Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Keldon Mor <Keldon@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:26:40 -0500
> About national tournaments and all - will each and every player get a copy
> of the official, unofficial, possible answers, temporary thoughts of the
> moment, etc., etc. e-mails from DLOHs, FAQ, question and answer sessions,
> and anything else to play the game? I highly doubt 'every' player of the
> game during tournament time is a member of this list server, so do we have
> an advantage? What would be the ruling on a case like this - if someone
> from this list did a card combination that is legal because it was passed
> by this list, but was not in the official FAQ and that player affected had
> a legitimate complaint...?

My thoughts exactly. So far, I've only seen theories on why the combo
is/is not legal. I haven't seen anything based on SRTCG Rules why this combo
isn't possible. At first, people said it wasn't possible because the card
text says to play on a Ganger, and Torgo is a Ganger Leader, fine. So, I
said, make Torgo a Ganger, it should be legal then. If people believe this
is to much of a powerful combo, then I guess we're going to see Lord Torgo
on the BANNED list of cards unplayable at tournys. Personally, I haven't
seen any Combo that can't be defeated. If everyone plays Torgo, I put 4
Metahuman Prej. in my deck. "I dont think so Buddy, trash him and eat that 9
nuyen" 9 nuyen isn't anything to sneeze out.
So, unless FASA wants to change their SRTCG Rules to handle these
conflicts, make my Torgo a Ganger :) Ganger Mage = Ganger & Mage but Ganger
Leader not = to Ganger & Leader.

Why hasn't anyone stated that Combat Fetish can not be played on
Lurker??? It clearly states to play Combat Fetish on Mage, wait, he's a
Ganger Mage, can't do it......

Keldon Mor


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.