[jtkirk22]

Hi,

couldn't find answers to the following questions:

1.) Matrix Damage + Device: As a hacker, to which device is matrix damage applied? Commlink/Cyberjack oder Cyberdeck?

2.) Program slots: If I use a Cyberjack instead of a commlink. Are program slots of my commlink added though? Or do I really have less program slots with a cyberjack than with a commlink?

3.) Movement: Is it possible to "split up" the movement of one movement action (like in D&D). E. g. Move 6m - use a different action - move 4m.

Thanks in advance!

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

1) this needs/awaits clarification.  My personal answer is the device that currently gives firewall.  This potentially means either the cyberjack OR the cyberdeck, as you can swap a cyberdeck's A/S values into D/F...

2) I don't see why you can't benefit from programs running on a commlink

3) GM discretion.  Generally I'd say yes.

[Hobbes]

1. IMO, the Device that was targeted.  If it's a Persona Icon that was targeted, then whatever Device that was used to form the Persona Icon.  Usually the Cyberdeck/Commlink, although 6E is much less clear than 5e on which Device is actually being used to form a Persona.  I'd give the PC a choice, but they can't switch without a Reboot action.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

1. IMO, the Device that was targeted.  If it's a Persona Icon that was targeted, then whatever Device that was used to form the Persona Icon.  Usually the Cyberdeck/Commlink, although 6E is much less clear than 5e on which Device is actually being used to form a Persona.  I'd give the PC a choice, but they can't switch without a Reboot action.

That's pretty similar to my answer, given that you can't swap ASDF values in the middle of a hack/cybercombat.

[Finstersang]

1) Tough question, as SSDR already pointed out. I think I´d actually let the attacker choose the device. Else, a cheap hacker could easily keep the expensive stuff out of harm´s way by running the persona on a commlink. Also, it adds a bit of tactical depth.

2) Unclear as well, but I´d be surprised if these are supposed to stack. The programm slots of Decks are already stacking up pretty high on their own, to a point were its less about having enough slots and more about managing the additional OS.
Side note: To add further confusion, p. 184 states that the number of programms is actually limited by the Data Processing Attribute. This one likely slipped through Errata, though.

3) Strictly RAW, nope. I´d absolutely allow it though, but with a second Minor Action.

[Xenon]

to which device is matrix damage applied?

Book doesn't really say, but if your matrix persona is targeted then I would rule that Matrix damage will be soaked by the device you are using to access the matrix with.

For regular users, that normally use a commlink (+ datajack or trodes), this will be the commlink.
For riggers, that normally use a RCC (+ control rig), this will be the RCC.
For deckers, that normally use a cyberdeck (+ cyberjack), this will be the cyberdeck.

For technomancers, that normally use a living persona rather than a device, matrix damage will instead be soaked by their regular condition monitor(s)

do I really have less program slots with a cyberjack than with a commlink?

Book doesn't really say, I would rule that program slots are provided by the device you are using to access the matrix with.

For regular users, that normally use a commlink (+ datajack or trodes), this will be the commlink.
For riggers, that normally use a RCC (+ control rig), this will be the RCC.
For deckers, that normally use a cyberdeck (+ cyberjack), this will be the cyberdeck.

Technomancers, that normally use a living persona, don't have program slots (but they might learn echos to emulate specific programs)

Is it possible to "split up" the movement of one movement action

Book say that you are not allowed to take more than one movement related action (Avoid Incoming, Move, Sprint) per round. You are for example not allowed to move up to 10 meters, take a shot and then move up to 10 meters again (or avoid an incoming AoE later in the round after you already used a Move action).

But it sound more like you are asking if you are allowed to move [out of cover] to take a shot and then move [into cover] again while not using up more than a total of 10 meters. While this might sound harmless I would only allow this If and Only If it is not being abused.

Let me expand on that a bit.

IF you choose to allow this THEN you need to be aware of that your players can start to run out of cover to fire their gun and then run back behind cover before opponents get a chance to fire back. And then GM will have the NPCs start doing the same. Then you will get very strange fire fights where nobody actually have a direct line of sight to anyone ever


By RAW this would be either be resolved by moving [out of cover] with the Move minor action (or perhaps Stand Up minor action depending on situation), taking your Attack major action and then you finish your turn with a Take Cover minor action OR by staying in cover while taking your Attack major action (by either spending a minor action or two edge to Fire out of Cover and not earning edge on the attack).

Not by taking a Move minor action "that you split in two".

[Banshee]

1. Original intent was based on Firewall, but things got changed so Firewall could be swapped ... so there is the confusion. I've submitted a couple of different suggestions for clarity but nothing has made it into print yet. As Hobbes and SSDR both refer to this should be chosen when you form the persona (ie go online) and not be changed with logging off and doing a full reboot.

2. I don't have a problem with them stacking, but I would generally rule thatcthe cyberdeck overrides the commlink ... cyberjacks do not run programs at all.
Side note to Fin ..  yeah that got altered and not changed for print apparently though DP is a factor inured when setting the original program limits

3. Technically no, but as others have stated it would break anything if yes
Edit:: Xenon posted while I was typing... just splitting your movement distance would not be a problem but using it to move in out of cover would be a hard no

[MercilessMing]

1) Considering the fact that if your implanted commlink gets bricked, you're looking at 6P damage, it better not be the cyberjack!

3) Not allowing it can feel restrictive, but allowing it lets people abuse line of sight and cover mechanics.  Pick your poison.  When in doubt, though, I would go with player freedom.

[jtkirk22]

Thanks for all your replys.

Concerning Cyberjacks:

Code: [Select]

the cyberjack harnesses the immense processing
power of the brain to take on Matrix protocols and
encryption schemes. (p. 283)
Does that mean that Cyberjacks are supposed to run to increase the stats of a commlink (meaning: A hacker uses a Cyberdeck + Cyberjack + Commlink). Or does a hacker use a commlink INSTEAD of a commlink?

[Xenon]

A commlink add nothing for a decker that already have both a cyberdeck and a cyberjack. You are not required to have all three devices.

[Banshee]

The only think a commlink does that a cyberjack doesn't is make phone calls ... and arguably can do that via voice over matrix.
If you have a cyberjack there is zero need or desire to own a commlink unless you want a throw away cell phone.

By contrast if you don't want to invest in a cyberjack you will need a commlink to pair with your deck. Plus either trades or a data jack

In fictional terms the cyberjack allows a hacker to process the matrix almost (need a deck for the full effect) like technomancer if that makes more sense to you.

[Xenon]

...and arguably can do that via voice over matrix.

I always pictured that this was what the Send Message matrix action was used for.


Speaking of matrix actions.

Book doesn't seem to mention which actions you cannot take and which programs you cannot use if you don't have a cyberdeck (or a living persona) / which actions that require that you have a Sleaze or Attack rating. I didn't really like the Limits we had in the previous edition, but at least they made it clear which matrix attribute you were required to have in order to take an action.


Devices
In game terms, the difference between a commlink and a cyberdeck is that the cyberdeck possesses the Matrix Attributes needed for hacking

Hack
See Brute Force or Probe Hack


Book doesn't say, but I am assuming that actions and programs that are explicitly "linked" to either Attack (Brute Force, Data Spike & Tarpit as well as Biofeedback & Blackout) or Sleaze (Probe & Backdoor Entry as well as Stealth & Trace) require that you actually use a cyberdeck.

But what about other actions that require the Cracking skill and does not require that you first hack access. Outside actions, such as Spoof Command. Would a rigger using a RCC (and not a cyberdeck) be able to take the Spoof Command action (which is not linked to either Attack or Sleaze), as long as he have the proper Cracking skill of course?

And what about other illegal actions that does not use the Cracking skill. Such as the Hash Check action. Would a reporter just using a regular commlink be able to take the Hash Check action to search for a specific file even if it is encrypted?

And what about other hacking programs, that are not linked. Can you run Fork on a commlink to send the same instruction to two different drones at once? Can you run overclock on a RCC to gain a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice when remote controlling your car?


Another thing Limits made clear was how the end user experienced the hack attempt. Attack actions being violent and always immediately obvious on success (but did not raise any alerts on a failed attempt, and even damaged the hacker) while sleaze actions were discrete and silent (unless you failed, in which case the target didn't just notice the attacker - they even gained access on the hacker).

Even though the book doesn't say, I am assuming that actions linked to Attack are still immediately obvious and that they no longer deal damage on fail, but will they now still be subtle on a fail or is the intention that for example a failed data spike or brute force attempt to be obvious in this edition?

(Book seem to be more clear when it comes to the few actions that are linked to sleaze - in this edition they are not only subtle on success, they now also seem to be subtle even if you fail)

But how obvious are other actions?

Some actions not linked to sleaze still "feels" like they should be stealthy, like Snoop and Format Device for example (which both explicitly used to be Sleaze actions in the previous edition).

While other actions not linked to attack "feels" like they should still be obvious, like Crash Program and Crack File for example (which both explicitly used to be Attack actions in the previous edition).


I guess what I am missing here is the whole "Noticing hackers"-chapter :-/

[Banshee]

Anything that is linked to an attribute is action that requires that attribute to be used. All nonlinked actions do not. Yes that means anyone can attempt the outsider actions ... especially riggers using an RCC.

Attack linked actions are always noticed, all other actions (unless noted otherwise) are detected on a failed roll only

[Xenon]

Nice. That actually explains a lot. Many thanks for clearing that up!

[Finstersang]

Anything that is linked to an attribute is action that requires that attribute to be used. All nonlinked actions do not. Yes that means anyone can attempt the outsider actions ... especially riggers using an RCC.

Ouh, wasn´t aware of that. Really like that! It´s cool to see the cracking skill having a bit of a use even without a Cyberdeck.
Spoof command without a Deck is a pretty big deal, though! Does it at least use Matrix Attack and Defense ratings then?
Or is that only for data spikes, Tarpits and the 2 hacking options?

Side note: I think that riggers should have some option to perform traces as well. Currently, a trace needs admin access, so it´s not really an option for riggers. But maybe they are able to "triangulate" a target if its in the reach of their slaved drones, without the need for admin access. Would be cool if both Matrix Archetypes had this option, but with different methods to get the job done.