If you are a decker, you really want to be able to use your deck, and have it as the master of your PAN. If you also want the non jumped in uses of a Rigger Command Console (RCC), such as sharing autosofts, is this possible. Can you slave your RCC to your Deck?

I would suppose so. If a Rigger wanted the protection and attributes of a deck, she could also use the deck to generate her persona and then operate the rigger console slaved to the deck.

Unfortunatly, while introducing not-quite-resonance-realms for deckers and other new stuff, Data Trails totally missed to clarify questions such as this, and daisy chaining in general.

That was another question, could your drones be slaved to your RCC and your RCC then be slaved to your deck. How big a chain could you have doing this etc.

Yes, there are indeed questions left unanswered

I can't recall for sure what thread it was in but over on the official forum I think it was established that a slaved device can not have anything slaved to it.

Ok, so only one master device in a PAN.

Being a rigger, I'd want my drones slaved to my RCC somthry can get the advantage of sharing autosofts and the like.

So can I also slave other devices to my RCC, such as a smart-gun and a deck?

If that was the case, I'd be using the firewall of the deck or RCC to defend the deck, and some RCC's have a pretty good firewall for a reasonable price.

It would mean that if somebody attacked any device in my PAN, they would get a mark against that and my RCC, rather than my deck.

That would mean when assigning attributes for the deck, you could give it a low firewall, as the RCC's firewall attribute would protect it.

I wish the books went into more details on this, as how often is the groups rigger considered the tech guy and therefore gets laboured with the decking/hacking role as well.

It probably doesn't get brought up much given how afraid people are of matrix hacking (understandably so)

The understandable reason why you can't slave to a slave is because it would be redirected to the master device anyways - the drone isn't any safer slaved to the RCC than the deck if the hacker has access to the RCC from the deck anyways,. You sacrifice redundancy for convenience and security.

as far as sharing autosofts go, your core problem there is if the drone is 'syncing' the program from another device, the moment the signal dies, it no longer has the software, leaving it extra vulnerable. I'm not quite sure how legal this move is, given I know a persona can use software on another node if they're subscribed to it technically, but devices don't strictly do that (on the other hand, if you can move an access log to another node, it stands to reason you can make a drone dependent on it's connection, so if someone steals it, they have to get fresh software).

Honestly, I'd recommend using a Cyberdeck over a RCC just for its Sleaze attribute. The value of your drones being harder to detect outweighs autosoft usage (which isn't really useful unless you have a lot of the same drone) and noise reduction (unless your GM is REALLY piling on the anti-wireless wallpaper). Not to mention you can also hack with the damn thing.

I'm the surviance guy, so I have lots of drones all over the place keeping me aware of everything that is happening, and yes, I try to duplicate the models as much as possible.

If a hacker ISN'T cracking the copy protection on his auto-softs and just doing the copy/paste to every drone that he can put that 'soft on, then I don't think he's doing it right.

Can you point to the rules in 5th ed for doing so please.

Also a RCC lets you run more than the drone normally could handle.