Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: ">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rulings From Fasa....
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 01:48:10 -0400
At 10:19 PM 9/28/97 -0700, you wrote:

<snip the reply that started the following...>

>Question, especially with the opposite ruling from what Jim N. gave us
>before and the little blurb at the end about "having to check."

>Was there any signature on whom you got the repsonse from? Was it Jim
>Nelson or Skuzzy (who answer about 80% of the SRTCG mail) or was it
>one of the assitants?

Not to sound harsh, but if an assistant answers the replies, does that mean
he/she will have to be double checked each and every time? Or is this more
for clarification of two differing points of view?


>Just curious as I work to real hammer down when we get two different
>rulings from FASA. I'll write to the guys and try and get a definitive
>"2-out-of-3" on the street scum. I personally like them taking
>cyberware, 'cause if you say no the 'ware then you also get questions
>like "how do they steal spells/spirits and so forth.

> -== Loki ==-

Well, if going along with the Shadowrun universe via the role-playing
books, there are new strains of bacteria that seem to have a mana leeching
ability. Maybe Street Scum have Fab-Guns (I think that is what they're
called) that can drain off the spells and spirits. Maybe some renegade
riggers that can override a player's drone. With numbers, can steal gear.
But cyberwear becomes a part of the person, thus the essence loss. If the
Street Scum can steal that off a person, does the person then regain the
lost essence? If not, why not?

Answering a question with a question -
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<

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.