Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Hello...and a few questions
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 06:31:01 -0800
> Let me go on...ad-nauseam to ask one more quetion....

> Does it make sense/is it legal that you can visit it with more than 1
> group of deckers?

Sorry if I seemed kind of futzy last night: bad week, and it's only
Monday.

If Fuchi were a normal Location, then yes, you could visit it more than
once. Replacing a shadowrun with a visit to Fuchi also limits the
player to just one visit. Allowing Deckers to visit Fuchi while others
go shadowrunning would seem to allow multiple groups to visit Fuchi
(they're not limited to six, since they're not part of the shadowrun
"team"; and under normal circumstances, any number of Runners can visit
a Location in any given turn.)

So as to the first -- does it make sense -- well, not to me, it
doesn't. Fuchi's a powerful card already; in fact, if you could use it
multiple times in the same round, you really don't need to go
shadowrunning at all: say four Kraker Jacks, even, with -- and a few
Excaliburs between them -- and you should be able to pop off ten Rep a
turn with a little hassle, maybe bleeding a Deja Vu or Loaded Dice now
and then. (Once you're in the ballpark, Deja is probably the better
choice). Toss in some Rockers, toss out a Block Party, and suddenly -
with the exception of Wanted - you're the only one who can get Rep.

Is it legal? Well, I really don't think the "can visit Fuchi and still
shadowrun" idea is legal, and that seems the only possible loophole in
toward allowing multiple groups visit. (After all, if you give up a
shadowrun to visit, you can't give up two shadowruns in the same turn to
visit twice, since you don't get two. Speaking of which: from a
mechanics viewpoint, Bulldog Van doesn't work with either Fuchi or the
Z-zone, either.)


-Mb

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.