Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Dynamite <sl1yv@**.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: RR and LSU ?'s
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:44:56 -0600
Loki wrote:

> Heya!
> A couple of questions came up in the games I played with Caric
> yesterday, so I thought I'd toss them out. I'm CC:ing this to SRCard
> for possible discussion and comment as well.
> Q. When it comes to Runners on Retainer, who is the attacker and
> defender (shadowrunning player and challenge owner)? It makes a
> difference as the attacker gets to select pairing up of Runners.

The way I've always played is because this is an ability of the card, the
owner of the challenge matches up his runners to the shadowrunning players
runners, just as if you were intercepting an undefeded objective. Why would
you want to substitute your runners for the threat rating if the
shadowrunning player had the choice? If this was the case then it would be
as if the shadowrunner intercepted you instead of you intercepting him.

> Q. When Lone Star Undercover is played, is chosen Runner's threat
> rating that is added to the Challenge the printed threat rating on the
> card or his current threat rating adjust by gear and wounds?

I love this card. If you want to knock someone out of the game, this
card can do it if you play it at the right time. Anyway we've played that
it is the current threat rating of the runner, adjusted for wounds and
cyberware. As for optional threat boosters such as spells, guns, and melee
weapons that's a good question. I would say that these would count because
the runner would want to use his/her strongest threat rating in order to
survive, if you think about it in a real life setting and not the fact that
the runner is trashed after the stinger.

> Q. If an opponent fails to sleaze a personnel or Lone Star challenge
> that doesn't have a threat rating to add to (LS Beat Cops, Scatter
> Brain Raid, ...) is it still legal to play LS Undercover to at least
> trash a Runner? (I figure yes, but figured it best to confirm.)

Yeah I would think say so.

I hope this helps.



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.