The Gaming Den

schpeelah wrote:

There's nothing in the rules that expressly forbid

This phrase is universally considered a bad argument in rules debates.

Normally yeah, but in this case, the reality filter says that it does a specific thing. It's like the text of fireball saying "this creates a 15 ft radius explosion of fire" and someone contradicting it and saying that it doesn't work that way. For you to contradict it, there has to be some part of the rules that actually do so. Reality filter says it replaces the existing system sculpting with one of your choice. That has to be disproven with some statement in the rules that prevents it from doing what it says it can do.

I'm not saying "Reality filter can do this because nothing says it can't."

I'm saying "Reality filter can do this because to do what the rules say it does, it must do that."

Right now I don't even see anything that conflicts with that, aside from people making some kind of role protection argument with analyze.

You are supposed to use Analyse to find out an Icons type. This info may be given away for free in publicly available nodes, but not in secure ones. Under your interpretation the Analyse Icon action has no right to exist, and if there is only thing sure about RAI, it's that rules presented are meant to be used.

I think you're getting too caught up in the "supposed to" end of it. Trace is supposed to discover the access ID of someone, yet SR20A explicitly states that analyze can do the same thing with one check, which is basically why we all say trace is useless. And that's perfectly acceptable. Sometimes the rules have shitty options. There are plenty of feats in D&D 3E that are either total garbage or in some cases actually do nothing. The idea that the RAW makes something useless is not a new concept, and more importantly it doesn't mean that you're reading the rules incorrectly.

As far as analyze, it does lots of other stuff that reality filter can't. The main big one of those is that it can detect stealthed icons. It can also tell you the access ID of someone if you want to counter hack them and get into their PAN (which is honestly the only reliable way to ID a hacker). Reality filter may not work on nodes with high firewall and system ratings, where as analyze will.

Letting reality filter determine icon type does not in any way make analyze obsolete. But that doens't even matter. If were were designing rules we'd be worried about role protection for analyze, but we're not. We're just reading existing rules that are already written. Hackastack and infinity mirror were clearly not designer intent, but nonetheless, they're things you can do based on the RAW.

I don't know what's hard about this RC. Reality Filter cannot bypass the Analyze Icon requirement to gain information where it is not freely offered. On a system where the icons are not labeled, the Reality Filter gets the same information you get: nothing.

-Username17

RandomCasualty2: To clarify, I'd be inclined to think you were correct if it weren't for this:

Unwired p57 wrote: All icons carry an identifying tag, giving the VR user instant knowledge about the kind of icon he is looking at; AR users get a small descriptive tag next to the icon. The kind of information provided depends on the access rights of the Matrix user. In some cases wrong tags may be supplied. While a spider with security access might be informed that the knight's armor in front of him is a trace IC, the hacker with only user privileges might be told that it is only a piece of data. In this case the hacker must use Analyze software to get the complete information.

There's some fluff text in the main book about confusing Node metaphors and reskinning icons and what-not within the Node, as well as how Reality Filters force the Node metaphor to conform to your expectations. Reading just the main book I'd be inclined to agree with your assertion, since spending a Simple Action on every Icon is a terribly stupid burden.

Then Unwired rears its ugly head and what makes sense is tossed aside. The entire Unwired entry has some more information on tags and their relationship to Node metaphor, but the fundamental take-home is that the tags are independent of the re-skinning, and your Reality Filter isn't going to help you with it.

What's most terrible about this is that you can take the base book and rationalize a solution... until a supplement is released that actively and explicitly goes out of its way to break a portion of the game that didn't need or want breaking.

mean_liar wrote: Then Unwired rears its ugly head and what makes sense is tossed aside. The entire Unwired entry has some more information on tags and their relationship to Node metaphor, but the fundamental take-home is that the tags are independent of the re-skinning, and your Reality Filter isn't going to help you with it.

Hmm... Yeah, I missed that part in Unwired. Yeah, I suppose you could conclude that reality filter just uses the identifying tags to determine things.

But you'd think the ID tags would defeat the infinity mirror for hackers. Since running miracle shooters would just ID each of those things as miracle shooter (or at the very least a program, not a persona) and thus let IC and spiders determine which are actual personas to be attacked and which are programs. I mean you could still hackastack it, but just flooding the node with inconsequential icons wouldn't work, unless you ran a stealth program for each one, which would be highly inefficient.

Honestly, I think a single "targeter" IC running a Data Search on the Access Log (it finds you in System # of Simple Actions) is enough to figure out which targets you need to shoot at if you're not getting them with Analyze.

Hacking in SR4 is stupid and now I finally have to fucking read Frank's screed on it to see if its any better.

...

Well, one could say that Stealth actually works and you can't be pinged by a result of "no pertinent info found" (ie, an Analyze result with no successes) and that as long as you're running it you don't show in the Access Log, but what else is there? Ugh.

mean_liar wrote: Well, one could say that Stealth actually works and you can't be pinged by a result of "no pertinent info found" (ie, an Analyze result with no successes) and that as long as you're running it you don't show in the Access Log, but what else is there? Ugh.

Well, I'm pretty sure your activity always shows in the access log, regardless of stealth, since unwired doesn't seem to mention that stealth helps there. The problem is that the access log is only updated in a number of turns equal to the system of the node. So in any decent node (system 4+), you're waiting over 4 turns before anything ever shows up for you to detect. A hacker can also edit the access log as well and delete that before security has a chance to see it.

It actually mentions that in the section about passkeys, since if you fail to have a passkey, the system goes on alert whenever the log updates with one of your actions (since it has to log the passkey input too). Of course there are ways around it by just deleting the log or modifying it before it goes through its update cycle, which actually takes longer on better systems. Though presumably, you could set up a series of system rating 1 gateway nodes protected by an infinity mirror which store their logs in another node. That means that basically while that node is easily hackable, it'll be pretty much impossible for a hacker to hack into the second node with the access log before the log updates and the hacker gets discovered.

You could even maybe set it up without the second node just by using an infinity mirror to hide the log in the first node. Since the hacker has all of 1 turn to find it. Given that logging on is an action, he's kinda fucked. Even in hotsim VR, you log on, then you have to discover which node is the access log with your secon action, then edit it with your last action.

It's odd, but a system rating 1 node can be virtually impossible to enter undetected. It won't have dick for a firewall, but it's guaranteed to sound an alert with the access ID of anyone hacking you. You can then just send an army of IC at them.

If you wanted to make the network completely unhackable, you connected your nodes by a series of these System 1 "bridges" where the bridge is set to shut off (thereby booting anyone routing through it), as soon as an alert is triggered. You don't even have to shut down the master node, since you can just boot people by burning the bridge. The only way to hack that would be to steal a valid passkey or hack the target node directly. Since these nodes are also pretty cheap, you can have a large number of bridges leading to the same node, which makes it harder to DoS you, since you can only boot the people using that specific bridge, and having lots of bridges is extremely cheap.

Pretty much a series of properly configured toasters are better security than a very powerful supercomputer Nexus.

Necro'd with permission.

Okay. Let me try to wrap my brain around this.

Then you have to find the node. This is ridiculously hard. It's an Electronic Warfare + Scan test, and as written it's an extended test (with a threshold of 15 or higher) to find a Hidden Node and mysteriously a non-extended test (threshold 4) to find a node that is not hidden. So as written, with 6 dice it's an average of 10 rolls to find a node that is not hiding and only 8 to find one that is. May be a typo, who can tell?

Wait A Second. Number One. Minor point.

There is Example Confusion going on here or some kind of other confusion. If we are talking about being in direct wireless Signal range of a Node that can be used to deactivate a camera or unlock a door, then that is an Electronic Warfare + Scan Test.

But if we're talking about remotely accessing something through the Matrix, then finding it is a Data Search + Browse Extended test, right? That's how it's been written in almost everything I've read, most recently Knasser's Matrix examples.

If the run is a simple digital data steal than the latter seems more likely.

Armed with your fake and temporary Access ID, you attempt to hack yourself an account into the node you found. This is done by making opposed extended tests against the node. You roll Hacking + Exploit and need to get a number of hits equal to the Firewall of the node (or 3 or 6 higher if the node requires a "security" or "admin" account, which is just a preference toggle for whether you want hacking your systems to be easier or harder). Every time you roll dice, the node gets to roll Analyze + Firewall, trying to add up to a number of hits equal to your Stealth. When you get your total of hits, you get your account. If the computer gets ts number of hits, it sets off an Alert[4]. It is entirely possible for both of these to happen simultaneously. You can also choose to take hours instead of Complex Actions to make these tests, and then the node only gets one chance to spot you instead of one per test you make[5].

Number Two. Minor point.

Haven't looked at any footnotes yet, but this is mostly in line with how I've been playing. However, I don't read Account Access Level as just a toggle, but rather that there are different actions which require different permissions.

Again, Hack-on-the-Fly seems more likely to follow EW + S can and Probe-The-Target seems more likely to follow DS + Browse.

But that's a minor quibble.

If you need a specific Access ID, you need to have analyzed that access ID's Icon with Matrix Perception[3] by being in the same node as the Icon and winning an opposed Analyze + Computer vs. Stealth + Firewall test.

As you'll notice, I backed up a step...isn't the ENTIRE POINT of hacking (i.e. rolling Hacking + Exploit) that you do not HAVE a valid access ID and are instead hacking in? This goes to [3].

As written, enough Alerts will force any system to reboot.

Number Three. Minor Point.

Where is this written? In fact where is it written that an Alert is something that can happen multiple times to any meaningful effect?

I thought systems had two possible statuses, either Not On Alert or On Alert.

Now that you are in the node, you need to render all the icons. This takes a Simple Action to find out how many icons there are (making an opposed Computer + Analyze test vs. Firewall + Stealth test to count any of the icons that are Stealthed), and then an additional Simple Action to actually identify each of the icons that you have counted (which are also an opposed Analyze + Computer test against Stealth + Firewall to identify any of the stealthed icons you have counted)[6].

Number Four. MAJOR POINT.

This issue is obviously the crux of everything.

Page reference?

Also, what counts as an "Icon" for these purposes?

This goes to [6] as well, obviously.

Anyway if you can prove that this is RAW to my satisfaction, I have identified one "house rule" I have been using, which is that Data Search + Browse can help you find something you're looking for on a given node (which seems well supported by RAW). Another would be that a single perception test is adequate to get both the number of icons in the node and what they look like, if not exactly what they are. That at least is how I have been playing.

[5]: Note that the highest threshold you could possibly have is 14 (Firewall 8, Admin account), so if you have five hours to kill, you can crack into the Pentagon or the Red Pagoda. You probably won't even set off an alert.

Five. Minor Point.

This is important, Frank, only because it demonstrates that you have made a factual error. If you have made this one factual error, it stands to reason you could potentially have made many others.

The threshold for probing the target (obviously what you meant, talking about hours to kill) is equal to the target's System + Firewall (p. 236 SR4A). not just Firewall This means that the highest possible threshold to hack in (for say Admin access to the pentagon) is actually around 22, not 14.

Whether an Alert has been triggered or not, the node may well have an active IC protecting it. While you are rendering the node, it is rendering you. If it notices you (Analyze + Agent Rating vs. Hacking + Stealth), it will compare you to its list of who is supposed to be on the node (separate from the Node's list, so you haven't had a chance to hack it yet - so you're not on this list). It can then take any actions it want against you until you successfully render it. Since you're the new kid on the block, it can start attacking you as soon as it renders the programs you came in with[7]. Also, it can call for backup before it even renders you[8]. Or, since it presumably already has a Security Account on its own node, it can attempt to kick you out[9].

All of these problems arise from the rule/assumption that all matrix entities must "render" all icons before taking action, yes?

If the IC doesn't spot you and you didn't set off an alarm, skip this step altogether. You can get rid of the IC in several ways. They seem to think you want to engage it in Cyber Combat, which involves rolling initiative and then following the rules for casting low force manabolts at people with spell defense who also get to soak damage and have armor. What you'd actually want to do is to spoof a command to the IC to make it go away. This is just Hacking + Spoof vs. Firewall + Pilot. One net hit and the IC stops all harassing of you forever. If for some reason you are being bothered by one Agent, it's pretty much over in one action.

Six. Minor Point.

Where is this supported in the rules?

And don't you at least successfully analyze the Access ID that the IC takes orders from first?

That leaves....data bombs. Yes, as far as I can tell, you are totally right about data bombs.

Just catching up with the rest of this thread from last year.

SR4's Matrix is tantalizing close to being playable, and some people streamline it down to about 1/10th scale of die rolling and voluntarily decide to not use Drop Out, Agent Smith, Hackastacks, or Infinity Mirrors. Heck, many people don't actually understand the rules well enough to even understand how those problems work. Many people will swear on a stack of old Dragon Magazines that SR4's Matrix is playable "as is" because they don't even understand how many steps they are leaving out. Almost everyone thinks you can use Browse to find data you want, and almost no one understands the implications of having to spend a Simple Action to determine whether "an icon" is an Arrow, a Program, an Agent, or a Persona. The Infinity Mirror is an exploit that most people have deleted in their house rules by mistake.

Assuming you come back with rock solid and incontrovertible page quotes for your version of how things work, then I guess I just belong to this silly, happy, majority who is playing a much more reasonable game. Which I can live with.

Edit:

Getting the list of icons is actually not that useful. It´s just a list. Finding out whether Purple Pony Number 12 is a data file or a Persona is still a Simple Action for just Purple Pony Number 12.

Assuming you're the kind of person to whom fluff matters (I am) even though it's arguably unrealistic, Icons in Shadowrun have a helpful tendency to look like what they are.

In other words, this:

Now keep in mind that an icon's type can totally be given away by the sculpting. Most agents and personas are probably going to look like creatures and most file icons are going to look like inanimate objects. And that's okay, I mean that's the whole purpose of sculpting in the first place. It's not cheating to look at the sculpting and say "this looks like a file and it probably is."

There is Example Confusion going on here or some kind of other confusion. If we are talking about being in direct wireless Signal range of a Node that can be used to deactivate a camera or unlock a door, then that is an Electronic Warfare + Scan Test.

But if we're talking about remotely accessing something through the Matrix, then finding it is a Data Search + Browse Extended test, right? That's how it's been written in almost everything I've read, most recently Knasser's Matrix examples.

If the run is a simple digital data steal than the latter seems more likely.

The Matrix has three topologies, and they are very different, and they interact in bizarre and frankly stupid ways. Nodes have physical presences and they interact directly with things that are in handshake distance of themselves. Access IDs also send hand packets to each other through an indeterminate number of intermediaries via the Matrix. And finally, there are actual icons who are supposed to do Tron-style cybercombat with each other. These three things do not share one to one to one correspondence with each other.

If you were trying to do the data steal over the Matrix, then there would be a completely different set of rules being interacted with. Most importantly, you'd be interacting with Dropout. Because in order to do anything at all to a Matrix Access ID, you need to know its Matrix Access ID. And the only way to get that with your actual abilities is to use Analyze from inside a node it occupies. Which is topologically impossible, since you need the access ID to get into the node in the first place. So anything that isn't listed in the phone book is by definition unhackable by that method. Which is why we were talking about hacking a node within LOS instead.

Haven't looked at any footnotes yet, but this is mostly in line with how I've been playing. However, I don't read Account Access Level as just a toggle, but rather that there are different actions which require different permissions.

It is just a toggle, because the permissions granted to any account can be anything at all. So if you decide you wanted to make things more difficult, you could just set the normal things you could do with a security account to be permissions for admin accounts only. If you wanted it to be easier, you could give out the admin permissions for normal accounts. You can even contingently add or remove any permissions you want, such as yanking someone's file edit permissions if they set off an alert (Unwired, p. 67). Which means that yes, you can revoke all of someone's permissions without rolling dice if they aren't really you by using any of a number of completely arbitrary shiboleths that there are no counters to amongst the hacking programs.

Again, Hack-on-the-Fly seems more likely to follow EW + S can and Probe-The-Target seems more likely to follow DS + Browse.

Hack on the Fly and Probe the Target actions are distinct actions that you choose to take if and only if you have located a node that you wish to hack into. It is completely unrelated to how you wen about finding the node. There really isn't some sort of "flow" where actions "make sense" - there is just an arbitrary set of reasons you can't download the file you want and some of the available reasons have program related actions that you can take to bypass them. Seriously, that's it.

As you'll notice, I backed up a step...isn't the ENTIRE POINT of hacking (i.e. rolling Hacking + Exploit) that you do not HAVE a valid access ID and are instead hacking in?

There's the rub. Exploit is for when you don't have a valid password, you still need a valid access ID if the node is set up that way. Let's go to page 101 of Unwired:

Unwired, page 101 wrote:A hacker can also instruct the node to block future access connection requests from a particular node or access ID (or a range of nodes/access IDs), locking the target out.

So any node can be set to automatically reject any arbitrarily defined range of Access IDs. Including the range of "all numbers higher and lower than 194583269085485934509305". So if you don't have a valid Access ID (or a spoofed copy of a valid Access ID), your exploits can be rejected without rolling dice. And unfortunately, to spoof a specific Access ID, you have to analyze the icon in question!

Where is this written? In fact where is it written that an Alert is something that can happen multiple times to any meaningful effect?

I thought systems had two possible statuses, either Not On Alert or On Alert.

Alerts can and do progress. After 1 Alert, X happens, after 2 Alerts, Y happens. The "final" Alert reboots the system (SR4a, p. 238). Which means that Denial of Service Attacks totally win since all you have to do to trigger an alert on purpose is to request something illegitimate while you aren't running any Stealth.

Where is this written? In fact where is it written that an Alert is something that can happen multiple times to any meaningful effect?

I thought systems had two possible statuses, either Not On Alert or On Alert.

I already gave you the page reference and indeed the exact quote on the other thread. But here it is again:

SR4A, page 228 wrote:If you wish to specifically examine an ARO, users, programs, IC, nodes, files, etc., take a Simple Action to Analyze Icon/Node (p. 229). Make a Matrix Perception test using your Computer + Analyze program (rather than Perception + Intuition). Your hits determine how successful the examination is. For each hit scored, you can ask for one piece of information about the object—this could be type, rating, alert status, or any other pertinent information; a list of possible details you could gather from a Matrix Perception test can be found in the Matrix Perception Data sidebar.

Read that quote. Read it nine times. It's very clear.

You choose one icon to analyze, and then you spend a Simple Action analyzing that one icon. And then you are given the vital information of its "type". As in, seriously whether it is Persona, or an active Armor Program, or an active Virtual Pet, or a data folder, or a simple ARO. That's what it costs (one simple action) and what it gives you (whether the single icon you selected is a hacker or not).

Anyway if you can prove that this is RAW to my satisfaction, I have identified one "house rule" I have been using, which is that Data Search + Browse can help you find something you're looking for on a given node (which seems well supported by RAW).

Data Search + Browse will tell you where the purple elephant is. But it won't tell you whether the purple elephant is a graphical representation of a data folder or a hostile hacker. It just tells you that the node includes "Purple.Elephant2875". If your enemies weren't polite enough to actually name their world conquest plans "world-conquest.xml" or their security spider "security-spider.usr" then the list you get simply gives you a list of icons that you can start analyzing. At the rate of one icon per simple action. And remember, a Hacker running 5 programs is six icons just to start off with. His persona is an icon, and each of the running programs is also an icon. If he is running between 1 and infinity unrated programs, he has that many more icons on top of that.

This is important, Frank, only because it demonstrates that you have made a factual error. If you have made this one factual error, it stands to reason you could potentially have made many others.

Get the fuck off your high horse, asshat. Yes, I made a factual error in reporting the maximum possible number being 14, when it is really 22. And no, this doesn't functionally change that analysis. There are spelling and grammatical errors all over that document to boot. And no, that doesn't change the analysis either. As a mediocre hacker, you can still spend a few hours probing Red Pagoda and log in with a vanishingly small chance of setting off any alerts. If hacking wasn't impossible for other reasons, it would be essentially too easy.

I am not infallible and don't claim to be. The fact that I have ever made mistakes on completely inconsequential matters does not indicate that any particular pronouncement has errors in it.

Where is this supported in the rules?

Where is spoofing commands to agents supported in the rules? You... you're kidding right? That's the normal use of Spoof.

SR4a, page 232 wrote:You send a command to a device or agent, pretending it is from an authorized source.

I genuinely don't get what you are asking for here. IC are agents. Sending them fake commands is what the "Spoof Command" action does. The command to "stand down" or "fuck off" is an available option, so taking the Spoof Command action against IC is much much more efficient than actually fighting them. It's not efficient enough to fight a Hackastack delivered Agent Smith army of say, forty eight Agents. But for one on one, it'll do.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

As you'll notice, I backed up a step...isn't the ENTIRE POINT of hacking (i.e. rolling Hacking + Exploit) that you do not HAVE a valid access ID and are instead hacking in?

There's the rub. Exploit is for when you don't have a valid password, you still need a valid access ID if the node is set up that way. Let's go to page 101 of Unwired:

Unwired, page 101 wrote:A hacker can also instruct the node to block future access connection requests from a particular node or access ID (or a range of nodes/access IDs), locking the target out.

So any node can be set to automatically reject any arbitrarily defined range of Access IDs. Including the range of "all numbers higher and lower than 194583269085485934509305". So if you don't have a valid Access ID (or a spoofed copy of a valid Access ID), your exploits can be rejected without rolling dice. And unfortunately, to spoof a specific Access ID, you have to analyze the icon in question!

The best part about this is that this is Rules as Intended, it's been used by the developers in their worked examples.

Get the fuck off your high horse, asshat

Why are you so mean to people who disagree with you? Is that just like a feature of this place? Fine, we disagree. I am being civil. Would it kill you to do the same?

If you wish to specifically examine an ARO, users, programs, IC, nodes, files, etc., take a Simple Action to Analyze Icon/Node (p. 229). Make a Matrix Perception test using your Computer + Analyze program (rather than Perception + Intuition). Your hits determine how successful the examination is. For each hit scored, you can ask for one piece of information about the object—this could be type, rating, alert status, or any other pertinent information; a list of possible details you could gather from a Matrix Perception test can be found in the Matrix Perception Data sidebar.

One paragraph away, I see this.

When you are accessing a node, you may set your Analyze program to automatically scan and detect other users/icons on that node with a Simple Action. The program will automatically scan the node using your Computer skill; the gamemaster secretly conducts Matrix Perception tests for your program. It will report the presence of any new icons to you. It will maintain that task for as long as you are on that node, until you use it for another purpose, or until you deactivate it.

Now, you could argue that this only allows you to 'count the icons' or receive a list of the icons, but that would be a fallacious argument. Because the test you are performing is specifically defined as a Matrix Perception test. And Matrix Perception tests as we see in the quote I read nine times work like this:

Your hits determine how successful the examination is. For each hit scored, you can ask for one piece of information about the object—this could be type, rating, alert status, or any other pertinent information; a list of possible details you could gather from a Matrix Perception test can be found in the Matrix Perception Data sidebar.

Hence, "Infinity Mirror" is defeated by anyone who has "Set [their] Analyze program to autoamtically scan and detect other users/icons on that node with a Simple Action". Because with one net hit on a Matrix Perception test which is what this test is, you get type which tells you what something is.

In fact, all you have really done in the event Infinity Mirror shows up is to bring the game to a grinding halt as the GM rolls Matrix Perception for an arbitrary number of icons. Every time the test scores one net hit, you can get the type, per RAW. That means bringing in a million Rating 0 virtual pets (or filling a node with a million nothing icons) provides no innate advantage.

So that defeats Infinity Mirror. I don't really UNDERSTAND Hackastack which seems to be the basis of all the other 'sploits. Can you try and explain Hackastack more exhaustively?

The best part about this is that this is Rules as Intended, it's been used by the developers in their worked examples.

Actually I would love it if we could somehow get the guys who wrote the SR4(A) Matrix Rules in here to settle this.

As a mediocre hacker, you can still spend a few hours probing Red Pagoda and log in with a vanishingly small chance of setting off any alerts

Vanishingly small? I can't imagine they're not rolling around 16 Dice (Firewall + Analyze) with a Threshold of your Stealth (presumably 6).

Six successes on 16 dice is not a vanishingly small. It is something that happens all the time at my table. In fact, it's damn close to the average number of successes that 16 dice will roll.

Why are you so mean to people who disagree with you? Is that just like a feature of this place? Fine, we disagree. I am being civil. Would it kill you to do the same?

You aren't being civil, you're being passively aggressive. I find that shit infuriating, and I won't do it. When you say crap like "But I am using common sense!" that implies that the other people are stupid. You didn't directly say they were stupid, but you implied it, which is exactly the same amount offensive. Around here if you disagree with someone you tell them to suck a barrel of cocks and then you go to the mat defending your logical assertions, getting your aggression out in the open rather than pitifully disguising it. We don't need, or want, tone trolls. If you disagree with someone, you better be able to say why, and "because you're a poopy meanie pants!" isn't going to fucking cut it.

Remember: being a tone troll is using an ad hominem. Telling someone that they are an asshat is not. The first is a fucking fallacy, and it is not acceptable in debate. The second is mean, and that's awesome. Because if we can be right and make you cry, that's like two wins.

Now, you could argue that this only allows you to 'count the icons' or receive a list of the icons, but that would be a fallacious argument.

No, that would not be a fallacious argument, because that is literally and exactly what the statement you quoted says that it does. Here, I'll use the small, bold text. Read it nine times:

SR4A wrote:It will report the presence of any new icons to you.

It reports on the PRESENCE of new ICONS. Not the CONTENT. Not the TYPE. Not any of the stuff you actually specifically need to use an actual analyze icon action to get. You know, the stuff you actually need unless your opponents are stupid and color code their secret agents for you.

In fact, all you have really done in the event Infinity Mirror shows up is to bring the game to a grinding halt as the GM rolls Matrix Perception for an arbitrary number of icons. Every time the test scores one net hit, you can get the type, per RAW. That means bringing in a million Rating 0 virtual pets (or filling a node with a million nothing icons) provides no innate advantage.

Even if that were true, which it is not, because it literally and specifically tells you that you are alerted only to the presence of new icons while doing that, it still would not actually defeat infinity mirror. Because under your interpretation you would be told the type of some of the unlimited virtual pets. Last I checked, any noticeable fraction of infinity was still infinity, meaning that your node analysis would still tell you about an unlimited number of icons whose type you did not know. Your interpretation is based on wishful thinking to begin with, but even if it was true it wouldn't stop the Mirror in the slightest, it would just reduce the required actions from 400,000 to 280,000. You still lose. And it's still unfair.

So that defeats Infinity Mirror. I don't really UNDERSTAND Hackastack which seems to be the basis of all the other 'sploits. Can you try and explain Hackastack more exhaustively?

OK, you know how you can log in to the matrix in AR by turning on your commlink, and that there is no required neural interface at all? You have the goggles on, you press the button on your commlink, and the matrix is superimposed on your vision. Commands you press the buttons on your commlink to activate are activated, and the cheese stands alone. Right? You get that. And further, you don't have to send matrix commands every action to stay on the Matrix. You can press a button to activate a program one action, and ignore the matrix entirely to shoot a pistol the next, and then go back to pressing buttons the round after that, because despite the fact that you weren't giving any commands, "you" never left the Matrix. Your Persona was still running. Do you have a sinking feeling yet?

Now, do that again. Only this time, don't actually put the goggles on. Don't even press buttons on the commlink, or even wear it. Just... turn it on. "You" are on the Matrix, even now. Even though there is absolutely nothing from your actual person invested in maintaining the Persona, it's still active, it's still on. And it counts as a Hacker. A Hacker that isn't taking any actions this round, or the round after that, or any round because the actual hardware is just sitting on the table collecting dust and running up a power bill. But it is running, and it can be running Programs.

And one of those programs can be an Agent. And if it is running an Agent, then the Agent can take actions every round, just as it can if you were actually using the damn thing. It can actually do it better, because the actual Hacker never seems to use any processor load.

Now, do that again. Without turning the first commlink off, turn on a second. And a third. And a twenty third. Turn on as many Comms as you want, every single fucking one of them counts as a Hacker with a unique Access ID and a unique Persona, and a full Matrix Condition Track, and a fully functional Agent. An Agent that is itself the "first" Agent running on the Persona that it is nominally attached to, so it gets to bypass the too many Agents kludge from Unwired.

Actually I would love it if we could somehow get the guys who wrote the SR4(A) Matrix Rules in here to settle this.

Aaron? Well, you got two problems:

1. Aaron is a tool.
2. Aaron has himself subsequently agreed that the Matrix rules he wrote are unworkable and now thinks that the rules need a ground-up rewrite.

But sure, there was a time back when he thought that he could make it all work with sufficiently convoluted apologetics. He even wrote a "complete" example of a run through of a fairly simple interaction, which is collected on this very board, and commented on HERE.

-Username17

Schwarzkopf wrote:

The best part about this is that this is Rules as Intended, it's been used by the developers in their worked examples.

Actually I would love it if we could somehow get the guys who wrote the SR4(A) Matrix Rules in here to settle this.

Rules linked by Frank. It really is beyond bad.