From:	"J.P Haworth" <jhaworth@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: stop the insanity
Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:19:59 -0800

Matb wrote:

> > I SAY WE SHOULD TAKE A VOTE OVER THIS TOPIC!!!!
>
> Well, how is this for a proposed amendment (not that, I should say,
> any
> of us here have a measure of officialty; just maybe if the players
> organize a set of good convention rules, FASA will adapt them).
>
> "Present" is modified to include four definitions:
>
> 1) On a shadowrun. All Runners and revealed Challenges are considered
>
> present to each other.
>
> 2) In combat. All Runners on both sides are present with each other.
>
> 3) At a Location. Multiple Runners who visit the same Location are
> present with each other. Runners "return" from the Location during
> their owner's next Refresh phase (ie, when the Runners unturn).
>
> 4) In the safehouse. This includes all turned and unturned Runners.
>
> ----
> 1) should be self-explanatory, and follows the description in the RBT.
>
> I modified this to include plural Challenges due to some net.cards.
>
> 2) also follows the RBT.
>
> 3) is new; currently there aren't any ways for Runners at a Location
> to
> be affected as a group. Allowing them to be present to each other
> opens
> up some options for future cards (mini-Riots or the like).
>
> 4) is of course, the bone of contention in our most recent debate. I
> believe I've spoked out enough on it.
>
> Of course, there's a danger in deciding things by consensus; even FASA
>
> is in the air over whether Runners should be considered present under
> whatever circumstances. I would rather resolve the mechanic, the
> underlying feature, that just come to a conclusion that, because
> eighteen of the two-dozen (or however many) people active on the list
> feel a certain way, that's how the game will be played. Democracies
> can
> be, and often are, wrong.
>
> -Mb

I think the above rules are a good idea, what does everyone else
think.
Redman