Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Andrew Payne III <smiling_bandit@**********.COM>
Subject: Geese and Invis
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:40:44 -0700
Could you use Invisibility(INV) to sleaze Flock of Geese(FOG)? I
thought of this before when thinking of ways to sleaze by FOG. Now
since the new FAQ came out and new descriptions on timing have been
laid out, I think that you could sleaze FOG with INV. My thought that
is
based on the below RB exerpt, and the newly defined steps for facing
challenges. I think that INV would satisfy the requirement in step 3,
and therefor FOG would be sleazed and the alarm would not be triggered.
Of course I maybe biased because I want this to work. Maybe we could
send this to FASA for a offical answer.

Spolier stuff for this post.

Bottom of p.57 Top of p.58
"If any Runner or combination of Runners on the Runner team meets the
sleaze requirement, the Challenge is sleazed - the Runners sneak past
the Challenge without triggering the alarm."

From Offical SRTCG FAQ v2.0

Step 1.) the shadowrun is declared.
Step 2.) the Challenge is revealed.
Step 3.) the Runner attempts to sleaze the Challenge (he fails).
Step 4.) the alarm is triggered.
Step 5.) combat ensues and is resolved. All damage is inflicted
instantly and simultaneously.

Flock of Geese
Card Type: Challenge
Text: Awakened, Outdoors
Once revealed, trash Flock of Geese. Flock of Geese automatically
triggers the alarm.

Invisibility
Card Type: Gear/Magic/Spell
Text:
Play on Runner with Sorcery. User sleazes a just revealed Awakened
Challenge. The rest of the team is sent back to the Safehouse.

===
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

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.