Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:49:30 -0700
---hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG> wrote:
>
> 2)Keywords
> The keywords in the game are VERY fuzzy. Eg what specifically is a corperate
> challenge? As I can't find a single challenge with a corperate keyword, I
> identify it by the title.

Speaking from what I've seen, Corporate Challenges will make their appearance
in Corp Wars. 2nd Run is also revamping existing and new challenges that will
be classified as corporate.

Such Challenges are keyworded, so they'll read: Challenge
(Corporate/Personnel) or Challenge (Corporate/Electric).

However, the <foo> rule also applies, as is the case with Lone Star HQ which
applies to Challenges with the "keyword" in it's title as well. (i.e. Lone
Star Patrol, Lone Star K9 Unit, etc.

So if a Challenge were to have Corporate in it's title, say something like
"Corporate Strike Force." Even if it didn't have Corporate in it's designation
keywords, it would fall under any bonus or penalty to a Corporate Challenge as
it bears that word on it's card face. Gotta love the <foo> clause. ;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 4/9/98


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 2
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 07:06:14 +0800
<snip>
>However, the <foo> rule also applies, as is the case with Lone Star HQ
which
>applies to Challenges with the "keyword" in it's title as well. (i.e. Lone
>Star Patrol, Lone Star K9 Unit, etc.
>
>So if a Challenge were to have Corporate in it's title, say something like
>"Corporate Strike Force." Even if it didn't have Corporate in it's
designation
>keywords, it would fall under any bonus or penalty to a Corporate Challenge
as
>it bears that word on it's card face. Gotta love the <foo> clause. ;o)
>
> -== Loki ==-

the <foo> rule is my problem.... Say a card (It'll never be designed I hope)
Ex-Lone Star whatever - will it be a Lone Star card??? the <foo> rule
promotes the use of common sense over cold logic making more rules fuzzy. I
don't see any problems with the <foo> rule in the next year or two (Yes,
SRTCG will last longer than that!! Yah!!) but if SRTCG ever prints say a
2000+ card these rules will return to haunt you....

BTW.... Lone Star is a Corp while we are using common sense......
Message no. 3
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:33:26 -0700
---hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG> wrote:
>
> the <foo> rule is my problem.... Say a card (It'll never be designed I hope)
> Ex-Lone Star whatever - will it be a Lone Star card??? the <foo> rule
> promotes the use of common sense over cold logic making more rules fuzzy. I
> don't see any problems with the <foo> rule in the next year or two (Yes,
> SRTCG will last longer than that!! Yah!!) but if SRTCG ever prints say a
> 2000+ card these rules will return to haunt you....

I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you. Still, you
need the <foo> clause to maintain backwards compatability for cards you hadn't
thought of before.

To try and keyword every possibility would mean either:

A. Expansions could only introduce new ideas for themselves and future
releases. IOW if cards like Lone Star HQ required a keyword for their effect,
like one affecting Challenge (Lone Star) or Elf Lone Star Runner cards, they
wouldn't be able to touch anything in the Limited Edition. That's extremely
limiting and would be even worse for such a card in the 4th, 5th or 6th
expansion.

B. You'd have to introduce at least one of each kind of keyword you think
you'll use in your first printing of the game. So they'd have had to get in
Awakened, Personnel, Corporate, Electric, Street, Elf, Ork, Troll, Dwarf,
Runner, Gear, Magic, Matrix, Weapon, ... plus anything else they could foresee
using in the future: insect, toxic, immortal, great form, military, astral,
... Otherwise they wouldn't be able to include due to limitation strictures
and only forward compatability or support.

Also, keep in mind Runner archetpye keywords are technically in the card title
(rigger, street sam, mage, shaman, decker, mercenary, ...). A
location/objective/challenge referring to a decker, for example, is pointing
to card tile (Ice Queen * Decker) and not the cards actual keyword line (Elf
Runner). Their decription keyword line merely carries race and runner
designation (elf runner, dwarf runner, troll prime runner, etc. Thus I would
say keyword is valid for card title and description line.

> BTW.... Lone Star is a Corp while we are using common sense......

True, but even further common sense in SRTCG would dictate that only the RPG
veterans will know that. Corporate in the SRTCG seems to currently apply only
to the Big Eight. Lone Star has it's own designation and keyword.

-== 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 4/9/98
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 4
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 15:33:40 +0800
>>
>> the <foo> rule is my problem.... Say a card (It'll never be designed I
hope)
>> Ex-Lone Star whatever - will it be a Lone Star card??? the <foo> rule
>> promotes the use of common sense over cold logic making more rules fuzzy.
I
>> don't see any problems with the <foo> rule in the next year or two (Yes,
>> SRTCG will last longer than that!! Yah!!) but if SRTCG ever prints say a
>> 2000+ card these rules will return to haunt you....
>
>I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you. Still, you
>need the <foo> clause to maintain backwards compatability for cards you
hadn't
>thought of before.


Yup.. thats why I suggested it for 2nd run... You'll only need to clairify a
few cards... Btech CCG just came up with a new idea, vehicles & battle armor
to be exact, the backward compatibility (how to use with new cards) was
explained on the inside of each booster wrapper.

>To try and keyword every possibility would mean either:
>
>A. Expansions could only introduce new ideas for themselves and future
>releases. IOW if cards like Lone Star HQ required a keyword for their
effect,
>like one affecting Challenge (Lone Star) or Elf Lone Star Runner cards,
they
>wouldn't be able to touch anything in the Limited Edition. That's extremely
>limiting and would be even worse for such a card in the 4th, 5th or 6th
>expansion.

Nope. Correct it in now.... Remember no matter whatever version u use the
ruling always uses the latest print. Eg (M:tg): If you use an alpha print
orcish oriflame and try to cast it for 1 red & 1 generic mana in one of my
tournaments, I'd correct u & give u a warning 4 trying to misrepresent the
card (ie trying to cheat).

>B. You'd have to introduce at least one of each kind of keyword you think
>you'll use in your first printing of the game. So they'd have had to get in
>Awakened, Personnel, Corporate, Electric, Street, Elf, Ork, Troll, Dwarf,
>Runner, Gear, Magic, Matrix, Weapon, ... plus anything else they could
foresee
>using in the future: insect, toxic, immortal, great form, military, astral,
>... Otherwise they wouldn't be able to include due to limitation strictures
>and only forward compatability or support.

The problem with keywords is the flexibility it gives... theres a infinite
amount of keywords out there waiting to be used.... I definatly don't want a
80 page rulebook just for keywords.... The idea is just to keep them simple
and rather general.... Actually, I'm not too hot with the Lone Star
thing.... I mean what about other law enforcement agencies eg Knight Errant
& NYPD Inc?
Hmmm... Maybe for such specific groups use the <foo> rule but clarify in the
book on when to use and when not to.... Maybe identify them by placing them
in italics or square brackets or something....

>Also, keep in mind Runner archetpye keywords are technically in the card
title
>(rigger, street sam, mage, shaman, decker, mercenary, ...). A
>location/objective/challenge referring to a decker, for example, is
pointing
>to card tile (Ice Queen * Decker) and not the cards actual keyword line
(Elf
>Runner). Their decription keyword line merely carries race and runner
>designation (elf runner, dwarf runner, troll prime runner, etc. Thus I
would
>say keyword is valid for card title and description line.

So is Torgo a Ganger?

>> BTW.... Lone Star is a Corp while we are using common sense......
>
>True, but even further common sense in SRTCG would dictate that only the
RPG
>veterans will know that. Corporate in the SRTCG seems to currently apply
only
>to the Big Eight. Lone Star has it's own designation and keyword.
Message no. 5
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 08:03:49 -0700
hansen wrote:

> >A. Expansions could only introduce new ideas for themselves and future
> >releases. IOW if cards like Lone Star HQ required a keyword for their
> >effect, like one affecting Challenge (Lone Star) or Elf Lone Star Runner cards,
> >they wouldn't be able to touch anything in the Limited Edition. That's extremely
> >limiting and would be even worse for such a card in the 4th, 5th or 6th
> >expansion.

> Nope. Correct it in now.... Remember no matter whatever version u use the
> ruling always uses the latest print. Eg (M:tg): If you use an alpha print
> orcish oriflame and try to cast it for 1 red & 1 generic mana in one of my
> tournaments, I'd correct u & give u a warning 4 trying to misrepresent the
> card (ie trying to cheat).

Realize that this entails reprinting a large selection of cards from
Underworld, and players deliberately going out and purchasing them,
solely to correct a 'mistake' that most people don't even regard as
such. Right now, there's no difference between a Lone Star Patrol, and
a Lone Star K-9 Unit, as far as whether they're affected by Lone Star
HQ. Altering the Second Run Patrol to read as a Challenge (Lone
Star/Personnel/Street/Vehicle) immediately raises the question of
whether or not Lone Star K-9 Unit also counts as a Lone Star card, since
it's no longer keyed as such. [This is, essentially, Loki's point.]

Regarding the Ex-Lone Star Runner -- which sounds like a direct lift of
L5R's Hunter of Naga -- I think you're going about it in too lowbrow of
a manner. It's not like people read cards with little search-engines,
only picking up on %Lone%Star%; people are entirely capable of reading
things in context. Right now, there is no "foo" rule for SRTCG, so it
avoids the (silly) declaration made by L5R that if it looks like a
keyword and is in the title, it's actually that keyword. LSHQ asks for
a Lone Star card, and the ones that fall into that category are
self-obvious. A card that specifies that it is not ("Ex-") a Lone Star
card wouldn't be affected by it.

> The problem with keywords is the flexibility it gives... theres a infinite
> amount of keywords out there waiting to be used.... I definatly don't want a
> 80 page rulebook just for keywords.... The idea is just to keep them simple
> and rather general.... Actually, I'm not too hot with the Lone Star
> thing.... I mean what about other law enforcement agencies eg Knight Errant
> & NYPD Inc?
> Hmmm... Maybe for such specific groups use the <foo> rule but clarify in the
> book on when to use and when not to.... Maybe identify them by placing them
> in italics or square brackets or something....

Sounds too much like Decipher's Star Trek and Star Wars system (using
Lore). Right now I don't see that there's a problem so large -
including Torgo, Scatter, Lurker, and Lone Star - that a definitive
"this is a (foo)" system needs to be implemented. Usually once such a
system is implemented, you immdiately develop or discover hafl a dozen
cards which break the system, anyway.

Can't say italics or brackets has any visual appeal to me.

There is already one Knight Errant card out there; since Knight Errant
is a branch of the Ares megacorp, it's possible there will be another
card in the Corp War set.

> >Also, keep in mind Runner archetpye keywords are technically in the card
> >title (rigger, street sam, mage, shaman, decker, mercenary, ...). A
> >location/objective/challenge referring to a decker, for example, is
> >pointing to card tile (Ice Queen * Decker) and not the cards actual keyword line
> >(Elf Runner). Their decription keyword line merely carries race and runner
> >designation (elf runner, dwarf runner, troll prime runner, etc. Thus I
> >would say keyword is valid for card title and description line.

> So is Torgo a Ganger?

In regards to Loki's post, the word you're looking for is "profession"
(RBT, p. 19). (Just picking on the language. Challenges have keywords
and Runners don't, but we'll all end up calling them keywords anyway.)

As to Torgo - sigh.

He's a Ganger Leader.

Take it from there.



- Matt

------------------------------------
In a dark time, the eye begins to see. - T. Roethke

GridSec: SRCard
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 6
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 00:34:37 +0800
>hansen wrote:
>
>> >A. Expansions could only introduce new ideas for themselves and future
>> >releases. IOW if cards like Lone Star HQ required a keyword for their
>> >effect, like one affecting Challenge (Lone Star) or Elf Lone Star Runner
cards,
>> >they wouldn't be able to touch anything in the Limited Edition. That's
extremely
>> >limiting and would be even worse for such a card in the 4th, 5th or 6th
>> >expansion.
>
>> Nope. Correct it in now.... Remember no matter whatever version u use the
>> ruling always uses the latest print. Eg (M:tg): If you use an alpha print
>> orcish oriflame and try to cast it for 1 red & 1 generic mana in one of
my
>> tournaments, I'd correct u & give u a warning 4 trying to misrepresent
the
>> card (ie trying to cheat).
>
>Realize that this entails reprinting a large selection of cards from
>Underworld, and players deliberately going out and purchasing them,
>solely to correct a 'mistake' that most people don't even regard as
>such. Right now, there's no difference between a Lone Star Patrol, and
>a Lone Star K-9 Unit, as far as whether they're affected by Lone Star
>HQ. Altering the Second Run Patrol to read as a Challenge (Lone
>Star/Personnel/Street/Vehicle) immediately raises the question of
>whether or not Lone Star K-9 Unit also counts as a Lone Star card, since
>it's no longer keyed as such. [This is, essentially, Loki's point.]

Hey... I'd rather erratta the cards on the official FAQ. All other games do
this. The golden rule of CCGs is never reprint limited edition cards (I
think only Star Wars has done it and for 1 card 'Asteroid Santuary') ; I'm
very sure FASA knows this. After all they didn't reprint 1st run
(Halloweener Hell) or UW (Ancients & Spell Lock) when they discovered the
mistake. They added the info to their home page & FAQ list.... It's only a
few cards now.... But it the future????

>Regarding the Ex-Lone Star Runner -- which sounds like a direct lift of
>L5R's Hunter of Naga -- I think you're going about it in too lowbrow of
>a manner. It's not like people read cards with little search-engines,
>only picking up on %Lone%Star%; people are entirely capable of reading
>things in context. Right now, there is no "foo" rule for SRTCG, so it
>avoids the (silly) declaration made by L5R that if it looks like a
>keyword and is in the title, it's actually that keyword. LSHQ asks for
>a Lone Star card, and the ones that fall into that category are
>self-obvious. A card that specifies that it is not ("Ex-") a Lone Star
>card wouldn't be affected by it.


That was an illustration.... pls look at my next point.... And btw some
people do try to abuse these little rulings.... I don't think I need to tell
u what game they play.....

>> The problem with keywords is the flexibility it gives... theres a
infinite
>> amount of keywords out there waiting to be used.... I definatly don't
want a
>> 80 page rulebook just for keywords.... The idea is just to keep them
simple
>> and rather general.... Actually, I'm not too hot with the Lone Star
>> thing.... I mean what about other law enforcement agencies eg Knight
Errant
>> & NYPD Inc?
>> Hmmm... Maybe for such specific groups use the <foo> rule but clarify in
the
>> book on when to use and when not to.... Maybe identify them by placing
them
>> in italics or square brackets or something....
>
>Sounds too much like Decipher's Star Trek and Star Wars system (using
>Lore). Right now I don't see that there's a problem so large -
>including Torgo, Scatter, Lurker, and Lone Star - that a definitive
>"this is a (foo)" system needs to be implemented. Usually once such a
>system is implemented, you immdiately develop or discover hafl a dozen
>cards which break the system, anyway.


I never said about the problem being NOW. I said fix it before it becomes
one. Also 'Lone Star' searched for matching text in the title; what about
'Vehicle' as in Armored Patrol Vehicle and 'Doberman' Patrol Vehicle? (I
realised this after going thru my cards) Why should you be able to reap
benefits for the 'Lone Star' text on say Holmes but not the 'Vehicle' text
on Armored Patrol Vehicle using say Roadrash? This ia inconsistancy in
ruling and should be corrected now.

>Can't say italics or brackets has any visual appeal to me.


No... But they do help clarify.... What do u suggest????? Different color?
Pls suggest what is visually appealing....

>There is already one Knight Errant card out there; since Knight Errant
>is a branch of the Ares megacorp, it's possible there will be another
>card in the Corp War set.


Yes, I know. thats why I brought it up....

>> >Also, keep in mind Runner archetpye keywords are technically in the card
>> >title (rigger, street sam, mage, shaman, decker, mercenary, ...). A
>> >location/objective/challenge referring to a decker, for example, is
>> >pointing to card tile (Ice Queen * Decker) and not the cards actual
keyword line
>> >(Elf Runner). Their decription keyword line merely carries race and
runner
>> >designation (elf runner, dwarf runner, troll prime runner, etc. Thus I
>> >would say keyword is valid for card title and description line.
>
>> So is Torgo a Ganger?
>
>In regards to Loki's post, the word you're looking for is "profession"
>(RBT, p. 19). (Just picking on the language. Challenges have keywords
>and Runners don't, but we'll all end up calling them keywords anyway.)
>
>As to Torgo - sigh.
>
>He's a Ganger Leader.
>
>Take it from there.

That didn't answer my question. My question has a yes/no answer. Is Torgo a
Ganger or not?
Message no. 7
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 11:43:38 -0700
hansen wrote:

> Hey... I'd rather erratta the cards on the official FAQ. All other games do
> this. The golden rule of CCGs is never reprint limited edition cards (I
> think only Star Wars has done it and for 1 card 'Asteroid Santuary') ; I'm
> very sure FASA knows this. After all they didn't reprint 1st run
> (Halloweener Hell) or UW (Ancients & Spell Lock) when they discovered the
> mistake. They added the info to their home page & FAQ list.... It's only a
> few cards now.... But it the future????

Try Magic, for a game that's reprinting a large portion of limited-run
cards.

In the future, more cards may be added to the FAQ. Halloweener Hell and
the Spell Lock both stemmed from the same problem and basically make up
for omissions; The Ancients' typo didn't change the function of the card
at all.

Trying to create an all-inclusive rule regarding designation by keywords
or professions is just going to create a larger problem. So rather than
create a rule that's going to get further abused, don't create one.

> >Regarding the Ex-Lone Star Runner -- which sounds like a direct lift of
> >L5R's Hunter of Naga -- I think you're going about it in too lowbrow of
> >a manner. It's not like people read cards with little search-engines,
> >only picking up on %Lone%Star%; people are entirely capable of reading
> >things in context. Right now, there is no "foo" rule for SRTCG, so it
> >avoids the (silly) declaration made by L5R that if it looks like a
> >keyword and is in the title, it's actually that keyword. LSHQ asks for
> >a Lone Star card, and the ones that fall into that category are
> >self-obvious. A card that specifies that it is not ("Ex-") a Lone Star
> >card wouldn't be affected by it.

> That was an illustration.... pls look at my next point.... And btw some
> people do try to abuse these little rulings.... I don't think I need to tell
> u what game they play.....

And there are some people who won't play with people who abuse rules.
No, sorry, I have great difficulty imagining anyone getting swayed by
"It says 'Lone Star' in 'ex-Lone-Star Runner'!" That sort of ruling
only crops up in L5R, where the foo rule rather specifically looks for
instances of a word or phrase, without care for context.

>>> Hmmm... Maybe for such specific groups use the <foo> rule but clarify
in
>>> the book on when to use and when not to.... Maybe identify them by placing
>>> them in italics or square brackets or something....

> >Sounds too much like Decipher's Star Trek and Star Wars system (using
> >Lore). Right now I don't see that there's a problem so large -
> >including Torgo, Scatter, Lurker, and Lone Star - that a definitive
> >"this is a (foo)" system needs to be implemented. Usually once such a
> >system is implemented, you immdiately develop or discover half a dozen
> >cards which break the system, anyway.

> I never said about the problem being NOW. I said fix it before it becomes
> one.

My point is simply that creating an official designation system -- well,
creating one this late in the game, at any rate - will create more
problems than it resolves.

> Also 'Lone Star' searched for matching text in the title; what about
> 'Vehicle' as in Armored Patrol Vehicle and 'Doberman' Patrol Vehicle? (I
> realised this after going thru my cards) Why should you be able to reap
> benefits for the 'Lone Star' text on say Holmes but not the 'Vehicle' text
> on Armored Patrol Vehicle using say Roadrash? This ia inconsistancy in
> ruling and should be corrected now.

Keywords generally tend toward the Keyword line, rather than the title,
except with Runners (where the situation is the reverse). Incidentally,
this *is* in the FAQ (or at least Q&A); however, I've played where
Wheeler and Roadrash both affect the two cards you mention, without much
of a problem.

Second Run may reprint the card as "...Gear/Vehicle..." rather than the
straight-forward Vehicle, which may or may not clarify things
successfully.

There is no Lone Star text on Holmes, so I have no idea what that was
supposed to have meant.

> >Can't say italics or brackets has any visual appeal to me.

> No... But they do help clarify.... What do u suggest????? Different color?
> Pls suggest what is visually appealing....

I suggest not implementing the system.

> >> So is Torgo a Ganger?

> >In regards to Loki's post, the word you're looking for is "profession"
> >(RBT, p. 19). (Just picking on the language. Challenges have keywords
> >and Runners don't, but we'll all end up calling them keywords anyway.)

> >As to Torgo - sigh.

> >He's a Ganger Leader.

> >Take it from there.

> That didn't answer my question. My question has a yes/no answer. Is Torgo a
> Ganger or not?

As to Torgo - sigh.

He's a Ganger Leader.

Take it from there.


- Matt

------------------------------------
In a dark time, the eye begins to see. - T. Roethke

GridSec: SRCard
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 8
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 01:37:55 +0800
>hansen wrote:
>
>> Hey... I'd rather erratta the cards on the official FAQ. All other games
do
>> this. The golden rule of CCGs is never reprint limited edition cards (I
>> think only Star Wars has done it and for 1 card 'Asteroid Santuary') ;
I'm
>> very sure FASA knows this. After all they didn't reprint 1st run
>> (Halloweener Hell) or UW (Ancients & Spell Lock) when they discovered the
>> mistake. They added the info to their home page & FAQ list.... It's only
a
>> few cards now.... But it the future????
>
>Try Magic, for a game that's reprinting a large portion of limited-run
>cards.


Hey some people want the card but arn't able to fork the $ out for a limited
card OK!
$60 for a limited Shivan is ridiculous when u can get a $5 unlimited one....
and it would cost more if it wasn't reprinted.... stop complaining about
reprints in unlimited sets. They allow new players to enter the game without
buying over cards from older players at killer prices.

>In the future, more cards may be added to the FAQ. Halloweener Hell and
>the Spell Lock both stemmed from the same problem and basically make up
>for omissions; The Ancients' typo didn't change the function of the card
>at all.
>
>Trying to create an all-inclusive rule regarding designation by keywords
>or professions is just going to create a larger problem. So rather than
>create a rule that's going to get further abused, don't create one.

How many cards are there only? Just add text to the card in the FAQ. If they
are ever reprinted in an unlimited set, correct them there. Thats it.

>> >Regarding the Ex-Lone Star Runner -- which sounds like a direct lift of
>> >L5R's Hunter of Naga -- I think you're going about it in too lowbrow of
>> >a manner. It's not like people read cards with little search-engines,
>> >only picking up on %Lone%Star%; people are entirely capable of reading
>> >things in context. Right now, there is no "foo" rule for SRTCG, so
it
>> >avoids the (silly) declaration made by L5R that if it looks like a
>> >keyword and is in the title, it's actually that keyword. LSHQ asks for
>> >a Lone Star card, and the ones that fall into that category are
>> >self-obvious. A card that specifies that it is not ("Ex-") a Lone
Star
>> >card wouldn't be affected by it.
>
>> That was an illustration.... pls look at my next point.... And btw some
>> people do try to abuse these little rulings.... I don't think I need to
tell
>> u what game they play.....
>
>And there are some people who won't play with people who abuse rules.

Look I didn't say all.... Just pointing out that assholes happen to exist in
this world.... I wonder if they will ever stop evolving......

>No, sorry, I have great difficulty imagining anyone getting swayed by
>"It says 'Lone Star' in 'ex-Lone-Star Runner'!" That sort of ruling
>only crops up in L5R, where the foo rule rather specifically looks for
>instances of a word or phrase, without care for context.

Btw the <foo> rule exists. It works for Lone Star cards but it's not clearly
expressed in the rulebook. Hmm u seem to hate LR5 too? Why? M:tG I
understand....

>>>> Hmmm... Maybe for such specific groups use the <foo> rule but
clarify
in
>>>> the book on when to use and when not to.... Maybe identify them by
placing
>>>> them in italics or square brackets or something....
>
>> >Sounds too much like Decipher's Star Trek and Star Wars system (using
>> >Lore). Right now I don't see that there's a problem so large -
>> >including Torgo, Scatter, Lurker, and Lone Star - that a definitive
>> >"this is a (foo)" system needs to be implemented. Usually once
such a
>> >system is implemented, you immdiately develop or discover half a dozen
>> >cards which break the system, anyway.
>
>> I never said about the problem being NOW. I said fix it before it becomes
>> one.
>
>My point is simply that creating an official designation system -- well,
>creating one this late in the game, at any rate - will create more
>problems than it resolves.

It's not late. Only 1 expansion and the basic set have been printed. Anyway
there's nothing as too late until you're dead....

>> Also 'Lone Star' searched for matching text in the title; what about
>> 'Vehicle' as in Armored Patrol Vehicle and 'Doberman' Patrol Vehicle? (I
>> realised this after going thru my cards) Why should you be able to reap
>> benefits for the 'Lone Star' text on say Holmes but not the 'Vehicle'
text
>> on Armored Patrol Vehicle using say Roadrash? This ia inconsistancy in
>> ruling and should be corrected now.
>
>Keywords generally tend toward the Keyword line, rather than the title,
>except with Runners (where the situation is the reverse). Incidentally,
>this *is* in the FAQ (or at least Q&A); however, I've played where
>Wheeler and Roadrash both affect the two cards you mention, without much
>of a problem.

Yes usually, but what about 'Lone Star Drone'. It's a 'Lone Star' card.....

>Second Run may reprint the card as "...Gear/Vehicle..." rather than the
>straight-forward Vehicle, which may or may not clarify things
>successfully.

Don't think it's gonna work....... Unless....... You mean giving it another
boder color like magic & matrix ?!? I don't think so......

>There is no Lone Star text on Holmes, so I have no idea what that was
>supposed to have meant.

Oops... Sorry Duncan....

>> >Can't say italics or brackets has any visual appeal to me.
>
>> No... But they do help clarify.... What do u suggest????? Different
color?
>> Pls suggest what is visually appealing....
>
>I suggest not implementing the system.
>
<SNIP the torgo part. Won't happen again>
Message no. 9
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 12:56:31 -0700
hansen wrote:

> >Try Magic, for a game that's reprinting a large portion of limited-run
> >cards.

> Hey some people want the card but arn't able to fork the $ out for a limited
> card OK!
> $60 for a limited Shivan is ridiculous when u can get a $5 unlimited one....
> and it would cost more if it wasn't reprinted.... stop complaining about
> reprints in unlimited sets. They allow new players to enter the game without
> buying over cards from older players at killer prices.

Mmm, I'm also thinking of the many cards that just get new artwork
(Power Sink has, what, five versions?). For a long-term player, it
stinks when you drop a hundred dollars on a box, to find that you
already own some of the cards in the "new" set. At least minor twists
have some advantage, either of novelty or being more geared to a
specific situation.

Those are cards in new expansion sets; core cards (First Run to Second
Run) will always have cards repeated with each new edition. Those are
cases of cards going from one 'unlimited' printing to another though; I
was talking where cards go from a limited expansion to an 'unlimited'
set (like, Chronicles or Fifth Edition).

> >No, sorry, I have great difficulty imagining anyone getting swayed by
> >"It says 'Lone Star' in 'ex-Lone-Star Runner'!" That sort of ruling
> >only crops up in L5R, where the foo rule rather specifically looks for
> >instances of a word or phrase, without care for context.

> Btw the <foo> rule exists. It works for Lone Star cards but it's not clearly
> expressed in the rulebook. Hmm u seem to hate LR5 too? Why? M:tG I
> understand....

The foo rule exists -- in L5R (right down to the 'foo' and 'bar').
Although there're ways to designate what card an effect is looking for,
there is no written, hard-and-fast rule in SRTCG.

I actually enjoy L5R, although a lot of the players turn me off. The
foo rule works without consideration for context; that's why the "Hunter
of Naga" and "Armor of Golden Samurai" create(d?) such a boondoggle for
such a long time. Last I knew it wasn't written to work any better,
either.

> >My point is simply that creating an official designation system -- well,
> >creating one this late in the game, at any rate - will create more
> >problems than it resolves.

> It's not late. Only 1 expansion and the basic set have been printed. Anyway
> there's nothing as too late until you're dead....

The basic set and expansion are more than enough to set the tone for the
game. If (since you mentioned it as a possibility) you keyword Lone
Star Patrol as being a "Challenge (Lone Star)", you insinuate that all
the Challenges in Underworld are not Lone Star Challenges -- they're no
longer keyed as such. And while additions to the FAQ are acceptable,
FAQs in general should be kept as short as needed, and aren't available
to every player, so shouldn't be taken as a means to correct oversights
like that.

*Not* keying the Patrol as a Challenge (Lone Star) keeps the present
system, such as it is, intact. No confusion, no fuss, no muss. But
once you start trying to keyword it -- by whatever method -- you run
into problems. You might want to exclude a card that somehow got the
Lone Star designation on it; you also cast a shadow on other cards that
might be keyworded in a similar manner.

> >> Also 'Lone Star' searched for matching text in the title; what about
> >> 'Vehicle' as in Armored Patrol Vehicle and 'Doberman' Patrol Vehicle? (I
> >> realised this after going thru my cards) Why should you be able to reap
> >> benefits for the 'Lone Star' text on say Holmes but not the 'Vehicle'
> text
> >> on Armored Patrol Vehicle using say Roadrash? This ia inconsistancy in
> >> ruling and should be corrected now.

> >Keywords generally tend toward the Keyword line, rather than the title,
> >except with Runners (where the situation is the reverse). Incidentally,
> >this *is* in the FAQ (or at least Q&A); however, I've played where
> >Wheeler and Roadrash both affect the two cards you mention, without much
> >of a problem.

> Yes usually, but what about 'Lone Star Drone'. It's a 'Lone Star' card.....

If there was an effect that should include both the Lone Star Drone and
Lone Star Runners and Challenges, I'd argue the point. :) LSHQ only
works with Runners and Challenges.

It's simply something to keep in mind when new cards are created: "SPD
receives the first Lone Star Gear palyed on him for free" works pretty
well. Remember what I said about it not being a hard-and-fast rule?

> >There is no Lone Star text on Holmes, so I have no idea what that was
> >supposed to have meant.

> Oops... Sorry Duncan....

Okay. Still don't see what you mean. LSHQ asks for a Lone Star Runner,
and it's visually obvious which ones that means.

> <SNIP the torgo part. Won't happen again>

It was a never a yes/no question. Sorry if I seemed like an ass there.


(That *was* said with a smile.)

- Matt

------------------------------------
In a dark time, the eye begins to see. - T. Roethke

GridSec: SRCard
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 10
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 03:25:20 +0800
>> >Try Magic, for a game that's reprinting a large portion of limited-run
>> >cards.
>
>> Hey some people want the card but arn't able to fork the $ out for a
limited
>> card OK!
>> $60 for a limited Shivan is ridiculous when u can get a $5 unlimited
one....
>> and it would cost more if it wasn't reprinted.... stop complaining about
>> reprints in unlimited sets. They allow new players to enter the game
without
>> buying over cards from older players at killer prices.
>
>Mmm, I'm also thinking of the many cards that just get new artwork
>(Power Sink has, what, five versions?). For a long-term player, it
>stinks when you drop a hundred dollars on a box, to find that you
>already own some of the cards in the "new" set. At least minor twists
>have some advantage, either of novelty or being more geared to a
>specific situation.


Oh those cards! (Slap on the forehead) these are usually cards essential for
game play. Hey they reprinted land.... BTW the record holder is DISENCHANT
(1st - 5th ed, IA, MG, TM and Arena) for a spell and MOUNTAIN ( 1 - 5 ed,
AN, IA, MG, TM and Arena) for any card.

>Those are cards in new expansion sets; core cards (First Run to Second
>Run) will always have cards repeated with each new edition. Those are
>cases of cards going from one 'unlimited' printing to another though; I
>was talking where cards go from a limited expansion to an 'unlimited'
>set (like, Chronicles or Fifth Edition).

Ahh... those repeats were because of 1) introduction of a stand alone set
(basically a new core set with different cards) or 2) promotions for the
arena league (alternate art card as a bonus for joining and winning
tournaments in arena)

>> >No, sorry, I have great difficulty imagining anyone getting swayed by
>> >"It says 'Lone Star' in 'ex-Lone-Star Runner'!" That sort of
ruling
>> >only crops up in L5R, where the foo rule rather specifically looks for
>> >instances of a word or phrase, without care for context.
>
>> Btw the <foo> rule exists. It works for Lone Star cards but it's not
clearly
>> expressed in the rulebook. Hmm u seem to hate LR5 too? Why? M:tG I
>> understand....
>
>The foo rule exists -- in L5R (right down to the 'foo' and 'bar').
>Although there're ways to designate what card an effect is looking for,
>there is no written, hard-and-fast rule in SRTCG.

Expect it to be implemented... Loki said this in one of his responses :
"However, the <foo> rule also applies, as is the case with Lone Star HQ
which
applies to Challenges with the "keyword" in it's title as well. (i.e. Lone
Star Patrol, Lone Star K9 Unit, etc."

>I actually enjoy L5R, although a lot of the players turn me off. The
>foo rule works without consideration for context; that's why the "Hunter
>of Naga" and "Armor of Golden Samurai" create(d?) such a boondoggle for
>such a long time. Last I knew it wasn't written to work any better,
>either.
>
>> >My point is simply that creating an official designation system -- well,
>> >creating one this late in the game, at any rate - will create more
>> >problems than it resolves.
>
>> It's not late. Only 1 expansion and the basic set have been printed.
Anyway
>> there's nothing as too late until you're dead....
>
>The basic set and expansion are more than enough to set the tone for the
>game. If (since you mentioned it as a possibility) you keyword Lone
>Star Patrol as being a "Challenge (Lone Star)", you insinuate that all
>the Challenges in Underworld are not Lone Star Challenges -- they're no
>longer keyed as such. And while additions to the FAQ are acceptable,
>FAQs in general should be kept as short as needed, and aren't available
>to every player, so shouldn't be taken as a means to correct oversights
>like that.

OK I didn't want a new keyword, I wanted the card to state when to look for
a keyword and when to look at the title...... The way it is written now
makes it look like it's written to hunt a keyword.....

>*Not* keying the Patrol as a Challenge (Lone Star) keeps the present
>system, such as it is, intact. No confusion, no fuss, no muss. But
>once you start trying to keyword it -- by whatever method -- you run
>into problems. You might want to exclude a card that somehow got the
>Lone Star designation on it; you also cast a shadow on other cards that
>might be keyworded in a similar manner

>
>> >> Also 'Lone Star' searched for matching text in the title; what about
>> >> 'Vehicle' as in Armored Patrol Vehicle and 'Doberman' Patrol Vehicle?
(I
>> >> realised this after going thru my cards) Why should you be able to
reap
>> >> benefits for the 'Lone Star' text on say Holmes but not the 'Vehicle'
>> text
>> >> on Armored Patrol Vehicle using say Roadrash? This ia inconsistancy in
>> >> ruling and should be corrected now.
>
>> >Keywords generally tend toward the Keyword line, rather than the title,
>> >except with Runners (where the situation is the reverse). Incidentally,
>> >this *is* in the FAQ (or at least Q&A); however, I've played where
>> >Wheeler and Roadrash both affect the two cards you mention, without much
>> >of a problem.
>
>> Yes usually, but what about 'Lone Star Drone'. It's a 'Lone Star'
card.....
>
>If there was an effect that should include both the Lone Star Drone and
>Lone Star Runners and Challenges, I'd argue the point. :) LSHQ only
>works with Runners and Challenges.
>
>It's simply something to keep in mind when new cards are created: "SPD
>receives the first Lone Star Gear palyed on him for free" works pretty
>well. Remember what I said about it not being a hard-and-fast rule?

I'm thinking about the future.... Magic has come to a point where names are
getting very predictable (<fill in the blank> elves, <fill in the
blank>merfolk, <fill in the blank> tutor, <fill in the blank> warrior,
etc....) what happens when SRTCG starts to run out of names. Granted it'll
take a long time, but if it keeps selling, it will eventually hit that
stage....

>> >There is no Lone Star text on Holmes, so I have no idea what that was
>> >supposed to have meant.
>
>> Oops... Sorry Duncan....
>
>Okay. Still don't see what you mean. LSHQ asks for a Lone Star Runner,
>and it's visually obvious which ones that means.
>
>> <SNIP the torgo part. Won't happen again>
>
>It was a never a yes/no question. Sorry if I seemed like an ass there.
>
>
>(That *was* said with a smile.)
>
>- Matt

I use Magic in most of my case studies as it is the longest surviving CCG.
I'm also very familiar with it. I really hope that SRTCG will at least do as
well at it in terms of staying power so if u hate Magic (btw I've quit, I
only judge now) don't send me hate mail.....

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition), 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!