| From: | Ray Ciscon <RayCiscon@***.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: SR:TCG Rules Variant - Fast & Fun |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:57:34 EST |
te: >> Problem: SR:TCG is a great game, but has a few flaws that can=
make for severe >> problems that can take a lot of fun away from the=
game. Certain players like >> <snip> >> the
products of the=
converted Challenges for breakfast, and win the game. >The easiest =
solution to this, honestly, is simply not to play those >types of deck=
s. And when you realize a player *only* plays a degenerate >deck, sit =
down, shuffle your cards, and let him go first. Before he >even finish=
es drawing his first card, fold your hand and say "You win." >This
u=
sually doesn't take more than once to make the point. This works, bu=
t what if you are playing with people who can’t take the hint? =
That being said, all the Brutes are very well-balanced, Skwrk and Torgo=
included. I agree, with the exception of Lord Torgo, that the Bru=
tes are well balanced. But in conjunction with these tactics make the g=
ame unbalanced and no fun. >> 1) The following cards are prohibited:=
Lord Torgo. >> Lord Torgo, while being cool, is incredibly unbalanc=
ing. The best way to >> counteract Lord Torgo is to get him out first. =
I know people who stack their >> deck with 4 Lord Torgo's just to try=
and get him out sooner. Or you can modify >> your deck to 'liquidate=
' Lord Torgo. This can work, but it's not much fun. >The following c=
ard is modified as follows: >Lord Torgo / Prime Runner : Ganger Lead=
er / 9/2Y >9/9 A2. Troll, Stamina. Gunnery-1, Leadership-1, Melee-3, S=
treet-2. >Turn and pay XY to trash target Ganger in play, where X equal=
s that >card's deployment cost. >Well, that seems to be the most c=
ommon erratta (or substitute Elf for >Ganger). I was not aware of =
this ‘errata’. Is this official FASA errata, or a variant you play?=
>That being said, I don't find Torgo *that* over-powerful. I think=
the >skills should've been cut back a little; Melee-2 and Street-1 suf=
fice. >The ability is nasty, but you're limited in the number of target=
s (given >that you're spending 2Y a turn just to be able to use it) and=
doing so >prevents you from actually using Torgo. Torgo's huge, a sha=
dowrunning >team unto himself. Heck of a waste, using him as an elf-za=
pper. Oh, but that’s what he’s used for the vast majority of the=
time. I’ve seen players just about swallow their tongues when their =
opponent deploys Lord Torgo, and they’re running an elf deck..... =
>I used to play an all-Elf deck (the Ruin-the-Nuyen deck.) When you'v=
e >got three Ice Queens, a Sticky Fingers, and several Hollywoods in pl=
ay, >your opponent will simply never save up enough money (Moonlighting=
, >perhaps, being the exception) to get either Skwrk or Torgo into play=
. That depends upon whether or not he can get Lord Torgo out before =
you get all of your NuYen eaters out. >But then, the Ruin deck is =
kinda degenerate itself. >> 2) Turn the Special card, 'Moonlighting'=
, into a Location card. >> This lets you make money quicker, which m=
akes the game go faster. We allow up >> to 4 'Moonlighting' cards in =
play on each side at a time. All other rules >> pertaining to Locations=
apply. NuYen is the lifeblood of the game, and this >> lets you get yo=
ur runners and stuff out quicker. >Try Iron Lungs, which essentially=
give the same effect. Any good option >is simply to increase the star=
ting nuyen, or the base amount you take in >each turn. > (Note: Gi=
ven that any number of Runners can visit the same Location in >one turn=
, why would you have more than one in play at a given moment?) This =
is a mistake in my original posting, I’ll be posting errata to my own=
variant! ;-) >> 3) Remove the ability to 'Stack the Objective Dec=
k'. >> What we have done is take a single copy of all the objectives=
the player owns, >> shuffle them, and then draw randomly from that d=
eck for Objectives. This stops >> the annoying habit of stacking the =
Objective deck in your own favor, and adds >> the element of 'randomn=
ess' back into the mix. >..Until you come to a guy like me, with, um=
, somewhere along the lines >of a hundred and twenty Objective cards. =
If you shuffle, I'll cut :) You have mis-read my original post. I sa=
id to take 1 copy of each Objective the player owns. Are there 120 diff=
erent Objectives? >Don't see much wrong with the Objective situation=
. Can you explain a >bit more? The Objective stacking issue is ea=
sy to explain. The rules state that you need to have 6 or more Objectiv=
es. If you are running a no-fun Brute deck, your objectives would consi=
st of the following 6 Objectives: 2 - Sucker Run, 2 - Cleanse the Hive,=
and 2 - Amazonion Hunt (not sure about this last one, but it’s the O=
bjective that ignores the Challenges). All of these Objectives ignor=
e the challenges, therefore removing the need or thought of ‘Sleazing=
’ the challenges. It quickly becomes a race to see who can armor up t=
heir runners quicker at attack the Objective. No Fun. >-Matt =
