Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Phil Jaros <chakan@****.PYROTECHNICS.COM>
Subject: Re: RR and LSU ?'s
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 16:48:39 -0500
>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.

We have always played that the Runners on Retainer Runners select the
pairings, ao I guess they are the attackers. Hmmm... but looking at my
handy dandy spoiler list I see that it says:

"The player who owns this Challenge may choose to defend the Objective
with his Runners instead of the Threat Rating on this card."

Sounds like they are the defenders.

>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?

We've been playing that it is the current Threat Rating. It really was
annoying when it took my 18/6/A6 Louie 'Da Bruiser. ;(

>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.)

Nope. It says that you add it to it's threat rating, so a Challenge
without a Threat Rating doesn't have one to add to. I guess the
Runner could still be discarded, but that it wouldn't make the
challenge have a threat Rating.

Phil Jaros 888888888
chakan@************.com O=O=O=O=O
``"""""< `=-~-='
Chakan `| ^ |'
The Forever Man / | =-= | \
/ `__.__' \


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.