Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: JD <germany@*****************.COM>
Subject: Re: SoC
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:50:31 -0600
>In a message dated 98-04-10 16:12:20 EDT, you write:
><< First the card text:
> State of Confusion / Stinger
> Cost: 2¥
> You may choose a new, legal target for a Special card just played.
> I got to thinking of the fun ways this could affect Nerps!
> Nerps!
> Cost: 3¥
> Unique. Choose a target Gear card (except Spirits and Drones) and
> treat Nerps! as an exact duplicate of that card.
> Tony goes to Nerps! a copy of Muscle Replacement for Skwaaaaaark only
> to find Nerps! is a copy of his Glitz's Walther Palm Pistol instead. :o)
> Now here's the twist. Let's say Tony is again Nerpsing the H-man's
> Muscle Rep for his Skwaaaaaark. I toss out SoC and instead target it
> to duplicate my Ice Queen's Redirect Datatrail. Tony doesn't have any
> Deckers out. Can he tuck the Nerps'd RD back in his hand for when he
> can get Caeser out? Does it stay a copy of RD in that case?
> Same type of scenerio except I know Tony doesn't have any Mages in the
> deck so I target Nerps on my Tempest's Combat Fetishes. Does Tony just
> discard the Nerps in this case, as he has no practical way to use the
> CF copy?
>i wouuld say that your target on the nerps actually is who the nerps goes
>so instead of giving him tempest's combat fettishes, you would have to give
>runner a muscle replacement, as long as you have a non magical runner out
>your side, your opponent doesnt end up with the muscle rep at all.

It would depend. You have two targets in a Nerps! card. One: the runner it
is played on, as you suggest. Two: the targeted Gear card, as was
previously suggested.

Being confused can cause many problems. Just look at the confusion the card
has brought to the rules of the game alone. I think the overall answer is
that when someone is confused -- anything can happen.

Jon Doud


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.