[Agonar]

Which comes back to the point I originally stated. For the world to work like this, guns would have to be designed specifically to be brickable. Again, I stated it may make sense for civilian models (safer and they'll probably buy another one). It doesn't make sense for security and military models (they wouldn't take the risk).

For those that don't want to take the risk (Professionals, experts, military.. anyone that wants their stuff to work when they need it) there's throwbacks.  I would imagine that your military squads have enough training that they don't have to rely on the smartgun systems, and integral laser sights.  And if they do, then they are probably experienced enough to run silent as much as possible so that their icons aren't seen in cursory matrix examinations.  By the experience, they reduce the chances of being bricked down to a minimum, if any. 

Whereas your civilians, your amateurs, would probably always go for wireless weapons for the added assistance they get with the weapon.  Yes, They probably would buy the wireless weapons, those designed to malfunction and generate repeat customers.

But I digress...  In a game, there comes a point where game mechanics, specially balance mechanics, trump the Real World.  I have players that think the brickability of a firearm is stupid too.  For them, I point to throwbacks.  If you want all the nifty added gadgets that are available in the sixth world, then you pay the price.  Everything has a price, it's the Shadowrun Mantra. 

[WellsIDidIt]

 

In a game, there comes a point where game mechanics, specially balance mechanics, trump the Real World.

Mechanics should never trump common logic. Especially balance mechanics. You design them around logic. Sure, everything has a price, but the price and benefit both need to make sense.

Let's look at the laser sight.
It puts a dot on the target. Somehow, this doesn't help you hit the target. It just makes it so that you can hit the target better if you were hitting already. However, if it wirelessly connects to the matrix, it somehow puts this dot on the target in a way that helps you shoot as well.

Ok, so the price is wireless on/matrix. The reward is a bonus die to hit. However, where is the logic behind it? That is why it fails, there is no rhyme or reason other than balance, which is poor design.

[Michael Chandra]

We have weapons now where the trigger does not activate a hammer, that then swings forward and strikes the ignition plate on a cartridge of ammunition.  Instead, the trigger sends an electrical signal which travels and ignites a block of ignition material which then propels the bullet away from the caseless ammunition propellant.  So, a Hacker sending signals to fry the innards of those weapons can totally keep the weapon from working.

Yes, but those are weapons with Electronic Firing. That's far different from a gun which solely has an external smartgun.

[WellsIDidIt]

Even so, the innards most likely wouldn't be wireless. They would likely connect to externals that are wireless and receive very limited information from them. In most cases they would probably be read only, and have a hardwired delay between accepting commands.

[Namikaze]

I think this conversation has steered in a different direction, again.  External smartguns aren't integrated, so disabling the external smartgun wouldn't brick the weapon itself.  The weapon itself can be attacked via matrix combat though, allowing the attacker to brick the mechanics of the gun via the electronics of the gun.  When did someone mention that bricking the external smartgun would brick the whole weapon?

[RHat]

You make sure that the electronics can not in any possible way damage the slide of the gun.

Which, frankly, isn't possible.  Completely non-reasonable places like inside the chamber aside, here do you put (say) a battery that, when faulted in the right way, can detonate so that it cannot possibly damage the gun?  There is no such place.

And seriously, I could do without the condescension - I may not be a firearms expert, but you need to get past the ludicrous presumption that anyone who disagrees with you cannot understand the principles of design.

[WellsIDidIt]

Which, frankly, isn't possible.  Completely non-reasonable places like inside the chamber aside, here do you put (say) a battery that, when faulted in the right way, can detonate so that it cannot possibly damage the gun?  There is no such place.

So you use a battery that doesn't detonate when faulted, or, you design the battery's housing so that the blast follows the path of least resistance away from the gun's mechanics (similar to the concept of a grenade sump if that helps).

Neither of those are new or futuristic concepts. They are both fairly fundamental in basic design.

[RHat]

Which, frankly, isn't possible.  Completely non-reasonable places like inside the chamber aside, here do you put (say) a battery that, when faulted in the right way, can detonate so that it cannot possibly damage the gun?  There is no such place.

So you use a battery that doesn't detonate when faulted, or, you design the battery's housing so that the blast follows the path of least resistance away from the gun's mechanics (similar to the concept of a grenade sump if that helps).

Neither of those are new or futuristic concepts. They are both fairly fundamental in basic design.

Presume for a second that due to certain design considerations, an alternative battery isn't a viable option - you could use one, but the tradeoffs simply are not worth it.  And as for the whole path of least resistance concept there, I have to assume that would create notable additions to bulk which would be quite the opposite of one of the design goals here; you don't want to effect the ergonomics of the weapon.

[WellsIDidIt]

Seeing as how batteries can fit in, and run visual data on, contacts in SR I don't think those are viable concerns. The batteries would be tiny, and housing, given the high strength of materials in SR shouldn't have to be very thick to shield the gun from the effects, if it's needed at all.

As for tradeoffs, if it keeps the gun from being a useless slag of metal, obviously the tradeoff is worth it.

[RHat]

Actually the contacts probably use the bioelectric field, as some other things are known to in SR.

And I'm sorry, but are you really gonna pretend that preventing something that's already supposed to be impossible is worth making the weapon more or less useless for other reasons?  Part of the tradeoff is about probability, and the things you do when bricking a weapon would generally be considered so improbable that they wouldn't matter.

[WellsIDidIt]

Yeah, no. Anyone that works with electronics and software knows that "impossible" has no room in that field. Nothing is supposed to be impossible in programming. If you can think of it happening, it will happen eventually. You see, when going through R&D they would have a decker attacking the weapon to see what that decker can do. Unless that decker is a complete imbecile, he's going to eventually brick the electronics, and they would see the effects. They fix the issue and go again. If the effects of the electronics bricking is affecting the mechanical nature, it would be easy to see the issue and fix it. Yes, this is how it works in real life, things are made less useful and effective to be safer and more secure.

[RHat]

Yeah, no. Anyone that works with electronics and software knows that "impossible" has no room in that field. Nothing is supposed to be impossible in programming. If you can think of it happening, it will happen eventually. You see, when going through R&D they would have a decker attacking the weapon to see what that decker can do. Unless that decker is a complete imbecile, he's going to eventually brick the electronics, and they would see the effects. They fix the issue and go again. If the effects of the electronics bricking is affecting the mechanical nature, it would be easy to see the issue and fix it. Yes, this is how it works in real life, things are made less useful and effective to be safer and more secure.

Now by that logic there'd never be a hack of anything ever.  Whenever someone finds a hole in some piece of security, other informed people didn't think the thing they did was possible.

Just because they have a decker playing white hat doesn't mean they find every possibility; the black hats down the line and other white hats will find others.

And, in point of order, you seem to be assuming that there's one and only one sequence of things done to a device to brick it - I find this assumption ridiculous.  It seems to me there would be uncountably many ways to brick a single device.

[WellsIDidIt]

Now by that logic there'd never be a hack of anything ever.  Whenever someone finds a hole in some piece of security, other informed people didn't think the thing they did was possible.

Just because they have a decker playing white hat doesn't mean they find every possibility; the black hats down the line and other white hats will find others.

And, in point of order, you seem to be assuming that there's one and only one sequence of things done to a device to brick it - I find this assumption ridiculous.  It seems to me there would be uncountably many ways to brick a single device.

Hack, sure, software changes constantly after things leave the factory.

Break the mechanics? No. If you've tested every electronic part by frying, melting, exploding it and fixed the issue, then the mechanical structure should be fine.

I am not assuming there is one sequence of events. I'm assuming that bricking can target any and every electronics system on the device. The key to securing the device is making each and every one of those unable to kill the mechanical guts.

[RHat]

Now by that logic there'd never be a hack of anything ever.  Whenever someone finds a hole in some piece of security, other informed people didn't think the thing they did was possible.

Just because they have a decker playing white hat doesn't mean they find every possibility; the black hats down the line and other white hats will find others.

And, in point of order, you seem to be assuming that there's one and only one sequence of things done to a device to brick it - I find this assumption ridiculous.  It seems to me there would be uncountably many ways to brick a single device.

Hack, sure, software changes constantly after things leave the factory.

Break the mechanics? No. If you've tested every electronic part by frying, melting, exploding it and fixed the issue, then the mechanical structure should be fine.

I am not assuming there is one sequence of events. I'm assuming that bricking can target any and every electronics system on the device. The key to securing the device is making each and every one of those unable to kill the mechanical guts.

Which requires you to be aware of each and every one of them, and each and every consequence of your changes, and on, and on.  It's not unlike the principle of bugs in non-trivial software, really:  Any non-trivial piece of technology will be breakable forever.

[ZeConster]

Remember, "not all devices are completely useless when bricked," "The firing pin on an assault rifle might not work."

The rules in this section contradict each other quite significantly. I mean at one point we have, "A bricked device is damaged and useless until it is repaired," and then not even a whole paragraph later we have the quote above that says not all device are completely useless.

What? No. That's not "might" as in "it might not work, it might still work" - the "might" is setting a condition for the second half of the sentence. It's explaining how a device being bricked isn't exactly the end of the world, with the following examples:

• A bricked vibro-sword is still a sharp sword.
• A bricked roto-drone will glide to the ground on auto-gyro - it won't crash to the ground and turn into a fireball.
• A bricked lock stays locked - it won't open.
• A bayonet on a bricked firearm still functions.
• Katanas, being non-electronic, can't be bricked.