Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Thomas <Strangefate@*****.NET>
Subject: Defense of: Frustration Deck
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 03:49:50 -0400
RUNNERS (22)
Cherry Bomb x2
Jade x2
Kracker Jack x2
Mugsy x2
Reaper x2
Red Widow x2
Roadrash x2
Shasta x2
Thash x2
Tinkerbell x2
Wishbone x2

I don't like Roadrash very much. He is too expensive if you're not going
to be using drones with him, (i.e. a rigger deck). My advice would be to
replace both Roadrashes with Ajaxs. I'm also not too fond of wishbone,
perhaps Hawkwind would be more appropriate, she's cheaper, has more
skills, and has Biotech. Otherwise I would just like to ask why you have
so much duplication?

I already have Cherry Bomb, and Tinkerbell, that handles all of his
important skills. As for the use of Roadrash, Look again. There are 6
drones in the deck, which is more than enough reason to use him.
Wishbone is tougher than Hawkwind, therefore can take more damage. As
for duplicaion, that is simple. Opponents use Bar Fights and Wanteds.
Enough said.

GEAR (18)
Bulldog Van x2
Defiance Shotgun x2
Fixed-Fire Cannons x2
Hellblast
Hunter Drone x2
Protective Spirit x2
Robo-Doc x2
Shriek 1000 x2
Sleep
Vindicator Minigun x2

I would advise you to take out most of the drones. The Shriek - 1000s
can be replaced with the more versitile and easier to use Wild Goose
Chase, and the Robo-Docs are also only nessecary without any other
source of healing. Try Hawkwind(s)

Ah, you have missed the point of the Shriek 1000's. You cannot LOTI
them, but you can the WGC. I already had the riggers in, so the
Robo-Docs made more sense. Roadrash lets you pay 1 nuyen less for
drones, he is worth it. Tinkerbell has Technical skill, so she is worth
it.

Specials/Stingers (18)
Abducted! x2
Deja Vu x2
Cover Up x2
Intimidation x2
Luck O' The Irish x2
Some Things Never Change x2
The Big Break x2
Whoops! x2
Wild Goose Chase x2

Where are your GAQs? I don't like Cover Up very much either, it only has
one very limited use, better to play with Loaded Dice and Mob War, which
is a great way of preventing your opponent from getting to your
objective. The Big Break is good, as it is versitile and usefull.

GAQs I have found are too limited. Stopping just one runner is generally
not enough, except in rare occasions. Cover Up rarely has anyone LOTI
(why waste it on this?) it and it gaurantees that the objective is safe
for one round. You are seriously betting on having a Loaded dice
whenever the Mob War objective comes up? I take chances, but I would
never take that one.

Challenges (10)
Chomps 2000 Guard Dog x2
Double Jeapoardy x2
Hunting Gargoyle x2
Maglocks x2
Security Consultant x2

Double the number of challenges. Try not to repeate, go up to 20, and go
for a wide range of Sleaze requirements. I can get through even the
toughest combination of these with a Foxy Roxy, a Maglock Passkey, and a
Shasta

Just to be stopped by a Shriek before you get started, or a Wild Goose
Chase anytime before you take the objective. (Since you count on having
the right cards in your play, why shouldn't I).

Locations (1)
Genetics Lab


I don't see why. You have 10 runners with special abilities that the Lab
won't duplicate, and the rest are too expensive to risk.

Having runners just to take damage. That way it alleviates some of the
risk for me. Also, they make good blockers for objectives with no
challenges on them (Send in the clone!). Besides, the likelyhood that it
will come into play regularly is slim. If it comes into play, good. if
not, life goes on.

Contacts (1)
Squatter


Can't go wrong with him!


Objectives (7)
Amazonian Hunt
Cake Walk
Crossfire x2
Nosferatu Den
Operation Cottonmouth
Sucker Run

The Amazonian hunt eliminates your Maglocks, and you can get through the
rest on Cake Walk with one social and one sorcery OR conjuring.
Crossfire is expensive, and generally not worth it, and Nosferatu Den
adds insult to the injury of losing your best runners to Genetics Lab.
Sucker Run is good, though. If your goal is to keep people from
objectives no matter the cause, where's your King of the Hill?

Either person can defend King of the Hill multiple times. No advantage
there. Nosferatu Den gives most people pause, and they will go after
another objective first. Cake Walk is a low rep challenge that I can let
go if need be to protect other objectives instead.

There are not enough ways to stop a shadowrun, though, there never can
be. The ones there are are weak, unreliable, and don't even last long.
I'm sorry, but you NEED more challenges, you may be able to hold your
opponents decks off for a little while, if you're lucky, but they can
hold you off too, and by that time, they'll have a team that can waltz
through your challenges, and give them a kiss good night.

Norman McLeod, easier said than done. I have used this deck against more
than 7 different decks, and muliple times against each deck. If
everything goes perfect, yes you can sleaze through to an objective. As
you know, things do not go prefectly. The games I have lost have always
been close ones, which says to me that you idea that you could easily
beat this deck is incorrect. It would be nip and tuck all the way, I can
almost fully assure you.

Our styles seem vastly different, and I would think that us playing each
other would be a sight to see.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you commenting. But from the comments
that I have seen you post on several decks that people have posted you
seem to think that there is only one answer. That answer is the one you
see, and is only one you see.
Message no. 2
From: "James E. Frazer" <jimmicane@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Defense of: Frustration Deck
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:17:07 -0700
>I don't like Roadrash very much. He is too expensive if you're not going
>to be using drones with him, (i.e. a rigger deck). My advice would be to
>replace both Roadrashes with Ajaxs. I'm also not too fond of wishbone,
>perhaps Hawkwind would be more appropriate, she's cheaper, has more
>skills, and has Biotech. Otherwise I would just like to ask why you have
>so much duplication?

In defense of the use of duplicates, it's very necessary in most cases to use duplicates
of a runner that would be useful. Kracker Jack is a prime example; he gets his first hand
gun for free, and having 4 kids out there with Recon is great. Also, paying 3 to get a
2/3 runner with Recon, firearms, and 2 decking is worth weighting your deck down. The
only runners I don't duplicate are the primes (except for Dodger: there are two of them in
my decker deck).


>Ah, you have missed the point of the Shriek 1000's. You cannot LOTI
>them, but you can the WGC. I already had the riggers in, so the
>Robo-Docs made more sense. Roadrash lets you pay 1 nuyen less for
>drones, he is worth it. Tinkerbell has Technical skill, so she is worth
>it.
>

Actually, that's wrong. Roadrash pays 1 less for Vehicles, and drones are not considered
vehicles. He pays 1 less for: Yamaha Rapier, Harley Scorpion, Bulldog Van, Yellowjacket,
and Big Rig (I'm sure I'm leaving something out, but you get the point). Sooo, he still
has to pay the full price for Drones. (The reason for this is that when the card was
made, the concept was that RoadRash was part of a biker gang, so he had easier access to
bikes in general).


Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com
Message no. 3
From: Robert Thomas <Strangefate@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Defense of: Frustration Deck
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:22:00 -0400
Actually, that's wrong. Roadrash pays 1 less for Vehicles, and drones
are not considered vehicles. He pays 1 less for: Yamaha Rapier, Harley
Scorpion, Bulldog Van, Yellowjacket, and Big Rig (I'm sure I'm leaving
something out, but you get the point). Sooo, he still has to pay the
full price for Drones.

Oops, my mistake. I put Roadrash in the deck for the Piloting 2. I
responded to he previous post without looking closely at the card. Oh
well, lie and learn. *Smiles*
-Rob
-Rob
Message no. 4
From: Norman McLeod <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject: Re: Defense of: Frustration Deck
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:02:47 -0400
>>Where are your GAQs? I don't like Cover Up very much either, it only has
>>one very limited use, better to play with Loaded Dice and Mob War, which
>>is a great way of preventing your opponent from getting to your
>>objective. The Big Break is good, as it is versitile and usefull.
>
>GAQs I have found are too limited. Stopping just one runner is generally
>not enough, except in rare occasions. Cover Up rarely has anyone LOTI
>(why waste it on this?) it and it gaurantees that the objective is safe
>for one round. You are seriously betting on having a Loaded dice
>whenever the Mob War objective comes up? I take chances, but I would
>never take that one.

GAQ is one of the most versitile cards in the game, and I find that sending
home one runner frequently causes the death of at least two runners. If you
don't take chances, why the Shriek-1000? That's a big chance, one I'd
certainly not be willing to take. Besides, hw do you keep getting runers out
if you have to keep spending on stingers?

>>Double the number of challenges. Try not to repeate, go up to 20, and go
>>for a wide range of Sleaze requirements. I can get through even the
>>toughest combination of these with a Foxy Roxy, a Maglock Passkey, and a
>>Shasta
>
>Just to be stopped by a Shriek before you get started, or a Wild Goose
>Chase anytime before you take the objective. (Since you count on having
>the right cards in your play, why shouldn't I).

>>The Amazonian hunt eliminates your Maglocks, and you can get through the
>>rest on Cake Walk with one social and one sorcery OR conjuring.
>>Crossfire is expensive, and generally not worth it, and Nosferatu Den
>>adds insult to the injury of losing your best runners to Genetics Lab.
>>Sucker Run is good, though. If your goal is to keep people from
>>objectives no matter the cause, where's your King of the Hill?

>Either person can defend King of the Hill multiple times. No advantage
>there. Nosferatu Den gives most people pause, and they will go after
>another objective first. Cake Walk is a low rep challenge that I can let
>go if need be to protect other objectives instead.

Actually, if you're using drones King of the Hill gives you a huge
advantage. You don't even have to endanger your runers!

>>There are not enough ways to stop a shadowrun, though, there never can
>>be. The ones there are are weak, unreliable, and don't even last long.
>>I'm sorry, but you NEED more challenges, you may be able to hold your
>>opponents decks off for a little while, if you're lucky, but they can
>>hold you off too, and by that time, they'll have a team that can waltz
>>through your challenges, and give them a kiss good night.

>Norman McLeod, easier said than done. I have used this deck against more
>than 7 different decks, and muliple times against each deck. If
>everything goes perfect, yes you can sleaze through to an objective. As
>you know, things do not go prefectly. The games I have lost have always
>been close ones, which says to me that you idea that you could easily
>beat this deck is incorrect. It would be nip and tuck all the way, I can
>almost fully assure you.


I was just trying to point out that with challenges, this deck would be
significantly improved. If you can hold off your opponent's runners for a
few turns, get a god challenge stack on the objective, and then GAQ and
Whoops! them, you'd be destroying teams, not just holding them off.

>Our styles seem vastly different, and I would think that us playing each
>other would be a sight to see.

>Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you commenting. But from the comments
>that I have seen you post on several decks that people have posted you
>seem to think that there is only one answer. That answer is the one you
>see, and is only one you see.

I just say the way I would do things, which I have found to be very effectve
indeed. If you didn't want any comments, and you seem to have ignored
everyone's in favour of your own explanations, why did you post the deck at
all?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Defense of: Frustration Deck, 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.