| From: | Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Fuchi |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Dec 1997 16:57:42 -0800 |
>
> > ----------
> > From: Matb[SMTP:mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM]
> >
> > > > 1.2.1)Is it possible to be turned AND in the Safehouse?
> >
> > Ref. Green Apple Quicksteps: "Target Runner must immediately return
> > to the safehouse." Given that the Runner must have turned to leave, the
usage of the card
> > will result in the Runner being a) turned and b) in the safehouse.
> > The definition in the RBT (p. 14, iirc) specifically includes unturned
> > Runners, but does not exclude turned Runners.
> I don't know that I buy the connection. If turned runners are in the
> safehouse... okay, here is a related hypothetical. If I send a runner
> with Cortex Bomb on a Wanted, would the runner (if killed) inflict 5
Send him on a Wanted? You mean, with a Wanted played on him, I
suppose..
> damage (from the bomb) on everyone in the Safehouse? My current
> rationale is "no, because the turned runner is not in the safehouse".
Game-balance-wise: Does it upset the game to have the Bomb deal damage
to *all* Runners on that side, or just all unturned Runners?
Related Q: Does it upset the game to prevent Mages and Deckers from
being Guarded? This, really, is the net effect of the house rule that
turned Runners are not in the safehouse, and seriously, seriously
undermines the effectiveness of a decker- or mage-based deck.
> I guess you might argue that there is both a "turned in the safehouse" and
> a "turned outside the safehouse".
No, I wouldn't. I would argue, however, that there is both a "turned in
the safehouse" and "unturned in the safehouse", with no difference
between the two as far as being present is concerned.
> My feeling is that turned means
> outside the safehouse until the refresh stage, when the runner returns.
I can buy this happening for Locations (which, incidentally, generate an
even weaker effect than most abilities, in most cases). And that is,
loosely, canon, as Mike Nielsen gave forth the idea that you can GAQ
someone to prevent them from visiting a Location.
However, I cannot see this applying - by game balance or by game
mechanics - to Runners who turn for other reasons.
> Wish FASA wasn't so busy so they could answer all our questions about
> being "present".
Seconded!
> > > > 2)Let me make sure I heard this right...Can you have all/some of
> > your deckers visit Fuchi and still have your Street Samaurai's go on a
> > shadowrun?
> > Given the precedent set by the Z-zone, not to mention the difference
> > in timing (viz, you visit Locations in your Legwork and go on a shadowrun on the
> > Shadowrun phase), as well as game-balance issues, it is my lasting opinion that
you
> > cannot both visit the Location and go on a shadowrun.
> > At the very least, the wording would be redundant: Any turned Runner
> > (who has visited a Location, turned to Recon, turned by McDeven, or
what-have-you)
> > cannot participate in a shadowrun.
> (answering both this and your next post)
> I don't believe that Z-Zone sets a precedent. Z-Zone is a pretty
> unusual card, and it is very specific.
Actually, the wording is very similar to Fuchi: Instead of (or, in place
of) a shadowrun, visit Foo Location.
And it's not like game mechanics can't be repeated between cards: look
at Ravage and Wired Reflexes, for instance.
There is, after all, only so many lines of text you can fit on a card.
By saying, "One or more Deckers.. may visit Fuchi instead of going on a
shadowrun", two effects are generated: You visit Fuchi instead of going
on a shadowrun, and you can only send Deckers to Fuchi. It's hard to
balance consistency and tersity, game intent and game effect.
> I still argue that Fuchi can be interpreted either way.
Similarly, so can the rules for "present". So can a lot of rules.
> One other question: Who can visit Shadowland? Is it just hermetic deckers? Or
everyone and
> hermetic deckers? I think it is the second, but wording is again such
> that either case could be interpreted.
This was, I believe, made clear in the FAQ: All Runners may visit
Shadowland, including Hermit Deckers (which may not normally visit
Locations). Why hermit Deckers can, and hermit Samurai can't (as an
example; there aren't any other hermit classes in the game) is beyond
me.
> Along the same lines, I imagine that the wording on Yellowjacket should
> mean that a rigger can use Yellowjacket, or a runner with piloting 2 can
> use Yellowjacket. Otherwise, the card could just say "play on runner
> with piloting 2". Is this right?
A Rigger with Piloting-anything (and even one who's been Whoopsed) may
have a Yellowjacket deployed on him or her. A non-Rigger Runner with
Piloting-2 (ie, using a Skillsoft) may also have the Yellowjacket
deployed.
-Mb
