Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jeffrey Nuremburg <xanatos@********.NET>
Subject: Some Questions/Answers and Rule Ideas
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:06:27 -0500
Hi all.

Here's my two bits.

1) As for the Rule Voting thing, I say we go for it. Here are a few rule
Ideas that might be added:

- I looked over J.P.'s ideas for "Present" definitions and I have to
concur that they sound pretty good for the most part. I do feel that
Runners who visit a sight do so and return before the end of the owner's
legwork phase. If you start "sending" Runners to sites you'll have to
represent this for clarity by moving the Runners onto the sight (or near it)
to represent their presence there. In addition you have to deal with Matrix
sites as a special case since there is no need for Runner's to leave the
Safehouse to visist a Matrix location. I do feel that at the end of a given
players turn all of his Runners (turned or unturned) should be considered in
the safehouse.

- As for improving Chipjacks, they might want to make them cheaper
AND/OR for a card like chipjack 3 you can draw any one chip from your deck
to place on it (this way the card becomes more useful and doesn't become
such a combo. monster)

2) The idea of Skwaaaaaark being able to be given any Gear (i.e.-things
other than Gear/Cyberware) is most likely not what the creators of the card
had in mind. I also feel that people playing it that way are playing by the
"Letter" of the rules (going by the precise text of the card) and not going
by the "Spirit" of the rules. I have to say that if any gear can be given
to Skwaaaaaark and then transferred can he definately becomes a conduit for
free gear (I've gotten him out second turn in a number of games and it would
accelerate things greatly if I could spend 3 more turns brining people out
and then giving them gear for free).

Later.

--
Jeffrey Nuremburg / Assistant System Administrator
xanatos@********.net
cgiguy@********.net - All CGI related requests

"I've been an atheist - I had found it difficult to
have religios beliefs and scientific ones, but I've
accepted that I have a duality - there's a human
way of interacting with people but also a mechanistic
explanation of what people are and how they work."

- Rodney Brooks, Director of MIT's AI Lab
Message no. 2
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Some Questions/Answers and Rule Ideas
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:11:48 -0800
> 1) As for the Rule Voting thing, I say we go for it. Here are a few rule
> Ideas that might be added:

At the very least, they're handy as tournament rules.

> - I looked over J.P.'s ideas for "Present" definitions and I have to
> concur that they sound pretty good for the most part. I do feel that
> Runners who visit a sight do so and return before the end of the owner's
> legwork phase. If you start "sending" Runners to sites you'll have to
> represent this for clarity by moving the Runners onto the sight (or near it)
> to represent their presence there. In addition you have to deal with Matrix
> sites as a special case since there is no need for Runner's to leave the
> Safehouse to visist a Matrix location. I do feel that at the end of a given
> players turn all of his Runners (turned or unturned) should be considered in
> the safehouse.

I generally don't like special instances, but it seems like an entire
section on the
Matrix in SRTCG should be written up. (This would include mentioning
that Recon by Deckers
is a Matrix action, etc, etc.)

> - As for improving Chipjacks, they might want to make them cheaper
> AND/OR for a card like chipjack 3 you can draw any one chip from your deck
> to place on it (this way the card becomes more useful and doesn't become
> such a combo. monster)

No comment, but I've already HTMLized the various chip ideas (the
Improved Skillwires
and Skill Hardwires) onto my webpage, and, if I anyone can forward Teos'
tidbit on the
skillsoft dealer, I might pop that up there as well.

> 2) The idea of Skwaaaaaark being able to be given any Gear (i.e.-things
> other than Gear/Cyberware) is most likely not what the creators of the card
> had in mind. I also feel that people playing it that way are playing by the
> "Letter" of the rules (going by the precise text of the card) and not going
> by the "Spirit" of the rules. I have to say that if any gear can be given
> to Skwaaaaaark and then transferred can he definately becomes a conduit for
> free gear (I've gotten him out second turn in a number of games and it would
> accelerate things greatly if I could spend 3 more turns brining people out
> and then giving them gear for free).

On the other hand, it'd be nice to have the card worded so that it's
intention
is absolutely clear, instead of ninety-eight percent clear.

The easiest fix (net.errata) is for Skwraaaaaark!'s special trait
section to read

"All Cyberware given to Skwraaaaaark! is free. No other Gear cards may
be played on
Skwraaaaaark!"


-Mb
Message no. 3
From: "J.P Haworth" <jhaworth@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some Questions/Answers and Rule Ideas
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:57:38 -0800
> - I looked over J.P.'s ideas for "Present" definitions and I
> have to

Actually the ideas were not mine, I just agree with the original author
Redman
Message no. 4
From: Gumbyflex1 <Gumbyflex1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some Questions/Answers and Rule Ideas
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:39:17 EST
the voting and rule updates are great

but in the area of special instances there is no way of getting arround it
if anyone plays the rpg, you will know that there special instances all over
fasa doesnt allways explain all the rules that well
we should definately get this rule/voting thing started soon

-J

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Some Questions/Answers and Rule Ideas, 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!