Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Tony Glinka <porthos@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Unique Cards (Was Re: Card/Deck of the Week: Dirk Montgomery)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 00:03:31 -0700
Jon Palmer wrote:
>
> >
> > Only one of each Prime Runner can be in play at the same time. (pg. 30
of
> > the rulebook)
> > If a card is designated as Unique, you may only put one of that card in
> > your deck. (pg. 11 of the rulebook)
>
> Okay, you can only have one Unique card in your deck, but can more than
> one be in play at a time (from different players' decks)? The only
> specific cases I can think of offhand are NERPS and Red Alert (the
> Guardian Elementals and Dracoform wouldn't count because they're
> facedown) but there might be more.

I don't think there is a limit on the number of a specific unique card
that can be in play at a given time. There is no rule (that I can find
anyway) that states that only one given unique card can be in play at a
given time. (As was mentioned in an early post, Hatchetman 2057 is an
odd one since he is both unique and a prime runner so you can only have
one in play and only one in your deck.)

Here are the unique cards that I came up with:
Hatchetman 2057
Custom System
Guardian Dracoform
Guardian Earth Elemental
Guardian Fire Elemental
False Mentor
Red Alert
Nerps!

Of these, I think that Hatchetman 2057, Red Alert, Nerps! (as suggested
above), and False Mentor would be the only ones that might be able to
come into play with more than one at a time. The others are challenges
and that gets a bit strange. I know it has been mentioned that you can
play False Mentor right after someone else used False Mentor (to steal
your rep back).

I hope this helps.

[And by the way, you seem to be overriding the Reply To field.]

Tony
--
Porthos@**.netcom.com
Porthos' World of Shadowrun: http://pw1.netcom.com/~glinka/sr.html
Tony's SRTCG Page: http://pw1.netcom.com/~glinka/srtcg.html

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.