Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 10:33:28 -0005
I've been reading through Rigger 2 and learning the new rules. In the
process I've run into several things I have questions about. Since I've
not been able to find the answers in R2 itself I thought I'd post them to
the list and see if anyone else had the answers (would love for Jon Szeto
to explain it)

The vehicle combat rules are okay. A big improvement over the old ones.
I don't know if I agree with the damage rules for collisions... I just
can't quite picture a mo-ped doing 2M damage to a pedestrian (the
minimum damage for any vehicle). I still wish FASA would do mini's rules
at least for vehicle combat. We used to use Car Wars whenever vehicles
were involved, adapting damage from one system to the other. Anyway, for
an abstract vehicle combat system it's not bad.

However, the rules for riggers taking damage when a vehicle takes severe
damage or is destroyed don't work. First, anytime a vehicle takes damage
the passengers may take damage as well. That's fine, makes perfect sense.
But, it also says that if the vehicle takes severe damage the rigger has
to resist 6M Physical damage for being jacked in. That is in addition to
any damage for being a passenger. My first question is, why does the
rigger take physical damage? Shouldn't it be stun damage instead. If
it's physical, then doing severe damage to a vehicle could kill the rigger
because they get hit with damage twice! And then if the vehicle crashes
(because said rigger looses control) and is destroyed... not only do the
passengers, including the rigger, take more damage for the crash, the
rigger now takes 6S physical damage (because the vehicle was destroyed
while the rigger was jacked in). If the rigger wasn't dead before, he
probably is now. So two things, was this a misprint? Should the damage
to the rigger be stun instead of physical? And second, is it really such
a good idea having them get hit with damage twice like this? Assuming
they don't stage it down, that's a total of 9 boxes of damage.

In reading the drone rules, it seems the above mentioned damage rules
apply when drones take severe or deadly damage. I was left with several
questions here. Again... physical damage makes no sense to me. Second,
do riggers face this for every drone they control. If so, operating 3-4
scout drones (which have low body ratings and generally no armor) would be
nearly suicidal! Step on a couple of those arachnoids and you could kill
the security rigger... forget trying to deck the system, it'd be easier to
just splash a few drones. If they do take damage every time a drone is
destroyed I'd like to know why. I could see taking stun damage when a
drone they have "jumped into" is destroyed, call it system shock. But
when in captain's chair mode I just can't see it. They aren't getting any
direct sensory feed from the drones, just general info, so why would they
get that same "system shock"?

Dealing with the security rigger rules left me very frustrated. First
off encryption. Under the current rules there's practically no way to
beat encryption. Here's why. Joe Shmuck decides to go into business for
himself as a security rigger.. he gets a loan and buys a rating 6 deck for
30k, a rating 6 encryption module for another 30k, and a uses the rest of
his small business loan for a few second rate drones. Mr Shmuck gets a
job doing security at local apartment building for mid level corpers.
Later that week a bunch a scruffy shadowrunners need to kidnap... er
extract a corporate type from that apartment building. They've been
fairly successful as runners and have pretty good gear. The team rigger
has a rating 6 deck (30k), a rating 6 decryption module (45k) a level 4
encephalon (115k before street index) and some nice ECM, ECCM, etc. The
team rigger decided to try an take over Mr Shmuck's drones. Despite the
fact that the team's rigger is fairly well equipped he's doomed before he
even tries. Here's why. Assuming the team rigger took a concentration in
Electronic Warfare he probably has a skill rating of 7 or 8 (assuming he
spent 6 points on the skill during character creation and allowing for
some improvement, this is a successful runner after all). The encephalon
gives him a task pool of 3. He figures out which channel Shmuck is
operating on and then tries to crack his encryption. The base target is
4, but since Shmuck has a rating 6 encryption module (only 30k,
availability 6, not hard to get) that TN is now 10. And since Shmuck has
a rating 6 deck (also 30k, availability 4 and not hard to get) the team's
rigger will need a minimum of 3 success. I tried this with a dice roller
(PS 98 woot!) out of 10 tries rolling 17 dice (8 for skill, 3 for task
pool, 6 for the decryption module) only three attempts were successful.
The point... 60k worth of gear beats 190+k worth of gear 70% of the time.
The insurance companies gotta love that! And skill makes little
difference. It doesn't matter that Shmuck is an idiot with no skill
higher than a 2, that 60k deck makes him god. Now if some amatuer can
setup like that... imagine what a corp security rigger would be like and
things start looking very grim fast. Forget the rules for MIJI and so
forth... you'll never see them used. My question is, did I miss
something... have I interpreted things incorrectly? As written I could
play a mage with a data jack and a 60k remote deck and no rigger, no
matter how good would, have much of a chance of taking over any drones
said mage might use. Comforting thought to my mage, but it doesn't seem
right somehow. As I said above.. the way the damage rules are written the
easiest way to dump the rigger from the system would be to just blow up
two or three drones, which would probably *kill* the security rigger.

Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for computer
controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)? That is lets say a decker
sleezes into a system and wants to take control of a security camera for a
quick look see. Under the VR2 rules or even VR1, this is pretty clear.
But what happens when there is a Security Rigger present? Does the decker
have to slug it out with the rigger first? If so, why, if the decker
sleezed in without tripping alarms how would the rigger know anything was
up? Does the decker have to deal with the encryption problems I listed
above? In short... how do these two separate sets of rules work together?
There seems to be no synergy between them. Must the decker enter the
CCSS system to control a security cam or can they do it from the host CPU?
If so, then why would a decker ever enter a CCSS system where they get
royally fragged. I still don't understand why they suffer the penalties
they do. For example No matrix programs can be used, fine, can the decker
write an attack utility that does affect a security rigger (surely you can
induce lethal feedback on a RC deck same as you can against a decker)?
Why the +2 target to all tests, what is it about the CCSS system that is
so alien to a decker to cause this? Why does the decker not get the
response increase from their deck? From what gather reading VR2,
response increase boosts the deck's speed, presumably a faster processor
or such. What is it about a CCSS system that would lag the deck that
much? I would have thought the response increase wouldn't have been
affected. A fast CPU is a fast CPU, doesn't matter what I'm hooked into.
So the only thing I could see is that the CCSS system is that slow. But
if that's the case, then why does the Rigger get so much speed? On the
other hand, it says a decker going up against a security rigger has a
control pool equal to half the rating of their emulation utility. Yet the
rules for rigger vs rigger combat in a CCSS system state that they don't
get access to any dice (except for Karma Pool). This seems a
contradiction to my mind. Any help with these questions would be very
much appreciated.

Also on the topic of cracking rigged security... what happens if a rigger
attempts to take over a system where no security rigger is present? Maybe
there just isn't a security rigger, or perhaps he jacked out for some
reason. Either way, how is this handled? In VR2 it doesn't matter if
there is a security decker or not, the intruding decker has to defeat the
system itself to get control. That doesn't seem to be the case with CCSS.
Frankly I admit, I'm just plain puzzled by this one. And for those
wondering why there would be no security rigger present in a CCSS system,
I can think of a couple of reasons. First, somebody blew up a couple of
drones, and the rigger died from the damage. Or... less cheesy... a mage
buddy slips into the building astrally and watches the security rigger.
Nature calls and the rigger jacks out for a quick potty break. The mage
zips back to his meat body and tells his rigger buddy to hit the system
now while the security rigger is in the bathroom! So what happens when
the intruding rigger attempts to get into the system? Is it automatic?
Surely not, that would be way to easy. On the other hand, if the rigger
has to go up against encryption... well... I've already discussed how
pointless that can be to try. So what happens?

On the topic of drones. What makes a robot a robot? That is,
under drone construction... what option makes a drone into a robot?
Apparently (unless I've missed it) there is a vague option for increasing
the learning pool, but no design option that creates it in the first
place. I like the idea of robots but the rules as presented are extremely
vague. The only listed maximums and cost for improving the learning pool
are listed as "game master's discretion" I don't need to spend $18 on a
book to come up with that.

Anthroforms and walkers sounded like a really neat idea (and the concept
is), but they way they are presented has some flaws, mainly in the lack of
CF. At first I didn't have a problem with them, most options you would
want to add, if added as design options rather than customizations,
require no CF. However, Sensors, ECM, ECCM, ED, & ECD all take up CF, and
together, they can eat up a lot of it! What this means is that any
anthroform or walker drone will likely be stuck with standard sensors
(easy to fool) and succeptible to ECM and ED because there isn't room on
their frames for the appropriate counter measures. The solution I would
think would be to change the CF requirments of the listed electronics.
Especially for sensors. Most electronics can be mirconized to extremely
small sizes *if* you can afford the price tag. Which means the limiting
factor should be cost and availability, not CF. As written, these rules
will make most drones vulnerable to electronic attack. Again, forget
MIJI, just hit them with ECM. Drones are useless lumps of metal if the
owning rigger can't get any commands through the interference.

Lastly, why was the economy for the LAVs (Banshee, Lobo, etc) in the
vehicle section left so low? As has been pointed out at the listed rate
the range of these craft is too short too be of use, flight time will be
about 20 min, and the fuel cost would prohibit them from being used for
anything (other than wasting fuel). The idea of aerial refueling is
laughable. First, what smuggler has the resourced to operate a fleet of
tankers and all the associate flight crews, ground personnel, fuel dumps,
etc.? Second, how long does it take to fill a 7,500 liter tank? With a
flight time of only 20 min I'm guessing you'll crash and burn before you
can finish refueling. And the fix to all this is simple. Up the economy
to it's maximum. It'll cost 375k to do it, which for a 8.44 mil Banshee
is pocket change. At the maximum economy (0.3) you're range jumps from a
a short 375km to a much more reasonable 2,250km. I'm hope the economy
ratings of the rest of the vehicles isn't as bad.


That's it for now, and hopefully I won't run into any other problems. As
I said, maybe I've just missed something in reading the rules, though I
think I've read pretty carefully. Any help or useful suggestions would be
appreciated. Have a good one.
--
@>->,-`---
Ashelock
o=<======-

GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."
Message no. 2
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:50:27 -0500
On 15 Mar 98 at 10:33, Ashlocke wrote:

> I don't know if I agree with the damage rules for collisions... I
> just can't quite picture a mo-ped doing 2M damage to a pedestrian
> (the minimum damage for any vehicle).

Oh I don't know, getting hit with a moving vehicle hurts. Several
years ago a friend of mine who is an avid biker was riding his
bicycle to work one morning, when this lady jogging stepped around a
corner, and they collided. Their heads struck, and she was killed
instantly from trauma to the brain. He would of died too, but he was
wearing a helmet. As it was, he still shattered most of the bones in
his face, including his nose and jaw.

So, yes, the damage rules for collisons are probably accurate.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
- DREKHEAD - |"Let's face it. Sometimes you're
- drekhead@***.net - | the pigeon, and sometimes
*-ShadowRN - GridSec Division-* | you're the statue."
"To Protect and To Serve" | -Unknown
=================================================================
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
Message no. 3
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:26:31 -0500
At 10:33 AM 3/15/98 -0005, you wrote:
I still wish FASA would do mini's rules
>at least for vehicle combat. We used to use Car Wars whenever vehicles
>were involved, adapting damage from one system to the other. Anyway, for
>an abstract vehicle combat system it's not bad.

I don't think the guys at FASA want miniatures to be an indispenable part
of playing SR with vehicles. It's something more to have to buy, to get
started in SR, and there're enough books to buy as-is. And it starts
creeping toward BattleTech, which SR is not.

> Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for
computer
>controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)? That is lets say a decker
>sleezes into a system and wants to take control of a security camera for a
>quick look see. Under the VR2 rules or even VR1, this is pretty clear.
>But what happens when there is a Security Rigger present?

If there is a security rigger present, the slave module is prolly
non-existent, or remove from the host while the rigger is jacked in, to
improve security. If you have someone watching it, you don't need the
computer watching over it, too.


losthalo@********.comwhileyouarelisteningyourwillingattentionismakingyoumore
andmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.




the damned."


TMBG
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:10:06 +0100
Ashlocke said on 10:33/15 Mar 98...

> Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for computer
> controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)?

CCSS was introduced in the Corporate Security Handbook; the rules in R2
appear to be an expanded version of those in the CSH. From the CSH, you
can deduce that its purpose is two-fold: 1) make security more intuitive
to the operator (the rigger "drives" the building's security as he or she
would drive a car), and 2) to make it harder for deckers to get in and
switch off security equipment.

> That is lets say a decker sleezes into a system and wants to take
> control of a security camera for a quick look see. Under the VR2 rules
> or even VR1, this is pretty clear.

Yep, that's because using those rules, the security system is controlled
by the Matrix. With CCSS, it isn't -- it uses totally different protocols,
and that's why deckers first of all need some hard- and software, and
also why they have a much harder time getting the system to work for them.

> But what happens when there is a Security Rigger present? Does the decker
> have to slug it out with the rigger first?

Yes, just like when another rigger tries to take over the system -- in
essence, the decker uses a riger protocol emulation module to become a
rigger. Sort of like running an emulator for one computer type on another.

> I still don't understand why they suffer the penalties they do.

See above; they're doing things in a totally different way than they're
used to and for which a cyberdeck was designed.

> For example No matrix programs can be used, fine, can the decker
> write an attack utility that does affect a security rigger (surely you can
> induce lethal feedback on a RC deck same as you can against a decker)?

No, the decker has to attack the rigger as if the decker were a rigger
too (as per step 5 of the Accessing A Security System rules, pages 79 & 80
of R2).

> Why the +2 target to all tests, what is it about the CCSS system that is
> so alien to a decker to cause this? Why does the decker not get the
> response increase from their deck? From what gather reading VR2,
> response increase boosts the deck's speed, presumably a faster processor
> or such. What is it about a CCSS system that would lag the deck that
> much?

The emulation of the rigger protocols in the decker's deck.

> Also on the topic of cracking rigged security... what happens if a rigger
> attempts to take over a system where no security rigger is present? Maybe
> there just isn't a security rigger, or perhaps he jacked out for some
> reason. Either way, how is this handled?

I'd say you try to break in (pp. 79-80) and then skip step 5, because
there is nobody to oppose the rigger.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Rebel without a chance
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:50:39 EST
Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET> wrote,

> However, the rules for riggers taking damage when a vehicle takes
> severe
> damage or is destroyed don't work. First, anytime a vehicle takes damage
> the passengers may take damage as well. That's fine, makes perfect sense.
> But, it also says that if the vehicle takes severe damage the rigger has
> to resist 6M Physical damage for being jacked in. That is in addition to
> any damage for being a passenger. My first question is, why does the
> rigger take physical damage? Shouldn't it be stun damage instead. If
> it's physical, then doing severe damage to a vehicle could kill the rigger
> because they get hit with damage twice! And then if the vehicle crashes
> (because said rigger looses control) and is destroyed... not only do the
> passengers, including the rigger, take more damage for the crash, the
> rigger now takes 6S physical damage (because the vehicle was destroyed
> while the rigger was jacked in). If the rigger wasn't dead before, he
> probably is now. So two things, was this a misprint? Should the damage
> to the rigger be stun instead of physical? And second, is it really such
> a good idea having them get hit with damage twice like this? Assuming
> they don't stage it down, that's a total of 9 boxes of damage.

The reason the rigger takes 6M (or 6S) Physical damage is because of
the simsense link between the rigger and the vehicle. If a vehicle
takes heavy damage, this produces some collateral damage to the rigger
interface module (the "black box") which results in a backlash ASIST
signal to the rigger. This dissonant signal results in harmful neural
damage, in a much similar manner as to how Black IC causes Physical
Damage in a decker.

Try not to think too literally. When Shadowrun says Physical damage,
it does not mean that the damage is physical in nature (by your line
of reasoning, punches should be Physical Damage, not Stun Damage). If
it will help, think of Physical Damage as lethal damage, damage that
WILL KILL YOU in adequately sufficient quantities.

> In reading the drone rules, it seems the above mentioned damage rules
> apply when drones take severe or deadly damage. I was left with several
> questions here. Again... physical damage makes no sense to me.

See my explanation above. Being in captain's chair attenuates the damage,
because the rigger is not directly interfacing with the drone. However,
damage or destruction to the drone sends an arrhythmic ASIST pulse back
to the remote control deck, which disrupts the simsense feed into the
riggers' brain, resulting in neural damage.

> Dealing with the security rigger rules left me very frustrated.
> First
> off encryption. Under the current rules there's practically no way to
> beat encryption. Here's why. <example snipped>

Beating encryption should be tough. How easy is it, for example,
to break PGP encryption? Not very, I should think.

If you, as the gamemaster, think that defeating high-level encryption
is nigh impossible, then don't allow it. Instead of using Rating 6
encryption, throw them against Rating 3. And if the PLAYERS want Rating
6 encryption, make it so hard to find, that (a) they'll decide it's not
worth it, or (b) the search spins off into a whole new adventure in
trying to get that encryption module.

> And skill makes little
> difference. It doesn't matter that Shmuck is an idiot with no skill
> higher than a 2, that 60k deck makes him god.

Why should skill make a difference for the user? Defeating encryption
isn't a Skill-v.-Skill test; it's pitting the hacking skill of the
intruder against the industrial standard of the encryption. It doesn't
take all that much training to USE encryption. All you have to do is
provide the key, and industry-standard algorithms (the SR- equivalent
of PGP, for example) do the rest. Saying that using good encryption
depends on high levels of encryption skill is like saying all computer
programming has to be done in binary or machine language.

> Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for computer
> controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)?

It doesn't. CCSS is to Matrix hosts as Nintendo game consoles are to
computers. You can't access a CCSS system from the Matrix, and vice
versa.

On the other hand, you CAN physically make adjustments to a cyberdeck,
so that it can communicate with a CCSS system. But because the two are
operating from wholly different concepts (in terms of software,
hardware, AND wetware), it's makes life difficult and degrades
performance. (To use the computer-Nintendo example, in theory, one
could configure a Mac or PC to interface with a game console. But,
because of the differences in software and hardware, why would you?)

> Also on the topic of cracking rigged security... what happens if a
> rigger
> attempts to take over a system where no security rigger is present? Maybe
> there just isn't a security rigger, or perhaps he jacked out for some
> reason. Either way, how is this handled? In VR2 it doesn't matter if
> there is a security decker or not, the intruding decker has to defeat the
> system itself to get control. That doesn't seem to be the case with CCSS.
> Frankly I admit, I'm just plain puzzled by this one. And for those
> wondering why there would be no security rigger present in a CCSS system,
> I can think of a couple of reasons. First, somebody blew up a couple of
> drones, and the rigger died from the damage. Or... less cheesy... a mage
> buddy slips into the building astrally and watches the security rigger.
> Nature calls and the rigger jacks out for a quick potty break. The mage
> zips back to his meat body and tells his rigger buddy to hit the system
> now while the security rigger is in the bathroom! So what happens when
> the intruding rigger attempts to get into the system? Is it automatic?
> Surely not, that would be way to easy. On the other hand, if the rigger
> has to go up against encryption... well... I've already discussed how
> pointless that can be to try. So what happens?

If a CCSS system isn't attended by a rigger, then whoever accesses it
can take control virtually automatically.

If this doesn't sound right, I'd remind you to keep some things in mind.
First, there are a lot of things that have to happen before an
intruding rigger can go one-on-one with a security rigger. (I won't
spell them out here for space, but check out p. 79 for what they are.)
All of these preliminary steps can be protected against by adequate
security measures.

Second, who says the security rigger on duty is the only security
rigger on site? If a corp went through the trouble of installing a
CCSS system, they should have the prudence of making sure that there's
a backup on-site or on-call. If they don't, they deserve to get broken
into.

Third, the decker providing Matrix security can always cover when the
security rigger is out. No it won't be great, and it'll leave the
Matrix security open. But weak security is better than no security.

> On the topic of drones. What makes a robot a robot? That is,
> under drone construction... what option makes a drone into a robot?
> Apparently (unless I've missed it) there is a vague option for increasing
> the learning pool, but no design option that creates it in the first
> place. I like the idea of robots but the rules as presented are extremely
> vague. The only listed maximums and cost for improving the learning pool
> are listed as "game master's discretion" I don't need to spend $18 on a
> book to come up with that.

The difference between a robot and a drone is that a robot is capable
of adapting and changing its algorithms to meet its primary directive.
Drones cannot learn; advanced level drones APPEAR to be learning, but
that's only because they have more options programmed in (so if one
doesn't work, they can move on to another). Conceptually, robots are
very similar to the S-k knobots in Virtual Realities 2.0.

I didn't come up with any design point values because robot technology
(as defined here) is as advanced as AI research, and as such is still
in the experimental stage. As time goes by and the technology matures,
it may be possible to establish some rough guidelines. YMMV.

> Lastly, why was the economy for the LAVs (Banshee, Lobo, etc) in the
> vehicle section left so low? As has been pointed out at the listed rate
> the range of these craft is too short too be of use, flight time will be
> about 20 min, and the fuel cost would prohibit them from being used for
> anything (other than wasting fuel). The idea of aerial refueling is
> laughable. First, what smuggler has the resourced to operate a fleet of
> tankers and all the associate flight crews, ground personnel, fuel dumps,
> etc.? Second, how long does it take to fill a 7,500 liter tank? With a
> flight time of only 20 min I'm guessing you'll crash and burn before you
> can finish refueling. And the fix to all this is simple. Up the economy
> to it's maximum. It'll cost 375k to do it, which for a 8.44 mil Banshee
> is pocket change. At the maximum economy (0.3) you're range jumps from a
> a short 375km to a much more reasonable 2,250km. I'm hope the economy
> ratings of the rest of the vehicles isn't as bad.

T-birds are powered by jet turbines (most likely turbofans, or the
next evolutionary descendant of them), which are notorious gas
guzzlers. (You'll note that the economies for all jet turbine aircraft
are just as low.) Additionally, because of the nature of the t-bird,
the large majority of the thrust provided by their engines goes into
vertical lift, with only a small fraction allocated for forward thrust.
Since economy is measured as units of fuel consumed per kilometer
TRAVELED, economy is low, because a lot of fuel is being burned trying
to keep the bird aloft.

Hope that helps,

-- Jon
Message no. 6
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:02:40 -0700
At 16:50 16/03/98 EST, you wrote:
>> Dealing with the security rigger rules left me very frustrated.
>> First
>> off encryption. Under the current rules there's practically no way to
>> beat encryption. Here's why. <example snipped>
>
>Beating encryption should be tough. How easy is it, for example,
>to break PGP encryption? Not very, I should think.

PGP is not all that hard to crack, especially with ample CPU power and
time. There are utilities to do it on every platform, and I'm fairly
certain the source code is freely available. There would surely be things
like this in 205x.

>> Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for
computer
>> controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)?
>
>It doesn't. CCSS is to Matrix hosts as Nintendo game consoles are to
>computers. You can't access a CCSS system from the Matrix, and vice
>versa.

If I had the right box, I could toss an Nintendo cart into it, save it to a
ROM file, and run it with any of the masses of publically avaiable
emulators. Same with most console systems and arcade systems -- I'm fairly
certain there's a Playstation emulator that you can just drop the
Playstation game into your computer and play it. Slow as hell though.

>On the other hand, you CAN physically make adjustments to a cyberdeck,
>so that it can communicate with a CCSS system. But because the two are
>operating from wholly different concepts (in terms of software,
>hardware, AND wetware), it's makes life difficult and degrades
>performance. (To use the computer-Nintendo example, in theory, one
>could configure a Mac or PC to interface with a game console. But,
>because of the differences in software and hardware, why would you?)

In theory? Try www.davesclassics.com, and you'll see all the work that
people are putting into emulators for every single console/arcade/outdated
computer platform there is. It's not a theory, it's a thriving hobby.

(Incidentally, Robert Hayden recently donated space to Dave..)

As for the software and hardware differences -- can you find a working
Atari 2600? A copy of the standup arcade game "Wrestlefest?"

(And yes, these things are illegal. So would be decking/rigging to the
degree listed above, in most cases.)

-Adam J
nit-pick, nit-pick, nit-pick
-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ SR Archive Co-Maintainer \ fro@***.ab.ca
"Now I'm going to come on stage, and nobody is going to fight, because I wear
rented suits and can't be hurt." -- Jerry Springer.
Message no. 7
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:25:23 +1000
Adam J writes:
>>On the other hand, you CAN physically make adjustments to a cyberdeck,
>>so that it can communicate with a CCSS system. But because the two are
>>operating from wholly different concepts (in terms of software,
>>hardware, AND wetware), it's makes life difficult and degrades
>>performance. (To use the computer-Nintendo example, in theory, one
>>could configure a Mac or PC to interface with a game console. But,
>>because of the differences in software and hardware, why would you?)


Actually Bandai were (have?) going to put out a console which would be
directly compatable with the Machintosh (it was going to use a subset of the
MacOS as the OS for it). It had a codename of Pippin. Probably been dropped
now, though. I certainly haven't heard anything about it for a while.

There was also an adapter I saw once, for use with the Nintendo SNES, and
Mario Paint, to let you save the paint files to a PC.

>In theory? Try www.davesclassics.com, and you'll see all the work that
>people are putting into emulators for every single console/arcade/outdated
>computer platform there is. It's not a theory, it's a thriving hobby.


True. :) It's also illegal as hell, but most of the original authors don't
care, simply because no-one would buy the things anyway. After all, would
YOU buy a copy of Frogger for the VIC-20?

I got a real case of nostalgia when I saw my first PET emulator... I just
had to go dig out the first computer program I ever wrote (for the Commodore
PET, natch) and load it up to see how it worked. :) (I'm not talking about
Hello World or simple batch programs, either... this was a real program.)

Speaking practically: writing emulators is a good exercise in
writing/designing low-level software.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 8
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:12:01 -0500
At 10:25 AM 3/17/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Adam J writes:
>>>On the other hand, you CAN physically make adjustments to a cyberdeck,
>>>so that it can communicate with a CCSS system. But because the two are
>>>operating from wholly different concepts (in terms of software,
>>>hardware, AND wetware), it's makes life difficult and degrades
>>>performance. (To use the computer-Nintendo example, in theory, one
>>>could configure a Mac or PC to interface with a game console. But,
>>>because of the differences in software and hardware, why would you?)
>
>
>Actually Bandai were (have?) going to put out a console which would be
>directly compatable with the Machintosh (it was going to use a subset of the
>MacOS as the OS for it). It had a codename of Pippin. Probably been dropped
>now, though. I certainly haven't heard anything about it for a while.
>
>
Actually, as I recall, the Pippin was designed by Apple. I can't recall
for the life of me what it what supposed to do though. I think it was
supposed to be a WebTV clone though...

News out of Apple now is that they are working feverishly on something
called "Columbus." Supposed to be a DVD player, WebTV clone, and a bunch
of other entertainment type things for a reasonable price; the next
"insanely great product."

Basically, your Shadowrun entertainment center...be interesting to see what
happens with it.

Erik J.
Message no. 9
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:05:19 GMT
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:50:39 EST, JonSzeto wrote:

> Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET> wrote,
>
> > Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for computer
> > controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)?
>
> It doesn't. CCSS is to Matrix hosts as Nintendo game consoles are to
> computers. You can't access a CCSS system from the Matrix, and vice
> versa.

So let me get this straight (I need to, since our referee and I had a
slight disagreement as to how efficient netrunners were at defeating and/or
controlling building security). Please speak out if I have gotten anything
wrong.

There are two types of security system networks: CCSS and CISS.

The former is the security rigger's domain, which he accesses with hundreds
of thousands of nuyen worth of cybernetics and/or gear. This is the system
discussed in Rigger 2 and can control cameras, gun emplacements, doors,
drones, etc. Netrunners can fill the role of a security rigger, but at
substantial penalties (and s/he still needs those hundreds of thousands of
nuyen worth of cybernetics and/or gear).

The latter is not discussed in Rigger 2, but in the Corporate Security
Handbook. With CISS, a netrunner can access data, as well as security
camera feeds-- but no doors, locks, or weapon emplacements (whether or not
s/he can manipulate those cameras as you would a gun emplacement is not
clear). It is therefore impossible to control these other devices as you
would with a CCSS. On the bright side, you don't need hundreds of
thousands of nuyen worth of cybernetics and/or gear to gain control over a
CISS system (or do you?). There are no computer programs in existence on
the hacked computer system that would allow a netrunner to gain control of
doors, drones, etc. via a simple cyberdeck link.

Older netrunning rules (which ones are still in effect, I am not sure) had
netrunners doing everything a security rigger used to. These are the rules
our ref is mostly familiar with. Now here's a big question: "Are these
rules still official, or is the only way a netrunner can control the
physical components of a building's security system with CCSS?"



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 10
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:07:30 -0500
>>Beating encryption should be tough. How easy is it, for example,
>>to break PGP encryption? Not very, I should think.
>
>PGP is not all that hard to crack, especially with ample CPU power and
>time. There are utilities to do it on every platform, and I'm fairly
>certain the source code is freely available. There would surely be things
>like this in 205x.

I beg to differ - simple RSA encryption (available since the 1970s)
takes huge amounts of time to crack. DES has been broken by netwide
groups of 50000 or so computers within weeks, but PGP uses more secure
algorithms.

A quick "+PGP faq" on altavista returns:
http://www.ekaterinburg.com:80/Leisure/books/old/faq/pgp/pgp03.html
where it mentions that only one RSA key has been broken - and that
took 5000 MIPS-years (it was a 430-bit key; people regularly use
1024-bit keys now).

James Ojaste
Message no. 11
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:51:55 EST
<snipped comments and comparisons of CCSS, Rigger and Decker style>

Okay, I found what Jon posted interesting, but definitely -one sided-.
Deckers can also access Slaves, as long as those slave systems are connected
appropriately. Rigger's appear to be able to have finer control of those
Slaves is all.

The difference is where the 'Final Authority" lies in the system itself, IMO.
Is the system set up so that Rigger has the final say in who opens the door or
does the Decker have it.

Does the guy that isn't watching anything directly, perhaps a "Captain's
Chair" individual with Rigger Protocols on one "window" and Decker
Protocols
(like "Cool Mode") in another "window".

On a single decision, a "Free Action" in game mechanics terms, he could make
the decision on which set of protocols have priority over a given Slave.
Parallel development and potentially a waste of resources, yes. But it
creates a different variation of "security" overall.

-K
Message no. 12
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:41:21 -0500
Ereskanti asked:
>Okay, I found what Jon posted interesting, but definitely -one sided-.
>Deckers can also access Slaves, as long as those slave systems are connected
>appropriately. Rigger's appear to be able to have finer control of those
>Slaves is all.

Well, those systems are connected using the CCSS protocol. A rigger
can "speak" that protocol naturally, a decker needs a translator.
Given that CCSS systems are designed to circumvent the problems
associated with standard matrix-based systems, I wouldn't expect
a decker to do very well in them...

>The difference is where the 'Final Authority" lies in the system itself, IMO.
>Is the system set up so that Rigger has the final say in who opens the door
>or
>does the Decker have it.

The "Final Authority" as you say, lies with the protocol. If a door
is told to open, it will. It doesn't know *who* or *what* is telling
it to open - neither does it care. So basically the decker is
fighting the rigger on the rigger's turf and has the translation
disadvantage to boot. Therefore, you break out the Rigger-Rigger
combat rules (the translation module makes the decker look like
a rigger). Unless the decker is gross, the rigger wins. Simple!

>Does the guy that isn't watching anything directly, perhaps a "Captain's
>Chair" individual with Rigger Protocols on one "window" and Decker
Protocols
>(like "Cool Mode") in another "window".

The Rigger doesn't have to watch - he can *feel*. He moves a finger
and a door opens. He feels the weight of a helicopter landing on
his roof/back. He *becomes* the building. More of a subconscious
thing.

>On a single decision, a "Free Action" in game mechanics terms, he could make
>the decision on which set of protocols have priority over a given Slave.
>Parallel development and potentially a waste of resources, yes. But it
>creates a different variation of "security" overall.

It's just dumb to build a system designed to frustrate matrix-based
attacks and then allow a matrix connection. It's like adding a
retinal scanner for better security, but allowing it to be bypassed
in case somebody forgets their eye. :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 13
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:21:29 EST
In a message dated 98-03-18 13:39:36 EST, you write:

> >On a single decision, a "Free Action" in game mechanics terms, he could
> make
> >the decision on which set of protocols have priority over a given Slave.
> >Parallel development and potentially a waste of resources, yes. But it
> >creates a different variation of "security" overall.
>
> It's just dumb to build a system designed to frustrate matrix-based
> attacks and then allow a matrix connection. It's like adding a
> retinal scanner for better security, but allowing it to be bypassed
> in case somebody forgets their eye. :-)
>
I love this...why is it Dumb?

Sure, I wouldn't see an entire building being built "Dual Protocol", but for
so long, especially before Corporate Security or R2, Deckers had the control
of the alarms and the buildings passageways.

I don't see all of that as having gone away.

Hell, that -IS- what 'Slaves' Tests are for...

-K
Message no. 14
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:30:08 -0500
Ereskanti wrote:
>> It's just dumb to build a system designed to frustrate matrix-based
>> attacks and then allow a matrix connection. It's like adding a
>> retinal scanner for better security, but allowing it to be bypassed
>> in case somebody forgets their eye. :-)
>>
>I love this...why is it Dumb?

Because it is pointless to try and increase security, but leave the
old security holes in place! If you know that somebody has a copy
of the key to your back door, you don't change the locks on the
front!
>
>Sure, I wouldn't see an entire building being built "Dual Protocol", but for
>so long, especially before Corporate Security or R2, Deckers had the control
>of the alarms and the buildings passageways.

And *that* is the *exact* problem. Deckers had the control - not
the corps. The corps didn't like that. So the corps changed the
rules.
>
>I don't see all of that as having gone away.

Well, as I understand it, CCSS is still more expensive etc. and
therefore more rare, but the I'd expect the high security places
to move to CCSS pretty quickly.

>Hell, that -IS- what 'Slaves' Tests are for...

Security holes get plugged all the time. Once upon a time, it
was trivial to hack into Unix machines through the old sendmail
bugs. Now, most of those bugs have been found and fixed, and
other people have moved on to different programs altogether.
SOTA advances...

James Ojaste
Message no. 15
From: Da Twink Daddy <twinkie@*******.DMSC.K12.AR.US>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:41:13 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
>> It's just dumb to build a system designed to frustrate matrix-based
>> attacks and then allow a matrix connection. It's like adding a
>> retinal scanner for better security, but allowing it to be bypassed
>> in case somebody forgets their eye. :-)


>I love this...why is it Dumb?

Because the purpose of CCSS _is_ to make the Security system impeneratrable
to Matrix based attacks.

>Sure, I wouldn't see an entire building being built "Dual Protocol", but
for
>so long, especially before Corporate Security or R2, Deckers had the
control
>of the alarms and the buildings passageways.


>I don't see all of that as having gone away.

>Hell, that -IS- what 'Slaves' Tests are for...

In R2 (I don't have CS) it says (or at least implies) that CCSS and Matrix
connects are an incompatable set of protocols. Most systems are still under
Matrix control however, becuase the wiring for CCSS is much more complex.
Each device must have a black box attached between it and the rigger (a
single black box can't do multiple systems) plus for any upgrades or
defences (such as encryption) not only does the rigger side have to have an
encryption capable VCR (or is it RCD?) and each device must be set up to
recieve these encrypted signals. Under a Matrix system anyone can access the
security via a matrix connection but "encryption" is much simpler to
implement because it is implemented on a software level. So is the simsence
(the compter translates the different things, you can't even really "jump"
into one via matrix access, there are tradeoffs). Plus, for a CCSS system
you do have to have rigger on almost 24/7 otherwise you will get fragged
(and deserve to).

This means A) Only _HIGH_ security _HIGH_ budget establishment will have a
CCSS system B) Deckers are supposed to frag with CCSS systems (that's what
they were built for) and can only frag with them the same way a rigger would
(Unless they want to try and use thier deck, I'd almost just wanna go pure
datajack.).

Making a dual system would be hard. It's like trying to run two OSes on one
computer it's possible, just a little more difficult. Also, since this is an
entire security system think dual booting a whole network upon server
command. The two protocols won't work at the same time (at least not with
2060 tech.) So, if you want to switch to matrix (computer) control you have
to "reboot" the entire system. This gives a window of opportunity for
"invaders" I would say use the shutdown (going from matrix) times in VR2
divided by 5 (Since you are just shuting down a subsystem) and have "boot"
time 1/2 of that (going to matrix). (With certain sytems coming on-line
during the time and finally reaching full capaity and the end of the last
round). As for shutting down CCSS protocol I'd say instant. For "booting"
CCSS I'd say 2-3 combat turns.

Now, there would be a second way which could also simulate a system under
upgrade. Some devices use matrix control while others are connected to a
rigger. This causes problems for both systems as sometimes intruders into
the other system. However, it will tie up two ppl to shut the system down.
(Remember we have two protocols and with current tech they can't
communicate)

Sorry I went a rambling, I was just keeping quiet until I could post this.

Da Twink Daddy ( twinkie@*******.dmsc.k12.ar.us gilmeth@*********.com
UIN:514984)
----------
"Don't hit me!! I'm in the Twilight Zone!!!" --Zippy the Pinhead
----------
http://vancove.dmsc.k12.ar.us/~twinkie/
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/3759/
Message no. 16
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:51:30 EST
In a message dated 98-03-19 10:27:58 EST, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:

>
> Security holes get plugged all the time. Once upon a time, it
> was trivial to hack into Unix machines through the old sendmail
> bugs. Now, most of those bugs have been found and fixed, and
> other people have moved on to different programs altogether.
> SOTA advances...
>
And, as the saying goes, the tighter the grip, the greater the slip.

In a recent run, the one that got us all in trouble here. We did use CCSS
systems to invade our way in by tapping into the line and then going about the
stealthiest methods available.

Hell, what gave use the hardest trouble was the fact that the building
security had a decker on one "protocol line" and the rigger on the other one.

I seriously doubt that they'd get rid of everything, especially with the fact
that a Rigger system does not require anything more than a Protocol Emulations
Utility (which a Decker can program btw) and a Rigger Interface (which anyone
can have).

Deckers at least have to constantly combat the SOTA, programs are the easiest
thing to have in conflict with SOTA. Hardware is not as easy, and takes more
to upgrade into when it does happen.

Hell, it was the fact that the Rigger was active in control and the decker
wasn't, that we made it in to begin with. They have the greater limit to what
they can do in the Simsense Universe, as their deck is no where near as
sophisticated to get around IMO.

-K
Message no. 17
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:57:58 EST
In a message dated 98-03-19 12:42:42 EST, twinkie@*******.DMSC.K12.AR.US
writes:

> Because the purpose of CCSS _is_ to make the Security system impeneratrable
> to Matrix based attacks.

Which promptly opens it up to invasion from other routes.

> In R2 (I don't have CS) it says (or at least implies) that CCSS and Matrix
> connects are an incompatable set of protocols. Most systems are still under
> Matrix control however, becuase the wiring for CCSS is much more complex.
> Each device must have a black box attached between it and the rigger (a
> single black box can't do multiple systems) plus for any upgrades or
> defences (such as encryption) not only does the rigger side have to have an
> encryption capable VCR (or is it RCD?) and each device must be set up to
> recieve these encrypted signals. Under a Matrix system anyone can access
the
> security via a matrix connection but "encryption" is much simpler to
> implement because it is implemented on a software level. So is the simsence
> (the compter translates the different things, you can't even really "jump"
> into one via matrix access, there are tradeoffs). Plus, for a CCSS system
> you do have to have rigger on almost 24/7 otherwise you will get fragged
> (and deserve to).
>
>
> Making a dual system would be hard. It's like trying to run two OSes on one
> computer it's possible, just a little more difficult. Also, since this is
an
> entire security system think dual booting a whole network upon server
> command. The two protocols won't work at the same time (at least not with
> 2060 tech.) So, if you want to switch to matrix (computer) control you have
> to "reboot" the entire system. This gives a window of opportunity for
> "invaders" I would say use the shutdown (going from matrix) times in VR2
> divided by 5 (Since you are just shuting down a subsystem) and have "boot"
> time 1/2 of that (going to matrix). (With certain sytems coming on-line
> during the time and finally reaching full capaity and the end of the last
> round). As for shutting down CCSS protocol I'd say instant. For "booting"
> CCSS I'd say 2-3 combat turns.
>
> Now, there would be a second way which could also simulate a system under
> upgrade. Some devices use matrix control while others are connected to a
> rigger. This causes problems for both systems as sometimes intruders into
> the other system. However, it will tie up two ppl to shut the system down.
> (Remember we have two protocols and with current tech they can't
> communicate)

Actually, they have other ways of communicating, such as a second datajack and
a "Window of Communications" kept up that is -not- connected to the system
itself. Hell, it's an old stunt in a lot of games I know of, the two deckers
(as riggers were rare) often just linked their datajacks with a given cord, no
deck, and used that to have "private conversations".

And switching priority command isn't the same as switching OS. That you would
need to look into more carefully.

And with the current tech, they can, they just interact at different
perceptive speeds/interface times. The interaction level is just very
limited.

-K
Message no. 18
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:58:54 EST
In a message dated 98-03-19 18:59:05 EST, you write:

> Actually, they have other ways of communicating, such as a second datajack
and
> a "Window of Communications" kept up that is -not- connected to the system
> itself. Hell, it's an old stunt in a lot of games I know of, the two
> deckers
> (as riggers were rare) often just linked their datajacks with a given cord,
> no
> deck, and used that to have "private conversations".
>
> And switching priority command isn't the same as switching OS. That you
> would
> need to look into more carefully.
>
> And with the current tech, they can, they just interact at different
> perceptive speeds/interface times. The interaction level is just very
> limited.

And since we are dealing in programming, it would probably not be at all that
difficult for someone to program something that allows simple communication
between a CCSS and Rigger System.

I can see some of the larger buildings having separate CCSS and Matrix
Systems, but I could see for some of the smaller buildings and corps where the
two systems are blended together to form something much stranger.

A CCSS Matrix System ... wherein the system protocols have both matrix and
CCSS protocols and can handle both types of interfaces. The decker protocols
handles the decker stuff, and the system rigger handles the CCSS stuff.

Mike
Message no. 19
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:54:38 EST
In a message dated 98-03-19 18:52:28 EST, you write:

K (or Ereskanti) ...

> And, as the saying goes, the tighter the grip, the greater the slip.
>
> In a recent run, the one that got us all in trouble here. We did use CCSS
> systems to invade our way in by tapping into the line and then going about
> the
> stealthiest methods available.
>
> Hell, what gave use the hardest trouble was the fact that the building
> security had a decker on one "protocol line" and the rigger on the other
one.

The one thing I had done with both the rigger and the decker was that they
were both waiting for the system sheathes to ping them and tell them to get
online. And the system was clearly separating the two sheathes since one of
them was better able to handle the problem than the other, and they were on
the same system line.

> I seriously doubt that they'd get rid of everything, especially with the
> fact
> that a Rigger system does not require anything more than a Protocol
> Emulations
> Utility (which a Decker can program btw) and a Rigger Interface (which
> anyone
> can have).
>
> Deckers at least have to constantly combat the SOTA, programs are the
> easiest
> thing to have in conflict with SOTA. Hardware is not as easy, and takes
> more
> to upgrade into when it does happen.
>
> Hell, it was the fact that the Rigger was active in control and the decker
> wasn't, that we made it in to begin with. They have the greater limit to
> what
> they can do in the Simsense Universe, as their deck is no where near as
> sophisticated to get around IMO.

The one thing I have been mulling over is what happens when someone hacks into
a rigger system and there are more than one rigger in control of the other
system. Several of the problems I could see occuring is the intruding rigger
will be gang-banged by the system riggers, or, the hacking rigger is going to
have to jump all of the system riggers before they get "him" first.

So, what would the maximum number of people that could be rigged into a CCSS
system ? I would say that a CCSS could have up to a number of system riggers
in it up to it's tech rating (for the building security - see R2 for more
information), and all that would be required is additional rigger adaption
modules or whatever the interface is.

Mike
Message no. 20
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:49:44 EST
In a message dated 98-03-19 20:59:54 EST, you write:

> A CCSS Matrix System ... wherein the system protocols have both matrix and
> CCSS protocols and can handle both types of interfaces. The decker
> protocols
> handles the decker stuff, and the system rigger handles the CCSS stuff.
>
> Mike
>
That would be ugly, would probably remind most deckers of the descriptions of
the "Tir Na nOg" network from the sourcebook of the same name.

HEY!!! Now there's an idea. Comnodes would "manifest" in the Matrix in a
similar fashion as Rigger Protocol Nodes.

That's an idea...
-K
Message no. 21
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:27:44 -0500
Ereskanti wrote:
> In a message dated 98-03-19 10:27:58 EST, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:
>
> >
> > Security holes get plugged all the time. Once upon a time, it
> > was trivial to hack into Unix machines through the old sendmail
> > bugs. Now, most of those bugs have been found and fixed, and
> > other people have moved on to different programs altogether.
> > SOTA advances...
> >
> And, as the saying goes, the tighter the grip, the greater the slip.

Huh? The looser the grip, the less you care about slips!

> In a recent run, the one that got us all in trouble here. We did use CCSS
> systems to invade our way in by tapping into the line and then going about
the
> stealthiest methods available.

OK, after fighting out with the Rigger, I suppose.

> Hell, what gave use the hardest trouble was the fact that the building
> security had a decker on one "protocol line" and the rigger on the other
one.

House rule, I take it.

> I seriously doubt that they'd get rid of everything, especially with the
fact
> that a Rigger system does not require anything more than a Protocol
Emulations
> Utility (which a Decker can program btw) and a Rigger Interface (which
anyone
> can have).

Yeah - but it gives some unpleasant modifiers IIRC.

> Deckers at least have to constantly combat the SOTA, programs are the
easiest
> thing to have in conflict with SOTA. Hardware is not as easy, and takes
more
> to upgrade into when it does happen.

Yup - like the Rigger Protocol Emulation module.

> Hell, it was the fact that the Rigger was active in control and the decker
> wasn't, that we made it in to begin with. They have the greater limit to
what
> they can do in the Simsense Universe, as their deck is no where near as
> sophisticated to get around IMO.

Well, to be exact the Rigger doesn't exist in the "Matrix" view
of the universe - the Rigger becomes the building. He *feels*
doors open and wills them shut. He doesn't go around checking
on alarms and weak points, he starts to itch if they get disturbed.
None of this "deckers flying around in a virtual universe" crap.

James Ojaste
Message no. 22
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:36:17 EST
In a message dated 98-03-20 08:25:23 EST, you write:

> > In a recent run, the one that got us all in trouble here. We did use CCSS
> > systems to invade our way in by tapping into the line and then going
about
> the
> > stealthiest methods available.
>
> OK, after fighting out with the Rigger, I suppose.

Actually, here's a leap of logic for ya. Try using -all- the MIJI rules, and
you can easily come up with "stealth" for Rigger Interactions. It's a loose
term usage, as I don't have the R2 in front of me. The fight with the rigger
didn't actually happen until -after- the group had made it to the fence (and
there was simply too much going on to fool the guy any longer).

> > Hell, what gave use the hardest trouble was the fact that the building
> > security had a decker on one "protocol line" and the rigger on the
other
> one.
>
> House rule, I take it.

No, Corporate Securities Rules actually. Rigger in chair of the room, Decker
in another chair of the room. You see, the only -House Rule- that we used
that game was the Encephalon for the guy doing the hacking of the system(s).

And after reading that idea that my roommate put up/out, the idea of merging
the two systems much like the way the general matrix/communication lines are
done in Tir Na nOg, the ideas are gonna get worse and A LOT more lethal.

> > I seriously doubt that they'd get rid of everything, especially with the
> fact
> > that a Rigger system does not require anything more than a Protocol
> Emulations
> > Utility (which a Decker can program btw) and a Rigger Interface (which
> anyone
> > can have).
>
> Yeah - but it gives some unpleasant modifiers IIRC.

It does slow down the decker, normally, yes. I don't remember the modifiers,
if any for a decker using a ProtoEm than a Rigger using one.

>
> > Deckers at least have to constantly combat the SOTA, programs are the
> easiest
> > thing to have in conflict with SOTA. Hardware is not as easy, and takes
> more
> > to upgrade into when it does happen.
>
> Yup - like the Rigger Protocol Emulation module.

My point is that the hardware will not be upgrading nearly as often as the
software, especially if more "current day" comparisons are being used.
Ignoring this stupid CPU stuff going on right now.

> > Hell, it was the fact that the Rigger was active in control and the
decker
> > wasn't, that we made it in to begin with. They have the greater limit to
> what
> > they can do in the Simsense Universe, as their deck is no where near as
> > sophisticated to get around IMO.
>
> Well, to be exact the Rigger doesn't exist in the "Matrix" view
> of the universe - the Rigger becomes the building. He *feels*
> doors open and wills them shut. He doesn't go around checking
> on alarms and weak points, he starts to itch if they get disturbed.
> None of this "deckers flying around in a virtual universe" crap.

You are correct in that the perceptions are different for a Rigger than for a
Decker, but they both go around in the "Simsense Universe". Please note, I
didn't call it a Matrix Universe, and I didn't do that for a reason. Both
systems use Simsense, they just use it differently. One to the higher end
functions and the visual cortex, one to the instinctive/lower end functions
and the motor cortex.

And it is possible to create programs that could effect the rigger protocol
system, they are just not -Matrix- programs.

Gosh, yet more ideas to keep things on their toes.

-K
Message no. 23
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems -Reply
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:16:55 -0500
>The one thing I have been mulling over is what happens when
>someone hacks into a rigger system and there are more than one
>rigger in control of the other system.

IMHO, due to the nature of what a rigger system is, that there can only
be ONE rigger in a system at a time, any others will just be "along for the
ride" like watching a simsense. The decker in control will be aware of
any simsense "hitchers" immediately as well, I'd say. Want to switch
from passive to active rigger? Be prepared for a willpower fight if the
current rigger is not ameniable.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 24
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:39:19 -0600
> > And, as the saying goes, the tighter the grip, the greater the slip.
>
> Huh? The looser the grip, the less you care about slips!

Slightly more famous way of putting the original quote:

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your
fingers."
-Princess Leia, Star Wars, Episode IV, "A New Hope."

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
ICQ 8108186 , AIM handle Nexx3
************
A beautiful woman is the hell of the soul, the purgatory of the purse, and the
paradise of the eye.........
***********
Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been
poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find
that money cannot be eaten.
- Cree Indian Prophecy
***********
Am Moireach Mor!
Message no. 25
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:51:52 +0000
About James and Keith's discussion:

Keith, I *think* that what you're trying to describe was a system
where a rigger and decker is cooperating on a CCSS system, the decker
to ensure system integrity while the rigger works the system. Is
that about right?

It sounds like an interesting idea. I'd be slightly careful, though,
about advocating it. The discussion is partly, intended or not,
about wether SR should be 'classed'. Should a Decker be able to do
everything a rigger can, and then some? And if so, how much should it
cost him? The same goes for a rigger. They are allready overlapping,
as the same skills and, to some extent, the same cyberware gives
bonuses. It is not surprising at all that there's disagreement on
this - it is obvious when you read the sourcebooks that FASA's
authors are in disagreement on it as well. (In VR1.0, mages had
penalties when decking, in VR2.0 they don't, for instance.).

I suggest all of you think about it, reach an answer by yourself, and
leave it at that. As a discussion, it will *not* reach a conclusion.
This reaches deep into how you play and envision the game, and it's
not likely to change, only generate a lot of bad feelings.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 26
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:29:17 -0500
Ereskanti wrote:
>> > Hell, what gave use the hardest trouble was the fact that the building
>> > security had a decker on one "protocol line" and the rigger on
the other
>> one.
>>
>> House rule, I take it.
>
>No, Corporate Securities Rules actually. Rigger in chair of the room, Decker
>in another chair of the room. You see, the only -House Rule- that we used
>that game was the Encephalon for the guy doing the hacking of the system(s).

So did the Rigger system interconnect with the Decker's system?
(Sorry - haven't read CS in a while)

>And after reading that idea that my roommate put up/out, the idea of merging
>the two systems much like the way the general matrix/communication lines are
>done in Tir Na nOg, the ideas are gonna get worse and A LOT more lethal.

Lethal is easy. Heck - a high-security place is easy. What's tricky
is making it just challenging enough to be interesting, yet possible.

>> > Deckers at least have to constantly combat the SOTA, programs are the
>> easiest
>> > thing to have in conflict with SOTA. Hardware is not as easy, and takes
>> more
>> > to upgrade into when it does happen.
>>
>> Yup - like the Rigger Protocol Emulation module.
>
>My point is that the hardware will not be upgrading nearly as often as the
>software, especially if more "current day" comparisons are being used.
>Ignoring this stupid CPU stuff going on right now.

What stupid CPU stuff going on? If anything, the CPU market has
calmed down the past few years. What's really ramping up nowadays
is 3d graphics processing. Granted, corps wouldn't want to put in
a security system that hadn't been *thoroughly* tested - which takes
time. On the other hand, the same goes for software.

>> > Hell, it was the fact that the Rigger was active in control and the
>decker
>> > wasn't, that we made it in to begin with. They have the greater limit
>>to
>> what
>> > they can do in the Simsense Universe, as their deck is no where near as
>> > sophisticated to get around IMO.
>>
>> Well, to be exact the Rigger doesn't exist in the "Matrix" view
>> of the universe - the Rigger becomes the building. He *feels*
>> doors open and wills them shut. He doesn't go around checking
>> on alarms and weak points, he starts to itch if they get disturbed.
>> None of this "deckers flying around in a virtual universe" crap.
>
>You are correct in that the perceptions are different for a Rigger than for a
>Decker, but they both go around in the "Simsense Universe". Please note, I
>didn't call it a Matrix Universe, and I didn't do that for a reason. Both
>systems use Simsense, they just use it differently. One to the higher end
>functions and the visual cortex, one to the instinctive/lower end functions
>and the motor cortex.

I don't agree with your use of the term "Simsense Universe" - it's
like saying that if two people are in the room and one of them is
playing Myst and the other is surfing the web then they both go
around in the same "Computer Universe"? I also don't think that
"go around" is appropriate. The Rigger never moves. Well, he
may twitch a little (opening doors etc.). The Decker, on the other
hand, changes his perspective constantly - he's the one who goes
around doing things. The Rigger just *is*.
>
>And it is possible to create programs that could effect the rigger protocol
>system, they are just not -Matrix- programs.

Possibly. Don't forget - it can't all be done in software (deckers
need that Rigger Protocol Emulation Module after all).

I think that's all I have to say on this subject. (See Fade - I
know when enough is enough. :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 27
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:09:34 EST
In a message dated 98-03-20 11:53:21 EST, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

<snipped earlier part of reply>

> I suggest all of you think about it, reach an answer by yourself, and
> leave it at that. As a discussion, it will *not* reach a conclusion.
> This reaches deep into how you play and envision the game, and it's
> not likely to change, only generate a lot of bad feelings.

Yes Rune, I do agree, that is kind of what I envisioned. Damn, those talks
really did give you an idea or two on me. I must say, you are a lot more
understandable for me too.

But, on a question. What did you think of the "merged system" in a fashion
similar to that offered in the Tir book?

-K
Message no. 28
From: Da Twink Daddy <twinkie@*******.DMSC.K12.AR.US>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:56:39 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>


>> Because the purpose of CCSS _is_ to make the Security system
impeneratrable
>> to Matrix based attacks.

>Which promptly opens it up to invasion from other routes.

There's always trade-offs. If I was a corp and I could "justify" the
expenditure I would much rather have a CCSS system even with it's quirks.

>> In R2 (I don't have CS) it says (or at least implies) that CCSS and
Matrix
>> connects are an incompatable set of protocols. Most systems are still
under
>> Matrix control however, becuase the wiring for CCSS is much more
complex.
>> Each device must have a black box attached between it and the rigger (a
>> single black box can't do multiple systems) plus for any upgrades or
>> defences (such as encryption) not only does the rigger side have to have
an
>> encryption capable VCR (or is it RCD?) and each device must be set up to
>> recieve these encrypted signals. Under a Matrix system anyone can access
>the
>> security via a matrix connection but "encryption" is much simpler to
>> implement because it is implemented on a software level. So is the
simsence
>> (the compter translates the different things, you can't even really
"jump"
>> into one via matrix access, there are tradeoffs). Plus, for a CCSS
system
>> you do have to have rigger on almost 24/7 otherwise you will get fragged
>> (and deserve to).
>>
>>
>> Making a dual system would be hard. It's like trying to run two OSes on
one
>> computer it's possible, just a little more difficult. Also, since this
is
>an
>> entire security system think dual booting a whole network upon server
>> command. The two protocols won't work at the same time (at least not
with
>> 2060 tech.) So, if you want to switch to matrix (computer) control you
have
>> to "reboot" the entire system. This gives a window of opportunity for
>> "invaders" I would say use the shutdown (going from matrix) times in
VR2
>> divided by 5 (Since you are just shuting down a subsystem) and have
"boot"
>> time 1/2 of that (going to matrix). (With certain sytems coming on-line
>> during the time and finally reaching full capaity and the end of the
last
>> round). As for shutting down CCSS protocol I'd say instant. For
"booting"
>> CCSS I'd say 2-3 combat turns.
>>
>> Now, there would be a second way which could also simulate a system
under
>> upgrade. Some devices use matrix control while others are connected to a
>> rigger. This causes problems for both systems as sometimes intruders
into
>> the other system. However, it will tie up two ppl to shut the system
down.
>> (Remember we have two protocols and with current tech they can't
>> communicate)

>Actually, they have other ways of communicating, such as a second datajack
and
>a "Window of Communications" kept up that is -not- connected to the system
>itself. Hell, it's an old stunt in a lot of games I know of, the two
deckers
>(as riggers were rare) often just linked their datajacks with a given cord,
no
>deck, and used that to have "private conversations".


Well, what I meant was that Matrix controls and Rigger controls couldn't
communicate (usually, depends on hardware setup and availablity of Protocol
emulation modules. On any level bare hardware can't communicate back and
forth.)

>And switching priority command isn't the same as switching OS. That you
would
>need to look into more carefully.


Well, you can't just switch command "priority". If you are running rigger
protocols the computer can't take over through the rigger protocol. Unless
it was some sort of SK or AI. (which leads to a whole nest of options) The
computer has to use different hardware to the system has to switched over to
the new "OS."

I am not sure if I'm comming in clear here so, I may extrapolate later.

>And with the current tech, they can, they just interact at different
>perceptive speeds/interface times. The interaction level is just very
>limited.


Actually computers themselves can't understand the rigger protocols. Even if
it was Computer---Emulator---System. The computer won't understand the
assist soming back computers don't have sensory interfaces (usually) and
even if they did (or had some other _funky_ way) of understanding the
signals computer AFAIK don't _reall_ send out assist.

A Decker could take over rigger protocols, but he'd have to resort to the
Decker---Deck---Emulator---System connection (cheese for a decent rigger to
take over).

Maybe that is more clear...

Da Twink Daddy ( twinkie@*******.dmsc.k12.ar.us gilmeth@*********.com
UIN:514984)
----------
"Don't hit me!! I'm in the Twilight Zone!!!" --Zippy the Pinhead
----------
http://vancove.dmsc.k12.ar.us/~twinkie/
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/3759/
Message no. 29
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:03:09 EST
In a message dated 98-03-24 10:59:06 EST, you write:

<<<Because the purpose of CCSS _is_ to make the Security system impeneratrable
to Matrix based attacks.>>>

<<<Which promptly opens it up to invasion from other routes.>>>

<<<There's always trade-offs. If I was a corp and I could "justify" the
expenditure I would much rather have a CCSS system even with it's quirks.>>>

Perhaps there is another way then ... perhaps there could be a second system
sheathe for a matrix based corp system that exists solely within the Slave
ACIFS of a system. This would enable a corp to have something close to a CCSS
without having to pay the extra costs of having a security rigger and putting
in either a parallel or co-processing system of both CCSS and Netware.

<snip>

<<<Well, you can't just switch command "priority". If you are running
rigger
protocols the computer can't take over through the rigger protocol. Unless
it was some sort of SK or AI. (which leads to a whole nest of options) The
computer has to use different hardware to the system has to switched over to
the new "OS.">>>

<<< I am not sure if I'm comming in clear here so, I may extrapolate
later.>>>

Perhaps something better is that there is a computer or software that has been
developed to keep track of a CCSS system when a rigger is not in full control
of a system.

I could see the thing keeping control of a CCSS system as a slight
modification of a Pilot program for vehicles, that uses it's rating as both
the Intelligence and Willpower for purposes of determining it's capabilities
within a CCSS System, and I would also say that the highest level of the CCSS
Pilot program would be the Tech Level of the CCSS system.

Mike

### The Vorlon GM ###
Message no. 30
From: Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:56:58 -0005
On 16 Mar 98 at 16:50, JonSzeto wrote:

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, been fairly busy of
late.

<snip my question on rigger damage>

> The reason the rigger takes 6M (or 6S) Physical damage is because of the
> simsense link between the rigger and the vehicle. If a vehicle takes
> heavy damage, this produces some collateral damage to the rigger
> interface module (the "black box") which results in a backlash ASIST
> signal to the rigger. This dissonant signal results in harmful neural
> damage, in a much similar manner as to how Black IC causes Physical
> Damage in a decker.

Hmm, I don't really agree with that implementation. It would seem to
me that the makers of this tech would put RAS overrides in to prevent
lethal feedback from normally occuring. You mentioned Deckers as an
example, and in a way that's a good point. Deckers only take lethal
damage in situations when they encounter something specifically designed
to induce lethal biofeedback, usually resulting in a heart attack from
what I've read. There's nothing accidental about it. If they get dumped,
they experience dump shock, other forms of damage do stun damage. It
takes a carefully designed and tailored program to do lethal damage. This
was in part why I raised the question in the first place.


>
> Try not to think too literally. When Shadowrun says Physical damage, it
> does not mean that the damage is physical in nature (by your line of
> reasoning, punches should be Physical Damage, not Stun Damage). If it
> will help, think of Physical Damage as lethal damage, damage that WILL
> KILL YOU in adequately sufficient quantities.

I'm understand that, I usually define the two in this way. Stun
damage tends to be short term injury that generally has only temporary
effects. Physical damage is long term, requiring days or weeks, sometimes
months, to heal. At no point did I use a line of reasoning that punches
should be physical damage, though since you mentioned it, in some cases
they should be (ie, bone breaker techniques to use an extreme example).
As for lethality, any damage in sufficient quantities will kill you, for
instance high powered sleep spells (new players often get suprised by that
one).

>
> > In reading the drone rules, it seems the above mentioned damage rules
> > apply when drones take severe or deadly damage. I was left with several
> > questions here. Again... physical damage makes no sense to me.
>
> See my explanation above. Being in captain's chair attenuates the damage,
> because the rigger is not directly interfacing with the drone. However,
> damage or destruction to the drone sends an arrhythmic ASIST pulse back
> to the remote control deck, which disrupts the simsense feed into the
> riggers' brain, resulting in neural damage.
>

Could you clarify this, your point didn't seem clear to me. You say
being in captain's chair mode dilutes the damage, how so? There aren't
any rules for it that I can find in R2. It never states that there is any
difference in the damage the rigger takes regardless of what mode is used.
From what you just said, I take it there is a difference. Then again,
you continue by discussing the feedback which causes damage. So, for the
record, what sort of damage does a rigger take in captain's chair mode as
opposed to what they take when "jumped in"? What are the specific
differences and if there are page references I've missed please point them
out to me. I would very much appreciate it.


> > Dealing with the security rigger rules left me very frustrated.
> > First
> > off encryption. Under the current rules there's practically no way to
> > beat encryption. Here's why. <example snipped>
>
> Beating encryption should be tough. How easy is it, for example,
> to break PGP encryption? Not very, I should think.
>
> If you, as the gamemaster, think that defeating high-level encryption is
> nigh impossible, then don't allow it. Instead of using Rating 6
> encryption, throw them against Rating 3. And if the PLAYERS want Rating 6
> encryption, make it so hard to find, that (a) they'll decide it's not
> worth it, or (b) the search spins off into a whole new adventure in
> trying to get that encryption module.
>

I'm going to skip the discussion of PGP encryption. Whether it is or
isn't easy to break is irrelevant to SR. SR deals in abstract ratings, so
lets take it from there. First lets establish what the ratings mean.
Can we agree a rating of 1 should be pretty basic stuff, Rating 3 would
be Moderate and Rating 6 would be Expert encryption, anything beyond
rating 6 would probably be classified government or corporate code?
Now, my problem isn't that rating 6 encryption is so tough, I agree it
should be. My problem was the ease of availability of it, and just as
important, the effect that has on play. As I pointed out, and I don't
think anyone has argued the point, Rating 6 encryption makes a rigger
nearly invulnerable to MIJI attacks. That's fine, except that with
current costs and availability ratings, everyone will have it. The net
effect is to make the MIJI rules almost a waste of print because they'll
rarely ever get used.
As long as real world encryption has been brought up, let me use some US
laws regarding it for an example. Currently, most encryption uses RSA
algorythms (this includes PGP). Under US law it's illegal to export
anything with better than 64 bit encryption, and to use 128 bit encryption
in software you have to get special licensing from the government.
Otherwise you risk some nasty disagreements with the FBI. My point is
simply this, in SR, encryption above say a rating of 3 will probably be
restricted in who can get it and anything above a 6 should probably be
flatly illegal for anyone outside of the governments or corps. The net
effect is that the low ratings might be fairly cheap and easy to get, but
the higher ratings should at the least have much higher availability codes
(say double current ratings?) That makes these ratings rarer, and makes
the use of MIJI (which I think is a good idea) much more likely to get
used.

> > And skill makes little
> > difference. It doesn't matter that Shmuck is an idiot with no skill
> > higher than a 2, that 60k deck makes him god.
>
> Why should skill make a difference for the user? Defeating encryption
> isn't a Skill-v.-Skill test; it's pitting the hacking skill of the
> intruder against the industrial standard of the encryption. It doesn't
> take all that much training to USE encryption. All you have to do is
> provide the key, and industry-standard algorithms (the SR- equivalent of
> PGP, for example) do the rest. Saying that using good encryption depends
> on high levels of encryption skill is like saying all computer
> programming has to be done in binary or machine language.
>
I understand your point that it's not a direct skill vs. skill test.
However, it takes a certain amount of skill and knowledge to use most
encryption. Sure, now there are nice windows interfaces for PGP, but back
when it first hit the BBS's, it was strictly command line operated and to
be frank, clunky as hell. If you didn't have at least some computer skill
and knowledge of DOS commands, you'd have been lost trying to use it.
Most high-level encryption is not written for general use, try
implementing a raw RSA algorythm sometime and see how far you get. Unless
you're a programmer, you won't get far at all. This particular arguement
may be too detailed however for SR, the game tends to deal in more
abstract concepts and off-hand I'm not sure how feasible it would be to
setup a skill test for installing encryption software (though I could
probably come up with something workable).


> > Also with CCSS systems. How does this fit with the rules for computer
> > controlled devices (Slave systems, p68, VR2)?
>
> It doesn't. CCSS is to Matrix hosts as Nintendo game consoles are to
> computers. You can't access a CCSS system from the Matrix, and vice
> versa.

Again, I'll skip the discussion of people hooking Nintendos up to PCs
(which I've personally seen done). Bottom line you're saying that CCSS
entirely replaces the old Matrix based security system, and that it has
no Matrix access. Yes?
This wasn't made clear from what I read in either R2 or CorpSec, might be
a point to clarfiy in SR3 if you can.

>
> On the other hand, you CAN physically make adjustments to a cyberdeck, so
> that it can communicate with a CCSS system. But because the two are
> operating from wholly different concepts (in terms of software, hardware,
> AND wetware), it's makes life difficult and degrades performance. (To use
> the computer-Nintendo example, in theory, one could configure a Mac or PC

Okay, understood. Again, the misunderstanding on my part was not
realizing that CCSS and the Matrix are totally seperate, so I was trying
to puzzle out how the two interfaced. Things got screwy from there as I'm
sure you can imagine.

> to interface with a game console. But, because of the differences in
> software and hardware, why would you?)

Umm... because I'm a hacker and that's my idea of a fun weekend. <g>

<snip my question about CCSS getting invaded with no one watching the
system>
>
> If a CCSS system isn't attended by a rigger, then whoever accesses it can
> take control virtually automatically.

Ouch! Wouldn't the system still have some defense? To use a decker
analogy, whether a security decker is watching the system or not, even if
there's no IC, you still have to access things, fool the system into
recognizing your commands as authorized, etc. Wouldn't a CCSS have
similar security measures built in, for just such an eventuality?

>
> If this doesn't sound right, I'd remind you to keep some things in mind.
> First, there are a lot of things that have to happen before an intruding
> rigger can go one-on-one with a security rigger. (I won't spell them out
> here for space, but check out p. 79 for what they are.) All of these
> preliminary steps can be protected against by adequate security measures.

True, but you know what they say about static defenses. Lets face it,
it's not going to be that tough for a shadowrunning rigger to slip onsite
and tap a security junction. Sure, it'll require caution and stealth, but
it the runner isn't capable of that, then they don't belong in the
shadows. It's the same problem cable companies and phone companies face
now with taps. The solution that most are switching to is encoding the
transmissions. But even that isn't fool proof, given a large enough
sample, any code can be broken. And the larger the sample of code the
less time it takes to break it.

>
> Second, who says the security rigger on duty is the only security
> rigger on site? If a corp went through the trouble of installing a
> CCSS system, they should have the prudence of making sure that there's a
> backup on-site or on-call. If they don't, they deserve to get broken
> into.

True, but not everyone can afford a state of the art system with multiple
sec riggers working round the clock. Same as not everyone can afford top
of the line IC, system architecture, multiple nodes, private sans, and
multiple sec deckers working round the clock. Those systems probably
account for less than 10% of the systems out there, the main systems of
the mega's as well as high security government and military systems. But
all those A and AA corps are probably going to have less than that. And
even the mega's won't put that level of security on all their systems. It
simply isn't cost effective.

>
> Third, the decker providing Matrix security can always cover when the
> security rigger is out. No it won't be great, and it'll leave the Matrix
> security open. But weak security is better than no security.
>
True, but my original question was mainly regarding the point of what
happens if there is no rigger in system for whatever the reason. It was a
point that didn't seem specifcally covered in the rules.


> > On the topic of drones. What makes a robot a robot? That is,
> > under drone construction... what option makes a drone into a robot?
> > Apparently (unless I've missed it) there is a vague option for increasing
> > the learning pool, but no design option that creates it in the first
> > place. I like the idea of robots but the rules as presented are extremely
> > vague. The only listed maximums and cost for improving the learning pool
> > are listed as "game master's discretion" I don't need to spend $18 on
a
> > book to come up with that.
>
> The difference between a robot and a drone is that a robot is capable of
> adapting and changing its algorithms to meet its primary directive.
> Drones cannot learn; advanced level drones APPEAR to be learning, but
> that's only because they have more options programmed in (so if one
> doesn't work, they can move on to another). Conceptually, robots are very
> similar to the S-k knobots in Virtual Realities 2.0.
>
> I didn't come up with any design point values because robot technology
> (as defined here) is as advanced as AI research, and as such is still in
> the experimental stage. As time goes by and the technology matures, it
> may be possible to establish some rough guidelines. YMMV.

Hmm... I'll skip pointing out that real world advancements in robotics
are already approaching, and in some areas beyond, what is presented in
R2. As frustrating as it may be, the game isn't always going to reflect
real world fact.
However, there are two robots presented in the book in the drones
section. You seemed to have developed something for them, since you
included these examples. And one robot is a cargo carrier! That doesn't
sound like the advanced, rare tech you seem to be implying it to be.
Second, why give rules for Improving the learning pool if there are no
rules for creating it in the first place. That's putting the cart in
front of the horse isn't it.
Since two example of robots are given, I thought perhaps I could reverse
engineer them and see what point values you might have used (at least a
ball park figure). However, when I tried this, the design point values
given didn't work out by my understanding of the design rules. It's
entirely possible I've bungled the system somewhere. Would you please
consider posting how you designed each of these drones, what point values
you used for the various options and so on, to the list? I'd personally
appreciate it and I'm sure it would be a huge help to others out there who
may be having similar problems.
--
@>->,-`---
Ashelock
o=<======-

GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."
Message no. 31
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:27:01 EST
Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET> wrote,

> > See my explanation above. Being in captain's chair attenuates the damage,
> > because the rigger is not directly interfacing with the drone. However,
> > damage or destruction to the drone sends an arrhythmic ASIST pulse back
> > to the remote control deck, which disrupts the simsense feed into the
> > riggers' brain, resulting in neural damage.
> >
>
> Could you clarify this, your point didn't seem clear to me. You say
> being in captain's chair mode dilutes the damage, how so? There aren't
> any rules for it that I can find in R2. It never states that there is any
> difference in the damage the rigger takes regardless of what mode is used.
> From what you just said, I take it there is a difference. Then again,
> you continue by discussing the feedback which causes damage. So, for the
> record, what sort of damage does a rigger take in captain's chair mode as
> opposed to what they take when "jumped in"? What are the specific
> differences and if there are page references I've missed please point them
> out to me. I would very much appreciate it.

Let me try that again. These conceptual arguments can be really
confusing (and they make my head hurt sometimes). So ignore what I
said before and try to understand this:

When a rigger is physically jacked into a vehicle, she feels the
full brunt of the damage (as per the previous dissertation). The rigger
suffers 6S Physical Damage (p. 49, Rigger 2), plus any crash damage
(if applicable). Oh yeah, and she's disoriented (assuming the rigger
is still alive, that is).

When a rigger is directly controlling (i.e., "jumped into") a drone,
she is interfacing with it exactly as if the rigger was
physically jacked into the drone. Hence, if the drone is destroyed,
the rigger is dumped out of the drone back into captain's chair and
suffers neural damage. However, the rigger really isn't PHYSICALLY
jacked into the drone, as the simsense signals are relayed remotely
via radiowaves (actually more like microwaves on the E-M spectrum,
but let's not get into details). This indirect connections serves as
a "sort-of" buffer (IOW, please don't ask me to get into more detail),
so the rigger only suffers Stun Damage ([RC Deck Rating + 4]S Stun, as
specified on p. 64).

Now, when a rigger is not directly controlling a drone (either because
she's in captain's chair, or is controlling another drone), then the
Pilot is controlling the drone, not the rigger's own consciousness. So
if the drone is destroyed, the rigger isn't dumped. Maybe she might
feel a "twinge" from the drone being destroyed, but in game terms it
doesn't mean anything. I'd leave that up as a role-playing issue.

Wakarimas'ka?

> Now, my problem isn't that rating 6 encryption is so tough, I agree it
> should be. My problem was the ease of availability of it, and just as
> important, the effect that has on play. As I pointed out, and I don't
> think anyone has argued the point, Rating 6 encryption makes a rigger
> nearly invulnerable to MIJI attacks. That's fine, except that with
> current costs and availability ratings, everyone will have it. The net
> effect is to make the MIJI rules almost a waste of print because they'll
> rarely ever get used.

Like I said before, if you don't like the Availability/Street Index,
then you, as gamemaster, can change it. This is not the Holy Bible we
are talking about here. (And to be honest, when I first asked Mike M.
how FASA came up with Availability and Street Index Codes, he told me
to just make a best-guess. If I guessed wrong, then I guessed wrong.)

> Again, I'll skip the discussion of people hooking Nintendos up to PCs
> (which I've personally seen done). Bottom line you're saying that CCSS
> entirely replaces the old Matrix based security system, and that it has
> no Matrix access. Yes?

Yes and no. I never said that CCSS entirely replaced the old Matrix-
based security system. I merely said that CCSS was simply another
method of handling security. Whether a facility uses Matrix-based
security systems or CCSS is a matter of personal choice. It can have
one but not the other, or it can have both (which is horribly redundant
and not very cost-effective, but whoever said management made rational
decisions?) It's up to the person who designed the security system
(read: gamemaster) whether to use a Matrix-based security system,
CCSS, both, or neither.

However, it is true that CCSS *cannot* be accessed from the Matrix
whatsoever. A decker can modify his cyberdeck to communicate with a
CCSS system, but the deck has to be physically connected to the CCSS
system; there is no remote-login to a CCSS system.

> Ouch! Wouldn't the system still have some defense? To use a decker
> analogy, whether a security decker is watching the system or not, even if
> there's no IC, you still have to access things, fool the system into
> recognizing your commands as authorized, etc. Wouldn't a CCSS have
> similar security measures built in, for just such an eventuality?

When online (i.e., when a rigger is jacked in), no such safeties exist. The
advantage of a CCSS system is that it's supposed to be more responsive
than a decker-monitored Matrix system. Of course the disadvantage is
that, to ensure such fast response, it has to sacrifice some safety
measures.

> However, there are two robots presented in the book in the drones
> section. You seemed to have developed something for them, since you
> included these examples. And one robot is a cargo carrier! That doesn't
> sound like the advanced, rare tech you seem to be implying it to be.
> Second, why give rules for Improving the learning pool if there are no
> rules for creating it in the first place. That's putting the cart in
> front of the horse isn't it.

Excuse me? Of the two drones with a Learning Pool, one is an advanced
reconnaissance drone, while the other is a search-and-rescue drone.
What is this cargo-carrier you are talking about?

Also, don't knock the tech just because of its purpose. True, purpose
does drive how the SOTA develops, but SOTA isn't based entirely on
function. Some of the greatest discoveries happened purely by
accident.

The Improve Learning Pool design option also covers creating the
learning pool. So when you buy it at Level 1, you are actually
creating the Learning Pool. (Okay, so it's not the best wording.)

IMHO.
Hope that helps,

-- Jon
Message no. 32
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 02:48:24 -0500
Once upon a time, JonSzeto wrote;

>Also, don't knock the tech just because of its purpose. True, purpose
>does drive how the SOTA develops, but SOTA isn't based entirely on
>function. Some of the greatest discoveries happened purely by
>accident.

Silly Putty comes to mind but I have a really different values of
importance.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"I know
I GOTTA BELIEVE !"
-Parappa the Rapper
I am MC23
Message no. 33
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:33:37 +0000
> Silly Putty comes to mind but I have a really different values of
> importance.
>
I thought that too. Not to mention Super Glue.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 34
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:25:36 -0500
Once upon a time, Brett Borger wrote;

>> Silly Putty comes to mind but I have a really different values of
>> importance.
>>
>I thought that too. Not to mention Super Glue.


Ooo, education time. I know Silly Putty was from explosive research
IIRC, but I don't know the story on Super Glue. Start the lecture!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"I know
I GOTTA BELIEVE !"
-Parappa the Rapper
I am MC23
Message no. 35
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:33:12 +0000
> >> Silly Putty comes to mind but I have a really different values of
> >> importance.
> >>
> >I thought that too. Not to mention Super Glue.
>
> Ooo, education time. I know Silly Putty was from explosive research
> IIRC, but I don't know the story on Super Glue. Start the lecture!

Hrm. Well, I actually learned this by reading one of those dumb
airline magazines while flying over the atlantic. I can't give you
too mnay details, since I'm working from memory, but apparently a
couple of guys were working on some lubricant variations, and came up
with something that didn't work too well as a lubricant. :)

The general effect of that family of chemicals had been known, but
never really studied or applied. One of these chemists was studying
variants, and placed a drop between some prisms for some sort of
analysis. Trouble was, he couldn't get the prisms apart, and had to
tell his boss he had ruined a $7000 piece of equipment. The boss
realized this could be useful, and soon Super Glue was introduced to
the world on an episode of ?You Won't Believe it's True?, where they
strapped a helmet to the shows host and then held him suspened by it
with a single drop.

On the same (OT) topic, Post-It's were invented by the 3M company
while searching for a new Super Glue :)

To bring this On-topic, has anyone considered having someone hired to
extract a scientist that has only screwed up? Seems Company B
realizes some great uses for the "failures" this guy does in company
A....

(Works best on paranoid runners that check their Johnsons and try and
figure out what's going on...)

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 36
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 07:09:48 GMT
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:27:01 EST, JonSzeto wrote:

> When a rigger is physically jacked into a vehicle, she feels the
> full brunt of the damage (as per the previous dissertation). The rigger
> suffers 6S Physical Damage (p. 49, Rigger 2), plus any crash damage
> (if applicable). Oh yeah, and she's disoriented (assuming the rigger
> is still alive, that is).

As for jacked-in riggers taking *two* separate amounts of damage from a
crash, this makes a certain amount of sense. It is just TOO lethal,
unfortunately. Would a victim suffer multiple damage codes after being
struck by a PAC-- one for the impact of the round and one for the actual
explosive effect? Or what about a flame blast spell-- one damage code for
the explosive effect, one for the heat, and one to model suffocation due to
lack of a breathable oxygen supply? FASA has always been big on play
balance (eg: why doesn't an SMG exist that fires the same ammo as the
Thunderbolt or Guardian?). IMHO, a rigger that suffers nearly twice as
much damage in a crash doesn't sit well for some players that want to play
riggers. The cons seem to outweigh the pros. Just MHO.

> When a rigger is directly controlling (i.e., "jumped into") a drone,
> she is interfacing with it exactly as if the rigger was
> physically jacked into the drone. Hence, if the drone is destroyed,
> the rigger is dumped out of the drone back into captain's chair and
> suffers neural damage. However, the rigger really isn't PHYSICALLY
> jacked into the drone, as the simsense signals are relayed remotely
> via radiowaves (actually more like microwaves on the E-M spectrum,
> but let's not get into details). This indirect connections serves as
> a "sort-of" buffer (IOW, please don't ask me to get into more detail),
> so the rigger only suffers Stun Damage ([RC Deck Rating + 4]S Stun, as
> specified on p. 64).

Sorry, Jon, but this excuse just doesn't fly. If a rigger can control a
remotely operated vehicle with the exact same advantages and disadvantages
as a hard-wired vehicle (ie: via cable or other physical link), the dangers
of feedback should also be *identical*. If outgoing signals aren't
"buffered", then neither should incoming signals. Of course, now I'm
arguing for something that I would never want anyways, but the point is
still there.

It may have been wise to include rules regarding the implementation of the
necessary filters that *would* reduce the chances of suffering lethal
damage due to neurological feedback. Then all our gripes might have been
avoided :)

On a somewhat related topic, what's up with the ridiculously high
maintenance costs for vehicles? The included example of a car sitting idle
in storage costing 1% of its total calculated cost is w-a-y too much. And
this doesn't even include insurance!



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 37
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 23:28:44 -0800
At 4:33 AM -0800 4/2/98, Brett Borger wrote:
>On the same (OT) topic, Post-It's were invented by the 3M company
>while searching for a new Super Glue :)
>

The OT part.

I think there was slightly more to it than that. The 3M engineer who had the
driving idea behind the product got the idea for it while he was attending
church. When the choir stood up to sing, the bookmark in one of the
choir member's song book fell out, causing the individual to lose his
place. At that point, a bolt of lightening flashed from the cross at
the front of the church and struck the 3M engineer fully, and in that surge
of electrical activity, it occurred to the engineer that a book mark that
would "stick" to the page would have been remarkably useful in that situation.
Thus was the concept of "Post-It's" given to man, who then spent a lot of
money engineering a solution that actually worked.

Well, he really didn't get struck by lightening, but that's when the idea
hit him. :)

It turns out that they had a difficult time engineering an adhesive that
would "stick", but peel off without damaging the material it was stuck to.
On top of that, they needed to make it stick to all sorts of surfaces...

I read that back when Post-It's first came out. I grew up in MN, and since
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) invented Post-Its, there was some
press about it.

On Topic Question:
I've been out of SR for awhile now (about 3 years.) I'm getting back into it
and GMing a game (and getting overwhelmed by the increased complexity of the
game). I was wondering if there are any materials on the web or published
by FASA about the Minneapolis/St. Paul Sprawl? Does it even exist in 2055?
I'm thinking it must, but I just haven't seen anything mentioned about it.

Just curious. Thanks, :)

-Rob
Message no. 38
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 02:51:42 -0600
Jon Szeto said:
>> When a rigger is directly controlling (i.e., "jumped into") a drone,
>> she is interfacing with it exactly as if the rigger was
>> physically jacked into the drone. Hence, if the drone is destroyed,
>> the rigger is dumped out of the drone back into captain's chair and
>> suffers neural damage. However, the rigger really isn't PHYSICALLY
>> jacked into the drone, as the simsense signals are relayed remotely
>> via radiowaves (actually more like microwaves on the E-M spectrum,
>> but let's not get into details). This indirect connections serves as
>> a "sort-of" buffer (IOW, please don't ask me to get into more detail),
>> so the rigger only suffers Stun Damage ([RC Deck Rating + 4]S Stun, as
>> specified on p. 64).

James Lindsay said:
>Sorry, Jon, but this excuse just doesn't fly. If a rigger can control a
>remotely operated vehicle with the exact same advantages and disadvantages
>as a hard-wired vehicle (ie: via cable or other physical link), the dangers
>of feedback should also be *identical*. If outgoing signals aren't
>"buffered", then neither should incoming signals. Of course, now I'm
>arguing for something that I would never want anyways, but the point is
>still there.

Here is an interesting idea: Buy a RC deck. Set up the vehicle you want to
drive for remote control interface. Jack into the RCD and control the
vehicle you are actually riding in "remotely" from inside the vehicle. You
bypass the physical damage from a destroyed vehicle replacing it with dump
shock (stun) damage.

The main drawbacks I see are:
1-There is a relatively minor cost increase to set up a vehicle for remote
control and get a RCD (if the rigger doesnt already have one).
2-The fact that your car can be hijacked remotely by another rigger using
MIJI.

As for the MIJI problem, I can see a way around this:
Rigger gets defeated in electronic warfare and dumped from the system.
Rigger looks up and flips a killswitch. "Remote Control Disabled".
Rigger jacks into direct control of the vehicle, bypassing the RCD.
Rigger drives away in full control of his car.
(A little cumbersome, but hey! better than 6S damage on top of your crash
damage)

Well, what do you guys think? Any holes in my logic? Suggestions? Comments?

-Teeg
Message no. 39
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 01:51:03 -0600
I just got rigger two so let me post a review since we have the writter on
the list (hey I can get flamed from the source).

First of all riggers have a high startup cost (A million nuyen and then
some) but gives a team so many more options, if he's sitting in the car
waiting for the team to get out of the building he isn't doing his job,
should have drone with them, in the air and not let forget fun with a
arachnoid mini-drone while we're at it (stick one behind a urinal in the
men's washroom and you could score some interesting paydata). About the
only thing limiting a rigger from replacing a sam is the fact that
anthroforms have lousy load ratings (the again a drone with arms would give
about the same effect). A rigger can easly become overpowed in a sam heavy
game but if you two or three (or four) magicians and maybe a decker he
shouldn't overshadow anyones power level to much (of course three or more
magicians can render a team all but undetectable so sams are usually a bad
idea for such games anyway).

Moving on drone and hardpoint/firm point rules need work. For example its
rather clear how an external missile rack works but not an internal one.
Does each missile take a firmpoint or do you get all the missiles for a
cost of one firm point and 2 missiles for every 3 CF's you dedicate to the
system. If so then why does an Outlaw Missile system take up a weapon
value of 5 in a turret. First of all turret mounting a guided missile
system is just dumb (it is after all a guided missile system) and why on
earth does a Ballista Missile System (which is man portable) take up more
room then an autocannon. The only thing I can think of is that these arn't
the actual missile systems but represent the vehicles cannon. (In other
words the cannon on a main battle tank has stat simular to an outlaw
missile system).


Also as long as we're on the subject of mounting heavy weaponry what
exacally will a hard point not take. For example instead of mounting the
Outlaw Missile system in a turret can I put it in a hard point. What about
an autocannon. Now what about drones. By deploying drones I can through
more weaponry into the battle. So lets I use a drone rack to deploy a
small vectored thrust UAV. It''s body of 2 gives me a hardpoint. I stick
an autocannon onto the hardpoint. This basically turns the drone into one
big turret. Which brings up an interesting question, what size is a drone.
Nowhere in the book does it give info on the size of a vehicle. Is a
small vectored thrust drone the size of a garbage can lid or a main battle
tank (BTW there are no stats on tanks in the book. The highest the rules
go are tracked APC. If you want an all out war you're just going to have
to improvise). Also the drone write up in the book are confusing. While
what they're based on is listed in an appendex in the back of the book when
you first see the enteries you're left to wonder if they're wheeled,
hovercarft, flyers or something else entirely..

Also the author fails to fallow through on his battletac idea. Picture
this high above the battlefield in a command and controll plain are a bunch
of riggers (basically thinks of the plane as AWACS). A normal battlefield
vehicle has at least two riggers (hey VCR's are cheap when compared to main
battle tanks). Shortly before the battle begins each tank jetisons a
couple of drones (with all the latest battletac hardware of course). As
things heat up drone controll is transfered to riggers in the AWACS (nice
guys with level 3 VCR's large vehicular tactics and progaming skills, not
to mention some nice preprogramed linked comands) sporting RC decks with
ratings so insane they can only be military grade (50 is a start 200 or
more is possible). Of course each of these guys decks are also tied into a
server sized tactical computer. Each of these riggers is also tied into a
"master combat rigger" who's getting feeds frome everyone on the
battlefield (think of it as a super captians chair mode), he tied into a
BIG tac computer and is reciving info from the drone computers as well as
feeds from the battle its self. This means there's a guy rigging the
combat with a tac computer reciving a hundred or more sensor feeds (and
stop and think about everything that goes into a vehicles sensors) plus
battletac. Needless to say this is one happy tac computer. It also means
that FDDM assigment can be made to all vehicles in real time. This makes
actions much more co-ordinated in combat and can have quite scarry results.


Somebody please explane to me why you need FDDM cyberware. Why not just
put a camera and electronic sound pickups in a helmet. Tie it into a
battletac system and you have the exact same effect with out wasting the
essence. What I really want to know is can cyber tap into a mages visual
and audio centers when he's in astral space so that a rigger (thoug maybe a
specially trained one) can see what the astral battlefield looks like.

Finally the author say's T-Birds arn't that usefull. Well lets see a
T-Bird with an economy of .3 has a range 2250km's at a speed of (max) 750.
An APC has 3200 at a speed of 70 (I assume a tank is worse). You know if
I'm fighting a mobile war I can do without the extra 50 km's if it means I
can get there at ten times the speed (though it would help if the APC load
was something other then 3 to 6). Anyway my point being don't count
T-Birds out of combat. If you've got a annual budget of 7.5 billion
(millitary budget for a small first world army, in this case modern day
australia circa 1989) and a good enough reason you can make a T-Bird into
something scarry. (Background I'm working on a net sup on the Texas
military. Since Texas and modern day Australia both have forces of around
50 thousand men I'm using the Aussies as a starting point. By treaty Texas
can't have anything "heavier" then APC's and LAV's and only a fixed number
of these so the Texans try to compensate by using advanced equipment. This
actually has nothing to do with this post but I thought those of you
contemplating a corp war could use some figures. Oh and before you flame
me Texas's annual Tax income was around 10 billion last year. Not enough
to maintain the roads, fund the schools, fund metahuman rights and keep the
army going but hey this is the third world).


Steve

Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 40
From: "Ryan W. Bolduan" <emeottrw@***.MRS.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:46:01 -0600
> At 4:33 AM -0800 4/2/98, Brett Borger wrote:
> >On the same (OT) topic, Post-It's were invented by the 3M company
> >while searching for a new Super Glue :)
> >
>
> The OT part.
>
> I think there was slightly more to it than that. The 3M engineer who had the
> driving idea behind the product got the idea for it while he was attending
> church. When the choir stood up to sing, the bookmark in one of the
> choir member's song book fell out, causing the individual to lose his
> place. At that point, a bolt of lightening flashed from the cross at
> the front of the church and struck the 3M engineer fully, and in that surge
> of electrical activity, it occurred to the engineer that a book mark that
> would "stick" to the page would have been remarkably useful in that
situation.
> Thus was the concept of "Post-It's" given to man, who then spent a lot of
> money engineering a solution that actually worked.
>

Actually that's not right at all. It was one of those complete fluke
experiments. The scientist was trying to discover a very sticky adhesive.
He failed, and got a glue that didn't seem to want to go away. He thought
up the idea for post-its, tried selling it and the exec told him no. He
then gave them to the secretaries for that exec that loved them. Lets
just say that through 3M's profit sharing plans he is a very rich man
though.

> Well, he really didn't get struck by lightening, but that's when the idea
> hit him. :)

So in actuality it kind of was a "struck by lightning" story. The reason
it's an impressive story is because it was another of those misaken
breakthroughs like scotchguard and vulcanized rubber.

> It turns out that they had a difficult time engineering an adhesive that
> would "stick", but peel off without damaging the material it was stuck to.
> On top of that, they needed to make it stick to all sorts of surfaces...
>
> I read that back when Post-It's first came out. I grew up in MN, and since
> Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) invented Post-Its, there was some
> press about it.

I too grew up (and still live) in Minnesota. I also worked for 3M for
awhile, and my mother has been a 30 year employee. I've heard the story
so many times it's almost boring now. The scotchguard story is really
cool though.

> On Topic Question:
> I've been out of SR for awhile now (about 3 years.) I'm getting back into it
> and GMing a game (and getting overwhelmed by the increased complexity of the
> game). I was wondering if there are any materials on the web or published
> by FASA about the Minneapolis/St. Paul Sprawl? Does it even exist in 2055?
> I'm thinking it must, but I just haven't seen anything mentioned about it.

FASA has not published anything but I have, and am currently developing
rather exensively a Minneapolis Sourcebook. I have a fair amount already
documented. Unfortunately I think FASA has ignored it too much
considering its size and closesness to the NAN.

Check out my page at: http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~emeottrw/sr/sr.html

Tell me what you think.

>
> Just curious. Thanks, :)
>
> -Rob
>
Message no. 41
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:33:58 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 01:51 AM 4/3/98 -0600, Steve wrote:
> Nowhere in the book does it give info on the size of a vehicle.

Page 23, Body Ratings Table. Conceptual sizes for Body ratings 0
(handheld) through 10+ (Main Battle Tank)

>What I really want to know is can cyber tap into a mages visual
>and audio centers when he's in astral space so that a rigger (thoug
maybe a
>specially trained one) can see what the astral battlefield looks
like.

Nope. It's been stated in Shadowbeat (don't groan, it happens to be
the sourcebook to turn to if you want info on how Simsense works) that
astral projection does not register on any type of recording
cyberware. If you did have a mage with an ASIST sampling rig instaled,
and the mage went Astral Projecting, the signal recorded by the rig
would be comparable to an sim-feed from someone who's unconscious.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNSUdgs2C0fERRVM5AQHVogP/eIA6ssNr/CTYcEqA13rMq/UuG9T1G3ou
3py+sLz4xYE0Eq0ojoqwOP5tI8uM32jjNWZWx2HMKgiqLxLZPtsvCKHgP2BBVl5o
Gm0ZH7Dxl5xnFU/8fwwHOZGHtoP9tZ3DSQN/eDQpFDZA1YrYyX358mVmY91lzLmU
ZrdPQh900LI=
=s1s8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 42
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:17:50 -0600
At 07:09 AM 98-04-03 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>Sorry, Jon, but this excuse just doesn't fly. If a rigger can control a
>remotely operated vehicle with the exact same advantages and disadvantages
>as a hard-wired vehicle (ie: via cable or other physical link), the dangers
>of feedback should also be *identical*. If outgoing signals aren't
>"buffered", then neither should incoming signals. Of course, now I'm
>arguing for something that I would never want anyways, but the point is
>still there.

I think this has to do with the fact that there's only so much bandwith
avalible for the signal. With normal operating conditions this isn't a
problem but when a vehicle does down and everything spikes only so much of
the data can be relayed. Which brings up an intersting question wouldn't
jamming reduced the damage taken from a drone going splat (after all the
signal is being degraded meaning less of the feedback is getting through).

SteveD
>
>It may have been wise to include rules regarding the implementation of the
>necessary filters that *would* reduce the chances of suffering lethal
>damage due to neurological feedback. Then all our gripes might have been
>avoided :)
>
>On a somewhat related topic, what's up with the ridiculously high
>maintenance costs for vehicles? The included example of a car sitting idle
>in storage costing 1% of its total calculated cost is w-a-y too much. And
>this doesn't even include insurance!
>
>
>
>James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
> "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
> ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)
>
> Mano au mano, the "Professor"
> would kick MacGyver's ass.
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 43
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 14:37:35 EDT
Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU> wrote,

> First of all riggers have a high startup cost (A million nuyen and then
> some) but gives a team so many more options, if he's sitting in the car
> waiting for the team to get out of the building he isn't doing his job,
> should have drone with them, in the air and not let forget fun with a
> arachnoid mini-drone while we're at it (stick one behind a urinal in the
> men's washroom and you could score some interesting paydata).

Depending on how you play, the startup costs can be high, but not THAT
high. True, it's nigh impossible to create a rigger with less than a
priority of C for Resources (a basic level 1 VCR costs 12,000 nuyen
alone), but not "all" riggers have a high startup cost of over a
million nuyen. For example, on priority C resources, I could create a
drone rigger with only a remote control deck, and as many as half a
dozen drones: not flashy, but still effective. As I said before, it
all depends on the way you play your Shadowrun campaign.

> Does each missile take a firmpoint or do you get all the missiles for a
> cost of one firm point and 2 missiles for every 3 CF's you dedicate to the
> system. If so then why does an Outlaw Missile system take up a weapon
> value of 5 in a turret. First of all turret mounting a guided missile
> system is just dumb (it is after all a guided missile system) and why on
> earth does a Ballista Missile System (which is man portable) take up more
> room then an autocannon.

When mounting missiles on a vehicle, the firing system consumes one
firmpoint. (A hardpoint or firmpoint is a sort of arbitrary concept,
which gauges the size of weapon(s) capable of being mounted, depending
on the effects of mass, recoil, and other multiple factors on the
performance of the vehicle. True, this may not be the same definition
that's used in RL, but it was a compromise I had to come up with to
make a smooth transition from the RBB to R2.)

However, the number of missiles (or rockets) that a vehicle may carry
depends on the amount of Load (and CF, for internal mounts) allocated
for storing them.

OTOH, turrets are a somewhat special case. Turrets consume hardpoints
(or firmpoints, for the really small ones), but the type and number
of weapon(s) that can be fired from a turret depends on an arbitrary
measurement called weapon value. (This was another carryover from the
first RBB I felt I had to make for the sake of transition.) The reason
the Outlaw and Ballista have high weapon values is because I felt the
mounting requirements (particularly the space and weight for
autoloading mechanisms and controls) are greater than for autocannons.

> Also as long as we're on the subject of mounting heavy weaponry what
> exacally will a hard point not take. For example instead of mounting the
> Outlaw Missile system in a turret can I put it in a hard point.

Again, per the missile mounting rules, you only need a firmpoint to
mount an Outlaw misile's firing system. However, the number of Outlaws
you can fire from the vehicle depends on the amount of Load (and/or
CF) allocated to it.

> Which brings up an interesting question, what size is a drone.
> Nowhere in the book does it give info on the size of a vehicle.

The Body Ratings table gives a rough guide to a vehicle's (and
drone's) size, based on the Body Rating of the vehicle. You can use
that as a rule of thumb for estimating the appoximate size of a
drone. (OK, OK, I know that it doesn't give the exact CF requirements
for the drone storage rack --- it should be in the errata/FAQ, when/if
FASA releases it.)

> Also the author fails to fallow through on his battletac idea.
<drone-AWACS nightmare scenario snipped.>

First of all, BattleTac isn't "my" idea. It was originally brought
up in Fields of Fire. I just expanded the concept to include drones
and came up with some nifty add-ons for drones, vehicles, and such.

Well, yeah, if you want to do a scenario like that, it's possible, in
principle. But I feel that's way beyond the scope of what Shadowrun
was intended to focus on. For the majority of most Shadowrun
campaigns, the BattleTac system, and the subsequent add-ons should be
sufficient.

> Somebody please explane to me why you need FDDM cyberware. Why not just
> put a camera and electronic sound pickups in a helmet. Tie it into a
> battletac system and you have the exact same effect with out wasting the
> essence.

The FDDM cyberware (which is added-on to the Snake-Eyes system) does
more than just provide audio/visual simsense feeds into a remote
control network. It also contains targeting electronics that allows
the user to instantaneously transmit data for calling in fire support
from another launched drone.

As anyone who's ever served as a forward observer can attest to,
calling for fire is a lengthy and complicated process, due to the
protocols involved for determining an artillery firing solution. What
FDDM does is automate that process, so that the firing solution is
instantaneously processed by the spotter, and then sent via the remote
control network to the firing drone (which won't have "eyes on" the
target, and thus wouldn't be able to come up with the targeting
solution to fire the weapon). FDDM is based loosely on some of the
"Sensor-to-Shooter" automated fire support systems (such as AFATDS,
V/GLLD (or LLDR), IFSAS, and so on) being developed by some of the
militaries today.

> Finally the author say's T-Birds arn't that usefull.

I never said that. Other people may have discounted the t-bird (as
defined under Rigger 2) for a number of reasons: it's not
invulnerable, the flight characteristics are too restricting, the
armament load is too limited, and so on. I *do* think the t-bird does
have considerable tactical value, particularly in the roles of air
cavalry and short-range CAS. But I do not agree with the claim that
some people have made, that the t-bird is the panacea of maneuver
warfare, rendering tanks, APCs, and helicopters obsolete.

IMHO.

-- Jon
Message no. 44
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 14:37:26 EDT
James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA> wrote,

> > When a rigger is directly controlling (i.e., "jumped into") a drone,
> > she is interfacing with it exactly as if the rigger was
> > physically jacked into the drone. Hence, if the drone is destroyed,
> > the rigger is dumped out of the drone back into captain's chair and
> > suffers neural damage. However, the rigger really isn't PHYSICALLY
> > jacked into the drone, as the simsense signals are relayed remotely
> > via radiowaves (actually more like microwaves on the E-M spectrum,
> > but let's not get into details). This indirect connections serves as
> > a "sort-of" buffer (IOW, please don't ask me to get into more detail),
> > so the rigger only suffers Stun Damage ([RC Deck Rating + 4]S Stun, as
> > specified on p. 64).
>
> Sorry, Jon, but this excuse just doesn't fly. If a rigger can control a
> remotely operated vehicle with the exact same advantages and disadvantages
> as a hard-wired vehicle (ie: via cable or other physical link), the dangers
> of feedback should also be *identical*. If outgoing signals aren't
> "buffered", then neither should incoming signals. Of course, now I'm
> arguing for something that I would never want anyways, but the point is
> still there.

*sigh* Very well, here's your explanation --- but a warning, first:
try not to view this from strictly a computer point of view. Try also
to think of it from a EE/RF/physics point of view as well.

When a rigger is directly connected to a vehicle when it's damaged or
destroyed, some of the collateral damage affects the black box. This
in turn sends an optical/electrical pulse directly up the datacord
into the rigger's brain. The frequency components of this pulse
are mistranslated by the wetware as a simsense signal which induces
negative biofeedback and neural damage. Additionally, the electric
surge -- the "amplitude" --- also does neural damage as well. This
double one-two punch increases the damage foursquare, coming across
as physical damage.

Now, say a rigger is controlling a vehicle via remote. From a
computer/controls point of view, the frame of reference is exactly the
same. But from a physics/signals point of view, it isn't. The signal
is processed for remote transmission via DSP (digital signal
processing) techniques, sent across (either via the airwaves or via a
cable) in analog wave form, received by the remote control
deck, re-processed via DSP techniques back into a simsense signal, and
then sent to the rigger's brain. In DSP, the amplitude of a signal is
a scalable component and can be adjusted as appropriate. So when that
random ASIST signal from a destroyed remote vehicle returns to the
rigger, the DSP filters, both at the transmitting and receiving ends,
scale down the amplitude. The signal still does damage from its code
(a frequency component), but the amplitude component is not there.
Hence the damage is Stun.

If it will help, consider the following diagrams:

Direct Physical Linkup Remote Linkup

vehicle damaged/destroyed drone destroyed; damage
| | creates random pulses
V V
rigger Damage creates remote Digital-to-analog
interface random pulses control conversion; surge
| connection (amplitude) filtered
| d Harmful | out.
| a < t
| t ASIST signal > r Harmful
| a < a ASIST
| c + > n signal
| o < s w is
| r Surge > m a carried,
| d < i v but
V > s e electrical
rigger Physical damage < s surge
> i is
< o not
> n
<
|
V
remote Analog-to
control digital
deck Conversion
|
| d
| a Harmful
| t
| a ASIST signal
| c
| o Only
| r
| d
|
V
rigger Stun damage

Like I said, you shouldn't have asked me to have gone into more
detail.

-- Jon
Message no. 45
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 17:34:00 -0500
At 02:37 PM 98-04-05 -0400, you wrote:
>Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU> wrote,

>
>Depending on how you play, the startup costs can be high, but not THAT
>high. True, it's nigh impossible to create a rigger with less than a
>priority of C for Resources (a basic level 1 VCR costs 12,000 nuyen
>alone), but not "all" riggers have a high startup cost of over a
>million nuyen. For example, on priority C resources, I could create a
>drone rigger with only a remote control deck, and as many as half a
>dozen drones: not flashy, but still effective. As I said before, it
>all depends on the way you play your Shadowrun campaign.

True it's just that usually you want a rigger with a vehicle and at least
one combat ready drone. The headware bio and cyber that a player will
probably want pushes the resource code up to B. I guess it all depends on
what function you want the rigger to perform. If it includes taking over
rigged systems then he's going to need a good amount of cash. Also I still
wish you'd put more info about players making modifications themselfs.
>
>When mounting missiles on a vehicle, the firing system consumes one
>firmpoint. (A hardpoint or firmpoint is a sort of arbitrary concept,
>which gauges the size of weapon(s) capable of being mounted, depending
>on the effects of mass, recoil, and other multiple factors on the
>performance of the vehicle. True, this may not be the same definition
>that's used in RL, but it was a compromise I had to come up with to
>make a smooth transition from the RBB to R2.)
>
>However, the number of missiles (or rockets) that a vehicle may carry
>depends on the amount of Load (and CF, for internal mounts) allocated
>for storing them.

Now I'm really confused. I reread what you wrote and thought that it was
one firm point per missile. If not someone with a vehicle with a high load
factor could have LOTS of missiles. For example for 15 CF I can have two
outlaw 2's one of each outlaw ones. two AARMs, a Jaberwookie, and a SAM.
Sure it dosn't have the stay and bash it out power of a full Outlaw Missile
System but it has alot more versitiltiy. I then use the remaining two hard
points and one firm point for a Autocannon and a micro-turret with an HVAR.
Just as long as you don't plan to have a stand up shoot out with a main
battle tank and you have a big power plant it would seem missiles are the
way to go.


>


>
>> Also the author fails to fallow through on his battletac idea.
><drone-AWACS nightmare scenario snipped.>
>
>First of all, BattleTac isn't "my" idea. It was originally brought
>up in Fields of Fire. I just expanded the concept to include drones
>and came up with some nifty add-ons for drones, vehicles, and such.
>
>Well, yeah, if you want to do a scenario like that, it's possible, in
>principle. But I feel that's way beyond the scope of what Shadowrun
>was intended to focus on. For the majority of most Shadowrun
>campaigns, the BattleTac system, and the subsequent add-ons should be
>sufficient.

Actually I just brought it up because you seem to be detailing alot of
military weaponry in the book. Basically what I was pointing out is that
in combat the ability to change over controll of a drone would be usefull.
Also if as you say a rigger can keep track of many things at once he would
be great at co-ordinating a tactical engagement. (Besides I think the US
military is experimenting with computer systems that will do just that).

>> Somebody please explane to me why you need FDDM cyberware. Why not just
>> put a camera and electronic sound pickups in a helmet. Tie it into a
>> battletac system and you have the exact same effect with out wasting the
>> essence.
>
>The FDDM cyberware (which is added-on to the Snake-Eyes system) does
>more than just provide audio/visual simsense feeds into a remote
>control network. It also contains targeting electronics that allows
>the user to instantaneously transmit data for calling in fire support
>from another launched drone.

Yes but at one essence point and 120K it's a tad bit on the expensive side
for spoting. Why not just put the same electronics in the soldiers helmet.
It's just two expensive for what it does when you consider the trooper in
question should be able to do the same thing on his battletac setup.
>

>I never said that. Other people may have discounted the t-bird (as
>defined under Rigger 2) for a number of reasons: it's not
>invulnerable, the flight characteristics are too restricting, the
>armament load is too limited, and so on. I *do* think the t-bird does
>have considerable tactical value, particularly in the roles of air
>cavalry and short-range CAS. But I do not agree with the claim that
>some people have made, that the t-bird is the panacea of maneuver
>warfare, rendering tanks, APCs, and helicopters obsolete.

I don't see them making tanks and APC's obsolete, those systems have an
infantry support roll according to your rules a T-Bird has a longer range,
carrys more weapons and is much more heavly armored then a combat
helicopter ever can be. I'm not saying that they're going to replace
helocopters but I do wish you had increase the choppers load and body
ratings. I can see the rules of T-Bird warefare being something like move
fast, don't get detected and get out before the MBT's know what's going on.
I do however see a distinct tactical advantage in having a light tank
equivelent that's hard to detect and can be anywhere on the front by the
time satallite imagery is proccessed.

Oh and I liked your microdrones even if I dislike the pun but wouldn't it
be better if they came with onboard memory. That way you could drop them
off and get them into position one day and then come back the next and
collect the data (I guess they don't have the size).
>
>IMHO.
>
>-- Jon
>

SteveD

Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 46
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 09:53:18 -0800
At 14:37 4/5/98 EDT, JonSzeto wrote:
>When a rigger is directly connected to a vehicle when it's damaged or
>destroyed, some of the collateral damage affects the black box. This
>in turn sends an optical/electrical pulse directly up the datacord
>into the rigger's brain.
...
> [in the remote case,] The signal
>is processed for remote transmission via DSP (digital signal
>processing) techniques, sent across (either via the airwaves or via a
>cable) in analog wave form, received by the remote control
>deck, re-processed via DSP techniques back into a simsense signal, and
>then sent to the rigger's brain. In DSP, the amplitude of a signal is
>a scalable component and can be adjusted as appropriate. So when that
>random ASIST signal from a destroyed remote vehicle returns to the
>rigger, the DSP filters, both at the transmitting and receiving ends,
>scale down the amplitude.

So any sane rigger would put a box between the black box of his vehicle
and his brain, and that box would do the job of taking the hit when
the vehicle is directly attacked. (Grab the already digital signal,
convert it to laser light pulses going down a fiber optic cable,
convert it back again, and that should take care of it. If the problem
could cause the box to get fried, you make a box with duplicate fail-safe
circuits and a separate monitor to look for one getting fried, and have
the monitor switch it over. This *would* give you the equivalent of
dump shock as your simsense feed suddenly vanished, but it's better
than risking your health.) The problem would vanish very quickly
in the cycle of the SOTA.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 47
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 20:42:43 +0100
In article <199804052233.RAA165184@****.missouri.edu>, Stephen Delear
<c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU> writes
>>However, the number of missiles (or rockets) that a vehicle may carry
>>depends on the amount of Load (and CF, for internal mounts) allocated
>>for storing them.
>
>Now I'm really confused. I reread what you wrote and thought that it was
>one firm point per missile. If not someone with a vehicle with a high load
>factor could have LOTS of missiles.

Sure. Stormer-Starstreak today carries eight missiles ready to fire and
sixteen reloads, and it's not a huge vehicle: Spartan MCT has two MILAN
ready to fire and ten reloads. Lots of military ATGM vehicles pack a
dozen or so reload missiles.

> Just as long as you don't plan to have a stand up shoot out with a main
>battle tank and you have a big power plant it would seem missiles are the
>way to go.

Yep. That's why they get used a lot on smaller vehicles, they allow a
lot of punch from a light chassis.


>I don't see them making tanks and APC's obsolete, those systems have an
>infantry support roll according to your rules a T-Bird has a longer range,
>carrys more weapons and is much more heavly armored then a combat
>helicopter ever can be.

A T-bird can't hover, and if you've ever seen and heard a Harrier at an
air show you'll know how hellishly unstealthy they are.

They make a useful replacement for the A-10, though: tougher and lower-
flying.

>I can see the rules of T-Bird warefare being something like move
>fast, don't get detected and get out before the MBT's know what's going on.

Basically, A-10 tactics. T-birds would be meat on the table to fighter
aircraft, and vulnerable to heavier SAMs (like the Warthog today). So,
hit a rear area hard and escape, don't linger and don't play with any
fast-movers that turn up.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 48
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 21:38:31 -0500
At 08:42 PM 98-04-06 +0100, you wrote:

>
>Basically, A-10 tactics. T-birds would be meat on the table to fighter
>aircraft, and vulnerable to heavier SAMs (like the Warthog today). So,
>hit a rear area hard and escape, don't linger and don't play with any
>fast-movers that turn up.

Why not just hug the deck. I've alway enterperated T-Birds as being stable
enough to fly a foot off the ground if need be. Also a T-Bird would be
armored more like a tank then an aircraft that means the missile needs to
pack alot more punch then your average SAM. Your right about the hovering
though. T-Birds are not ground support craft (at least not while you have
other options).

SteveD
>
>
>--
>There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
>praiseworthy...
>
>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 49
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 03:51:16 PDT
Paul Gettle Wrote
>At 01:51 AM 4/3/98 -0600, Steve wrote:
>>What I really want to know is can cyber tap into a mages visual
>>and audio centers when he's in astral space so that a rigger (thoug
>maybe a
>>specially trained one) can see what the astral battlefield looks
>like.
>
>Nope. It's been stated in Shadowbeat (don't groan, it happens to be
>the sourcebook to turn to if you want info on how Simsense works) >that
>astral projection does not register on any type of recording
>cyberware. If you did have a mage with an ASIST sampling rig >instaled,
>and the mage went Astral Projecting, the signal recorded by the rig
>would be comparable to an sim-feed from someone who's unconscious.

Does this mean that a mage with cybereyes won't be able to see on the
astral?

Because if he can then I can't see why the signal can't be recorded.

Ahh I've just had a revelation. Mage's Self-image (ie astral form) will
have eyes even if the mage's physical form does not.


-Matthew Waddilove

PS. Sorry if this post is from an old message but after 3 days holiday
I've got 500+ e-mail's to plow through ;)



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 50
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 04:23:40 PDT
>On Fri, 3 Apr Paul Gettle Wrote
<SNIP>
>>What I really want to know is can cyber tap into a mages visual
>>and audio centers when he's in astral space so that a rigger (thoug
>maybe a
>>specially trained one) can see what the astral battlefield looks
>like.
>
>Nope. It's been stated in Shadowbeat (don't groan, it happens to be
>the sourcebook to turn to if you want info on how Simsense works) that
>astral projection does not register on any type of recording
>cyberware. If you did have a mage with an ASIST sampling rig instaled,
>and the mage went Astral Projecting, the signal recorded by the rig
>would be comparable to an sim-feed from someone who's unconscious.

Does this mean that a mage with cyber eyes can't see or use any of the
enhancement of the cybereyes on the astral?

If the eye's work on the astral I don't see why the image's can't be
recorded.

Doh! I've just had a realisation it's not the physical form that counts
it's the mage's selfimage(i.e. Astral Form) that counts.

-Matthew Waddilove
P.S. Sorry if this message seems old but I went on holiday for 3 days
and now have 500+ messages to catch up on ;(


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 51
From: Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:46:26 PDT
John Dukes Wrote
>Here is an interesting idea: Buy a RC deck. Set up the vehicle you
>want to
>drive for remote control interface. Jack into the RCD and control the
>vehicle you are actually riding in "remotely" from inside the >vehicle.
You
>bypass the physical damage from a destroyed vehicle replacing it with
>dump
>shock (stun) damage.
>
>The main drawbacks I see are:
>1-There is a relatively minor cost increase to set up a vehicle for
>remote
> control and get a RCD (if the rigger doesnt already have one).
>2-The fact that your car can be hijacked remotely by another rigger
>using
>MIJI.
>
>As for the MIJI problem, I can see a way around this:
>Rigger gets defeated in electronic warfare and dumped from the >system.
>Rigger looks up and flips a killswitch. "Remote Control Disabled".
>Rigger jacks into direct control of the vehicle, bypassing the RCD.
>Rigger drives away in full control of his car.
>(A little cumbersome, but hey! better than 6S damage on top of your
>crash
>damage)
>
>Well, what do you guys think? Any holes in my logic? Suggestions?
>Comments?
>
>-Teeg

Well if I recall in R2 it mentions that you can hardwire a RC deck into
a vehicle so you don't have to worry about MIJI.
It's in the section about Flux I think as one of the primary reasons for
doing this is you could stuff a super high flux amp in a truck and wire
the RC deck into it.
or maybe it was elsewhere like the bit about about adding electronic
device bays ;)

Sorry about the vague references as I'm a) tired b) at work and c)
hav'nt read R2 in at least 2 weeks(<penitent mode>Forgive me Jon for I
have sinned, I have not read your wonderful book in weeks ;) </penitent
mode>).

-Matthew Waddilove



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 52
From: Caric <caric@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:41:40 -0700
---Matthew Waddilove <m_waddilove@*******.COM> wrote:

> Does this mean that a mage with cybereyes won't be able to see on the
> astral?

apples and oranges...physical sight has zero to do with sight on the
astral...you can be blind as a bat and still see astrally.

> Because if he can then I can't see why the signal can't be recorded.
>
> Ahh I've just had a revelation. Mage's Self-image (ie astral form)
will
> have eyes even if the mage's physical form does not.

Something like that. :)

> PS. Sorry if this post is from an old message but after 3 days holiday
> I've got 500+ e-mail's to plow through ;)

hehehe I know the feeling.

Caric-the-swamped-himself-shaman
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 53
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 18:12:40 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:51 AM 4/7/98 -0700, Matthew Waddilove wrote:
>Paul Gettle Wrote
>>Nope. It's been stated in Shadowbeat (don't groan, it happens to be
>>the sourcebook to turn to if you want info on how Simsense works)
>that
>>astral projection does not register on any type of recording
>>cyberware. If you did have a mage with an ASIST sampling rig
>instaled,
>>and the mage went Astral Projecting, the signal recorded by the rig
>>would be comparable to an sim-feed from someone who's unconscious.
>
>Does this mean that a mage with cybereyes won't be able to see on the
>astral?
>
>Because if he can then I can't see why the signal can't be recorded.

If a mystic astrally projects, then the mystic's mana-self detatches
from the meatbody. Even if the mystic has cybereyes, that mystic will
still be able to see on the astral, but only because 'seeing' is a
function of the mind/soul/mana-self/whatever.

A good example of this would be a dead guy with cybereyes. The
microtronics could be functioning perfectly, sending the tiny electro
pulses to the nerve tissue in the dead guy's visual cortex, but Mr.
Dead isn't 'seeing' it at all. He's dead.

When a mystic astrally projects, the part of a cybereye's aura that
tells the mystic world "even though I don't have my natural eyes any
more, I paid good essence for this chunk of microtronics, so they let
me see things" comes along with the mystic's mana-self. The acutal
electronics though, don't know anything about auras or astral
activity, so they just continue to take in a video feed of the inside
of the mystic's eyelids.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNSqkv82C0fERRVM5AQEfBgQAnDgbijBat2rub0aUPm2Z0QX81RUV6Fnn
skqVjYX8wEIkViXOPCxESgK0pJLROId/mJYEH8YnqLCPh0oGs0ln1AB7ZWdN9WgC
nrPej1VBn2zXPAhmf/0UDQP7EFRR7k1Uf3/8A9ksDgeTNb01e0qjzmSgEjaaf8Pz
TRh4O2MLyDI=
=Z05O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 54
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 23:17:14 +0100
In article <199804070238.VAA149194@****.missouri.edu>, Stephen Delear
<c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU> writes
>At 08:42 PM 98-04-06 +0100, you wrote:
>>Basically, A-10 tactics. T-birds would be meat on the table to fighter
>>aircraft, and vulnerable to heavier SAMs (like the Warthog today). So,
>>hit a rear area hard and escape, don't linger and don't play with any
>>fast-movers that turn up.
>
>Why not just hug the deck. I've alway enterperated T-Birds as being stable
>enough to fly a foot off the ground if need be.

I figured they had to, needing ground effect to fly and unable to do
mucn more than make short bunts above that level: cruising altitude
would be measured in tens of feet at most. (Making them deadly in
plains, desert, and gently rolling terrain, but poor in forest, broken
ground, urban terrain, and other crowded terrain) but Jon S has other
ideas.

Okey dokey, his word is law, and I veer into house rules :) (No offence
meant, Jon, merely a difference of opinion)


Again, though, look at your typical terrain around where you live, and
imagine trying to fly over it a mere few feet above ground at 300mph.
There's a limit to how low you can go at any speed: helicopters are
still the kings of NoE, because they can _use_ the obstructions and
hover behind them.

T-birds would be lethal interdiction platforms, intercepting supply
columns on the move and either hitting juicy targets (fuelling depots,
repair yards, etc) or forcing them to displace into close country where
they're more vulnerable to attack by other, less mobile but more covert
troops.


>Also a T-Bird would be
>armored more like a tank then an aircraft that means the missile needs to
>pack alot more punch then your average SAM.

It's still got to fly, and an aircraft can pack more armour than a
helicopter (compare the protection of the Hind or Apache to that of the
Su-25 or A-10, for instance: Stingers killed Mi-24s easily, while Su-25s
routinely survived) because wings are more efficient load-carriers than
either vectored thrust or rotors.

I really disliked the original Banshee-as-flying-tank concept: RBB2
makes them considerably more credible. Deadly and useful in the right
circumstance, but needing more care and thought to use properly, with
weaknesses to balance their strengths.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 55
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 17:17:32 -0500
> If a mystic astrally projects, then the mystic's mana-self detatches
> from the meatbody. Even if the mystic has cybereyes, that mystic will
> still be able to see on the astral, but only because 'seeing' is a
> function of the mind/soul/mana-self/whatever.

Actually, Germany says it even better. Those guys who can only astrally
perceive (don't recall their name) lose the ability to see astrally if they get
cyber-eyes. Some bight boy pipes up "Why? You see with your head, not with
your eyes". So yes, Virginia, you can perceive with cyber eyes.
Message no. 56
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:53:24 +1200
Quoth Paul J Adam (1017 8-4-98):

<<SLICE>>
T-birds would be lethal interdiction platforms, intercepting
supply
columns on the move and either hitting juicy targets (fuelling
depots,
repair yards, etc) or forcing them to displace into close
country where
they're more vulnerable to attack by other, less mobile but more
covert
troops.
<<AGAIN WITH THE RAZOR>>
I really disliked the original Banshee-as-flying-tank concept:
RBB2
makes them considerably more credible. Deadly and useful in the
right
circumstance, but needing more care and thought to use properly,
with
weaknesses to balance their strengths.

I always imagined the Banshee as a 'light cavalry' weapon, too: good for
scout work (if drones are unavailable), strike 'n' fade attacks, and
maybe as an ultra-fast APC: dash in, drop off your troops, pull back
until they clobber the target, then extract them and get the hell out of
Dodge. Q: for those of us without R2, was the Stonewall declared a
tracked tank or an LAV? If it's an LAV, what sort of speed can it
manage?

(BTW, has anyone got stats for an APC conversion of the Banshee, or
another troop-carrying panzer, that they may have created/found?
Slightly less firepower, maybe eight or ten infantry troopers? (I've got
the Tendai, thanks, but I'm looking for something I can use in Russia or
North America around '52.) If you do, could you mail them to me
privately, please. Thanks a million.)

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 57
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:11:54 -0600
Paul J. Adam wrote:
/
/ T-birds would be lethal interdiction platforms, intercepting supply
/ columns on the move and either hitting juicy targets (fuelling depots,
/ repair yards, etc) or forcing them to displace into close country where
/ they're more vulnerable to attack by other, less mobile but more covert
/ troops.

They'd also be great as a rapid response force. Their fast enough to
intercept any offensive ground force. And they can use their
maneuverability and armor to survive, and their armament to wreak
havoc, while waiting for the main defensive force to get in position
and take over.

And they'd be good in police operations against opponents with lower
technology.

/ I really disliked the original Banshee-as-flying-tank concept: RBB2
/ makes them considerably more credible. Deadly and useful in the right
/ circumstance, but needing more care and thought to use properly, with
/ weaknesses to balance their strengths.

The Banshee was presented as a main battle tank, which it's not. It
doesn't have the endurance.

-David
--
"Hold a true friend with both hands."
- Nigerian Proverb
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 58
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Questions & Problems
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:41:37 -0500
>>Also a T-Bird would be
>>armored more like a tank then an aircraft that means the missile needs to
>>pack alot more punch then your average SAM.
>
>It's still got to fly, and an aircraft can pack more armour than a
>helicopter (compare the protection of the Hind or Apache to that of the
>Su-25 or A-10, for instance: Stingers killed Mi-24s easily, while Su-25s
>routinely survived) because wings are more efficient load-carriers than
>either vectored thrust or rotors.

I ws thinking that the better T-Birds had large electically charged fastly
rotating room temp supper conductors in them reducing the effects of
gravity above them by something along the lines of 6%(effect extending to
the end of the earths gravity well) and that the T-Bird was supported in
part because of the increased pressure this generates. Of course the
effect I'm discribing isn't confirmed by any stretch of the imagination but
hey it's still cool.


>
>I really disliked the original Banshee-as-flying-tank concept: RBB2
>makes them considerably more credible. Deadly and useful in the right
>circumstance, but needing more care and thought to use properly, with
>weaknesses to balance their strengths.
>
I don't know you can still drop 21 points of armor onto one making it
fairly tanklike. I belive the max altitude for a T-Bird is something like
100 feet. Your right though T-Birds arn't made to stand up a duke it out
for hours with MBT's. Still they can run much faster should they encounter
one.

SteveD

>
>--
>There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
>praiseworthy...
>
>Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigger 2 Questions & Problems, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!