[CigarSmoker]

Device rating of RCC reduces noise by its rating. So DR6 RCC + SignalScrubber 2 =8 reduction

[Michael Chandra]

RCCs also provide noise reduction, reducing
noise penalties by their Device Rating.

[taukarrie]

Device rating of RCC reduces noise by its rating. So DR6 RCC + SignalScrubber 2 =8 reduction

Wow, i completely missed that. but there it is right in the end of the CRB RCC description.  Thanks.

[Xenon]

SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...

...Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius

It seem as if a jammer will not affect devices that are outside the jamming area.

It's hard to find ideas for what the Electronics Warfare specialization of Cracking would be used for...

Check OS, Hide, Jam Signals, Snoop, Spoof Command as well as controlling devices such as maglocks, elevators, ventilation, lights, sensors, alarms...

[Michael Chandra]

A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.

But not so much if there are holes opened up in the smoke cloud so certain people inside can see out just fine...

[Xenon]

A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.

A Smoke Grenade inflict the Blinded I status for anyone acting through the smoke (and Blinded II for anyone acting from within the smoke).

While a Jammer seem to only inflict noise on devices acting from within the area of effect.

[Hephaestus]

A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.

A Smoke Grenade inflict the Blinded I status for anyone acting through the smoke (and Blinded II for anyone acting from within the smoke).

While a Jammer seem to only inflict noise on devices acting from within the area of effect.

A jammer is kind of the electronic equivalent of a smoke grenade though. While the negative rating by RAW applies to devices inside the range of the jammer, any device outside the range would still have to penetrate the noise to reach a device inside the noise bubble. The noise exists as a barrier to make a connection, so in theory it should work in both directions.

[ZeroSum]

A jammer is kind of the electronic equivalent of a smoke grenade though. While the negative rating by RAW applies to devices inside the range of the jammer, any device outside the range would still have to penetrate the noise to reach a device inside the noise bubble. The noise exists as a barrier to make a connection, so in theory it should work in both directions.

I personally do not think a smoke grenade is a good analogy, because a smoke grenade affects everyone equally while a Jammer has a specific rule that allows it's effect to not be applied to devices you choose.

In this respect, I think someone said it best earlier in the thread; a jammer is an offensive weapon, not a defense one. When you jam all devices in an area you are attempting to accomplish one of two things;
1. Block incoming and outgoing communication
2. Same as 1, but also allowing your own communication equipment to remain functional

In other words, you are not using a jammer to make it harder on the hacker who is miles away when your own communication equipment is exempt from the effects of the jammer in the first place. Instead, you are using the jammer from preventing people in your immediate vicinity from being able to even call out to the hacker in the first place.

[penllawen]

SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...

...Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius

It seem as if a jammer will not affect devices that are outside the jamming area.

Put a jammer next to a turret. Put a decker next to the jammer. The decker tries to hack the turret. The jammer imposes a noise penalty. The decker fails the hack.

The decker walks away, out of range of the jammer. He tries to hack the turret again. The jammer no longer has any effect. The hack succeeds.

Forget the letter of the rules for the moment. Does that seem reasonable to you?

[Michael Chandra]

A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.

But not so much if there are holes opened up in the smoke cloud so certain people inside can see out just fine...

Yes, which is why, as I already stated, I believe that if you're exempted you don't get to use it as defense either. But if you're not exempted, I believe the hacker targeting you will suffer. I used it as example to disagree with the 'well it says only devices inside, so if you hack from outside in you're fine no matter what' reasoning. The phrasing is more likely to be about 'there's no such thing as going THROUGH the area with your signal, so the Noise won't be noticable by people on the outside'. That smoke grenade will impact if you fire from one side to the other. In the matrix that isn't a thing, which explains the phrasing.

If I try to hack something that's 5 meters underwater, I face a penalty because of the Noise that device is suffering, even if I'm fine. If I try to hack something that's being jammed, I believe I should suffer the penalty as well. And that is how I will rule it as GM, because I'm not rulelawyering that description when other plausible readings exist. So at my table, it will be 'highest of attacker/defender noise, + distance', and if the attacker or defender is actively jammed, that will count. If you're exempted, it doesn't.' I do want some proper SRM clarification in half a year, but at my table I'm fine right now.

[ZeroSum]

If I try to hack something that's 5 meters underwater, I face a penalty because of the Noise that device is suffering, even if I'm fine. If I try to hack something that's being jammed, I believe I should suffer the penalty as well. And that is how I will rule it as GM, because I'm not rulelawyering that description when other plausible readings exist. So at my table, it will be 'highest of attacker/defender noise, + distance', and if the attacker or defender is actively jammed, that will count. If you're exempted, it doesn't.' I do want some proper SRM clarification in half a year, but at my table I'm fine right now.

This seems to be the most sensible approach to me. I echo the desire for clarification, too.

[taukarrie]

It makes sense to me that devices inside a jamming field are vulnerable to hacking if they are at that time exempted. But if I have a jamming field going what happens to all of my own devices inside the jamming field that are not exempted? If I engage a jamming field but dont exempt any of my devices doesnt that render all of my devices useless? I feel like it does. In that case it seems like a better idea to just turn everything off if hacker defense is my goal. The exempting feature would be useful for things like subduing someone so you can jam their commlink while keeping yours functional, or beating a rigger with a bat and steaming trids at the same time while preventing drone reprisals.

So I agree with a few posts here so far that the jammer's applications are mostly offensive.

[ZeroSum]

The exempting feature would be useful for things like subduing someone so you can jam their commlink while keeping yours functional, or beating a rigger with a bat and steaming trids at the same time while preventing drone reprisals.

So I agree with a few posts here so far that the jammer's applications are mostly offensive.

Exactly. Just like throwing a wet blanket on a fire, your primary goal when employing jamming should be to prevent your opponent from communicating. Take the meager micro-transceiver, for example; place a jammer or two in strategic locations (directional jammers help here) and exempt your micro-transceivers but nothing else. You're taking out the opposition's communications capabilities, potentially depriving them of the ability to call for reinforcements (physical, magical, or matrix), potentially causing riggers to get dumpshocked (unlikely, but possible with high strength jammers) and/or knocking non-rigged drones and cameras off-line so a spider can't jump into them until they connect to the Matrix again, all the while maintaining some comms of your own.

I very much see jammers as offensive tools, especially in Shadowrun where communication is ever-present. As someone else in this thread pointed out, though, it's not subtle; activating a R6 jammer, directional OR area, is going to raise all kinds of hell and is the sigint equivalent of going in guns blazing.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yep. Jamming the site's sensors and comms IS the SIGINT equivalent of going in guns-a-blazing.  (edit: It's probably a very reasonable assumption that when QRF and/or HTR shows up, they're showing up with benefit of a top of the line, maybe even milspec, jammer...)

So if that's your plan, then by all means jam the opposition.  But if your plan ISN'T "kick the door in", then remember that's essentially what you're doing anyway on the Matrix frequencies when you have an active Jammer going...