Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Steve Kramarsky <steve@***.COM>
Subject:	Obscure Stuff from Fasa
Date:	Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:04:50 -0400

Message no. 1 The following are "official" replies from FASA/Jim N. to
questions I have asked:

--
>> The rules state that Prime Runners have upkeep, but Hatchetman 2057
>> appears to have none. What gives?

> Hatchetman 2057 is an exception to the upkeep rule for Prime Runners.

>> [Concerning] Poison Gas. Assuming
>> it is not sleezed, some runners roll 4+ (or whatever)
>> to get through and some do not. The player decides to
>> abort beacuse not enough runners have made it through.
>> Should the challenge be trashed or does it stay in
>> play (it doesn't say trash and hasn't been sleazed,
>> we've been playing that it stays in play).

> Answer: Poison Gas Trap would be trashed.

And the MOST obscure question....

>> I had played Security Camera as a challenge on an objective. I was
>> running on the objective when my opponent played the "Blindsided"
stinger,
>> causing me to have to face my own challenges. The only challenge I had
played
>> was Security Camera whose instructions say that it is to be put back in the
>> hand and replaced with another challenge when triggered. The question is:
>> what happens here?

> Answer: Security Camera would return to the shadowrunning player's hand (you,
> in this case) and the person who played Blindsided would put a Challenge down
> for you to face instead of Security Camera. If your opponent had no Challenge
> to put down in place of Security Camera, you'd "luck out" and continue the
> shadowrun.

Hope these are helpful.

From:	Andrew Payne III <smiling_bandit@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Obscure Stuff from Fasa
Date:	Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:48:20 -0700

Message no. 2 ---Steve Kramarsky wrote:
> And the MOST obscure question....
>
> I had played Security Camera as a challenge on an objective. I was
> running on the objective when my opponent played the "Blindsided"
> stinger, causing me to have to face my own challenges. The only
> challenge I had played was Security Camera whose instructions say
that
> it is to be put back in the hand and replaced with another challenge
> when triggered. The question is: what happens here?
>
> Answer: Security Camera would return to the shadowrunning player's
> hand (you, in this case) and the person who played Blindsided would
> put a Challenge down for you to face instead of Security Camera. If
> your opponent had no Challenge to put down in place of Security
> Camera, you'd "luck out" and continue the shadowrun.
>
> Hope these are helpful.
>

Much appreciated Steve added them to the FAQ I am compiling.

Did you mean "Obscure" in how it is handled or that you could not
quite follow the answer. I actually found it the anwser to this
question as something I did not like. The ruling goes completly
against what the card text says. I think that they made the ruling
maybe to keep "Joe" from lying about what he had in his hand. I would
definatly think about lying if the only challenge in my hand was
"Gaurdian Dracoform". I would like to see that this ruling be banned
from any tournement play, because you have the "RuleMaster" there to
make sure that "Joe" is not lying. Loki see if you can get FASA to
recomment on this one.

Security Camera Text post for your convience.
"If alarm is triggered, return Security Camera to YOUR hand and
replace with another Challenge from YOUR hand. Runner team must face
this new Challenge immediately. If you have no Challenges in YOUR
hand, treat Security Camera as a bluff."

===
Andrew Payne III
smiling_bandit@**********.com
http://www.oakland.edu/~ddmccoll/sr

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Steve Kramarsky <steve@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Obscure Stuff from Fasa
Date:	Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:27:12 -0400

Message no. 3 Andrew wrote:

>> [FASA ruling that Security Camera + "Blindsided" allows opponent
>> play a challenge from HIS hand deleted]

>Did you mean "Obscure" in how it is handled or that you could not
>quite follow the answer. I actually found it the anwser to this
>question as something I did not like. The ruling goes completly
>against what the card text says. I think that they made the ruling
>maybe to keep "Joe" from lying about what he had in his hand. I would
>definatly think about lying if the only challenge in my hand was
>"Gaurdian Dracoform". I would like to see that this ruling be banned
>from any tournement play, because you have the "RuleMaster" there to
>make sure that "Joe" is not lying. Loki see if you can get FASA to
>recomment on this one.

I meant obscure in the sense that you could play test the game
forever and never come up with that situation again.

Anyway, I agree that the ruling is contrary to the card, but I think
it captures the "spirit" of the two cards in combination. As a practical
matter, what if I have two or more challenges in my hand? Who would
decide which one I have to face? And outside of a tournament how would
you know (as you pointed out) that I wasn't lying about the makeup
of my hand?

As for getting it changed, I doubt that will happen. I submitted this
question along with a few others and Jim answered the others first
but said he wanted to consult with Mike N. on the Security Cam issue.
He got back to me a few days later with the answer that I posted. So
I think this one may be protected from on high by the Prince of
Darkness.

Note one odd thing: Under these circumstances a player might begin
his phase with 8 cards in his hand -- if he was holding seven when
he got SC back -- and then draw to 9.

-Steve.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer