Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mark Peterson <talos187@***.EDU>
Subject: Minimum Objectives
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:53:34 -0700
With King of the Hill and Doomsday, they don't count towards the minimum
number of objectives. Does that mean the minimum number of ojbects in
your objective deck or does it mean the minimum number of objectives in
play?
--

peace be thy path,

talos landone
Message no. 2
From: Gunnar Lundquist <OneWay919@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:08:40 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-04 17:56:00 EDT, you write:

<<
With King of the Hill and Doomsday, they don't count towards the minimum
number of objectives. Does that mean the minimum number of ojbects in
your objective deck or does it mean the minimum number of objectives in
play?
-- >>
in your deck ...i.e. you must have 6 solid objectives and then these
others....much like sucker runit is added to the 6 you must have

OneWay
Message no. 3
From: Freak Finger <Freakfingr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 01:06:27 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-05 00:13:33 EDT, you write:

<< <
With King of the Hill and Doomsday, they don't count towards the minimum
number of objectives. Does that mean the minimum number of ojbects in
your objective deck or does it mean the minimum number of objectives in
play?
-- >>
in your deck ...i.e. you must have 6 solid objectives and then these
others....much like sucker runit is added to the 6 you must have

OneWay >>
---------------------------------------

Sucker Run dosn't count towards your 6? Is this what your trying to say?
Please explain this is a new one to me. I don't see anything on the card to
say this and i can't find anything on any of my FAQ sheets. Fill me in,
please.
Freakfinger
Message no. 4
From: Mark Peterson <talos187@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 22:16:53 -0700
I think Sucker Run does count, but I wasn't sure about the Doomsday and
King of the Hill. What I was thinking, personally, was that if they
didn't count as your objective in play, then I'd build a deck of a King
of the Hill, four Doomsdays, and a Sucker Run. Thus, I'm constantly
pumping about new objectives, stretching my opponent's resources to the
very max. Neh? But if it just doesn't count towards the six in the
deck ...well, that sucks then.
--

peace be thy path,

talos landone
Message no. 5
From: Freak Finger <Freakfingr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 01:36:55 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-05 01:23:29 EDT, you write:

<< I think Sucker Run does count, but I wasn't sure about the Doomsday and
King of the Hill. >>


Seems Sucker Run would count as long as the total of rep. points in your
total obj. still equaled or exceded whats needed to win the game. As said in
the instruction book. The fact that Doomsday and King of the Hill both say
they don't count toward your min. obj. says to me that Sucker Run dosn't have
that restriction. otherwise wouldn't it say?
Thats my argument anyway but i am open to others.
Freakfinger
Message no. 6
From: Adrian Smerdon <adrian.smerdon@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:47:21 +1000
At 01:36 05/10/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-10-05 01:23:29 EDT, you write:
>
><< I think Sucker Run does count, but I wasn't sure about the Doomsday and
> King of the Hill. >>
>

Some convention rules state that Sucker Run doesn't count toward Max
Objectives, but standard game rules are that they do count.

Doomsday and King of the Hill always don't count.

Regards,
Adrian.
Message no. 7
From: Freak Finger <Freakfingr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 02:20:04 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-05 01:48:38 EDT, you write:

<< Some convention rules state that Sucker Run doesn't count toward Max
Objectives, but standard game rules are that they do count.
>>
-----------------------
Whats the logic behind those convention rules? Is it easier for them or do
they just like messing with the game?
Freakfinger
Message no. 8
From: "Droopy ." <mmanhardt@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:18:25 -0400
From: Mark Peterson <talos187@***.EDU>
Subject: Minimum Objectives

> With King of the Hill and Doomsday, they don't count towards the minimum
> number of objectives. Does that mean the minimum number of ojbects in
> your objective deck or does it mean the minimum number of objectives in
> play? --

The number in your deck.


--Droopy
Message no. 9
From: Donald Arganbright <jayden63@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:52:20 PDT
Hoi,

>I think Sucker Run does count, but I wasn't sure about the Doomsday
>and King of the Hill. What I was thinking, personally, was that if
>they didn't count as your objective in play, then I'd build a deck of
>a King of the Hill, four Doomsdays, and a Sucker Run. Thus, I'm
>constantly pumping about new objectives, stretching my opponent's
>resources to the very max. Neh? But if it just doesn't count >towards
the six in the deck ...well, that sucks then.

>peace be thy path,

>talos landone

It was rulled by the DLOH that sucker run does NOT count towards the
minimum required objectives. This information is located in the
Unoffical FAQ located on Tony's site... (of which I can't find the
address at the moment... anyone know?) Also as it is stated on the card
itself Doomsday and King-of-the-hill also do not count towards the
minimum number of objectives. Technically your objective stack could
look like this.

sucker run x4
doomsday device x4
King of the hill x1 (KOTH is unique)
+6 other objectives.

Thats an objective stack of 15 cards... Legal?... yes as long as the 6
other objectives stuck into it add up to the total rep required.


*** Knife Sharpens on Stone... Man Sharpens on Man ***
*** - Tao ***

Jayden Stormwalker
Donald Arganbright


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 10
From: Freak Finger <Freakfingr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:25:34 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-05 12:54:11 EDT, you write:

<< It was rulled by the DLOH that sucker run does NOT count towards the
minimum required objectives. >>
----------------
Excuse my ignorance but whats the DLOH?
Freakfinger
Message no. 11
From: Gunnar Lundquist <OneWay919@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:29:04 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-05 01:08:07 EDT, you write:

<< -- >>
in your deck ...i.e. you must have 6 solid objectives and then these
others....much like sucker runit is added to the 6 you must have

OneWay >>
---------------------------------------

Sucker Run dosn't count towards your 6? Is this what your trying to say?
Please explain this is a new one to me. I don't see anything on the card to
say this and i can't find anything on any of my FAQ sheets. Fill me in,
please.
Freakfinger
>>

Sorry I wasn't more clear but I think everybody else managed to make it clear

OneWay
Message no. 12
From: Gunnar Lundquist <OneWay919@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:49:34 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-06 00:29:40 EDT, you write:

<<
<< It was rulled by the DLOH that sucker run does NOT count towards the
minimum required objectives. >>
----------------
Excuse my ignorance but whats the DLOH?
Freakfinger
>>

Dark Lords On High......this is just a friendly way of refering to our beloved
game designers

OneWay
Message no. 13
From: Freak Finger <Freakfingr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:59:35 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-06 00:50:38 EDT, you write:

<< <
<< It was rulled by the DLOH that sucker run does NOT count towards the
minimum required objectives. >>
----------------
Excuse my ignorance but whats the DLOH?
Freakfinger
>>

Dark Lords On High......this is just a friendly way of refering to our
beloved
game designers

OneWay >>
-----------------------

Any word on weather they are going to reword it in 2nd run?
Freakfinger
Message no. 14
From: Gunnar Lundquist <OneWay919@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:01:14 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-06 01:02:35 EDT, you write:

<< ----------------------

Any word on weather they are going to reword it in 2nd run?
Freakfinger
>>

I don't know...I'm not in contact with them that much....maybe one of our
regular playtesters can broach the question to them

OneWay
Message no. 15
From: Gabe Rosario <Brakiss187@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 01:06:48 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-07 00:03:46 EDT, you write:

<< I don't know...I'm not in contact with them that much....maybe one of our
regular playtesters can broach the question to them
>>
if second run ever comes out it will be reworded.


brakiss

i have a list of all the changes i just need to dig it out...if you have
anymore you want to know the status of just ask...
Message no. 16
From: "O.Kramer" <Olaf-Kramer@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Minimum Objectives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:33:02 +0200
Gabe Rosario schrieb:
> In a message dated 98-10-07 00:03:46 EDT, you write:
>
> << I don't know...I'm not in contact with them that much....maybe one of our
> regular playtesters can broach the question to them
> >>
> if second run ever comes out it will be reworded.
>
>
> brakiss
>
> i have a list of all the changes i just need to dig it out...if you have
> anymore you want to know the status of just ask...

Can you put it on the list ?

OLAF

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Minimum Objectives, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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

Thwap!