily describe a character's abilities, they're not rigid structures that wholly define a character and what that character is capable of. Sure, there are characters that might specialize, but that's different than noone being able to use these abilities in the first place.

* I won't mention how I think the Leadership rules are also dumb...dang, I just did

No reason. Just that it's silly to think that hackers only sat with their thumbs up their hoops when it came time to fight. And previously, if the opposition was foolish enough to have anything wirelessly active the hacker could still hack.

Unencrypted tac-net? Sniffer to listen in and give your teammates advice on what or what not to do. Encrypted? Okay, a speed bump to do the same.

Opposition has smartguns? Spoof orders to make them eject their magazines. They can reload quickly only as long as they have spares, and how many are they going to be carrying?

Other side's hacker's main commlink is identifiable? Crash it with various options, or nuke it to degrade its performance.

Oh, wait, most of these still apply, provided the opposition is foolish enough to have wirelessly active gear. The rest of the party should not suffer due to the unimaginative hackers of old.

And the point of wireless bonuses is in no small part to diminish that "if", so that having wireless on isn't strictly foolish. The implementation causes a bit of an issue for that, though.

Even the cheapest deck is pretty effective, so you can get into the hacking game for the occasional door lock or camera if you've got a halfway decent Logic and are willing to spend about 10 skill points on it.

For about 50,000 nuyen you can put together a deck running Virtual Machine (Stealth and Toolbox) and have 5 Sleaze, 4 Data Processing, 2 Firewall, and 1 Attack. Limit yourself to Hacking and Computer, and you're perfectly capable of the following Matrix actions:

Edit File, Format Device, Hack on the Fly, Matrix Perception, Matrix Search, Reboot Device, Spoof Command, Trace Icon

You'll get trashed if you try to jump into hosts and tweak off enemy deckers or IC, but that's the price of not actually specializing in the field.

EDIT: This is actually a comparable price for branching from one specialty into the base level of any other. Wired Reflexes set you back about 40k, and is pretty much the absolute bare minimum necessary to consider an otherwise mundane character combat-effective.

Still a pretty big "IF" to me. The few characters I've made in no way rely on the wireless bonuses for gear (they have none), including the deckers save their cyberdeck and programs. And one gaming group I know of (same one where the decker has done more combat actions with a shotgun than his cyberdeck) is doing the same with their wireless: Keeping it all turned off as much as possible.

Bad implementation, bad enticement, same results as before.

Would you say, then, that if they were better implemented with stronger bonuses, it would be a better system? Perhaps with more specific consequences (such as a "bricked" line in gear description) would help, too.

What do you do when your opposition doesn't have the same bad feelings about running their gear hot, and outclass you by a few dice in attack and defense? Do you just say "aw shucks, I can't hit that guy who will soon murder me, but at least by my standing on principle no one can hack my eyes?"

Honestly I think it was fine the way it was.

Can you provide a reason why? What sort of general case actions did the hacker have? Do you really think it was a good system where rather than having a real choice, the system was "Are you an idiot? Y/N"?

My take is that 'the way it was' is the way it never should have been. For you guys, it seems that the shift from SR4 style wireless to SR5 style wireless is causing the problem as it's a regression of the technology, while I see SR5 style as the way it should've been done in the first place and it's pulling the game back from a bad road.

Maybe this thread needs to be broken into two separate threads. One for the endless, swirling argument of "5e sux, your stupid" vs. "Na'ah, your stupider" and a second thread for the development of a TacNet system that is uniquely 5e.

To be fair, the thread topic doesn't make any sense for its purported intent, because it's not "TacNet Rules Don't Exist Yet So Let's Make Some To Use Until That Book Drops." It's rather biased toward discussing the wireless bonus rules, what with being named "Wireless bonus rules suck" and all.

When I rebuilt my primary Runner in 5th Edition, if I eliminate the Smartgun wireless (cuz you still get the accuracy regardless) I'm still running a 13P -4AP 9ACC gun with 17 dice to use it. assuming I get maybe 5 hits, thats still about 17p they have to defend against with at least -4ap (those stats are without something like APDS ammo or something. Really, the 1 die I get from the wireless won't hurt me, it would be me up to 18 dice but really, thats not overly needed. (mind you thats at character creation)

Can't do the second without first getting it out, what it should do in the first place.

The reason this thread CAN'T be successful is, that for (I would guess) 80% of the "anti-wireless-boni-crowed" it is about "cyberware is too weak".
But thats a different kind of discussion.
How to see on which side of the 80% you stand?
Imagine there would be no wireless boni (the rules would have never been implemented). Cyberware just gets the Boni which are listed in the books.
Would you be OK with that?

If your awnser to this question is: NO. You should open a thread about "Cyberware is too weak, lets fix it".

RHat gave a lot of good points where to start from but most of them were just ignored, well because like I said for 80% it is NOT about the rule mechanic it is about balance.
And thats the lame foot of most of the arguments brought forward agaisnt the wireless boni. (There are some valid points against specific boni, I get that)

The whole thing is in a specific way silly to an extream, because it assumes you need to have a higher dice pools in every freaking edition. (I do not get my bonus-die buhuhu.)

Irion, that is part of the reason that the TacNet has not come to fruition, many people agree that adding an endless DP bonus just creates the engrossed DP's people saw in 4a. However, there has yet to be anything mentioned that didn;t in some way enlarge Dice Pools, even the Group Pool mentioned essentially still raises the DP's. However, without raising the DP or increasing the Limits or something along these lines, it essentially comes down to pure Fluff. If it comes down to Pure Fluff benefits, then there is little to no need for rules for it, or you have the issues such as the Exploding Cyber Eyes that do no damage.

Oh Spirits, that reminds me of the 'I Spy With My Exploding Eye' Fiasco of '59.

A couple of jokers at UO tweaked a bunch of their new alphaware 'OmniEye' line of cybereyes with a few hidden extras, so that at precisely midnight on New Years's Eve the cybereyes started flashing red from an internal LED strobe and the message 'Y60 Bug Detected-- Self Destruct Initaited- Courtesy of the One Eyed Bandit' scrolling repeatedly across their inner vision along with a timer in the corner of their vision counting down from 60 seconds. Normal shutdown/reboot was disabled so one couldn't just turn them off.

There was no actual explosives inside, at the end of the timer the eyes sparked a bit and just shut down and could be rebooted by any street doc/cybertechie, but the chaos it caused was a sight to see (no pun intended).

People trying to rip their cybereyes out, running around screaming for help, other people thinking they were either crazy or staying back in case they did explode...

Yeah, there was more than a few sacking at UO that spring.