[Tym Jalynsfein]

Definitely a valid interpretation, FST_Gemstar. And some very good points. I do agree that Skinlink and the MMRI are both solutions to the No Need for Technology that is inherent in the Technomancer, but I also see no reason that they could not utilize technology to accomplish the same thing (Different methods for different Technomancer Builds and all that). I do not agree that technology should impact Resonance...  that is kind of counterintuitive tot he whole concept of a Technomancer, after all.

I am of the opinion that the Technomancer is more of a blend of Machine and Man (and not magical)... The next step in man's evolution.

I do not subscribe to the belief that the Technomancer's abilities are "Mystical" or "Magical" in any way... they are something......... else. Yes, they use the paradigm that has been set forth for Magic Use (as a mechanic), but that is for convenience sake, as far as I am concerned. Using this philosophy opens up a lot of possibilities, in my opinion. And while the fluff mostly matches that perspective, sadly the mechanics do not. So, I will patiently await both the Errata Team (for clarity or fixes) and the new Technomancer book (for more options) to hit the Matrix and hopefully the mechanics will fall more in line with the fluff, and the new book will enhance the Technomancer in ways that they so desperately need.

[Whiskeyjack]

I will patiently await both the Errata Team (for clarity or fixes)

lololololol 

and the new Technomancer book (for more options)

See above!

[Whiskeyjack]

Not sure why this myth continues to persist (I do agree that Technomancers do need some love, to be sure).

Because TMs have to spread themselves thinner than deckers in both skills and attributes, just because of how the Living Persona works versus how a deck works. I'm not sure how this a controversial concept. It's just a mathematical fact. I'm not even saying it's good or bad, but it is a consideration.

You do not need Sprites to be an effective Technomancer. You must make compromises, to be sure, but I have played a Technomancer (An anal, Sneaky, Hack on the Fly Spy Build) since SR5 came out, and she is quite capable (Think I have compiled a total of 4 Sprites, over a 300 Karma Game, One at Level 4, 2 at Level 3 and one at level 2 - and even so, she always out performed the pure Decker, which we actually lost about 150 Karma in; so she has been the  ONLY Hacker the team has had for a long time). Will a Decker potentially have a few more dice? Maybe, but that is okay.

I hope this doesn't come across as dismissive, but an anecdote is not date. I'm very glad your character has been both fun and useful to play.

At the same time I totally get why GMs would ban technomancers, due to not wanting to have to go to the trouble of engineering table fixes for their issues.

Dice are not the only indicator of a good character.

To be sure, but it's largely the only objective method of comparison, considering different tables have different goals and needs and play objectives (heavier role-play vs mission-style, for example).

[Tym Jalynsfein]

You do not need Sprites to be an effective Technomancer. You must make compromises, to be sure, but I have played a Technomancer (An anal, Sneaky, Hack on the Fly Spy Build) since SR5 came out, and she is quite capable (Think I have compiled a total of 4 Sprites, over a 300 Karma Game, One at Level 4, 2 at Level 3 and one at level 2 - and even so, she always out performed the pure Decker, which we actually lost about 150 Karma in; so she has been the  ONLY Hacker the team has had for a long time). Will a Decker potentially have a few more dice? Maybe, but that is okay.

I hope this doesn't come across as dismissive, but an anecdote is not date. I'm very glad your character has been both fun and useful to play.

At the same time I totally get why GMs would ban technomancers, due to not wanting to have to go to the trouble of engineering table fixes for their issues.

No worries, you aren't being dismissive...

I do understand that Anecdotal is not fact, but it has been my experience.

One does not need to engineer table fixes for the Technomancer (though one could if one was not happy with their situation). We have not done so because we are waiting on Catalyst to fix them (Hey, Errata Team and New Book). That way, we are playable at any table, whether Missions (no real changes for Missions right? Don't generally play those, though others at our table both play and gm Missions) or Otherwise.   

[Tym Jalynsfein]

I will patiently await both the Errata Team (for clarity or fixes)

lololololol 

and the new Technomancer book (for more options)

See above!

Yep...  Thought we could all use some laughs.

[Whiskeyjack]

We have not done so because we are waiting on Catalyst to fix them (Hey, Errata Team and New Book).

I get you, considering it's been three years with a frankly pathetic investment in the core for a "core archetype," no meaningful errata, and the TM book at least appears to have been pushed back or scrapped or hemorrhaged authors at least once, maybe twice now, I'm just not holding my breath.

[Tym Jalynsfein]

We have not done so because we are waiting on Catalyst to fix them (Hey, Errata Team and New Book).

I get you, considering it's been three years with a frankly pathetic investment in the core for a "core archetype," no meaningful errata, and the TM book at least appears to have been pushed back or scrapped or hemorrhaged authors at least once, maybe twice now, I'm just not holding my breath.

Oh, I know.  
But it looks like Patrick has put together a good team, so...