Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jason Gress <Gumbyflex1@***.COM>
Subject: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:52:10 EST
ok this seems to be a strange question, but do you HAVE to have challenges in
your deck? if not, i have a second question, if i intersept your running team
with one of my runners, the run is over right? even if i block with say a
static?

-J
Message no. 2
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:05:20 -0800
Jason Gress wrote:
>
> ok this seems to be a strange question, but do you HAVE to have challenges in
> your deck?

Nope.

This actually has a couple cool side effects.

For one, you can *always* trash your starting hand if you don't like
it. (You've got to trash your entire hand, though, even if you get,
say, both Doc Apocalypse and a Hellblast - or whatever combo you think
is coolest).

You can always intercept a run.. in a two player game.

But you better have some buff-tough Objectives - or a lot of Cover-Ups?
- because otherwise your opponent can take potshots at your Runners -
McDeven, Drive-Bys, Abducteds - until you run low, at which point your
Objectives are, ah.. cake walks.

> if not, i have a second question, if i intersept your running team
> with one of my runners, the run is over right? even if i block with say a
> static?

There's one slight roadbump - if a Stinger takes Static out of action,
then the 'run continues if nothing happened. (Thinking - GAQS; I guess
Tempest might work as well. Other possibilities are probably out
there.)

Hope this helps.


-Matt

------------------------------------
With nomads I am numbered. -- E. MacColl
Message no. 3
From: Phil Jaros <chakan@****.PYROTECHNICS.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:12:55 -0600
>ok this seems to be a strange question, but do you HAVE to have challenges in
>your deck? if not, i have a second question, if i intersept your running team
>with one of my runners, the run is over right? even if i block with say a
>static?

You do not need to have any challenges in your deck, and blocking with
a static does stop the run automatically. However, you must keep in mind
that you can only block a shadowrun once per objective.

That means you would only be able to stop your opponent the first time
he attempts a shadowrun.



--
Phil Jaros 888888888
chakan@************.com O=O=O=O=O
___________aaaaaaaaaaaaa___________
___...aaaad8888888888888888p"""""q8888888888888888baaaa...___
``"""""q8888888888888|
|8888888888888p"""""''
``"""""< `=-~-='
>"""""''
Chakan `| ^ |'
The Forever Man / | =-= | \
/ `__.__' \
Message no. 4
From: Dennis Shea <LordBurger@***.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:34:19 EST
In a message dated 98-02-18 22:53:13 EST, you write:

<< ok this seems to be a strange question, but do you HAVE to have challenges
in
your deck? if not, i have a second question, if i intersept your running
team
with one of my runners, the run is over right? even if i block with say a
static?
>>

No, challenges are NOT essential in a deck, though they DO help a lot.

Yes, if you intercept a run with a runner (even static) the run is over, but
remember, if they Green apple your static, you dont get another chance to
intercept.


The low down
Message no. 5
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:22:52 -0800
---Jason Gress <Gumbyflex1@***.COM> wrote:
>
> ok this seems to be a strange question, but do you HAVE to have
challenges in
> your deck?

I guess not, but I don't see how that would be a strategy.

if not, i have a second question, if i intersept your running team
> with one of my runners, the run is over right? even if i block with
say a
> static?

Yes, but keep in mind that each Objective may only have one Shadowrun
intercepted on it. So if you interecept me with Static this turn when
I run on Tiki Head, then neither you nor I may intercept each other on
that Tiki Head again this game.

-== Loki ==-
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
SRCard FAQ: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/srstuff/tcgfaq1.htm
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
SRTCG trade lists last updated 1/4/98
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 6
From: Jason Gress <Gumbyflex1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:12:59 EST
In a message dated 98-02-19 10:32:25 EST, you write:

>SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET


Yes, but keep in mind that each Objective may only have one Shadowrun
intercepted on it. So if you interecept me with Static this turn when
I run on Tiki Head, then neither you nor I may intercept each other on
that Tiki Head again this game.

-i never knew that if i intercpt an objective, that noone can ever intercept
it agian
you sure?

-J
Message no. 7
From: Nemein <nemein@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:01:28 -0800
---Jason Gress <Gumbyflex1@***.COM> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-02-19 10:32:25 EST, you write:
>
> >SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET
>
>
> Yes, but keep in mind that each Objective may only have one Shadowrun
> intercepted on it. So if you interecept me with Static this turn when
> I run on Tiki Head, then neither you nor I may intercept each other on
> that Tiki Head again this game.
>
> -i never knew that if i intercpt an objective, that noone can ever
intercept
> it agian
> you sure?
>
> -J
>

Here's the section from the online rule book:
(found at:
http://www.fasa.com/Shadowrun/SRTCG/SRTCGRules/SRTCGRulesCombat.html)

INTERCEPTING A SHADOWRUN

If a player declares a shadowrun against an undefended Objective (an
Objective with no opponents' Challenges guarding it), the Objective's
owner may choose to intercept the shadowrun with one or more of his
unturned Runners. If the Objective's owner chooses not to intercept
the shadowrun, another player may do so. The option to intercept
proceeds clockwise around the table until a player chooses to
intercept or
until each player has declined to defend the Objective. Only one
player may intercept the shadowrun.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Note that only one shadowrun on each revealed Objective may be
intercepted per game.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To intercept a shadowrun, a player must turn a Runner (or team of
Runners) and engage the shadowrunning team in combat. Combat is
resolved as described in Combat Between Runners.

Intercepting a shadowrun automatically ends the shadowrun. The Runner
team is considered to have pulled out of the shadowrun even if the
team defeats the intercepting Runner(s).

Hope that helps
==
Forrest My opinions... Your delete key...
aka Nemein Best when both are used freely :-)

Shadowrun: www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3056/srccg.html
-- Decks - Card ideas - "Rising Sun" expansion --
Doomtrooper: www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3056/dtccg.html
Dark Eden: www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3056/deccg.html
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 8
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:29:29 -0800
---Jason Gress <Gumbyflex1@***.COM> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-02-19 10:32:25 EST, you write:
>
> >SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET
>
>
> >Yes, but keep in mind that each Objective may only have one Shadowrun
> >intercepted on it. So if you interecept me with Static this turn when
> >I run on Tiki Head, then neither you nor I may intercept each other
on
> >that Tiki Head again this game.
>
> -i never knew that if i intercpt an objective, that noone can ever
intercept
> it agian
> you sure?

I cut and pasted this form the online rule book on FASA's page:

~!~!~!~!~!

INTERCEPTING A SHADOWRUN

If a player declares a shadowrun against an undefended Objective (an
Objective with no opponents' Challenges guarding it), the Objective's
owner may choose to
intercept the shadowrun with one or more of his unturned Runners. If
the Objective's owner chooses not to intercept the shadowrun, another
player may do so. The
option to intercept proceeds clockwise around the table until a player
chooses to intercept or until each player has declined to defend the
Objective. Only one player
may intercept the shadowrun.

Note that only one shadowrun on each revealed Objective may be
intercepted per game.

To intercept a shadowrun, a player must turn a Runner (or team of
Runners) and engage the shadowrunning team in combat. Combat is
resolved as described in
Combat Between Runners.

Intercepting a shadowrun automatically ends the shadowrun. The Runner
team is considered to have pulled out of the shadowrun even if the
team defeats the
intercepting Runner(s).

~!~!~!~!~!

Page 71 of the RBT says the same thing verbatim.

The one line that reads "Note that only one shadowrun on each revealed
Objective may be intercepted per game." spells it out in B&W.

In other words, yes I am sure. :o)

-== Loki ==-
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
SRCard FAQ: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/srstuff/tcgfaq1.htm
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
SRTCG trade lists last updated 1/4/98



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 9
From: Dennis Shea <LordBurger@***.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:16:53 EST
it is in the rules, on some page, that only one objective can be intercepted
once per game, so that if you are playing say 4 cleanse the hive, and you
intercept on one of them, you can never intercept on one again, reguardless
wether it is the same one or not, that rule sucks, but thats just the way it
is.

Also, the rule on negative rep, has been changed, you can go into as far
negative rep as possible, to negative infinity, that rule is cool.
Message no. 10
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:15:42 -0800
---Dennis Shea <LordBurger@***.COM> wrote:
>
> it is in the rules, on some page, that only one objective can be
intercepted
> once per game, so that if you are playing say 4 cleanse the hive,
and you
> intercept on one of them, you can never intercept on one again,
reguardless
> wether it is the same one or not, that rule sucks, but thats just
the way it
> is.

I think that's misreading the rules somewhat. If an Cleanse the Hive
is out and you intercept me on it, then niether of us can intercept
the other on that particular Objective again this game. However, if a
_different_ Cleanse the Hive hits the table, that one can still be
intercepted once.

-== Loki ==-
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
SRCard FAQ: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/srstuff/tcgfaq1.htm
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
SRTCG trade lists last updated 1/4/98
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 11
From: Nemein <nemein@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:36:39 -0800
Here's the exact line from the RBT:

"Note that only one shadowrun on each revealed Objective may be
intercepted per game."

Now I've always taken that to mean that each time an Objective is
revealed it can be intercepted once. This means that once the
Objective is taken and another by the same name shows up it could be
intercepted since it is a different objective. I wonder though, does
that mean things like "Cover Up" and "Mob War"'s ability reset this
"intercept" limitation?




---Dennis Shea <LordBurger@***.COM> wrote:
>
> it is in the rules, on some page, that only one objective can be
intercepted
> once per game, so that if you are playing say 4 cleanse the hive,
and you
> intercept on one of them, you can never intercept on one again,
reguardless
> wether it is the same one or not, that rule sucks, but thats just
the way it
> is.
>
> Also, the rule on negative rep, has been changed, you can go into as
far
> negative rep as possible, to negative infinity, that rule is cool.
>

==
Forrest My opinions... Your delete key...
aka Nemein Best when both are used freely :-)

Shadowrun: www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3056/srccg.html
-- Decks - Card ideas - "Rising Sun" expansion --
Doomtrooper: www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3056/dtccg.html
Dark Eden: www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3056/deccg.html
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:12:50 -0800
Dennis Shea wrote:

> Also, the rule on negative rep, has been changed, you can go into as far
> negative rep as possible, to negative infinity, that rule is cool.

I can't... but I *must*... but I CAN'T...

Okay. Spiel time.

Thankfully there are no equivalents in SRTCG (yet?), but there are some
pretty famous "infinite recursion" combos in other CCGs -- Ley Druid and
the Maze of Ith was a pretty big one in Magic-the-Gathering, until the
errata came along. It should be noted, however, that there is a very
serious difference between 'infinitely large' and 'arbitrarily large'.

The Ith/Druid combination, for example, produced 'infinite mana' because
the Druid could untap the Maze which could untap the Druid ad
infinatum. (And I forget how the mana coems into it - Wild Growth, I
guess.) However, this would be a bad scenario for a MtG player, because
there are certain properties that go along with being infinite. Even,
for example, if the player chucked an infinite amount of mana into a
fireball (or pumping up a creature, or whatever), the player would
*still* have an infinite amount of mana left in his mana pool, because
you can subtract any amount from an infinite and still have an infinite
amount remaining. This is b-a-d, because in Magic, you take damage
yourself when you have excess mana in your mana pool - so you kill your
'pone off, but die in the process as well. Not good.

'Infinite combos' really shouldn't show up in SRTCG; the game's about
dealing with inadequate resources, and so far designed well enough that
such monsters are verboten. (Note to Forrest: See why I said not to
have untap effects?) Should you ever, ever come across one in any game,
though, always press your opponent into announcing an arbitrarily large
figure -- 100,000 or a hundred quadrillion, it doesn't matter, because
that leaves you with the slightest chance of eventually reducing that
figure to zero. With infinites .. none.

Okay, anyone familiar with surreal mathematics has my permission to
deflate this argument. But that's using surreals in a by-and-large
rational system.

Spiel off.

SRTCG Revelation Of The Day: Using the new wording (... 3AP damage...)
Torgo can no longer cap Elven Hitman.


-Matt

------------------------------------
With nomads I am numbered. -- E. MacColl
Message no. 13
From: Jon Palmer <jmp225@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:47:07 -0500
>'Infinite combos' really shouldn't show up in SRTCG; the game's about
>dealing with inadequate resources, and so far designed well enough that
>such monsters are verboten. (Note to Forrest: See why I said not to
>have untap effects?) Should you ever, ever come across one in any game,
>though, always press your opponent into announcing an arbitrarily large
>figure -- 100,000 or a hundred quadrillion, it doesn't matter, because
>that leaves you with the slightest chance of eventually reducing that
>figure to zero. With infinites .. none.

Good idea, Mat, but you can't do this in practice. As a guy who's run lots
of tournaments, here's why. You always need a time limit, and some way to
determines who wins a game that ends at the time limit. Usually, some sort
of points system is used. Here's why you just declare a combo "infinite"
and let people deal with the repercussions of that:

Stalling.

I play L5R, where there are a couple of infinite combos. For instance,
there's a guy who can keep doing damage to someone without turning or
paying money. But in L5R, damage doesn't stick around. So if he does 2
damage, and somebody has a 3 toughness, he can do it FOREVER.

Now, if I've got him, you've got a guy bigger than he can kill, and I'd win
if the game were called on time RIGHT THEN, I can just keep doing his
damage every time it's my turn for an action, until time runs out. To
prevent this, we just call it infinite, deal with the effects, and then go
on with the game. If such an infinite combo were to come up in SR, you'd
probably want to do this as well.

Btw, I believe that in Magic, if you have infinite mana, you can cast an
infinite damage fireball, and infinity - infinity SHOULD equal zero (that's
a logical answer, not a mathematical one).

Jon Palmer
Message no. 14
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 10:24:44 -0800
Jon Palmer wrote:

> >'Infinite combos' really shouldn't show up in SRTCG; the game's about
> >dealing with inadequate resources, and so far designed well enough that
> >such monsters are verboten. (Note to Forrest: See why I said not to
> >have untap effects?) Should you ever, ever come across one in any game,
> >though, always press your opponent into announcing an arbitrarily large
> >figure -- 100,000 or a hundred quadrillion, it doesn't matter, because
> >that leaves you with the slightest chance of eventually reducing that
> >figure to zero. With infinites .. none.

> Good idea, Mat, but you can't do this in practice. As a guy who's run lots
> of tournaments, here's why. You always need a time limit, and some way to
> determines who wins a game that ends at the time limit. Usually, some sort
> of points system is used. Here's why you just declare a combo "infinite"
> and let people deal with the repercussions of that:

> Stalling.

Yup. The circumstance you mentioned (snipped, alas) is an interesting
one; it's only going to happen in L5R, however. But in 'gaining' combos
-- mana, Honor, Reputation, what-have-you -- you should declare the
combo, and then your arbitrarily large figure. In different
circumstances, the end-result is usually extremely obvious -- your
arbitrarily large creature is going to crush the opposition; your huge
fireball will kill the other wizard; your bowman may shoot a quiverful
of arrows but his target will always be left with one health.
(Incidentally, I was pretty sure in L5R that ranged atacks were
cumulative; but then, I haven't played since FK.) You sidestep any
stalling; it also sidesteps dealing with infinites. And, I guess,
repetitive-stress injuries, since all that card-turning would probably
result in a torn ligament or something.

And yes, subtracting an infinite amount from an infinite amount leaves
an infinite amount remaining. (Thanks, Dad, for all the math.)

I realize I'm pushing a technical issue. You can call 'em infinite
combos; label is a label is a label, after all. It doesn't *make* them
infinite, though.


Off the soapbox,

Matt

------------------------------------
With nomads I am numbered. -- E. MacColl
Message no. 15
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: challenges...to be or not to be
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 06:37:36 -0800
Nemein wrote:

> Now I've always taken that to mean that each time an Objective is
> revealed it can be intercepted once. This means that once the
> Objective is taken and another by the same name shows up it could be
> intercepted since it is a different objective. I wonder though, does
> that mean things like "Cover Up" and "Mob War"'s ability reset
this
> "intercept" limitation?

Similar situation: When, say, Kraker-Jack returns from an Abducted!,
Brain-Freeze or Barney Phyffe -- all of which take him out of play --
does the next Pistol come out for free?

My take on all five situations is that, no, meta-effects aren't reset
when the card goes out of game or is turned face-down or covered by
another card or what-have-you; it's very obviously the same card being
returned to play. The difference would be with an effect that puts a
card back in the draw pile, into the trash pile, or into your hand;
presumably those places do reset card abilities. (Mostly because I
can't see distinguishing between several different copies of the same
card; iirc, there are some effects in L5R and Magic that *do* follow a
card into the graveyard.)


-Matt

------------------------------------
With nomads I am numbered. -- E. MacColl

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about challenges...to be or not to be, 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!