Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Tony Glinka <porthos@****.COM>
Subject: Re: question...
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:49:39 -0700
Loki wrote:

> ---""Jens_P._Dräger""
> <a1616@****.UNI-BAYREUTH.DE> wrote:
> >
> > Well, but don't forget that there is some nice card called Poor
> > Craftsmanship out there - and without there bikes your elfen gangers
> are
> > just 4/3...
> > Hey Tony, I hope you read that ;-))
>
> Also, don't forget that Poor Craftsmanship is only a special and LotI
> works as well on it as any others. Tony will let you know that I often
> have a LotI tucked away in my hand for such tactics. ;o)
>
> Many a time there has been a LotI fest in our games as he tries to go
> after my Ancients HQ. :o) Last Saturday, Tony's LotI rolls were kinda
> suckin' wind though. (He still won that game, but it wasn't pretty.)

Suckin' wind? They weren't even that good. I had a Lucky Wabbit's Foot, a
Nerps! turned into a Lucky Wabbit's Foot and 4 LotI's and the only one that
did any good was the original Lucky Wabbit's Foot, since it's automatic. Of
course, Loki's LotI worked fine trashing my Nerps! It was comical. Not to
mention all of the LotI wars that seem to pop up. "You're gonna LotI me,
well, I'll LotI your LotI. Oh Yeah, well, I'll LotI you again, since you
LotI'd my LotI........"

To make this sort of relevant, is it me or did others have to add more
LotI's to their deck since Underworld came out? I usually only had one or
two, now I have to have 4, plus a Lucky Wabbit's Foot.

Tony
--
Porthos@****.com -- GridSec: SRCard
Porthos' World of Shadowrun: http://members.home.net/porthos/sr/sr.html
Tony's SRTCG Site: http://members.home.net/porthos/srtcg/srtcg.html
Home of the SRTCG Q&A: SRCard's Official Unofficial SRTCG FAQ

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.