Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Michael Pease/Tamara Lorenz <treehugr@****.ON.ROGERS.WAVE.CA>
Subject:	[SR] Have questions Need "Loki"!
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:03:54 -0400

Message no. 1 Hi all,
I just wanted to say that being on this List and lurking about while
Loki and club clear up issues has been a wonderful help. Yet, I have
another handful of newbie questions that require Loki or other Top
Guy/gal's rulings on. [Apologies in advance if some questions seem basic
or have already been covered]

1) Gear Weapon cards: In order to use your general gear/weapon card, do
you require a skill in firearms, melee or gunnery <if appropriate>? For
example, can "Knuckles", <troll bodyguard with no firearms/gunnery>
carry and use a HK 227 gear/weapon card? Nowhere on the card does it
state that a skill in anything is required.
Now I have seen it required for example on the Vindcator or the FN Har
Assault rifle.... but what about those misc. gear/weapon cards be they
melee or ranged attacks, do you need a skill to weild them even if the
card itself does not say you do?

2) Card Precedence: Now this applies to a much bigger picture but take
this example for reasons of simplicity. A stack of challenges has just
been revealed, the top challenge is "Motion Detectors" <no other
challenges can be sleazed>, okay that is easy to understand and you go
on to the next challenge, which turns out to be "Gut Check"<1-3 the
challenge is sleazed>.
How does one proceed in this situation? Which card takes precedence?
The same goes for something like this: The first challenge was not
sleazed so the alarm is triggered, the next challenge is "Fleshing
Eating Ghouls"<frag/trash a runner to sleaze the ghouls>...
What is the outcome? Which card takes precedence? And so on...

3) Club Vortex and Drug Counters: Can your runners receive multiple
counters if they continue to visit the Vortex? Ifso, can your runners
with mulitple counters declare that they are going to attempt to use
more then one counter in a single turn? At what point during an action,
<interception/shadowrun> must the runner declare that they are going to
use their drug counter<s>?

I have a couple of other questions but I will wait til you get a chance
to look these over. :-)

Tamara
http://ammo.mgl.ca/lady
[AMMO]LadyDeath

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR] Have questions Need "Loki"!
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:24:30 -0700

Message no. 2 ---Michael Pease/Tamara Lorenz wrote:
>
> 1) Gear Weapon cards: In order to use your general
gear/weapon card, do
> you require a skill in firearms, melee or gunnery <if appropriate>?
For
> example, can "Knuckles", <troll bodyguard with no firearms/gunnery>
> carry and use a HK 227 gear/weapon card? Nowhere on the card does it
> state that a skill in anything is required.

If the gear card does not list a required skill, the gear may be used
by a runner without one. Also, some gear like the katana do not
require one, but offer a bonus to those who possess a related skill.

> 2) Card Precedence: Now this applies to a much bigger
picture but take
> this example for reasons of simplicity. A stack of challenges has
just
> been revealed, the top challenge is "Motion Detectors" <no other
> challenges can be sleazed>, okay that is easy to understand and you
go
> on to the next challenge, which turns out to be "Gut Check"<1-3 the
> challenge is sleazed>.
> How does one proceed in this situation? Which card takes
precedence?

The first challenge will affect subsequent challenges, so in this case
Gut Check cannot be sleazed. This does pose a problem as it would seem
that with Motion Detectors in place, the player cannot sleaze past Gut
Check to ever achieve the objective. Interesting...

> The same goes for something like this: The first challenge was not
> sleazed so the alarm is triggered, the next challenge is "Fleshing
> Eating Ghouls"<frag/trash a runner to sleaze the ghouls>...
> What is the outcome? Which card takes precedence? And so
on...

Once the alarm is triggered on a shadowrun, subsequent challenges may
not be sleazed. This means that sacrificing a runner to the ghouls is
not going to work for you this turn.

> 3) Club Vortex and Drug Counters: Can your runners receive
multiple
> counters if they continue to visit the Vortex?

Yes.

> If so, can your runners
> with mulitple counters declare that they are going to attempt to use
> more then one counter in a single turn?

There's nothing on the card that says otherwise, so I guess you can.
However, you'll have to roll for each token used which means more
chances of fragging that runner.

> At what point during an action,
> <interception/shadowrun> must the runner declare that they are going
to
> use their drug counter<s>?

Club Vortex says the tokens may be used at any time.

> I have a couple of other questions but I will wait til you
get a chance
> to look these over. :-)

Bring 'em on. :o)

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
Web Page: Poisoned Elves at www.primenet.com/~gamemstr

"You're calling me Bitch like it's a bad thing."
--> CrapGame during the Drive in the Country tournament
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Shane Ruman <Shane_Ruman@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR] Have questions Need "Loki"!
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:14:44 -0600

Message no. 3 ---Michael Pease/Tamara Lorenz wrote:
>> 2) Card Precedence: Now this applies to a much bigger
picture but take
>> this example for reasons of simplicity. A stack of challenges has
just
>> been revealed, the top challenge is "Motion Detectors" <no other
>> challenges can be sleazed>, okay that is easy to understand and you
go
>> on to the next challenge, which turns out to be "Gut Check"<1-3 the
>> challenge is sleazed>.
>> How does one proceed in this situation? Which card takes
precedence?
> The first challenge will affect subsequent challenges, so in this case
> Gut Check cannot be sleazed. This does pose a problem as it would seem
> that with Motion Detectors in place, the player cannot sleaze past Gut
> Check to ever achieve the objective. Interesting...

I disagree on this point. I prefer to think of the mechanics this way --
"rules" on a card replace basic game rules. Thus, the motion detector
would replace the "current" rule in the game (probably the basic, book
ones) about sleazing. Then the gut check would replace the current rule
in the game (the motion detector one) with the one that basically say --
"... sleazing rules are as before but gut check can be sleazed on a 4+".
This makes sense to me and avoids the "game-wrecking" combo of gut-check
et. al. and motion detector
>> The same goes for something like this: The first challenge was not
>> sleazed so the alarm is triggered, the next challenge is "Fleshing
>> Eating Ghouls"<frag/trash a runner to sleaze the ghouls>...
>> What is the outcome? Which card takes precedence? And so
on...
>Once the alarm is triggered on a shadowrun, subsequent challenges may
>not be sleazed. This means that sacrificing a runner to the ghouls is
>not going to work for you this turn.

By my "logic" above the ghouls could still be sleazed by sacing a runner.
This makes "real-world sense" too because even though the alarm was ringing
the ghouls would stop to eat (as if in the "normal" situation they would
eat
somebody and not think they had broken in).

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR] Have questions Need "Loki"!
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:26:07 -0700

Message no. 4 ---Shane Ruman wrote:
>
> > The first challenge will affect subsequent challenges, so in this
case
> > Gut Check cannot be sleazed. This does pose a problem as it would
seem
> > that with Motion Detectors in place, the player cannot sleaze past
Gut
> > Check to ever achieve the objective. Interesting...
>
> I disagree on this point. I prefer to think of the mechanics this
way --
> "rules" on a card replace basic game rules. Thus, the motion
detector
> would replace the "current" rule in the game (probably the basic,
book
> ones) about sleazing. Then the gut check would replace the current
rule
> in the game (the motion detector one) with the one that basically
say --
> "... sleazing rules are as before but gut check can be sleazed on a
4+".
> This makes sense to me and avoids the "game-wrecking" combo of
gut-check
> et. al. and motion detector

This doesn't make sense to me. By that logic, you've completely
nullified the usefullness of cards like Motion Detectors, Flock of
Geese and so forth.

Motion Detecors states "If alarm is triggered, the shadowrun is over
and this card is permanently attached to the Objective it is currently
defending. No Runners can sleaze Challenges on runs against this
Objective."

If you then say subsequent cards take precedence over this, then any
challenge card that is revealed with a sleaze requirement may be
sleazed as if the Motion Detectors was never even in play. The same
would apply to Flock of Geese, Red Alert, and others making these
cards for the msot part uselss.

> >Once the alarm is triggered on a shadowrun, subsequent challenges
may
> >not be sleazed. This means that sacrificing a runner to the ghouls
is
> >not going to work for you this turn.
>
> By my "logic" above the ghouls could still be sleazed by sacing a
runner.
> This makes "real-world sense" too because even though the alarm was
ringing
> the ghouls would stop to eat (as if in the "normal" situation they
would
> eat
> somebody and not think they had broken in).

Going to the rulebook things (pg 59): " Once a Runner triggers the
alarm, all Challenges are alerted to the Runners' presence. The
Runners cannot sleaze Challenges for the remainder of the shadowrun..."

Simply put, now that the alarm is triggered, sleazing is no longer an
option. Thus you cannot sacrifice a runner to the ghouls to do so.

If you want to continue the idea of a "normal" situation, think of it
as the ghouls now know the enitre group of runners is there and will
no longer be happy taking just the lagging one for a snack and
greedily want to dine one all of the runners. :o)

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
Web Page: Poisoned Elves at www.primenet.com/~gamemstr

"You're calling me Bitch like it's a bad thing."
--> CrapGame during the Drive in the Country tournament
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [SR] Have questions Need "Loki"!
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:55:08 -0700

Message no. 5 >> This makes sense to me and avoids the "game-wrecking" combo of
>gut-check
>> et. al. and motion detector

>This doesn't make sense to me. By that logic, you've completely
>nullified the usefullness of cards like Motion Detectors, Flock of
>Geese and so forth.

I disagree with that statement. When I read "cannot sleaze cards on
this objective" (a la Motion Detectors), I take "sleaze" to mean
"sleaze via having the proper skills listed on the challenge". I do
/not/ take it to mean "cannot sleaze ANY way at all - either by skills
or by card text".

Otherwise, Motion Detectors can almost completely lock out an objective and
I would vehemently disagree that this is either the proper or logical
ruling. Does the phrase "degenerate deck" mean anything? :-)

>Motion Detecors states "If alarm is triggered, the shadowrun is over
>and this card is permanently attached to the Objective it is currently
>defending. No Runners can sleaze Challenges on runs against this
>Objective."
>
>If you then say subsequent cards take precedence over this, then any
>challenge card that is revealed with a sleaze requirement may be
>sleazed as if the Motion Detectors was never even in play. The same
>would apply to Flock of Geese, Red Alert, and others making these
>cards for the msot part uselss.

Flock of Geese always sets off the alarm. And, yet, if Motion Detectors
has already been set off on that objective, Flock of Geese is utterly
useless. I don't see any problem with that. The game has ample precedent
where certain objectives are useless such as "no outdoor challenges
allowed", for example.

Flock of Geese's advantage is that there are NO SLEAZE SKILLS available
to beat it. It is guaranteed to set off the alarm. Motion Detectors goes
a bit further. And yet, Motion Detectors can be defeated with merely
1 Stealth and 1 Technical. Motion Detectors makes any challenge with
Sleaze Skills on it tougher because that challenge can no longer be
sleazed that way. On the other hand, activated Motion Detectors makes
certain challenges (like Flock of Geese, as we've seen), totally useless
and redundant.

What's the moral of the story? Choose you cards (challenges) so that they
"play well" together. Not an entirely unheard of concept for CCGs. :-)

The bottom line is that your interpretation (absolute) leads to a
degenerate outcome. (Unreachable objectives barring an ultra-specific
card like Rampaging Mutant.) I can't believe that's the way it's
supposed to work.

>> By my "logic" above the ghouls could still be sleazed by sacing a
>runner.
>> This makes "real-world sense" too because even though the alarm was
>ringing
>> the ghouls would stop to eat (as if in the "normal" situation they
>would
>> eat
>> somebody and not think they had broken in).

>Going to the rulebook things (pg 59): " Once a Runner triggers the
>alarm, all Challenges are alerted to the Runners' presence. The
>Runners cannot sleaze Challenges for the remainder of the shadowrun..."
>
>Simply put, now that the alarm is triggered, sleazing is no longer an
>option. Thus you cannot sacrifice a runner to the ghouls to do so.
>
>If you want to continue the idea of a "normal" situation, think of it
>as the ghouls now know the enitre group of runners is there and will
>no longer be happy taking just the lagging one for a snack and
>greedily want to dine one all of the runners. :o)

Well, I'll be the first to admit that "real-world sense" shouldn't
necessarily be invoked to decide how a card works. Game balance and
playability should be the overriding concerns. That said...

In the case of the ghouls, it is my believe that you should still be
able to "sleaze" past the ghouls by sacrificing a runner. (It's even
in "theme" with the quote on the card :-) However, unlike the Motion
Detectors/Maglocks or Motion Detectors/Gutcheck etc., it wouldn't
be a degenerate outcome to rule that you /couldn't/ sac a runner to
get by the ghouls. (After all, you can just fight them, a 5/10 monster.)
It is for consistency sake with Maglocks and Gutcheck etc. that makes
me believe that you should still be able to sac a runner vs. ghouls
even with Motion Detectors active on the objective because it is a
"card text sleaze" as opposed to a "skill sleaze".

FASA should've made the term "sleaze" uniquely related to using skills
to get past an objective. Card text (maglocks, ghouls, gut check, and
dozens of others) that allows another method past should've used different
language than "sleaze" to avoid confusion.

- Brett

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR] Have questions Need "Loki"!
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:14:02 -0700

Message no. 6 ---Brett Barksdale wrote:
>
> FASA should've made the term "sleaze" uniquely related to using
skills
> to get past an objective. Card text (maglocks, ghouls, gut check, and
> dozens of others) that allows another method past should've used
different
> language than "sleaze" to avoid confusion.

A well made agrument, and I'm now inclined to believe as you do on
this.

My previous opinions have been based on specific card wording and
written rules. Which anyone with prior CCG experience will admit it
sometimes comes down to.

As I said though, the way you put it makes alot of sense, and if FASA
used different terms for skill sleazing and card text sleazing it
would clear up alot.

I've already put in a request for an official ruling on this BTW.

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
Web Page: Poisoned Elves at www.primenet.com/~gamemstr

"You're calling me Bitch like it's a bad thing."
--> CrapGame during the Drive in the Country tournament
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer