| From: | Forrest <eness@**********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: My GAQ Solution (LONG) |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:22:27 -0700 |
> >
> > The problem with this, as I see it, is what I tried to outline with
> my
> > previous (long) post. You have rulings like this on some of the
> > cards, but yet for Archie McDeven it was stated that that he can't
> > turn to prevent another runner from turning to go on a run. Nor
can
> > Sticky Fingers be used to take money "before" it is spent. So what
> we
> > are developing are multiple timing rules based on what phase of the
> > game you are in...
>
> But you can use Archie to keep a player's from going on a Shadowrun.
> This comes from the Game Q&A:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> Q.Can a runner with a special ability be turned to use their ability
> as a Stinger, in other words at any time? For example Archie
McDeven's
> 3 nu yen to turn an unturned player, or Tempest's ability to damage
> all runners.
>
> A.Yes, Yes. =)
>
> Q.One question arose whether you could use Archie to turn an
oponent's
> runner during their legwork phase to keep said runner from going on a
> Shadowrun that turn? Obviously you can use Archie on your turn,
> turning that remaining runner your opponent left to intercept your
> Shadowrun, but can you use such abilities outside of your turn?
>
> A.You sure can use them during an opponents turn. I would advise
doing
> it during one of their 'pre-Legwork' phases so that it can't be
> contested (ie; He wants to use Moonlighting and you want to turn him
> with Archie).
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I don't see this makes any more a specialized ruling for Archie than
> any other like cards.
>
Also taken from the Q&A list though (I'm not reprinting the entire
quote again as only this 3rd part is relevent. If anyone thinks this
partial reprint misrepresents something please feel free to correct
me):
Third Message: I don't think that SRTCG supports as complicated a
timing system as, say, Magic does. Once a player declares that he's
going on a shadowrun and turns his runners to do so, that's it. It's
too late to use Archie McDeven to prevent anyone from going. If you
want to keep (from your previous example) the person with technical
from /not/ going, you need to pay 3 nuyen and turn Archie during your
opponents nuyen/card draw phase or some such. Therefore, you couldn't
use ARchie as a bluff like you described.
Could the game flow like it message two or in message three.
A. You've figured out how to use Archie MecDeven on your own. Both
message two and message three are correct. However, I'm not sure what
you mean when you say that Archie can't be used as a bluff--I'm afraid
that if you want an answer to taht one you'll have to re-phrase it.
Now maybe I'm misreading the sweaping #2 are correct, but I think
this is stating that Archie can't be used to keep a runner from a run
once the owner has decided he is going on a run. So I guess I didn't
fully explain myself before when trying to state Archie's ability.
According to the rule stated above (which for the most part doesn't
conflict with the rules quoted by you above) cards/abilities/actions,
once played can't be "countered". The only obvious exception I see to
this so far is Luck of the Irish. Now though it is being stated that
cards such as QAGS can be used to counter actions.
So let me ask this, why do these 2 situations differ:
Situation 1
Player 1: I'm running with Hawkwind and Stomper (turning to indicate
this)
Player 2: No you're not, I'm using Archie to prevent Hawkwind from
going.
According to the answer above, player 2 is not allowed to do this. As
stated previously, I can't find the reference though so maybe I made
it up ;-) whose ever turn it is gets preferential treatment.
Situation 2
Player 1 (reveals Booby Trap): I sleaze with Ajax and go on
Player 2 (plays QAGS): No you don't Ajax is sent back to the
safehouse, trash another runner... (insert evil laugh :-) )
IMHO this is a similar situation in which a player has stated what
he/she wants to do (sleaze the run). In the first situation the
action by the other player that would prevent this is NOT allowed
because the player whose turn it is has already stated it, and it
can't be undone. In the 2nd situation though, even though Player 1
has stated that they sleaze the challenge, player 2 is allowed to play
an "interupt".
So that's what I mean when saying things are a bit inconsistent.
Either you have interupts or you don't, or some cards can and some
cards can't. According to the rules (p16) "If 2 people want to play a
card simultaneously, the person who is currently taking his turn gets
to play his card first." Now maybe it is a leap of faith to
extrapolate this to "use an ability/take an action (aka sleaze)"
instead of "play a card", but based on the quoted sections of the Q&A
above (both yours and mine) I don't think it is too far of a stretch.
Personally, I would prefer to keep things simple, which would limit
what you could do with GAQS (and similar cards). I can understand
where other people would want something different.
It's late, I'm tired, tomorrow's another day...
Forrest
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
