[Namikaze]

The way I've interpreted Suppression works like this.  Let's assume a level 6 Sprite with 2 services remaining.

Turn 1:
Sprite activates Suppression
Host attempts to launch IC1.  Cue sad trombone.

Turn 2:
Sprites activates Suppression
Host attempts to launch IC2.  Cue sad trombone.

Turn 3:
Host launches IC3.

Turn 4:
Host launches IC1.
Host launches IC4.

Turn 5:
Host launches IC2.
Host launches IC5.

[Zweiblumen]

Threading is a complex action, but you can still have a sustained thread.  It just doesn't say either way.  The whole Sprite Powers section is horribly written   If it's *not* a sustained power, then if the Host acts before the sprite, the power will never work.

Turn 1:
Host launches IC1
Sprit activates Suppression. Cue sad trombone.

Turn 2:
Host launches IC2
Sprite activates Suppression. Cue sad trombone.

Turn 3:
Host launches IC3
Sprite returns to Resonance

Turn 4:
Host launches IC4

Turn 5:
Host launches IC5

[Darzil]

If I was writing it I'd have it affect the next IC to be launched in this or the next combat turn. Delaying an IC buying the technomancer 2-3 actions without further interference is a pretty good result. Buying them 6-9 actions would be very good.

[Adder]

The way I've interpreted Suppression works like this.  Let's assume a level 6 Sprite with 2 services remaining.

Turn 1:
Sprite activates Suppression
Host attempts to launch IC1.  Cue sad trombone.

Turn 2:
Sprites activates Suppression
Host attempts to launch IC2.  Cue sad trombone.

Turn 3:
Host launches IC3.

Turn 4:
Host launches IC1.
Host launches IC4.

Turn 5:
Host launches IC2.
Host launches IC5.

To be clear, you consider this an exception to the "host can only launch one IC/turn" rule, correct?

So I guess we now have three competing options:

A:
T1 suppression used (once)
T2
T3
T4 IC1
T5 IC2

B:
T1 suppression used (once)
T2
T3
T4 IC1 IC2 IC3 IC4
T5 IC5

C:
T1 suppression used
T2 suppression used
T3 IC3
T4 IC1 IC4
T5 IC2 IC5

Since the rules are unclear, I would say it now comes down to balance/gameplay considerations instead of rule interpretations. Options A & B allow three "safe" turns in exchange for one sprite power. Option C forces you to spend one sprite power per turn of safety. Additionally, you are incentivized to keep using the power to prevent a double launch (as long as suppression is constantly used you will never get two IC on the same turn).

I feel comfortable going with option C, and having it be a non-sustained Complex Action. However, there is the question as to what happens if the IC gets to act before the sprite...? Or if the sprite is allowed to use it before IC have even launched? Would it just always affect the next IC?

[Namikaze]

I see it as either A or C.  Not really sure which would be more accurate to the intention of the power though.  You brought up a good point with the one IC per turn thing though, so I'm now leaning more toward A as the option.

[Malevolence]

The Host also deploys new IC at the top of each CT before anything else happens, so the sprite would have to use the power in the preceding CT to prevent the deployment of IC.

A host can launch one IC program per Combat Turn, at the beginning of each Combat Turn.

[Adder]

I see it as either A or C.  Not really sure which would be more accurate to the intention of the power though.  You brought up a good point with the one IC per turn thing though, so I'm now leaning more toward A as the option.

I'm actually leaning towards C because it feels more balanced. Three rounds of suppression for just one power usage feels too strong. It would be implemented as the sprite delaying the next IC from launching. The reason why I feel okay with breaking the 1 IC/turn rule is because the rules explicitly say that "delayed IC cannot be targeted". That implies that the IC are already "spawned" and visible to the hacker, they just can't do anything. In that sense it's more like a 3 turn stun for an IC.

My only issue with this is that because commanding a sprite is a Simple Action, this limits the TM to just one simple action per turn if they order the sprite to use suppression, which is extremely limiting. Brute Force and Hack on the Fly are both Complex Actions, for example. Then again they'll get multiple initiative passes per turn, so if they get 3 passes in a turn that means they have 2.5 passes after the order.

An important followup question is this: what is the limitation of "command sprite"? Could I use it to tell my sprite to reactively do something? e.g. "if I trip the alarm, use suppression until you run out of tasks"? Based on the lack of mention of AI decision-making like there is for drones and agents, I would lean towards restricting it to ordering them to do an action.

[Namikaze]

I'm actually leaning towards C because it feels more balanced. Three rounds of suppression for just one power usage feels too strong. It would be implemented as the sprite delaying the next IC from launching. The reason why I feel okay with breaking the 1 IC/turn rule is because the rules explicitly say that "delayed IC cannot be targeted". That implies that the IC are already "spawned" and visible to the hacker, they just can't do anything. In that sense it's more like a 3 turn stun for an IC.

That's a good interpretation I think.  The IC are loaded into memory, but aren't being launched due to faults in their code.  The faults go away after a little while, and along come the IC.

My only issue with this is that because commanding a sprite is a Simple Action, this limits the TM to just one simple action per turn if they order the sprite to use suppression, which is extremely limiting. Brute Force and Hack on the Fly are both Complex Actions, for example. Then again they'll get multiple initiative passes per turn, so if they get 3 passes in a turn that means they have 2.5 passes after the order.

Well, it could be that the decker orders the sprite in advance to use Suppression as soon as an alarm sounds.  Sprites are at least somewhat autonomous - they're not like drones in that they need constant ordering around to function.

An important followup question is this: what is the limitation of "command sprite"? Could I use it to tell my sprite to reactively do something? e.g. "if I trip the alarm, use suppression until you run out of tasks"? Based on the lack of mention of AI decision-making like there is for drones and agents, I would lean towards restricting it to ordering them to do an action.

Ah, I see you reached the same conclusion that I did above.    I tend to read posts that I plan to respond to in-line while doing my response, so that's why I have the timing of my phrases... weird.  My thought is that sprites are at least a little autonomous.  The Resonance that gives them life in the Matrix gives them just a hint of sentience, at least with regards to their specialization.  So a data sprite might sometimes (of its own volition) approach the technomancer with some nifty little tidbit of information that may or may not be relevant to the situation.  I feel like this breathes life into the world, making the sprites more than just automatons.

[Malevolence]

I'm actually leaning towards C because it feels more balanced. Three rounds of suppression for just one power usage feels too strong.

Not necessarily, since it is explicitly stated that one power use can gain you a sprite as an ally in an entire combat. Or an indefinite sustain of a sprite power (like Diagnostics).

An important followup question is this: what is the limitation of "command sprite"? Could I use it to tell my sprite to reactively do something? e.g. "if I trip the alarm, use suppression until you run out of tasks"? Based on the lack of mention of AI decision-making like there is for drones and agents, I would lean towards restricting it to ordering them to do an action.

This should be possible. The book does actually say that sprites are akin to agents in intelligence.

Sprites are a lot like agents, obedient and semi-autonomous but not very bright.

[Herr Brackhaus]

I'd also like to point out that both Agents and Pilots, just like Sprites and Spirits, are technically intelligent and definitively autonomous. It's just that most Pilot programs used in Drones are less capable than your average human (Rating 2 attributes), and they have certain limitations to their code (dedicated to operating one type of vehicle, but can be enhanced with autosofts). Calling them dog brains are relatively apt, but remember that a smart dog can be taught quite a lot of tricks

[Adder]

I'd also like to point out that both Agents and Pilots, just like Sprites and Spirits, are technically intelligent and definitively autonomous.

So the only justification for sprite intelligence I found is here:

Sprites are a lot like agents, obedient and semi-autonomous but not very bright.

Compare this to the entry on agents:

When an agent is running, it has its own persona (and icon). An agent is about as smart as a pilot program of the same rating (Pilot Programs, p. 269).

A potentially key difference is that the agent description explicitly says that is like a pilot program and even gives the page reference, which I think means you could use standard drone AI rules (i.e. if you give it a complex order, it has to make a Pilot AI test).

Not necessarily, since it is explicitly stated that one power use can gain you a sprite as an ally in an entire combat. Or an indefinite sustain of a sprite power (like Diagnostics).

So I actually looked into that as well. Diagnostics is an unfair comparison because the sprite is 100% monopolized while it's doing the sustain. It can't do anything else without dropping the Diagnostics. Thus, it's not like a normal sustainment where it can still act and receive a penalty. Regarding cybercombat, I still feel like that's "not as valuable" as N turns of cybercombat are considered as important as one sprite power in terms of task cost. I'm having trouble explaining what I mean there but I don't know how to rephrase it. I would also add that Suppression is fairly unique in that there is no opposed roll. You could be hacking the hardest host in the world and your dinky level 4 sprite will still delay IC for 2 turns.

My thought is that sprites are at least a little autonomous.  The Resonance that gives them life in the Matrix gives them just a hint of sentience, at least with regards to their specialization.  So a data sprite might sometimes (of its own volition) approach the technomancer with some nifty little tidbit of information that may or may not be relevant to the situation.  I feel like this breathes life into the world, making the sprites more than just automatons.

I like this, and agree with the world-feeling-more-alive point. So I'm open at this point to extending the usage of the Command Sprite action past just having them do an action immediately. The implementation of this is hazy.

I think the most logical thing would be for them to fulfill "simple" orders without a roll. "Complicated" orders would require a test. The drone AI test is (Device Rating * 2)  (threshold set by GM). The logical extension for sprites would be (Sprite Level * 2)  (threshold set by GM).

Note that this means fewer failures for sprites as they typically have higher levels than drone Pilot (even a level 8 sprite would have a whopping 16 dice), but you could argue that sprites are more "alive" and thus smarter.


So in conclusion, I am planning on implementing option C for Suppression and the drone rules for Sprite AI. Sound good?

(Don't worry, I have plenty of new questions following this :-) )

[Adder]

So I ended up going with the above (AI test for the sprite based on their level and the suppression power change). That frees me up to explore our favorite topic...

Resonance Veil!

My TM (justifiably) complains that whenever he tries to use Resonance Veil, I block him from doing so because whatever he proposed is super unbalanced ("I make the host think it invited me to mark it three times", "I make the store owner think I have a billion ¥ in my account").

So I decided that the best way to resolve this is to come up with a list of examples. I think a general guideline is to make Resonance Veil mimic that an icon performed a  single continual Matrix Action. It is not a perfect fit, but it gives an idea of how powerful I think it should be. Limiting it to just one Matrix action also prevents a lot of really unbalanced things from happening if you could combine two at once.

Points to keep in mind:

• Threading a complex form is a complex action
• The fade damage for RV is L-1, which is on the lower end compared to other complex forms.
• It only affects one target (if you made an IC think something happened, its fellow IC and the host would not be under the affect of the illusion), which must be a persona or device (never a host)
• Requires a Software + Resonance[Level] vs. Intuition + Data Processing test to succeed
• "If the target has reason to believe what it's seeing is fake, it needs to make a Matrix Perception Test with threshold equal to your net hits to see through the illusion."
• It's a sustained power, so -2 to the TM while the effect is maintained.

Now onto the "reasonable uses":

• Target believes that the TM has jacked out or left the host
• Target believes another icon is continually attacking them with Data Spike (other icon must be visible)
• Target believes they received a message from someone else on the Matrix (via Send Message action)
• Target believes that a new persona has entered the host
• Target believes that they have  <insert value> Overwatch Score (only usable against targets that can accrue OS like other runners, not security deckers or IC)
• Make the target think any other icon suddenly went into hiding (they would continually fail Matrix Perception checks to find it since it's not actually running silent, but they could roll to break the RV illusion)
• Make the target believe another icon changed their appearance
• Make a camera think it's getting the real feed, but is actually seeing a static image (similar to Edit File but clearly more powerful).
• Make the target think a file was deleted by another persona (again, that persona must ALREADY be visible but you could combine it with another RV usage).

Stuff I do not think makes the cut:

• Making the target think they're experiencing Convergence. Convergence is not an extended effect, it's a sudden one. If I think I'm being converged and the next second I'm still in the Matrix, it obviously didn't happen.
• Making the target think the TM has <N> marks on it. This is too broken, and actually makes it comparable in power to Puppeteer which has a FV 5 points higher.
• Spoof a high rating SIN. There are far too many cross-checks and queries to other databases for you to pass a serious examination.

The key thing here is that I feel RV should be about illusions and trickery, not mind control. Imagine you were on a stage, and everyone blindfolded themselves for sixty seconds. You're allowed to put up props, curtains, change actors' outfits, etc. before the blindfolds are removed. But you can't control someone's thoughts, or "make" them do anything. If you light the stage on fire they'll run, but it's not because you "made" them, it's because you did something (illusory) that caused your desired reaction.


Thoughts? Additions? Subtractions?

[Namikaze]

Resonance Veil is tricky.  The rules are very ambiguous, and I think that's intentional.  What I would argue is that with sufficient hits on the test, almost anything is possible.  There is one thing to keep in mind here: it's never stated anywhere that complex forms actually work on hosts.  The target descriptor for complex forms only targets Devices (which includes personas), Personas and Files.  The examples given of complex forms in use also don't show an example of a complex form being used against a host.  And the description of hosts never calls it a device.  So one could easily make the argument that no complex forms can be used against hosts directly.  Against IC, agents, sprites, devices, personas, and files - complex forms are golden.  Against a host, it's a no-go.

With that said, I still feel these pieces of advice might be helpful.

With these kinds of things, you've got a couple options.  The first option is to make sure that you give the TM as many of the penalties as he/she has earned.  Penalties are a thing that many GMs forget about in favor of speed and action.  The second option is to do what Michael Chandra suggested for Quickening - the caster (in this case the TM) has to buy hits.  When the TM buys hits in this fashion, their normal Software + Resonance [Level] test is instead replaced with (Software + Resonance) / 4 hits, though the limit still remains.

Personally, I think the second option works great for Quickening because the mage isn't really doing it on the fly or against opposition.  Using that option for Resonance Veil is sure to result in some hurt feelings.

[Adder]

  There is one thing to keep in mind here: it's never stated anywhere that complex forms actually work on hosts.  The target descriptor for complex forms only targets Devices (which includes personas), Personas and Files.  The examples given of complex forms in use also don't show an example of a complex form being used against a host.  And the description of hosts never calls it a device.  So one could easily make the argument that no complex forms can be used against hosts directly.

I agree, I did not explicitly list that (and will actually edit it to include that now) because that was my understanding as well. I would consider many of my suggestions game-breaking if you could use them on the host.

[Triskavanski]

RV is quite a tricky one.

A lot goes on in the matrix, much of which isn't really ever stated.

But some of the things I'd do for RV..


Mimic Switch Vehicle Signature - This one is a bit tricky too.. as I'm not entirely sure how much of the VS is matrix based and how much of it isn't. It might be something that is completely not at all on the matrix.

A personal favorite of mine, is to create an illusionary decker who is sending out data spikes. In the mean time you're hitting the target with Res spikes (as you don't take the -2 penalty for running silent with resonance actions AFAIK)