Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: "Abadia, Teos" <Teos.Abadia@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Decker combat and Fuchi Industries
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:49:51 -0500
> ----------
> From: Loki[SMTP:daddyjim@**********.COM]
>
> ---"Abadia, Teos" <Teos.Abadia@****.COM> wrote:
> > 1. Fuchi Industries: It says "One or more Deckers (including
> Hermit
> > Deckers) may visit Fuchi Industries instead of going on a Shadowrun.
> > Turn Visiting Deckers and roll D6 (+1 for each point of Decking)".
> Does
> > this mean I turn to Fuchi instead of having a Shadowrun during that
> > turn? Or does it mean turn to Fuchi instead of the Deckers going on
> a
> > Shadowrun that turn. (i.e. if I have Static, and four other runners
> go
> > on a Shadowrun, can Static go to Fuchi instead?). The wording
> doesn't
> > make it clear.
>
> This if an iffy one. I could go both ways on it. However, in the
> spirit of the game I'd say using Fuchi forgoes you having a Shadowrun
> phase that turn.
>
I think most people on the list (while disagreeing on what the card
says) agree that the best (balanced) way to play the card is that you
forgo sending other runners on a Shadowrun.

> > 2. Decker combat: Can deckers use programs (such as Black Hammer)
> to
> > attack a decker that is turned?
>
> I believe attack programs like Black Hammer are to be only used during
> your own Legwork phase. (Kinda like playing a Wanted or Bar Fight.)
>
Actually, Matb picked up that this is in the FAQ. You can use all
programs except Sticky Fingers at any point, so I think the consensus on
the list is that a decker can use an attack program during another
player's turn, and a decker can attack a decker that is turned.


Thanks for responding about the flames, Loki. I agree with your
comments. Constructive criticism is always better than destructive, and
it is best to keep any questionable e-mails to personal mail.

Teos.

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.