From:	Neil Fathulla <fathullan@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Card Ideas
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:25:03 +1000

Hey, you only learn from accepting constructive criticism. Your points a=
re
valid and yes the wording is intentionally general. Timing Issues? I
subscribe to the "What is so difficult about using GAQS?" school. So may=
be
that is why the wording is general. But to answer your queries. The i=
dea is
that if an opponent meets the requirements and takes the objective on their=

turn and another player plays Karma Gain than that objective and the rep po=
ints
are returned. So it affetcs the last action. Now there are two ways t=
o handle
this.

1. Shadowrun ends. Next turn please.

OR

2. Shadowrun can continue. This means that the requirements have to be=
met
again. With most objectives it would be useless playing Karma Gain but w=
ith
others watch out.

I feel that this card or something similar would be fun but I believe it sh=
ould
be limited. That's why I am leaning to making it a unique. A one off =
stinger
that MAY or MAY NOT change the game situation.


REgards
Neil



MIME:eness @ ROCKETMAIL.COM
22/09/97 12:43
To: -:SRCARD @ LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET@********
cc: (bcc: Neil Fathulla/CEGELEC)
Subject: Re: Card Ideas


<<snip>>

With that aside I think the wording "action" is too general for
playability. For instance in the example given above, taking the
objective, is that the action itself. Does this negate the entire
run? Should all the challenges be returned? In which case should all
the runners who died on the run be returned to play? If it is just
the final action of taking the objective itself, what about runners
that die while facing the final requirement? Are they still in the
trash or are they returned to play?

Sorry for being so critical I think a card like this will cause more
problems that it solves though.
Just my $0.02,
Forrest
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com