Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Keldon Mor <Keldon@********.NET>
Subject:	Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:12:40 -0500

Message no. 1 On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him only a
Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader? Would you be able to put a LoTP on him
since he is now a Ganger, and still there would only be one Ganger Leader in
Play?

Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@********.net
http://ww2.NetNitco.net/users/keldon/

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:43:34 -0700

Message no. 2 Keldon Mor wrote:

> On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
> Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him only a
> Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader? Would you be able to put a LoTP on him
> since he is now a Ganger, and still there would only be one Ganger Leader in
> Play?

Some threads never die... :)

A thing cannot become what it already is. Jade with The Eternal Vow
played on her wouldn't take double damage from Mendez; a Ganger who
scored The Initiation and then Turf War wouldn't get two tokens (or
become a double Ganger).

However, if there were a Special which removed the
profession/affiliation from a Runner, these cards would work to restore
it.

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:48:51 +0800

Message no. 3 >Keldon Mor wrote:
>
>> On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
>> Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him only a
>> Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader? Would you be able to put a LoTP on
him
>> since he is now a Ganger, and still there would only be one Ganger Leader
in
>> Play?
>
>Some threads never die... :)
>
>A thing cannot become what it already is. Jade with The Eternal Vow
>played on her wouldn't take double damage from Mendez; a Ganger who
>scored The Initiation and then Turf War wouldn't get two tokens (or
>become a double Ganger).
>
>However, if there were a Special which removed the
>profession/affiliation from a Runner, these cards would work to restore
>it.
>
>
>- Matt
What is the official ruling btw ganger & ganger leader....
Using keywords, I would say that they are two totally different
keywords.....

From:	Norman McLeod <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:54:11 -0400

Message no. 4 > On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
>Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him only a
>Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader?

He is already both Ganger and Ganger Leader. Sating Ganger Leader is like
saying Street Mage, it is a sub-catagory of Gangers.

>Would you be able to put a LoTP on him

No, never never never!

>since he is now a Ganger, and still there would only be one Ganger Leader
in
>Play?

He has always been a Ganger, just also a Ganger Leader

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:11:59 -0400

Message no. 5 On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Norman McLeod wrote:

> > On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
> >Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him only a
> >Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader?
>
> He is already both Ganger and Ganger Leader. Sating Ganger Leader is like
> saying Street Mage, it is a sub-catagory of Gangers.
>
> >Would you be able to put a LoTP on him
>
> No, never never never!

But LotP says, play on target ganger does it not? I know it's been
(un)officially(?) ruled by the big guys at FASA that LotP cannot be played
on Torgo, but IMHO, it was a pretty bad call. Only because it seems as
though Torgo is a leagal target (he's a ganger also right?) and there
would still only be one Ganger Leader in play. It seems to me that the
wise ones want to prevent the super powerful combos from being leagal (see
cement shoes), which is fine, but IMO, erratta should be made to reword
the card instead of simply dissallowing a combo just because..

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Norman McLeod <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:10:43 -0400

Message no. 6 >> > On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
>> >Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him only a
>> >Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader?
>>
>> He is already both Ganger and Ganger Leader. Sating Ganger Leader is like
>> saying Street Mage, it is a sub-catagory of Gangers.
>>
>> >Would you be able to put a LoTP on him
>>
>> No, never never never!
>
>But LotP says, play on target ganger does it not? I know it's been
>(un)officially(?) ruled by the big guys at FASA that LotP cannot be played
>on Torgo, but IMHO, it was a pretty bad call. Only because it seems as
>though Torgo is a leagal target (he's a ganger also right?) and there
>would still only be one Ganger Leader in play. It seems to me that the
>wise ones want to prevent the super powerful combos from being leagal (see
>cement shoes), which is fine, but IMO, erratta should be made to reword
>the card instead of simply dissallowing a combo just because..

I think that you are wrong here. The card LotP moves someone from a career
only (Ganger) to a subcatagory of that carrier. Much like the inabilty to
play a totem on Scatter, the restriction on Torgo just means that you can't
make him something that he already is. Not the word "becomes" on LotP. You
can't become something you already are. I don't think that this was a
decision just to get rid of a powerfull combo, I think this makes a great
deal of sense.
Think of it this way, becoming a Ganger Leader is not a cumulative effect.
Much like playing One of the Family would not make someone a Mafia runner
twice over, it would not make any sense if LotP had any effect on Torgo. He
already is the LotP. Look on LotP as a transformation. An initiation, as it
were.

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:30:58 -0400

Message no. 7 On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Norman McLeod wrote:

<clip Torgo debate>
> >But LotP says, play on target ganger does it not? I know it's been
> >(un)officially(?) ruled by the big guys at FASA that LotP cannot be played
> >on Torgo, but IMHO, it was a pretty bad call. Only because it seems as
> >though Torgo is a leagal target (he's a ganger also right?) and there
> >would still only be one Ganger Leader in play. It seems to me that the
> >wise ones want to prevent the super powerful combos from being leagal (see
> >cement shoes), which is fine, but IMO, erratta should be made to reword
> >the card instead of simply dissallowing a combo just because..
>
>
> I think that you are wrong here. The card LotP moves someone from a career
> only (Ganger) to a subcatagory of that carrier. Much like the inabilty to
> play a totem on Scatter, the restriction on Torgo just means that you can't

You're wrong there, it was (un)officially(?) ruled by FASA that you can
play any totem on him. I am right in quoting this, right guys?

> make him something that he already is. Not the word "becomes" on LotP. You
> can't become something you already are. I don't think that this was a
> decision just to get rid of a powerfull combo, I think this makes a great
> deal of sense.

So what happens if you send a bunch of gangers on an Initiation? It just
says runners present become gangers. Under your logic, a ganger can't go
on the initiation objective. Under the current rules, any gangers that
get initiated, simply ignore the text, no? Why would it be any different
for Torgo?

> Think of it this way, becoming a Ganger Leader is not a cumulative effect.
> Much like playing One of the Family would not make someone a Mafia runner

For once, I agree with you.

> twice over, it would not make any sense if LotP had any effect on Torgo. He
> already is the LotP. Look on LotP as a transformation. An initiation, as it
> were.

Again, I disagree, Torgo is a Ganger Leader. I don't think being a Ganger
Leader means you have "Leader of the Pack" status. I have an example, but
it might be considered a spoiler, so read below.

Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Take the Steppin' Wulfs for instance, Seymour the Invincible, aka Seymour
Dudley Menchken III is a brilliant scientist, probably not very tough in a
fight because he's too busy creating his army of Steppin'wulf super
soldiers. A ganger leader, yes. Leader of the Pack, no.

reference taken from the Underworld Sourcebook.

later...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Tony Glinka <porthos@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:08:41 -0700

Message no. 8 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Norman McLeod wrote:
>
> <clip Torgo debate>
> > >But LotP says, play on target ganger does it not? I know it's been
> > >(un)officially(?) ruled by the big guys at FASA that LotP cannot be played
> > >on Torgo, but IMHO, it was a pretty bad call. Only because it seems as
> > >though Torgo is a leagal target (he's a ganger also right?) and there
> > >would still only be one Ganger Leader in play. It seems to me that the
> > >wise ones want to prevent the super powerful combos from being leagal (see
> > >cement shoes), which is fine, but IMO, erratta should be made to reword
> > >the card instead of simply dissallowing a combo just because..
> >
> >
> > I think that you are wrong here. The card LotP moves someone from a career
> > only (Ganger) to a subcatagory of that carrier. Much like the inabilty to
> > play a totem on Scatter, the restriction on Torgo just means that you can't
>
> You're wrong there, it was (un)officially(?) ruled by FASA that you can
> play any totem on him. I am right in quoting this, right guys?

The word from FASA (and therefore in the Q&A) on Scatter is:

Scatter:
Q1: What happens with Runners that are already designated with a Totem (i.e.
Scatter - Rat Shaman). Would Scatter be assumed to have the abilities of the Rat
Totem (which I doubt)?
A1: You are right to doubt�the answer's no.

Q2: Can Scatter have a different Totem played on her and now become an Owl Shaman
(I figure yes)?
A2: Yes, if you keep correctly answering your own questions I'm going to start
feeling useless�

Hope this helps.

Tony
--
Porthos@****.com -- GridSec: SRCard
Porthos' World of Shadowrun: http://members.home.net/porthos/sr/sr.html
Tony's SRTCG Site: http://members.home.net/porthos/srtcg/srtcg.html
Home of the SRTCG Q&A: SRCard's Official Unofficial SRTCG FAQ

From:	Joao Maia <Joao.Maia@*****.PT>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:55:57 +0100

Message no. 9 Hi there,

I agree on Lord Torgo not being played while there is some ganger with LoTP (or
vice-versa), but there is some other thing (that I believe has already been discussed
here) that I want to bring up again. Can Lord Torgo be played while there's a Ganger
Leader contact in play ? Or the other way round ? My guess is that it is possible.
Nowhere in the rulebook says otherwise. The rule against this comes in a card (LoTP)
not on the official rules. I know that any rules on the cards override the rules on
the rulebook, however, if no one plays LoTP, the rule does not apply so we can still
play Lord Torgo and a Ganger Leader. After all it was possible when Underworld was
not on sale (there was no LoTP), so there's no reason for it not being possible now.

Any comments on this ?

Cheers from Portugal,

Joao Maia

From:	"(No Name Available)" <mothman@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:33:37 -0600

Message no. 10 >>>But LotP says, play on target ganger does it not? I know it's been
(un)officially(?) ruled by the big guys at FASA that LotP cannot be
played on Torgo, but IMHO, it was a pretty bad call. Only because it
seems as though Torgo is a leagal target (he's a ganger also right?) and
there would still only be one Ganger Leader in play.<<

Sounds like Sour Grapes to me�

Torgo may be a "Ganger", but he is also a "Ganger Leader". If the two
were the same, why would LotP be necessary? By your logic you would use
a card that turns a Runner into a Street samurai on a Runner that
already IS a Street Samurai. After all, he's a Runner�

You can't turn a cat into a cat. It's already a cat!

>>It seems to me that the wise ones want to prevent the super powerful combos from
being leagal (see cement shoes), which is fine, but IMO, erratta should be made to reword
the card instead of simply dissallowing a combo just because..<<<

Remember, the DLOHs said that their comments on Cement Shoes weren't
final.
--
mothman@**********.com

"It's more fun to compute"
�Kraftwerk

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:23:54 -0400

Message no. 11 On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, (No Name Available) wrote:

<clip old LotP/torgo debate>

> Torgo may be a "Ganger", but he is also a "Ganger Leader". If the
two
> were the same, why would LotP be necessary?

But Scatter who is a rat shaman and can have any totem played on him, even
Rat.
And LotP would be necessary just to make Torgo a tougher ganger leader,
no? And if you have both Torgo and LotP in a deck and Torgo is already in
play, and you have a LotP in your hand, LotP becomes a useless card unless
Torgo can be a leagal target, no? I wouldn't say it's a necessary combo,
but to me it makes sense (at least as far as the current rules go).

> By your logic you would use
> a card that turns a Runner into a Street samurai on a Runner that
> already IS a Street Samurai. After all, he's a Runner�

So in _leagal_ logic, you would use a card that turns Scatter into a Rat
Shaman on Scatter, who already IS a Rat Shaman. After all, he's a shaman.

> You can't turn a cat into a cat. It's already a cat!

looks like a rat can be a rat though. :P

more ideas?

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:36:11 -0700

Message no. 12 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> > By your logic you would use
> > a card that turns a Runner into a Street samurai on a Runner that
> > already IS a Street Samurai. After all, he's a Runner…

> So in _legal_ logic, you would use a card that turns Scatter into a Rat=

> Shaman on Scatter, who already IS a Rat Shaman. After all, he's a sham=
an.

This isn't quite right -- a Totem card *doesn't* turn a Runner into,
say, a Snake Shaman. Not by game text, anyways.

Just practicing being pedantic. :)

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:01:02 -0400

Message no. 13 On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Matb wrote:

> Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:
>
> > > By your logic you would use
> > > a card that turns a Runner into a Street samurai on a Runner that
> > > already IS a Street Samurai. After all, he's a Runner�
>
> > So in _legal_ logic, you would use a card that turns Scatter into a Rat
> > Shaman on Scatter, who already IS a Rat Shaman. After all, he's a shaman.
>
> This isn't quite right -- a Totem card *doesn't* turn a Runner into,
> say, a Snake Shaman. Not by game text, anyways.

No, it doesn't add the key word "Snake" to the Runner, but the runner
would still be vulnerable to any card that specifically references a
shaman that possesses the Snake Totem. It's a similar enough instance to
the above statement to warrant the point (IMO anyways). In both
instances, the "classification" of the runner is further defined, one
happens to be by adding a keyword, the other is from a special.

Maybe it was a good example, maybe not.

anyways...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Norman McLeod <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:17:25 -0400

Message no. 14 >Torgo may be a "Ganger", but he is also a "Ganger Leader". If the
two
>were the same, why would LotP be necessary? By your logic you would use
>a card that turns a Runner into a Street samurai on a Runner that
>already IS a Street Samurai. After all, he's a Runner�
>
>You can't turn a cat into a cat. It's already a cat!

This is what I was trying to say in my original post, that Torgo already AS
a GL. In another post, Bradley Aaron Rebh said that this woud indicate you
couldn't send Gangers on Initiation. This is not what I said at all, in
fact, I think I suggested the same sulotion. Initiation would not effect
runners who are already Gangers. They would not become a Ganger - 2 or
anything like that. They have already been innitiated. Similarily, Torgo is
already a Ganger Leader. He has already received the benifits of this
transformation. I would say that you can play LotP on Torg, but it would
have no effect at all.

>>>It seems to me that the wise ones want to prevent the super powerful
combos from being leagal (see cement shoes), which is fine, but IMO, erratta
should be made to reword the card instead of simply dissallowing a combo
just because..<<<
>
>Remember, the DLOHs said that their comments on Cement Shoes weren't
>final.

Besides, that whole thing got just a little silly. Confusing debates like
that are best settled in ways that avoid more powerfull combos than were
intended on the card's creation. I think that Cement Shoes are still a good
card, and the ruling of the DLOH's was fair and necesary.

P.S. Mothman, your server is overriding the reply field, that's why you got
this post twice, I sent it to you instead of the list by accident.

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:37:21 -0700

Message no. 15 ---Keldon Mor <Keldon@********.NET> wrote:
>
> On the note of Lord Torgo being a Ganger Leader. If LT went on The
> Initiation, he would then become a Ganger, Does this now make him
only a
> Ganger or a Ganger & Ganger Leader? Would you be able to put a LoTP
on him
> since he is now a Ganger, and still there would only be one Ganger
Leader in
> Play?

They become a Ganger _in addition to_ their existing profession.
Sorry, LT still stays a Leader of the Gang, he's just leading by
example for the new recruits.

-== 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

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:02:00 -0400

Message no. 16 On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Norman McLeod wrote:

> This is what I was trying to say in my original post, that Torgo already AS
> a GL. In another post, Bradley Aaron Rebh said that this woud indicate you
> couldn't send Gangers on Initiation. This is not what I said at all, in
> fact, I think I suggested the same sulotion. Initiation would not effect
> runners who are already Gangers. They would not become a Ganger - 2 or
> anything like that. They have already been innitiated. Similarily, Torgo is
> already a Ganger Leader. He has already received the benifits of this
> transformation. I would say that you can play LotP on Torg, but it would
> have no effect at all.

Torgo _does_ have the benefits(and limitations) of a Ganger Leader, but
_not_ LotP, so why would playing LotP on torgo have no effect at all?
So you ignore the part about the runner becomming a ganger leader, so
what. You don't play the card for the intent to create a ganger leader,
you play the card to get the +x/+x token, right?

If someone will explain to me why it's leagal and makes sense that it's ok
to play a Totem on Scatter and not LotP on torgo, I'll rest my argument.
Until then...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:34:54 -0700

Message no. 17 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> > This isn't quite right -- a Totem card *doesn't* turn a Runner into,
> > say, a Snake Shaman. Not by game text, anyways.

> No, it doesn't add the key word "Snake" to the Runner, but the runner
> would still be vulnerable to any card that specifically references a
> shaman that possesses the Snake Totem. It's a similar enough instance to
> the above statement to warrant the point (IMO anyways). In both
> instances, the "classification" of the runner is further defined, one
> happens to be by adding a keyword, the other is from a special.

Not sure I agree with you there. The inclusion of Lurker in Underworld
sets a precedence as far as determining which key words to use; just as
Lurker qualifies as a Ganger and a Mage (and a Ganger Mage), I'd have to
say that Torgo counts as a Ganger and a Leader (and a Ganger Leader).
Leader of the Pack takes a Ganger Runner and turns him into a Ganger
Leader. In the case of Torgo, he's already a Ganger Leader, so there's
no effect. (And who wants to see him be more buff?) Similarly, a
Ganger Runner scoring the Initiation doesn't become a Ganger, because
he's already at that stage in life.

In the case of Scatter and the Totems, consider Scatter starting out as
having only a loose connection with her Totem. By playing Rat Totem on
her, you're bringing her closer to her natural bent -- but you could
also play Bear Totem (moo-hah-hah!) and draw her away from her
predilection. Although it goes against the grain of the RPG, SRTCG
shamans can add or drop Totems nearly at will; she just can't hold two
of them at once.

I agree with you that LotP isn't the clearest, or the cleanest cut. But
I don't think it's that far off-bse, either.

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:15:51 -0400

Message no. 18 On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Matb wrote:

> Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:
>
> Not sure I agree with you there. The inclusion of Lurker in Underworld
> sets a precedence as far as determining which key words to use; just as
> Lurker qualifies as a Ganger and a Mage (and a Ganger Mage), I'd have to
> say that Torgo counts as a Ganger and a Leader (and a Ganger Leader).
> Leader of the Pack takes a Ganger Runner and turns him into a Ganger
> Leader. In the case of Torgo, he's already a Ganger Leader, so there's
> no effect. (And who wants to see him be more buff?) Similarly, a
> Ganger Runner scoring the Initiation doesn't become a Ganger, because
> he's already at that stage in life.

So, following this theory, if a team comprised of nothing but Gangers
takes the Initiation Objective, there's no effect because they're already
gangers?

>
> In the case of Scatter and the Totems, consider Scatter starting out as
> having only a loose connection with her Totem. By playing Rat Totem on
> her, you're bringing her closer to her natural bent -- but you could
> also play Bear Totem (moo-hah-hah!) and draw her away from her
> predilection. Although it goes against the grain of the RPG, SRTCG
> shamans can add or drop Totems nearly at will; she just can't hold two
> of them at once.

Why can't you say the same for Torgo? Torgo starts out as the boss, but
the rest of the guys have their doubts about his toughness? Torgo gets
sick of the whole ordeal and starts demanding the respect he deserves
wich overwelms him with the backing and confidence of his men. As his
numbers grow, he gets more confident and tougher.

Why is it so bad to make Torgo Tougher? In a lot of the games that
I've played against big bully decks, I've seen players stack Stomper,
Skwraaaaaark!, and the rest of the bruisers with enough cards to make them
a walking killing maachine. These monsters can stomp through most
challenges by themself. They still aren't able to get by a Maglock
though. *shrug*

In SRTCG, I haven't seen a perfect combo. If someone finds one, let
me know, I want to exploit it. :P for every combo there's an equal and
opposite counter, no?

later...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:35:57 -0400

Message no. 19 At 11:15 AM 4/17/98 -0400, Brad wrote:

<Snipped all the whining about Lord Torgo not able to become a true leader
~because~ he is already a leader while another card with a word in the
title is only 'temporary' and can be altered...>

>In SRTCG, I haven't seen a perfect combo. If someone finds one, let me
know, I want to >exploit it. :P for every combo there's an equal and
opposite counter, no?

Unless it is a token of one sort which can not be played with tokens of
another sort, even if they are classified as tokens to start... "A token
is a token, unless it infringes on something I don't want, so you can't
have it!"

About national tournaments and all - will each and every player get a copy
of the official, unofficial, possible answers, temporary thoughts of the
moment, etc., etc. e-mails from DLOHs, FAQ, question and answer sessions,
and anything else to play the game? I highly doubt 'every' player of the
game during tournament time is a member of this list server, so do we have
an advantage? What would be the ruling on a case like this - if someone
from this list did a card combination that is legal because it was passed
by this list, but was not in the official FAQ and that player affected had
a legitimate complaint...?

"What do you mean you've abducted my Torgo and then Leader of the Pack my
Static so now I can't bring Torgo back because I already got a gang leader
in play?"

Back to lurking,
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<

From:	Keldon Mor <Keldon@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:26:40 -0500

Message no. 20 > About national tournaments and all - will each and every player get a copy
> of the official, unofficial, possible answers, temporary thoughts of the
> moment, etc., etc. e-mails from DLOHs, FAQ, question and answer sessions,
> and anything else to play the game? I highly doubt 'every' player of the
> game during tournament time is a member of this list server, so do we have
> an advantage? What would be the ruling on a case like this - if someone
> from this list did a card combination that is legal because it was passed
> by this list, but was not in the official FAQ and that player affected had
> a legitimate complaint...?

My thoughts exactly. So far, I've only seen theories on why the combo
is/is not legal. I haven't seen anything based on SRTCG Rules why this combo
isn't possible. At first, people said it wasn't possible because the card
text says to play on a Ganger, and Torgo is a Ganger Leader, fine. So, I
said, make Torgo a Ganger, it should be legal then. If people believe this
is to much of a powerful combo, then I guess we're going to see Lord Torgo
on the BANNED list of cards unplayable at tournys. Personally, I haven't
seen any Combo that can't be defeated. If everyone plays Torgo, I put 4
Metahuman Prej. in my deck. "I dont think so Buddy, trash him and eat that 9
nuyen" 9 nuyen isn't anything to sneeze out.
So, unless FASA wants to change their SRTCG Rules to handle these
conflicts, make my Torgo a Ganger :) Ganger Mage = Ganger & Mage but Ganger
Leader not = to Ganger & Leader.

Why hasn't anyone stated that Combat Fetish can not be played on
Lurker??? It clearly states to play Combat Fetish on Mage, wait, he's a
Ganger Mage, can't do it......

Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@********.net
http://ww2.NetNitco.net/users/keldon/

From:	Felix Hoefert <FHoefert@********.DE>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:48:33 +0200

Message no. 21 Keldon Mor wrote:

[snip]
> Personally, I haven't
> seen any Combo that can't be defeated. If everyone plays Torgo, I put >4
> Metahuman Prej. in my deck. "I dont think so Buddy, trash him and eat >that 9
> nuyen" 9 nuyen isn't anything to sneeze out.

What if he�s got several Torgos in his deck? He only needs to get one
out before You�ve got MP on hand. Sorry, I just felt like making a
remark about sure bets. ---Felix

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:01:40 -0700

Message no. 22 Keldon Mor wrote:

> So, unless FASA wants to change their SRTCG Rules to handle these
> conflicts, make my Torgo a Ganger :) Ganger Mage = Ganger & Mage but Ganger
> Leader not = to Ganger & Leader.

> Why hasn't anyone stated that Combat Fetish can not be played on
> Lurker??? It clearly states to play Combat Fetish on Mage, wait, he's a
> Ganger Mage, can't do it......

Lee, you seem to be accepting as inevitable that Lurker should be
treated as both a Ganger and a Mage -- so rather obviously, the Mage
side of him makes him a legal user of Combat Fetishes. (This is one of
those Venn diagram type of questions.)

I don't see anything to allow LotP to be played on Torgo. Right; he's a
Ganger -- but he's also a Ganger Leader already. To me, that pretty
much disqualifies him.

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:10:16 -0700

Message no. 23 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Matb wrote:

> > Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> > Not sure I agree with you there. The inclusion of Lurker in Underworld
> > sets a precedence as far as determining which key words to use; just as
> > Lurker qualifies as a Ganger and a Mage (and a Ganger Mage), I'd have to
> > say that Torgo counts as a Ganger and a Leader (and a Ganger Leader).
> > Leader of the Pack takes a Ganger Runner and turns him into a Ganger
> > Leader. In the case of Torgo, he's already a Ganger Leader, so there's
> > no effect. (And who wants to see him be more buff?) Similarly, a
> > Ganger Runner scoring the Initiation doesn't become a Ganger, because
> > he's already at that stage in life.
>
> So, following this theory, if a team comprised of nothing but Gangers
> takes the Initiation Objective, there's no effect because they're already
> gangers?

You gain the Reputation for scoring the Objective; if there was some
effect preventing them from being considered Gangers (a Dirty Cop
against Ancients, say) then they'd turn back into Gangers. But they're
already considered Gangers because they already *are* Gangers, so the
Bonus part of the Objective doesn't do much.

> > In the case of Scatter and the Totems, consider Scatter starting out as
> > having only a loose connection with her Totem. By playing Rat Totem on
> > her, you're bringing her closer to her natural bent -- but you could
> > also play Bear Totem (moo-hah-hah!) and draw her away from her
> > predilection. Although it goes against the grain of the RPG, SRTCG
> > shamans can add or drop Totems nearly at will; she just can't hold two
> > of them at once.

> Why can't you say the same for Torgo? Torgo starts out as the boss, but
> the rest of the guys have their doubts about his toughness? Torgo gets
> sick of the whole ordeal and starts demanding the respect he deserves
> wich overwelms him with the backing and confidence of his men. As his
> numbers grow, he gets more confident and tougher.

Because it goes against the grain of the card? Torgo's already a leader
-- he's already got a gang behind him (even if they're not represented
by cards - who do you goes and pokes all the elves?) Leader of the Pack
works best when you start out with just one Ganger in play, and slowly
more and more Gangers rally around him or her; Torgo's already at the
top, though.

"doubts about his toughness" -- hehehe. Sorry, that just strikes my
funny bone.

> Why is it so bad to make Torgo Tougher? In a lot of the games that
> I've played against big bully decks, I've seen players stack Stomper,
> Skwraaaaaark!, and the rest of the bruisers with enough cards to make them
> a walking killing maachine. These monsters can stomp through most
> challenges by themself. They still aren't able to get by a Maglock
> though. *shrug*

Because the balance of the game really isn't meant to be with the 12-16
Attack Rating guys -- it seems more comfortable around the 5-8 range.
With one LotP and Torgo (and a few small Gangers) you've got a guy who
can cream through a Cleanse the Hive by himself. Sort of takes tactics
out of the game. It isn't an invincible combination (hello, GAQS), but
at the same time, it's a lot less challenging and a helluca lot less
fun.

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:58:30 -0400

Message no. 24 On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Matb wrote:

> Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Matb wrote:
>
> > > Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:
>
> > So, following this theory, if a team comprised of nothing but Gangers
> > takes the Initiation Objective, there's no effect because they're already
> > gangers?
>
> You gain the Reputation for scoring the Objective; if there was some
> effect preventing them from being considered Gangers (a Dirty Cop
> against Ancients, say) then they'd turn back into Gangers. But they're
> already considered Gangers because they already *are* Gangers, so the
> Bonus part of the Objective doesn't do much.

So why would you just give Torgo the bonus and ignore the "make him a
ganger leader" part? Just like you get the reputation and ignore the
profession part for Initiation.

> > > In the case of Scatter and the Totems, consider Scatter starting out as
> > > having only a loose connection with her Totem. By playing Rat Totem on
> > > her, you're bringing her closer to her natural bent -- but you could
> > > also play Bear Totem (moo-hah-hah!) and draw her away from her
> > > predilection. Although it goes against the grain of the RPG, SRTCG
> > > shamans can add or drop Totems nearly at will; she just can't hold two
> > > of them at once.
>
> > Why can't you say the same for Torgo? Torgo starts out as the boss, but
> > the rest of the guys have their doubts about his toughness? Torgo gets
> > sick of the whole ordeal and starts demanding the respect he deserves
> > wich overwelms him with the backing and confidence of his men. As his
> > numbers grow, he gets more confident and tougher.
>
> Because it goes against the grain of the card? Torgo's already a leader
> -- he's already got a gang behind him (even if they're not represented
> by cards - who do you goes and pokes all the elves?) Leader of the Pack
> works best when you start out with just one Ganger in play, and slowly
> more and more Gangers rally around him or her; Torgo's already at the
> top, though.

So the exact argument that you used for Scatter gaining the benifits of
the Rat Totem don't apply to Torgo and LotP? Sounds pretty hipocritical
to me. *shrug* This discussion has gotten ridiculous. Will sommeone
please provide some _convincing_ argument against this combo, please?

thank you...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Norman McLeod <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:41:28 -0400

Message no. 25 >So the exact argument that you used for Scatter gaining the benifits of
>the Rat Totem don't apply to Torgo and LotP? Sounds pretty hipocritical
>to me. *shrug* This discussion has gotten ridiculous. Will sommeone
>please provide some _convincing_ argument against this combo, please?

Note that Scatter is a "Rat Shaman" this does not say that Scatter has a Rat
totem, but that Scatter has a connection to rats. A Totem is a specific
being, not an idea. Being a Rat shaman does not mean you have connected to a
specific Rat Totem. On LotP, it is not the same situation. A Rat totem does
not make you a Rat Shaman, a LotP DOES make you a Ganger Leader.

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:01:59 +0800

Message no. 26 >> About national tournaments and all - will each and every player get a
copy
>> of the official, unofficial, possible answers, temporary thoughts of the
>> moment, etc., etc. e-mails from DLOHs, FAQ, question and answer sessions,
>> and anything else to play the game

This is a good idea... Is this on anyone's homepage?

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:13:44 +0800

Message no. 27 >Keldon Mor wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> Personally, I haven't
>> seen any Combo that can't be defeated. If everyone plays Torgo, I put >4
>> Metahuman Prej. in my deck. "I dont think so Buddy, trash him and eat
>that 9
>> nuyen" 9 nuyen isn't anything to sneeze out.
>
>What if he�s got several Torgos in his deck? He only needs to get one
>out before You�ve got MP on hand. Sorry, I just felt like making a
>remark about sure bets. ---Felix

There are plenty of ways to stop another deck.. Trolls can be stoped with
Loki, Meta-human prej, Humanis poli ganger, and others Ican quite remember
at the moment. In fact Torgo is anti-elf. Theres lots of ways u just have to
think of a way that suits your deck...

From:	Keldon Mor <Keldon@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 01:03:26 -0500

Message no. 28 > I don't see anything to allow LotP to be played on Torgo. Right; he's a
> Ganger -- but he's also a Ganger Leader already. To me, that pretty
> much disqualifies him.

Leader Of The Pack- 3¥, Play on target Ganger Runner (TR) and roll D6. On
X+, TR becomes a
Ganger Leader (place a +X/+X Experience token on TR). A player may not have
more than one
Ganger Leader in play at a time. X = Number of Ganger Runners TR�s owner
currently controls. X
may vary as Runners are trashed and deployed.

Ok, as I look at the card text here, the only thing I see that would
disqualify him would be whether or not he's a ganger. Now, if he goes
through the Initiation, that's satisfied no matter what you think on the
Ganger Leader/Ganger point of view.
Now, what else would disqualify him? The only other stipulation is that
a player may not have more than One Ganger Leader in play at a time. Seems
to me, if you play LotP on a Ganger/Ganger Leader, you still only have one
Ganger Leader in play.
You could play LotP on Gizmo 4 times if you wanted, still only one
ganger leader in play...(though this may be funny, but not very useful)

Again, I ask for some reasoning based on SRTCG rules why this isn't
possible. Our world is full of assumptions and theories but we all know what
would happen if you told a policeman that you were doing 55 in a 35 because
you assumed the speed limit was 55...

Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@********.net
http://ww2.NetNitco.net/users/keldon/

From:	">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 08:09:52 -0400

Message no. 29 At 12:41 AM 4/18/98 -0400, Norman wrote:

Sometime ago, Brad wrote this first:
>>So the exact argument that you used for Scatter gaining the benifits of
the Rat Totem >>don't apply to Torgo and LotP? Sounds pretty hipocritical
to me. *shrug* This >>discussion has gotten ridiculous. Will sommeone
please provide some _convincing_ >>argument against this combo, please?

>Note that Scatter is a "Rat Shaman" this does not say that Scatter has a
Rat totem, but >that Scatter has a connection to rats. A Totem is a
specific being, not an idea. Being >a Rat shaman does not mean you have
connected to a specific Rat Totem. On LotP, it is >not the same situation.
A Rat totem does not make you a Rat Shaman, a LotP DOES make >you a Ganger
Leader.

This is my spin on this argument (which will pretty much kill this thread
now...).

I always assumed that Scatter was a shaman of the rat totem. She had the
abilities pretty much bestowed by being a follower of such a totem, but at
the time of the printing of the cards, her abilities were pretty much not
fleshed out. The same goes for Lord Torgo, being the book reading leader
of some gang who's name escapes me at the moment. Underworld introduced
new ideas into the game, so past cards are now affected in ways not
originally planned out.

As I see this, and pretty much Brad does too (I hope so *smirk*), Scatter
is a shaman first with rat being the adjective to the noun shaman. What
many people are debating over is whether or not Lord Torgo is a ganger
first, then a leader OR a leader first, then a ganger.

- Scatter is a shaman of the rat.
- Lord Torgo is a gang member as a leader ("gang member of the leader" is
bad English).
- Lord Torgo is a leader as a gang member...

Using the Shadowrun universe as I see it, Scatter had to be a shaman before
she could become a follower of a rat. I'll disregard any snide statements
that maybe she was a rat along the way... Lord Torgo had to be a ganger
first before being a leader. Loki, our Fearless Leader, had to be a
Shadowrun list member before actually being leader. Granted, with the real
life Loki, and probably Lord Torgo, their status as an underling was short
lived, but they still started at that point.

Now with Leader of the Pack bestowing leadership abilities upon a ganger,
it is argued that Lord Torgo can not be granted higher rites twice - the
extra abilities would most likely make him too powerful. Therefore, under
the same argument for Scatter, she could not be granted another totem
because she already is bestowed 'rat' on her card. When you play a totem
card upon a shaman, would the runner be called <name> the (Bear, Owl, Rat,
or Snake) Shaman or be called <name> the (Bear, Owl, Rat, or Snake) Totem
Shaman? Scatter the Rat Shaman OR Scatter the Rat Totem Shaman? If you
then say that Scatter can be stripped of her totem to be replaced with
another, I feel Lord Torgo should have the same benefits of being stripped
of his leadership to be replaced with another.

My thoughts on the matter for now.
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<

From:	Jon Palmer <jmp225@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:34:30 -0400

Message no. 30 >I always assumed that Scatter was a shaman of the rat totem. She had the
>abilities pretty much bestowed by being a follower of such a totem, but at
>the time of the printing of the cards, her abilities were pretty much not
>fleshed out. The same goes for Lord Torgo, being the book reading leader
>of some gang who's name escapes me at the moment. Underworld introduced
>new ideas into the game, so past cards are now affected in ways not
>originally planned out.

How about this take on it. Lord Torgo is a Ganger Leader. If you try to
make him a Ganger Leader AGAIN with LotP, this would have to be a NEW gang,
no? Then, his original gang (the Spikes) would rise up and kill him for
turning on them. So you can't LotP him. What's more, if you're playing me
and you do it, the PA state cop who's part of our play group will shoot
you. Is that a fair end to the argument? :-)

Jon Palmer

From:	">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:59:48 -0400

Message no. 31 At 11:34 AM 4/18/98 -0400, Jon wrote:
>>I always assumed that Scatter was a shaman of the rat totem. She had the
abilities >>pretty much bestowed by being a follower of such a totem, but
at the time of the >>printing of the cards, her abilities were pretty much
not fleshed out. The same goes >>for Lord Torgo, being the book reading
leader of some gang who's name escapes me at >>the moment. Underworld
introduced new ideas into the game, so past cards are now >>affected in
ways not originally planned out.

>How about this take on it. Lord Torgo is a Ganger Leader. If you try to
make him a >Ganger Leader AGAIN with LotP, this would have to be a NEW
gang, no? Then, his >original gang (the Spikes) would rise up and kill him
for turning on them. So you >can't LotP him. What's more, if you're
playing me and you do it, the PA state cop >who's part of our play group
will shoot you. Is that a fair end to the argument? :-)

>Jon Palmer

"How about this take on it. Scatter is a Rat Shaman. If you try to make
her a new totem AGAIN with any other totem card, this would have to be a
NEW totem, no? Then her original totem (the Rat) would rise up and kill
her for turning on it. So you can't alter her totem. What's more, if
you're playing me and you do it, the "group" who's a part of the whole will
shoot you back. Is that a fair end to the argument? ;-)"
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<

From:	Jon Palmer <jmp225@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:12:37 -0400

Message no. 32 >At 11:34 AM 4/18/98 -0400, Jon wrote:
>>>I always assumed that Scatter was a shaman of the rat totem. She had the
>abilities >>pretty much bestowed by being a follower of such a totem, but
>at the time of the >>printing of the cards, her abilities were pretty much
>not fleshed out. The same goes >>for Lord Torgo, being the book reading
>leader of some gang who's name escapes me at >>the moment. Underworld
>introduced new ideas into the game, so past cards are now >>affected in
>ways not originally planned out.
>
>>How about this take on it. Lord Torgo is a Ganger Leader. If you try to
>make him a >Ganger Leader AGAIN with LotP, this would have to be a NEW
>gang, no? Then, his >original gang (the Spikes) would rise up and kill him
>for turning on them. So you >can't LotP him. What's more, if you're
>playing me and you do it, the PA state cop >who's part of our play group
>will shoot you. Is that a fair end to the argument? :-)
>
>>Jon Palmer
>
>"How about this take on it. Scatter is a Rat Shaman. If you try to make
>her a new totem AGAIN with any other totem card, this would have to be a
>NEW totem, no? Then her original totem (the Rat) would rise up and kill
>her for turning on it. So you can't alter her totem. What's more, if
>you're playing me and you do it, the "group" who's a part of the whole will
>shoot you back. Is that a fair end to the argument? ;-)"

Scatter is a rat shaman cuz HE is a rat (think Jimmy Cagney, you dirty
rat), not because Rat is his totem :-)

Jon Palmer

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:46:49 -0400

Message no. 33 On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Norman McLeod wrote:

> >So the exact argument that you used for Scatter gaining the benifits of
> >the Rat Totem don't apply to Torgo and LotP? Sounds pretty hipocritical
> >to me. *shrug* This discussion has gotten ridiculous. Will sommeone
> >please provide some _convincing_ argument against this combo, please?
>
>
> Note that Scatter is a "Rat Shaman" this does not say that Scatter has a
Rat
> totem, but that Scatter has a connection to rats. A Totem is a specific
> being, not an idea. Being a Rat shaman does not mean you have connected to a
> specific Rat Totem. On LotP, it is not the same situation. A Rat totem does
> not make you a Rat Shaman, a LotP DOES make you a Ganger Leader.

See my example about the Steppin'Wulfs. You can still be a Ganger Leader
and not have LotP status. later...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Norman McLeod <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:21:20 -0400

Message no. 34 >>Note that Scatter is a "Rat Shaman" this does not say that Scatter has a
>Rat totem, but >that Scatter has a connection to rats. A Totem is a
>specific being, not an idea. Being >a Rat shaman does not mean you have
>connected to a specific Rat Totem. On LotP, it is >not the same situation.
>A Rat totem does not make you a Rat Shaman, a LotP DOES make >you a Ganger
>Leader.
>
>This is my spin on this argument (which will pretty much kill this thread
>now...).
>
>I always assumed that Scatter was a shaman of the rat totem. She had the
>abilities pretty much bestowed by being a follower of such a totem, but at
>the time of the printing of the cards, her abilities were pretty much not
>fleshed out.

Now, I think you missed the most important part of my argument. What I said
was that a Totem is a specific entity, and you could worship and uphold the
ideals of the rat without being connected a Totem personality. What my post
intended to say was that just because Scatter worships the Rat doesn't mean
she has a Totem, it means that she worships the Rat. In other words, she can
be worshipng the rat, when all of the sudden, a Bear Totem (A sentient
creature of some sort) chooses to befriend and help her. Thus, a "Rat
Shaman" is not at all the same thing as a "Shaman" with a Rat Totem. A
Ganger Leader, is, sadly, the same thing as a Ganger Leader.

>Now with Leader of the Pack bestowing leadership abilities upon a ganger,
>it is argued that Lord Torgo can not be granted higher rites twice - the
>extra abilities would most likely make him too powerful. Therefore, under
>the same argument for Scatter, she could not be granted another totem
>because she already is bestowed 'rat' on her card

Once again, there is nothing on the Scatter card that specifically says, or
even dedinitely indicates, that she is connected to a Rat Totem, nor
anything on the "Rat Totem" card that says the shaman it is played on
becomes a "Rat Shaman" thus, the Rat Shaman card never even tries to make
Scatter into something (S)he already is, while the LotP does try to do this
to Torgo.

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sun, 19 Apr 1998 03:28:19 +0800

Message no. 35 >
>>How about this take on it. Lord Torgo is a Ganger Leader. If you try to
>make him a >Ganger Leader AGAIN with LotP, this would have to be a NEW
>gang, no? Then, his >original gang (the Spikes) would rise up and kill him
>for turning on them. So you >can't LotP him. What's more, if you're
>playing me and you do it, the PA state cop >who's part of our play group
>will shoot you. Is that a fair end to the argument? :-)
>
>>Jon Palmer
>
>"How about this take on it. Scatter is a Rat Shaman. If you try to make
>her a new totem AGAIN with any other totem card, this would have to be a
>NEW totem, no? Then her original totem (the Rat) would rise up and kill
>her for turning on it. So you can't alter her totem. What's more, if
>you're playing me and you do it, the "group" who's a part of the whole will
>shoot you back. Is that a fair end to the argument? ;-)"
>>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<
>
This is discussion getting dumb... Anyway to prove that u dumbness is not an
exclusive trait I've decided to join this discussion and put in my dumb say.

Actually, some shamans have deserted their original totems before.... Think
about the husband of the 'founder' of the universal brotherhood.... or the
dwarf shaman woman (Can't remember the names...) in the denver source book
(in the deepest shit senario)....

From:	"Norman R. McLeod" <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:50:25 PDT

Message no. 36 OK, I was going to comment on this earlier and forgot. Please, everybody,=
can't we just get along? In the lats couple of posts, about Lord Torgo, =
LotP and Scatter, there has been a lot of needless sarcasm and sillyness.=
I'm sorry, but nobody wants to be told off just becasue they don't agree=
your opinion (not to mention any names, Bradley). It is silly. You're =
acting like two year olds.

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:49:06 -0400

Message no. 37 On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Norman R. McLeod wrote:

> OK, I was going to comment on this earlier and forgot. Please,
everybody, can't we just get along? In the lats couple of posts, about
Lord Torgo, LotP and Scatter, there has been a lot of needless sarcasm
and sillyness. I'm sorry, but nobody wants to be told off just becasue
they don't agree your opinion (not to mention any names, Bradley). It
is silly. You're acting like two year olds.
>

I think I have to at least defend myself here since this post was directed
publicly at me. Maybe sometimes, I can be a little harsh with my
response, I'll be the first to admit this. But, it gets really
frustrating when you're debating with people that only have one point.
And that point contradicts directly against another point that they're
making. Case with Scatter and LT. Basic argumentative logic, I guess.

Take that as sarcasm, immaturity, frustration, or whatever.

You almost made a good point in your last post about Rat and his
worshipping beliefs, though it sounded pretty silly itself. I _highly_
doubt it was the intent of FASA to imply that Scatter just worshipped a
Rat. You missed the point of Axle's post.

I'm sorry you feel as though I'm telling people off. I don't expect
or want everyone to agree with my opinions. If that were the case, I
wouldn't get the chance to feel so damn smart all the time. :P I like to
hear other points of view. Though refuting those points of view is part
of the debate and if I feel strongly enough about an item, I will debate
it.

If you feel so put off by me, please just include in any messages that you
send to the list if it is ok for me to argue your point, ok? If you don't
want my specific input, just let me know. Thank you and enjoy your day.

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Felix Hoefert <FHoefert@********.DE>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sun, 19 Apr 1998 02:07:06 +0200

Message no. 38 Jon Palmer wrote:
> Scatter is a rat shaman cuz HE is a rat (think Jimmy Cagney, you dirty
> rat), not because Rat is his totem :-)
>
> Jon Palmer

Yet another superfluous remark on this subject: Scatter is female!
C�mon, people, let�s make this the first immortal silly thread of this
list! ---Felix

From:	"Norman R. McLeod" <mcleodn@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 22:36:39 PDT

Message no. 39 > > OK, I was going to comment on this earlier and forgot. Please,
> everybody, can't we just get along? In the lats couple of posts, about
> Lord Torgo, LotP and Scatter, there has been a lot of needless sarcasm
> and sillyness. I'm sorry, but nobody wants to be told off just becasue
> they don't agree your opinion (not to mention any names, Bradley). It
> is silly. You're acting like two year olds.
> >
>
> I think I have to at least defend myself here since this post was direc=
ted
> publicly at me. Maybe sometimes, I can be a little harsh with my
> response, I'll be the first to admit this. But, it gets really
> frustrating when you're debating with people that only have one point.
> And that point contradicts directly against another point that they're
> making. Case with Scatter and LT. Basic argumentative logic, I guess.

A many people, especially me have pointed out, there is technically no =
contradiction. I you really want to read to much into it, then you can =
see conflicting logic, but technically a Rat Totem will never make any =
one a "Rat Shaman", and the DLOH's already confirmed that Scatter does =
not receive the benifits of a Rat Totem.

> Take that as sarcasm, immaturity, frustration, or whatever.

Again, that really wasn't nececary. I must admit to a certain degree of =
frustration myself, with this debate, but I really don't thin anyone has =
the right to talk about the other person like they were an idiot.

> You almost made a good point in your last post about Rat and his
> worshipping beliefs, though it sounded pretty silly itself.

Again the biting sarcasm, it is not appreciated.

I _highly_
> doubt it was the intent of FASA to imply that Scatter just worshipped =
a
> Rat.

So do I, I merely think they intended that she was a Shaman who sympathis=
ed with the Rat, etc. What I meant to do is say, again, that technically,=
in SRTCG terms, the "Rat" part of Scatter's "Rat Shaman" tittle is
merel=
y an honorarium, a decoration, as it were, and, as the Totem cards do not=
change the tittle of shamans, it is totally meaningless when it comes =
to game play. Ganger Leader, since the release of Underworld, has come =
to have meaning, and thus it is a different situation.

> If you feel so put off by me, please just include in any messages that =
you
> send to the list if it is ok for me to argue your point, ok? If you =
don't
> want my specific input, just let me know.

It's not that I don't want to hear your input, I just don't want you talk=
ing down to me. While you are stubborn, your input is worth reading, and =
I wouldn't consider it fair to not allow you a response.

There, hopefully this will be one of the last posts on the subject, Sorry=
Mamo

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 1998 21:30:07 -0700

Message no. 40 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> So why would you just give Torgo the bonus and ignore the "make him a
> ganger leader" part? Just like you get the reputation and ignore the
> profession part for Initiation.

"...On X+, TR becomes a Ganger Leader (place a +X/+X Experience token on
TR)."

The bonus to the Threat Rating is an effect of becoming a Ganger Leader
(when that title is bestowed from LotP, that is).

> So the exact argument that you used for Scatter gaining the benifits of
> the Rat Totem don't apply to Torgo and LotP? Sounds pretty hipocritical
> to me.

This is the reason why the Totem cards *don't* say, "Target Runner
becomes a (foo) shaman." Nor is her ability keyed as being due to being
a Rat Shaman, or affiliated with Rat. In short, there's nothing (in
game mechanics) preventing the card from having an effect on Scatter.

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Keldon Mor <Keldon@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Sun, 19 Apr 1998 00:26:36 -0500

Message no. 41 Hmmm, I posted this in hopes to see if any of the arguments was based on
SRTCG rules but it's turned into a Scatter/Totem debate. They're are plenty
of ways that the card game differs from the RPG, but we don't have time for
that. If someone at a tournament argued that I couldn't play LotP on Lord
Torgo, then I'd say "well, why can't I play fireball on Scatter? Shamans can
cast spells too in Shadowrun...)
I see these problems all the time with rule lawyers when I GM a game but
it's much easier to solve with a "I'm the GM, that's how it goes" But no one
is running a Card game so, all we have are the Rules themselves.

Lets just just end this thread with a D6 to see whats what.

Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@********.net
http://ww2.NetNitco.net/users/keldon/

From:	"(No Name Available)" <mothman@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:08:27 -0600

Message no. 42 Keldon Mor wrote about Torgo:
>>Ok, as I look at the card text here, the only thing I see that would disqualify
him would be whether or not he's a ganger.(snip)
Now, what else would disqualify him? The only other stipulation is
that a player may not have more than One Ganger Leader in play at a
time. Seems to me, if you play LotP on a Ganger/Ganger Leader, you still
only have one Ganger Leader in play.<<
Again, I ask for some reasoning based on SRTCG rules why this isn't
possible.<<

The reason you can't do it lies in the word "becomes". LotP says that
target Ganger runner becomes a Ganger laeder". I ahte to resort to this,
but here goes�

Webster's dictionary defines "becomes" as follows: to be in process of
change or development".

Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
subject of a hellish debate�

You can play LotP on torgo, because he IS a Ganger. However, it has no
effect because he cannot become what he already is.

As for all of you arguing that Torgo can become a Ganger Leader (even
though he already is one) because Scatter can hold a Bear Totem: where
does it say on the totem cards that the Runner holding the Totem becomes
anything? It doesn't. different cards. different text. No comparison
with Torgo and LotP.

Thank you and good night!

--
mothman@**********.com

"It's more fun to compute"
�Kraftwerk

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:07:38 +0800

Message no. 43 >Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
>can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
>a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
>became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
>subject of a hellish debate�
>
>You can play LotP on torgo, because he IS a Ganger. However, it has no
>effect because he cannot become what he already is.
>
>As for all of you arguing that Torgo can become a Ganger Leader
<snip>

Are u sure on this.... IMHO u cannot play LotP on Torgo because he is a
Ganger Leader. LotP sez play on a Ganger. Along the same thought,
switchblade does not stay on him if played as a special.
(Pls comment on this....)

The initiation : "Each Runner at the end of shadowrun is considered a Ganger
in addition...." ie x profession AND ganger.If u make Torgo a ganger(Torgo .
Ganger and Ganger Leader)... Then try to give him LotP he will become
(Torgo.Ganger and Ganger Leader and Ganger Leader).(Users of Venn Diagram
note the 3 are seperate entities although Ganger Leader and Ganger Leader
are equivilent in value) There are still 2 Ganger Leaders in play...
Although they are the same runner.....

The only way I see to get LotP on Torgo is to somehow remove his 1st ganger
leader trait and make him a ganger (not in any order)

From:	Jon Palmer <jmp225@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:08:22 -0400

Message no. 44 >>>Ok, as I look at the card text here, the only thing I see that would
>>>disqualify him would be whether or not he's a ganger.(snip)
> Now, what else would disqualify him? The only other stipulation is
>that a player may not have more than One Ganger Leader in play at a
>time. Seems to me, if you play LotP on a Ganger/Ganger Leader, you still
>only have one Ganger Leader in play.<<
> Again, I ask for some reasoning based on SRTCG rules why this isn't
>possible.<<
>
>The reason you can't do it lies in the word "becomes". LotP says that
>target Ganger runner becomes a Ganger laeder". I ahte to resort to this,
>but here goes…
>
>Webster's dictionary defines "becomes" as follows: to be in process of
>change or development".
>
>Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
>can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
>a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
>became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
>subject of a hellish debate…

This was an awesome post... seeing the wording, I totally agree. Stick it
in the FAQ!!! You can't become something you already are. Captain Obvious
strikes again, thwacking hordes of cheeseballs trying to make Lord Torgo
the Leader of the Pack. Death to cheese! Long live logic!

Okay, I don't usually gloat this much when I come out on the winning side
of a debate. I just considered this one to be a bit inane, along the lines
of a 'can the Maze of Ith stop the Serra Angel' ad nauseum (and trust me,
I'm nauseous) debate.

Jon Palmer

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:40:00 -0400

Message no. 45 Sorry all, I was dropping the argument because no one was budging, but
since Jon decided to strike my nerve, I'll comment despite the requests
for the debate to be dropped.

On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Jon Palmer wrote:

<snip old Torgo/LotP debate>
> > Again, I ask for some reasoning based on SRTCG rules why this isn't
> >possible.<<
> >
> >The reason you can't do it lies in the word "becomes". LotP says that
> >target Ganger runner becomes a Ganger laeder". I ahte to resort to this,
> >but here goes�

Then what about The Objective, initiation? If a Ganger Leader can't
become a Ganger Leader, then a Ganger can't become a Ganger and a ganger
shouldn't be eligible to partake in the Initiation objective. It's
already been stated that if a Ganger goes on the Initiation Objective, he
becomes a Ganger, since he's already one, you simply ignore the change (or
addition) of profession. Why wouldn't this apply to Torgo as well?
Simply, ignore the profession change and place an experience token on him.
Maybe, by way of LotP he gains a better understanding of what it means to
lead and thus gains the experience token (it is an experience token,
right?). :)

> >Webster's dictionary defines "becomes" as follows: to be in process of
> >change or development".

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that I have access to also says, "To come
to be", which could be interpreted as becoming Leader of the Pack. I know
it says, become a Ganger Leader, not Leader of the Pack, but I think it's
irrelevant what the card becomes as long as Torgo is a valid target for
the card. He's a Ganger, there will still only be one Ganger Leader in
play, he doesn't re-become a Leader, he simply gains a higher level of
Leadership, no his Leadership skills don't improve because those have to
do with other people, the higher level of leadership that torgo undergos
comes from the inside.

> >Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
> >can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
> >a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
> >became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
> >subject of a hellish debate�

No, but a Senator can become a President, both are Leaders, the Presidency
is just a higher version of Leadership. Same goes with the fireman
example, though I don't know their ranking system. As far as the
caterpillar goes, your talking physical metamorphical changes, not changes
in profession or personal Leadership.

> This was an awesome post... seeing the wording, I totally agree. Stick it
> in the FAQ!!! You can't become something you already are. Captain Obvious
> strikes again, thwacking hordes of cheeseballs trying to make Lord Torgo
> the Leader of the Pack. Death to cheese! Long live logic!

Only cheeseballs I see are the ones that like carting around hordes of
pages of FAQ's. Makes logical sense to me that LotP should be allowed to
be played on the big man. I personally don't and probably will never play
the combo (I prefer an elven Ancients deck, similar to Loki's), I just
feel strongly enough about it because to me, the way you are viewing it is
"cheese". That's our difference in opinion.

> Okay, I don't usually gloat this much when I come out on the winning side
> of a debate. I just considered this one to be a bit inane, along the lines
> of a 'can the Maze of Ith stop the Serra Angel' ad nauseum (and trust me,
> I'm nauseous) debate.

You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling
that I'd like to see thought out some more.

-the kinder, gentler Brad

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:33:04 +0800

Message no. 46 OK.. This is my scan... This is getting too long....

<snip old Torgo/LotP debate>
>> Again, I ask for some reasoning based on SRTCG rules why this
isn't
>>possible.<<
>>
>> The reason you can't do it lies in the word "becomes". LotP says that
>> target Ganger runner becomes a Ganger laeder". I ahte to resort to this,
>> but here goes�

> Then what about The Objective, initiation? If a Ganger Leader can't
> become a Ganger Leader, then a Ganger can't become a Ganger and a ganger
> shouldn't be eligible to partake in the Initiation objective. It's
> already been stated that if a Ganger goes on the Initiation Objective, he
> becomes a Ganger, since he's already one, you simply ignore the change (or
> addition) of profession. <snip>

IMHO the runner is now a Ganger and a Ganger. The addition is not ignored;
it is redundant....

> Why wouldn't this apply to Torgo as well?
> Simply, ignore the profession change and place an experience token on him.
> Maybe, by way of LotP he gains a better understanding of what it means to
> lead and thus gains the experience token (it is an experience token,
> right?). :)

Again in my opinon...
When you play this on Torgo (Ganger and Ganger Leader) it is possible... to
a point... Follow instruction by instuction on the card...
1) Play on target Ganger runner... (No Problem. Torgo's now a ganger.)
2) Target runner is now a ganger leader.... (Ok Torgo's now a Ganger Leader
AND
Ganger AND
Ganger Leader. )
3) A player may not have more than 1 Ganger Leader in play....
(Note although the 1st Ganger Leader keyword and the 2nd Ganger Leader
Keyword are redundant, they are still two seperate entities. Therefore
you now
have 2 Ganger Leader Keywords. The text searches for "Ganger Leader"
the
keyword. Something to borrow the M:tG term 'fizzles'... This is the
part I'm not
sure of... I don't know which is trashed, Torgo or the LotP. Logically
I'd say the one
that came into play later. i.e LotP.)
4) ...blah...blah...blah... x = number of ganger runner runners.... (Note
this text
searches for Ganger Runner. In the above example the ganger runner had 2
ganger
keywords BUT he is still only one runner.)

>> Webster's dictionary defines "becomes" as follows: to be in process of
>> change or development".

> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that I have access to also says, "To come
> to be", which could be interpreted as becoming Leader of the Pack. I know
> it says, become a Ganger Leader, not Leader of the Pack, but I think it's
> irrelevant what the card becomes as long as Torgo is a valid target for
> the card. He's a Ganger, there will still only be one Ganger Leader in
> play, he doesn't re-become a Leader, he simply gains a higher level of
> Leadership, no his Leadership skills don't improve because those have to
> do with other people, the higher level of leadership that torgo undergos
> comes from the inside.

>> Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
>> can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
>> a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
>> became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
>> subject of a hellish debate�

> No, but a Senator can become a President, both are Leaders, the Presidency
> is just a higher version of Leadership. Same goes with the fireman
> example, though I don't know their ranking system. As far as the
> caterpillar goes, your talking physical metamorphical changes, not changes
> in profession or personal Leadership.

Ok. Stop. This is Shadowrun Trading Card Game, not English Trading Card
Game. Use logic not english to settle arguements. M:tG fell to this trap
long ago. I don't want to see SRTCG coming up with 'definations of language
in gameplay'. Anyway nowhere on these two cards is the word 'becomes'
mentioned. Where the heck did you two come up with this word????

>> This was an awesome post... seeing the wording, I totally agree. Stick
it
>> in the FAQ!!! You can't become something you already are. Captain
Obvious
>> strikes again, thwacking hordes of cheeseballs trying to make Lord Torgo
>> the Leader of the Pack. Death to cheese! Long live logic!

You used English (Language to prove your point) actually....

> Only cheeseballs I see are the ones that like carting around hordes of
> pages of FAQ's. Makes logical sense to me that LotP should be allowed to
> be played on the big man. I personally don't and probably will never play
> the combo (I prefer an elven Ancients deck, similar to Loki's), I just
> feel strongly enough about it because to me, the way you are viewing it is
> "cheese". That's our difference in opinion.

Torgo and LotP is not cheese. Cheese cards are cards like wanted... They are
violent and put alot of holes in you... Like swiss cheese.....

>> Okay, I don't usually gloat this much when I come out on the winning side
>> of a debate. I just considered this one to be a bit inane, along the
lines
>> of a 'can the Maze of Ith stop the Serra Angel' ad nauseum (and trust me,
>> I'm nauseous) debate.

Yes, Maze of Ith can stop Serra Angel, but this is not the place to discuss
it. If you're interested e-mail me about it privately.

> You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
> people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling
> that I'd like to see thought out some more.

He hasn't won yet... The discussion will continue......

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:15:27 -0400

Message no. 47 On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, hansen wrote:

> OK.. This is my scan... This is getting too long....
>
> <snip old Torgo/LotP debate>
> Again in my opinon...
> When you play this on Torgo (Ganger and Ganger Leader) it is possible... to
> a point... Follow instruction by instuction on the card...
> 1) Play on target Ganger runner... (No Problem. Torgo's now a ganger.)
> 2) Target runner is now a ganger leader.... (Ok Torgo's now a Ganger Leader
> AND
> Ganger AND
> Ganger Leader. )
> 3) A player may not have more than 1 Ganger Leader in play....
> (Note although the 1st Ganger Leader keyword and the 2nd Ganger Leader
> Keyword are redundant, they are still two seperate entities. Therefore
> you now
> have 2 Ganger Leader Keywords. The text searches for "Ganger Leader"
> the
> keyword. Something to borrow the M:tG term 'fizzles'... This is the
> part I'm not
> sure of... I don't know which is trashed, Torgo or the LotP. Logically
> I'd say the one
> that came into play later. i.e LotP.)
> 4) ...blah...blah...blah... x = number of ganger runner runners.... (Note
> this text
> searches for Ganger Runner. In the above example the ganger runner had 2
> ganger
> keywords BUT he is still only one runner.)

That's a very interesting argument and a fresh outlook at the ruling, but
I'm not getting it. :P I understand the concept, I just don't agree with
it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here (I honestly don't know, I was an Art
major in College), where did you find that concept? the way that you talk
about it, it sounds like it's a math theory or something. :)

Sorry, but ignorance _can_be_ bliss. :)

Theory aside, how can something be a ganger twice? If I go back to school
and finish my drawing degree, I'm not an Artist-2. I'm still an Artist, I
just now can be considered a Drawer and a 3-D Artist, right?

later...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:33:05 +0800

Message no. 48 >> OK.. This is my scan... This is getting too long....
>>
>> <snip old Torgo/LotP debate>
>> Again in my opinon...
>> When you play this on Torgo (Ganger and Ganger Leader) it is possible...
to
>> a point... Follow instruction by instuction on the card...
>> 1) Play on target Ganger runner... (No Problem. Torgo's now a ganger.)
>> 2) Target runner is now a ganger leader.... (Ok Torgo's now a Ganger
Leader
>> AND
>> Ganger
AND
>> Ganger Leader. )
>> 3) A player may not have more than 1 Ganger Leader in play....
>> (Note although the 1st Ganger Leader keyword and the 2nd Ganger
Leader
>> Keyword are redundant, they are still two seperate entities.
Therefore
>> you now
>> have 2 Ganger Leader Keywords. The text searches for "Ganger
Leader"
>> the
>> keyword. Something to borrow the M:tG term 'fizzles'... This is the
>> part I'm not
>> sure of... I don't know which is trashed, Torgo or the LotP.
Logically
>> I'd say the one
>> that came into play later. i.e LotP.)
>> 4) ...blah...blah...blah... x = number of ganger runner runners.... (Note
>> this text
>> searches for Ganger Runner. In the above example the ganger runner
had 2
>> ganger
>> keywords BUT he is still only one runner.)
>
>That's a very interesting argument and a fresh outlook at the ruling, but
>I'm not getting it. :P I understand the concept, I just don't agree with
>it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here (I honestly don't know, I was an Art
>major in College), where did you find that concept? the way that you talk
>about it, it sounds like it's a math theory or something. :)

Ge I guess I was listening in Math class.

>Sorry, but ignorance _can_be_ bliss. :)

Yes, but usually spells trouble at the very least....

>Theory aside, how can something be a ganger twice? If I go back to school
>and finish my drawing degree, I'm not an Artist-2. I'm still an Artist, I
>just now can be considered a Drawer and a 3-D Artist, right?

Ok... Let's simplify this a little....
You have an Art degree.
You go back to school and apply for the course again....
You pass and you get another degree.
You now have 2 Art degrees but the second one (actually in the case of a
degree it's the one with lower grades) is redundant.
You were an artist before and you still are an artist...

I knew a guy who was (stress was) a member of two gangs (don't see him
nowadays wonder what happened...). So technically it's possible, but not a
good idea, to be a ganger twice. Think in terms of agent, double agent,
triple agent etc....

Also, it is possible to be a gang leader but not a gangster (hey money
talks), as well as a gang leader as well as a gang member (think splinter
assosication like main company , subsidary company).

I've spent too much of my youth in the wrong part of town.....

>later...
>

From:	Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:28:14 -0400

Message no. 49 On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, hansen wrote:

> >That's a very interesting argument and a fresh outlook at the ruling, but
> >I'm not getting it. :P I understand the concept, I just don't agree with
> >it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here (I honestly don't know, I was an Art
> >major in College), where did you find that concept? the way that you talk
> >about it, it sounds like it's a math theory or something. :)
>
> Ge I guess I was listening in Math class.

maybe, guess that makes you a better person than me. :P

> >Sorry, but ignorance _can_be_ bliss. :)
>
> Yes, but usually spells trouble at the very least....
>
> >Theory aside, how can something be a ganger twice? If I go back to school
> >and finish my drawing degree, I'm not an Artist-2. I'm still an Artist, I
> >just now can be considered a Drawer and a 3-D Artist, right?
>
> Ok... Let's simplify this a little....
> You have an Art degree.
> You go back to school and apply for the course again....
> You pass and you get another degree.
> You now have 2 Art degrees but the second one (actually in the case of a
> degree it's the one with lower grades) is redundant.
> You were an artist before and you still are an artist...

my point exactly, thank you very much. So, Torgo "graduates" to a new
level of Ganger Leadership and ignores the part of becoming a Ganger
Leader, he simply gains more abilities without losing his old ones.

> I knew a guy who was (stress was) a member of two gangs (don't see him
> nowadays wonder what happened...). So technically it's possible, but not a
> good idea, to be a ganger twice. Think in terms of agent, double agent,
> triple agent etc....

Sounds like a special card in the works or some what like Divided
Loyalties to me.

later...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:08:45 -0700

Message no. 50 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
> people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling
> that I'd like to see thought out some more.

This shouldn't be an argument, and definitely should *not* be about
winning. If you have a suggestion for a better implementation, or a
better ruling, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, leave the horse alone.

(Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a BA
in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in with. If the
card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a different
keyword.)

((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

Message no. 51 Okay, I'm sorry, but this has gone on long enough. The same arguments are
being heard, in different forms. Bsically it coms down to this. If you
believe that Torgo should not be a legal target for LotP, play it that way
if not, don't. I thought the Senator-President comparison was just a little
out there. We are talking about a card game. K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid!
There is no Ganger President, etc. I don't mean to start another argument
with this, god forbid, but to point out that this is a game, and we should
keep our arguments entirely technical. Yes it is all well and good to say
"Well in the real world..." but SRTCG is at best a cheap imitation. I don't
see how you're going to fit my Lord Torgo into Hollywood's Heavy Armor in
the real world, but in the CCG I have no problem with it.

>This shouldn't be an argument, and definitely should *not* be about
>winning. If you have a suggestion for a better implementation, or a
>better ruling, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, leave the horse alone.
>
>(Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
>flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a BA
>in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
>have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in with. If the
>card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a different
>keyword.)
>
>((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
>although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))
>
>
>- Matt
>
>------------------------------------
>Ask me tonight why love is strange
>For I am drunk and full of reasons....
>
>SRCard list.member.newbie
>Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
>SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
>

Message no. 52 > > You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
> > people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling
> > that I'd like to see thought out some more.
>
> This shouldn't be an argument, and definitely should *not* be about
> winning. If you have a suggestion for a better implementation, or a
> better ruling, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, leave the horse alone.

I thought that's what I was doing, offering a better ruling or at least
trying to make sense out of the current one.

> (Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
> flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a BA

No, senators aren't presidents, but they're still leaders. Just an
attempt to refute the argument by hansen.

> in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
> have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in with. If the
> card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a different
> keyword.)

I wasn't arguing for a "super" version of the ganger leader, I was simply
saying that you still remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader of
the Pack status). Torgo will remain the same level, he just has more
experience, hence the experience token.

> ((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
> although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))

I don't know if you meant to, but I think you strengthened my point,
thanks Matt.

later...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

Message no. 53 On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Norman McLeod wrote:

> Okay, I'm sorry, but this has gone on long enough. The same arguments are
> being heard, in different forms. Bsically it coms down to this. If you

Really, I thought we had some new and very interesting arguments come up.

Why not just delete the messages with the subject Lord Torgo <whatever> in
the subject line? Then you don't have to be a part of the debate, unless
you want to be.

> believe that Torgo should not be a legal target for LotP, play it that way
> if not, don't. I thought the Senator-President comparison was just a little
> out there. We are talking about a card game. K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid!

I thought the argument that _prompted_ the President/Ganger example was a
little out there, so we're even.

And keeping it simple is what I'm all about, remember, I'm trying to get
the uniform ruling here, my running mates are the ones trying to bulk up
the FAQ. :)

BTW, just curious, but was that directed at me?

> There is no Ganger President, etc. I don't mean to start another argument
> with this, god forbid, but to point out that this is a game, and we should
> keep our arguments entirely technical. Yes it is all well and good to say
> "Well in the real world..." but SRTCG is at best a cheap imitation. I don't
> see how you're going to fit my Lord Torgo into Hollywood's Heavy Armor in
> the real world, but in the CCG I have no problem with it.

If we're arguing entirely technical, why can't Torgo use LotP, but a
Ganger can go on the Initiation Objective? They're very similar rulings.
The best response I've gotten to this, is that the Objective makes gangers
as a by product, where LotP makes a ganger leader, then attaches the
experience token. Though, I see the point, I disagree with the
interpretation (of course), I see both of them as giving the abilities
equally, regardless of where the parenthesis are. If you have to pay
attention to where punctuation is on a card, then there's something wrong.
Additionally, I don't see the special text on an Objective as being a
by product of the reputation, it's equally important IMO.

And to think, I would have dropped the whole thing if it weren't for the
little rant by whoever.

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

Message no. 54 K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid!

>And keeping it simple is what I'm all about, remember, I'm trying to get
>the uniform ruling here, my running mates are the ones trying to bulk up
>the FAQ. :)
>
>BTW, just curious, but was that directed at me?

No, it is a common saying, just meant as that and that alone.

Message no. 55 <snip all previous thoughts about this subject>

Sorry guys, but this is just taking up too much of the string here, let it
die, I know, I for one, am tired of seeing the same arguements for doing this
thing...

Point 1 : He IS already a LEADER
Point 2 : There is NO Point 2 because Point 1 says it all

ENOUGH already, please, I have 2 Torgos and don't use either
Just read the "Leader of the Pack" card and I'm sure realization will come to
allis inelgible for the card

Sorry just had to vent some steam
Gunnar

Message no. 56 >>Then what about The Objective, initiation? If a Ganger Leader can't
become a Ganger Leader, then a Ganger can't become a Ganger and a ganger
shouldn't be eligible to partake in the Initiation objective.<<

They're completely different situations. Any Runner can make a shadowrun
on The Initiation. The bit about being a Ganger in addition to their
original designations is a *bonus* rather than a requirement.

>>The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that I have access to also says, "To come to
be", which could be interpreted as becoming Leader of the Pack. I know it says,
become a Ganger Leader, not Leader of the Pack, but I think it's irrelevant what the card
becomes as long as Torgo is a valid target for the card.<<

Irrelevant? Come on, Brad. Don't you think that the DLOH's choice of the
words Ganger Leader for both Torgo and Leader of the Pack indicates that
the card is absolutely NOT intended for use with Torgo? It seems clear.

>>No, but a Senator can become a President, both are Leaders, the Presidency is just
a higher version of Leadership. Same goes with the fireman example, though I don't know
their ranking system. As far as the caterpillar goes, your talking physical metamorphical
changes, not changes in profession or personal Leadership.<<

Okay, at this point you are no longer even debating SRTCG rules. I can
think of a zillion fictional justifications for Torgo to use LotP, but
the game rules don't permit it. A Senator *can* become President, but
the President doesn't. He might be voted to a second term, but then he
*remains* a President, he doesn't become one.

>>You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of people is
all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling that I'd like to see thought
out some more.<<

To put it another way (I suspect), you think that the card should work
differently than how it is intended. No offense, but it seems to me
that's what you're saying. I think that FASA's ruling is absolutely
consistent with the card text�if not logical in fictional terms. The
latter seems to be the source of your frustration.

The kinder, gentler, but still stubborn as a mule�

mothman@**********.com

"It's more fun to compute"
�Kraftwerk

Message no. 57 First off, This is another Torgo message, quick, hit the delete key if
you don't like reading these, there's 30 other messages for you to read.
Second, I apologize for any trouble this thread has induced, but I'd
rather see 20 posts to this thread the see 20 replies to trade lists.
Besides, I thought this was what SRCARD list was about.
Third, I'm enjoying the debate now that it's past the thee conjecture
phase and personally, I'm almost swayed to the other side as the Webster's
dictionary argument is a strong one.

> Webster's dictionary defines "becomes" as follows: to be in process of
> change or development".

The only problem I see with this is that the process of becoming a Ganger
Leader has nothing to do with the targeting of the card. If you were
playing this card and someone SoC'd LotP, he would do before he became a
Ganger Leader or if becoming a Ganger leader was part of the the validation
for legal targets, you wouldn't know that until you rolled the d6. I could
say that I could SoC LoTP to Lord Torgo because you may crap out on the die
roll so the rest of the card becomes null and void. It only states that on
X+, he Becomes a Ganger Leader. Seems to me that this would be way after the
card was played and to late to counter.

On another note, it looks like Ganger, Burned-Out, etc are separate titles
and in addition to professional designations like Mage, Rigger, (Leader?).
Just take a look at The Initiation and it shows how it separates Ganger from
Mage. Perhaps Leader is a professional designation in addition to Ganger.

<<<The Initiation- 20 pts, Bonus: Each Runner present at end of
Shadowrun is now considered a
<<<Ganger in addition to their professional designation (Street Samurai,
Mage, Rigger, etc.).

Peace,
Keldon Mor
Keldon@********.net
http://ww2.NetNitco.net/users/keldon/

-----Original Message-----
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
To: SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET <SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)

>>Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
>>can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
>>a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
>>became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
>>subject of a hellish debate�
>>
>>You can play LotP on torgo, because he IS a Ganger. However, it has no
>>effect because he cannot become what he already is.
>>
>>As for all of you arguing that Torgo can become a Ganger Leader
><snip>
>
>Are u sure on this.... IMHO u cannot play LotP on Torgo because he is a
>Ganger Leader. LotP sez play on a Ganger. Along the same thought,
>switchblade does not stay on him if played as a special.
>(Pls comment on this....)
>
>The initiation : "Each Runner at the end of shadowrun is considered a
Ganger
>in addition...." ie x profession AND ganger.If u make Torgo a ganger(Torgo
.
>Ganger and Ganger Leader)... Then try to give him LotP he will become
>(Torgo.Ganger and Ganger Leader and Ganger Leader).(Users of Venn Diagram
>note the 3 are seperate entities although Ganger Leader and Ganger Leader
>are equivilent in value) There are still 2 Ganger Leaders in play...
>Although they are the same runner.....
>
>The only way I see to get LotP on Torgo is to somehow remove his 1st ganger
>leader trait and make him a ganger (not in any order)
>

Message no. 58 Bradley Aaron Rebh wrote:

> > > You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
> > > people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling
> > > that I'd like to see thought out some more.

> > This shouldn't be an argument, and definitely should *not* be about
> > winning. If you have a suggestion for a better implementation, or a
> > better ruling, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, leave the horse alone.

> I thought that's what I was doing, offering a better ruling or at least
> trying to make sense out of the current one.

Not to be personal, but I haven't heard anything from you that supports
FASA's ruling -- more along the lines of, "Why didn't they say what they
meant?"

Again, if you can come up with a better rationale, fine.

> > (Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
> > flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a BA

> No, senators aren't presidents, but they're still leaders. Just an
> attempt to refute the argument by hansen.

Oh, so it really doesn't pertain to the card at all. LotP uses the same
keyword as LT does; not two different keywords, each belonging to a
third category.

> > in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
> > have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in with. If
the
> > card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a different
> > keyword.)

> I wasn't arguing for a "super" version of the ganger leader, I was simply
> saying that you still remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
> Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader of
> the Pack status). Torgo will remain the same level, he just has more
> experience, hence the experience token.

'Leader of the Pack' isn't the status that you graduate with: Ganger
Leader is. The experience token isn't secondary to the effect (the use
of parentheses in the card text suggests the opposite, actually), which
itself suggests that Torgo already has his experience.

> > ((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
> > although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))

> I don't know if you meant to, but I think you strengthened my point,
> thanks Matt.

Your welcome, but I don't see how you might think so. You go back to
school for a (renewed) BA, and you end up with the same degree you had
before. Old dog; no new tricks.

To repeat an earlier statement -- this isn't about "my" point, "your"
point, "that guy there"'s point.

And, again, I challenge you to come up with a more convincing argument
why LotP can't be played on Torgo. Put some energy to work for FASA.

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

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. 59 >> >That's a very interesting argument and a fresh outlook at the ruling,
but
>> >I'm not getting it. :P I understand the concept, I just don't agree
with
>> >it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here (I honestly don't know, I was an
Art
>> >major in College), where did you find that concept? the way that you
talk
>> >about it, it sounds like it's a math theory or something. :)
>>
>> Ge I guess I was listening in Math class.
>
>maybe, guess that makes you a better person than me. :P
>
>> >Sorry, but ignorance _can_be_ bliss. :)
>>
>> Yes, but usually spells trouble at the very least....
>>
>> >Theory aside, how can something be a ganger twice? If I go back to
school
>> >and finish my drawing degree, I'm not an Artist-2. I'm still an Artist,
I
>> >just now can be considered a Drawer and a 3-D Artist, right?
>>
>> Ok... Let's simplify this a little....
>> You have an Art degree.
>> You go back to school and apply for the course again....
>> You pass and you get another degree.
>> You now have 2 Art degrees but the second one (actually in the case of a
>> degree it's the one with lower grades) is redundant.
>> You were an artist before and you still are an artist...
>
>my point exactly, thank you very much. So, Torgo "graduates" to a new
>level of Ganger Leadership and ignores the part of becoming a Ganger
>Leader, he simply gains more abilities without losing his old ones.

I meant the SAME course... Ok... In art you might (nothing very
earthshaking) learn something new... But in a subject like Science, Maths or
Engineering you would hardly learn anything new.

Also this is not about gaining abilities... Abilities are reflected in the
game by skill. The only thing special about LotP from other profession
adding cards is the experience token. It seems to reflect the skill of
tactic/strategy.... So in this the only exception.

Message no. 60 On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, (No Name Available) wrote:

> >>Then what about The Objective, initiation? If a Ganger Leader can't
> become a Ganger Leader, then a Ganger can't become a Ganger and a ganger
> shouldn't be eligible to partake in the Initiation objective.<<
>
> They're completely different situations. Any Runner can make a shadowrun
> on The Initiation. The bit about being a Ganger in addition to their
> original designations is a *bonus* rather than a requirement.

Funny how you cliped the part where I stated why I felt the way I did.

> >>The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that I have access to also says, "To come
to be", which could be interpreted as becoming Leader of the Pack. I know it says,
become a Ganger Leader, not Leader of the Pack, but I think it's irrelevant what the card
becomes as long as Torgo is a valid target for the card.<<
>
> Irrelevant? Come on, Brad. Don't you think that the DLOH's choice of the
> words Ganger Leader for both Torgo and Leader of the Pack indicates that
> the card is absolutely NOT intended for use with Torgo? It seems clear.

First, the whole dictionary argument was pretty irrelevant, I mean, look
up shadowrunner in Websters, I was just addressing what was sent at me.

The only thing I know is the is that the DLOH's answered the questions
about Torgo with either a yes or a no. I don't think that you are a/the
DLOH and I know I'm not. I don't try to think like them. I try to see
their intent, yes. But to me, their intent was to simply make it so no
player could have more than one Ganger Leader in play at a time.

> >>No, but a Senator can become a President, both are Leaders, the Presidency is
just a higher version of Leadership. Same goes with the fireman example, though I don't
know their ranking system. As far as the caterpillar goes, your talking physical
metamorphical changes, not changes in profession or personal Leadership.<<
>
> Okay, at this point you are no longer even debating SRTCG rules. I can
> think of a zillion fictional justifications for Torgo to use LotP, but
> the game rules don't permit it. A Senator *can* become President, but
> the President doesn't. He might be voted to a second term, but then he
> *remains* a President, he doesn't become one.

Again, you only address what you have to work with. And thankyou for
agreeing that _at_least_ fictionally, LT should be able to have the card
played on him.
And remember, without the fiction, where would the meat of the game lie?
To me, it's the most important part (next to clean, _consistant_ game play
that is).

> >>You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling that I'd like to
see thought out some more.<<
>
> To put it another way (I suspect), you think that the card should work
> differently than how it is intended. No offense, but it seems to me
> that's what you're saying. I think that FASA's ruling is absolutely
> consistent with the card text�if not logical in fictional terms. The
> latter seems to be the source of your frustration.

You're pretty certain you know the intent of a card. Not saying you're
wrong here, but I think I along with a very few lurkers have posted some
amazing arguments both fictionally and logically for why it should be
allowed. These fictional and logical viewpoints point to a better intent
for the card (at least the one that you and your associates can provide).
The only thing we know from the DLOH's is that they don't think the LotP
card should be played on Torgo, they have their own reasons. They have
also been wrong/contradictory/inconsistant before. That wasn't a slam, I
can only imagine trying to run a card game and try to figure out how each
card will effect the others, it would be pure hell. Just look at the
Runners on Retainer ruling.

later...

-----------------------------------------

Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

Message no. 61 > > > This shouldn't be an argument, and definitely should *not* be about
> > > winning. If you have a suggestion for a better implementation, or a
> > > better ruling, I'd love to hear it; otherwise, leave the horse alone.
>
> > I thought that's what I was doing, offering a better ruling or at least
> > trying to make sense out of the current one.
>
> Not to be personal, but I haven't heard anything from you that supports
> FASA's ruling -- more along the lines of, "Why didn't they say what they
> meant?"

why would I support something I don't agree with? I'm offering a better
ruling, or one that stays consistant with the way other cards are played.

> Again, if you can come up with a better rationale, fine.

I already have, my oposition (call it what you will) just fails to see it.

> > > (Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
> > > flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a BA
>
> > No, senators aren't presidents, but they're still leaders. Just an
> > attempt to refute the argument by hansen.
>
> Oh, so it really doesn't pertain to the card at all. LotP uses the same
> keyword as LT does; not two different keywords, each belonging to a
> third category.

A senator and a President is a leader the same as Scatter and Shasta with
a Owl Totem played on her are Shaman. Honestly, this was a silly argument
in the first place. I was simply refuting the argument that used senators
and presidents against the LT/LotP debate. It doesn't apply to the card
(that much) and was a bad example on both parts.

> > > in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
> > > have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in with.
If the
> > > card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a different
> > > keyword.)
>
> > I wasn't arguing for a "super" version of the ganger leader, I was
simply
> > saying that you still remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
> > Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader
of
> > the Pack status). Torgo will remain the same level, he just has more
> > experience, hence the experience token.
>
> 'Leader of the Pack' isn't the status that you graduate with: Ganger
> Leader is.

Not arguing with you here, let me rephrase my part to make it easier for
you to grasp.

I was simply saying that you remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader of
the Pack status). Torgo will remain a Ganger Leader, he just has more
experience, hence the experience token.

It's the same as the education example. I get my BFA in painting. I go
back to school and get my BFA in sculpture. I still only have BFA status,
but I have new experiences and skills.

> The experience token isn't secondary to the effect (the use
> of parentheses in the card text suggests the opposite, actually), which
> itself suggests that Torgo already has his experience.

then why doesn't he start with the token?

> > > ((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
> > > although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))
>
> > I don't know if you meant to, but I think you strengthened my point,
> > thanks Matt.
>
> Your welcome, but I don't see how you might think so. You go back to
> school for a (renewed) BA, and you end up with the same degree you had
> before. Old dog; no new tricks.

EXACTLY! Torgo gets a better understanding of Leadership, he realizes
that getting others to do what he wants isn't the only part of leading,
it's also trusting and earning the respect of his followers, which
strengthens himself.

> And, again, I challenge you to come up with a more convincing argument
> why LotP can't be played on Torgo. Put some energy to work for FASA.

There isn't a convincing argument for this. LotP should be able to be
played on Torgo. thank you...

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

Message no. 62 <snip long discussion>

>why would I support something I don't agree with? I'm offering a better
>ruling, or one that stays consistant with the way other cards are played.

Nope... As I said before cards that say 'Lone Star runner...', 'Ganger
Runner....', 'Yakuza runner....' check for a runner with the revelant
keyword. As long as he/she has at least 1 of these affiliation keywords,
he/she is eligible for whatever benefit/penalty for the card. It doesn't
matter if he/she has 1 or 1,000,000 of the keyword; he/she gets it only
ONCE(He/she is 1 runner).

LotP sez '... may not have more than one ganger leader in play at one
time....'. It's checking for the number occurances of the keyword 'ganger
leader', not just the runner's name, profession or attached keywords, it
also checks for this keyword on all cards in play. (therefore you cannot
have the contact Ganager Leader).

>> Again, if you can come up with a better rationale, fine.
>
>I already have, my oposition (call it what you will) just fails to see it.
>
>> > > (Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
>> > > flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a
BA
>>
>> > No, senators aren't presidents, but they're still leaders. Just an
>> > attempt to refute the argument by hansen.
>>
>> Oh, so it really doesn't pertain to the card at all. LotP uses the same
>> keyword as LT does; not two different keywords, each belonging to a
>> third category.
>
>A senator and a President is a leader the same as Scatter and Shasta with
>a Owl Totem played on her are Shaman. Honestly, this was a silly argument
>in the first place. I was simply refuting the argument that used senators
>and presidents against the LT/LotP debate. It doesn't apply to the card
>(that much) and was a bad example on both parts.

Sigh... Note a pres and a senator are not the same.... It doesn't matter if
they both lead... Ok going back to torgo... He's a 'Ganger Leader'. If
another card comes along that has the profession that says 'Leader' and
later gains the ganger keyword, they are not the same. You can play LotP on
the new card. The keyword is not 'Ganger+Leader', it's 'ganger leader'.

>> > > in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
>> > > have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in
with. If
the
>> > > card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a
different
>> > > keyword.)
>>
>> > I wasn't arguing for a "super" version of the ganger leader, I was
simply
>> > saying that you still remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
>> > Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case,
Leader
of
>> > the Pack status). Torgo will remain the same level, he just has more
>> > experience, hence the experience token.
>>
>> 'Leader of the Pack' isn't the status that you graduate with: Ganger
>> Leader is.
>
>Not arguing with you here, let me rephrase my part to make it easier for
>you to grasp.
>
>I was simply saying that you remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
>Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader of
>the Pack status). Torgo will remain a Ganger Leader, he just has more
>experience, hence the experience token.
>
>It's the same as the education example. I get my BFA in painting. I go
>back to school and get my BFA in sculpture. I still only have BFA status,
>but I have new experiences and skills.

Wrong. Playing LotP on Torgo is like getting your BFA in painting AGAIN. All
you get is some revision on techniques you've not used in a long time. But
essentially you get nothing new. Therefore am I not wrong in saying that
spent precious resources (time and money) for essentally nothing new?

In real life the univeristy or institution will tell you that it's pointess;
but this is a card game there are no nice people behind the counter to tell
you that, only your opponent (assuming he us that nice).

>> The experience token isn't secondary to the effect (the use
>> of parentheses in the card text suggests the opposite, actually), which
>> itself suggests that Torgo already has his experience.
>
>then why doesn't he start with the token?

He's got other types of experience like his Gun,Lead,Melee-3,Street-2,(A2),
his ability to kill elves and maybe part of his 9/9. (Lets assume he was
born with the rest :-P). Actually thats not the point, he comes as a
package, his experience and all. He is not a Spike creature from M:tG which
come into play with tokens on them to determine their power. Also it's for
easy game play. Every runner has some sort of experience. can you imagine a
different token on every card for whatever experience the runner has
aquired.... Messy..... The token from LotP represents an extra edge the
runner aquires like gear or spells, except that it is impossible to remove
getting rid of LotP does not get rid of the token (for now unless they
errata the card) because it does not state so.

>> > > ((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
>> > > although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))
>>
>> > I don't know if you meant to, but I think you strengthened my point,
>> > thanks Matt.
>>
>> Your welcome, but I don't see how you might think so. You go back to
>> school for a (renewed) BA, and you end up with the same degree you had
>> before. Old dog; no new tricks.
>
>EXACTLY! Torgo gets a better understanding of Leadership, he realizes
>that getting others to do what he wants isn't the only part of leading,
>it's also trusting and earning the respect of his followers, which
>strengthens himself.

Nope... It was a revision not a whole new concept he was facing. It's like
relearning the fact that one and one make two. No new revelations but you
ain't gonna forget it for a while...

>> And, again, I challenge you to come up with a more convincing argument
>> why LotP can't be played on Torgo. Put some energy to work for FASA.
>
>There isn't a convincing argument for this. LotP should be able to be
>played on Torgo. thank you...
>
There's too much inconsistancies in SRTCG cards esp. the 1st run cards. This
thread is getting so long because of the inconsistancies. Why don't you all
write in to FASA and tell them to make their cards consistant before
releasing second run.
At the moment some problems are :

1. Affiliation and Profession are both listed as one keyword in the
Profession Slot.
2. Cool text (Rat Shaman) is included in the Profession Slot (Makes the
card more
interesting but creates long disscussions like this one.)
3. Some cards are very vague (RoR)

And as a last request ... Stop this thread ... at least hold it until 2nd
run with it's (hopefully) cleaned up Lord Torgo comes out. My intepration of
the rules is based on Boolean Algebra (Logic) and I feel that it's better
than 'if it can be done in SR2 why not in SRTCG'. SR2 is a RPG. there's no
way to 'win' RPGs. RPGs let you play actors and the experince of living in
someone elses shoes is your prize. Card games are more like traditional
games where there is a definate winner and loser. Thus the use of logic to
set rules seems more appropriate to me....

Ok ... Thx to all for letting me ramble.. Next Time.....

Message no. 63 On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, hansen wrote:

> <snip long discussion>

> Nope... As I said before cards that say 'Lone Star runner...', 'Ganger
> Runner....', 'Yakuza runner....' check for a runner with the revelant
> keyword. As long as he/she has at least 1 of these affiliation keywords,
> he/she is eligible for whatever benefit/penalty for the card. It doesn't
> matter if he/she has 1 or 1,000,000 of the keyword; he/she gets it only
> ONCE(He/she is 1 runner).

So, the keyword, Ganger Leader can only appear on LT once, right? Not
arguing with you here. No matter how many times a Ganger gets initiated,
they're still just a ganger, right? My thoughts exactly. Maybe you
should think of LotP as a sort of initiation into Ganger Leadership, a
ganger that goeson the initiation objective still earnes the rep, so why
wouldn't LT not gain the experience token? And before anyone pipes up, I
don't buy the parenthesis and bonus argument, IMO the bonus on the card is
equivalently important to the reputation earned and vice/versa.

> LotP sez '... may not have more than one ganger leader in play at one
> time....'. It's checking for the number occurances of the keyword 'ganger
> leader', not just the runner's name, profession or attached keywords, it
> also checks for this keyword on all cards in play. (therefore you cannot
> have the contact Ganager Leader).

exactly, you play LotP on Torgo, who is a ganger, he becomes a ganger
leader, which he already is, so you ignore it, gains the experience token
and there is still only ONE ganger leader in play. That whole argument
about him being a Ganger, Ganger Leader and Ganger Leader again is BS,
sorry. Save the math theories for math class.

> >A senator and a President is a leader the same as Scatter and Shasta with
> >a Owl Totem played on her are Shaman. Honestly, this was a silly argument
> >in the first place. I was simply refuting the argument that used senators
> >and presidents against the LT/LotP debate. It doesn't apply to the card
> >(that much) and was a bad example on both parts.
>
> Sigh... Note a pres and a senator are not the same.... It doesn't matter if
> they both lead... Ok going back to torgo... He's a 'Ganger Leader'. If
> another card comes along that has the profession that says 'Leader' and
> later gains the ganger keyword, they are not the same. You can play LotP on
> the new card. The keyword is not 'Ganger+Leader', it's 'ganger leader'.

Didn't I say that this argument doesn't apply to the card? It's called
a defense and it's equally as relevant as the response that originated
it. And just to be the Devils advocate, does that mean that Lurker, a
Ganger Mage isn't a 'Ganger+Leader', he's just a 'ganger mage' (I have a
ton more examples, but I'll be good)?

> >I was simply saying that you remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
> >Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader
of
> >the Pack status). Torgo will remain a Ganger Leader, he just has more
> >experience, hence the experience token.
> >
> >It's the same as the education example. I get my BFA in painting. I go
> >back to school and get my BFA in sculpture. I still only have BFA status,
> >but I have new experiences and skills.
>
> Wrong. Playing LotP on Torgo is like getting your BFA in painting AGAIN. All
> you get is some revision on techniques you've not used in a long time. But
> essentially you get nothing new. Therefore am I not wrong in saying that
> spent precious resources (time and money) for essentally nothing new?

How can you say that? If LT already possessed the experience token, then
I'd agree with you, but obviously he has some more to learn. He doesn't
have the experience token, so obviously he lacks the experience. Maybe
you should think a little more about what the cards represent.

note: I'm not saying that my slant on LotP is what the DLOH's were
invisioning the card to be, it's just my slant on the subject.

> In real life the univeristy or institution will tell you that it's pointess;
> but this is a card game there are no nice people behind the counter to tell
> you that, only your opponent (assuming he us that nice).

I don't know about you (and this isn't the reason that I got my degree),
but a lot of people get multiple degrees in a similar areas for self
growth and accomplishment. A degree is something that can never be
stripped from you and represents a level of accomplishment that only a
percentage of the populous has obtained. Having more than one only makes
you "qualified" in more areas. I would hardly say that it's pointless.
Maybe there are less reduntant ways to earn an education, but that doesn't
make the other degrees any less important to the individual.

now back to the real debate...

> >> The experience token isn't secondary to the effect (the use
> >> of parentheses in the card text suggests the opposite, actually), which
> >> itself suggests that Torgo already has his experience.
> >
> >then why doesn't he start with the token?
>
> He's got other types of experience like his Gun,Lead,Melee-3,Street-2,(A2),
> his ability to kill elves and maybe part of his 9/9. (Lets assume he was
> born with the rest :-P). Actually thats not the point, he comes as a
> package, his experience and all. He is not a Spike creature from M:tG which
> come into play with tokens on them to determine their power. Also it's for
> easy game play. Every runner has some sort of experience. can you imagine a

Yeah, he has some sort of experience, but he obviously doesn't have the
experience granted to him by Leader of the Pack, otherwise he'd get +x/+x
for each ganger present with him. Wouldn't he?

> different token on every card for whatever experience the runner has
> aquired.... Messy..... The token from LotP represents an extra edge the

right, that's why cards like turf war and Leader of the Pack are in the
game, to represent the runners expereinces as they run the shadows. The
base delpoyment of the card represents the runners experience thus far.

> runner aquires like gear or spells, except that it is impossible to remove
> getting rid of LotP does not get rid of the token (for now unless they
> errata the card) because it does not state so.

then why is it called an experience token?

> >EXACTLY! Torgo gets a better understanding of Leadership, he realizes
> >that getting others to do what he wants isn't the only part of leading,
> >it's also trusting and earning the respect of his followers, which
> >strengthens himself.
>
> Nope... It was a revision not a whole new concept he was facing. It's like
> relearning the fact that one and one make two. No new revelations but you
> ain't gonna forget it for a while...

again, why doesn't he come with the token then? If he already has the
experience, then shouldn't he already have the ability?

> There's too much inconsistancies in SRTCG cards esp. the 1st run cards. This
> thread is getting so long because of the inconsistancies. Why don't you all
> write in to FASA and tell them to make their cards consistant before
> releasing second run.
> At the moment some problems are :

I agree completely.

> And as a last request ... Stop this thread ... at least hold it until 2nd
> run with it's (hopefully) cleaned up Lord Torgo comes out. My intepration of
> the rules is based on Boolean Algebra (Logic) and I feel that it's better
> than 'if it can be done in SR2 why not in SRTCG'. SR2 is a RPG. there's no

I don't recall the SRRPG argument ever coming out in this thread, but ok.

also, If this were a proof, your algebra could come in really handy, but
unfortuneately we're dealing with more than simple numbers and tried and
true rules. the game and it's components are constantly changing and
adapting and static numbers and rules don't apply to that sort of
argument. what if a card came about that targetted a 'Leader' would LT
be a valid target? This is ridiculous actually, logic is one thing,
Boolean Algebra is another.

> way to 'win' RPGs. RPGs let you play actors and the experince of living in
> someone elses shoes is your prize. Card games are more like traditional
> games where there is a definate winner and loser. Thus the use of logic to
> set rules seems more appropriate to me....

logic should lay down the base of the game and a certain amount of logic
is necessary to be able to interpret the cards. Seems to me you should
take some more logic classes. Logically, to me, there is no restrictions
preventing LT from having the card played on him and none to leave it on
him. Guess that's why logic is hard to work with in the human language
(especially english) sometimes, because there can be many interpretations
from the same statement.

-----------------------------------------
Bradley Aaron Rebh

brebh@*****.bgsu.edu
http://art.bgsu.edu/~rebh

920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402
419.353.2405
-----------------------------------------

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer