|Subject:||Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)|
|Date:||Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:33:04 +0800|
<snip old Torgo/LotP debate>
>> Again, I ask for some reasoning based on SRTCG rules why this
>> The reason you can't do it lies in the word "becomes". LotP says that
>> target Ganger runner becomes a Ganger laeder". I ahte to resort to this,
>> but here goes…
> Then what about The Objective, initiation? If a Ganger Leader can't
> become a Ganger Leader, then a Ganger can't become a Ganger and a ganger
> shouldn't be eligible to partake in the Initiation objective. It's
> already been stated that if a Ganger goes on the Initiation Objective, he
> becomes a Ganger, since he's already one, you simply ignore the change (or
> addition) of profession. <snip>
IMHO the runner is now a Ganger and a Ganger. The addition is not ignored;
it is redundant....
> Why wouldn't this apply to Torgo as well?
> Simply, ignore the profession change and place an experience token on him.
> Maybe, by way of LotP he gains a better understanding of what it means to
> lead and thus gains the experience token (it is an experience token,
> right?). :)
Again in my opinon...
When you play this on Torgo (Ganger and Ganger Leader) it is possible... to
a point... Follow instruction by instuction on the card...
1) Play on target Ganger runner... (No Problem. Torgo's now a ganger.)
2) Target runner is now a ganger leader.... (Ok Torgo's now a Ganger Leader
Ganger Leader. )
3) A player may not have more than 1 Ganger Leader in play....
(Note although the 1st Ganger Leader keyword and the 2nd Ganger Leader
Keyword are redundant, they are still two seperate entities. Therefore
have 2 Ganger Leader Keywords. The text searches for "Ganger Leader"
keyword. Something to borrow the M:tG term 'fizzles'... This is the
part I'm not
sure of... I don't know which is trashed, Torgo or the LotP. Logically
I'd say the one
that came into play later. i.e LotP.)
4) ...blah...blah...blah... x = number of ganger runner runners.... (Note
searches for Ganger Runner. In the above example the ganger runner had 2
keywords BUT he is still only one runner.)
>> Webster's dictionary defines "becomes" as follows: to be in process of
>> change or development".
> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that I have access to also says, "To come
> to be", which could be interpreted as becoming Leader of the Pack. I know
> it says, become a Ganger Leader, not Leader of the Pack, but I think it's
> irrelevant what the card becomes as long as Torgo is a valid target for
> the card. He's a Ganger, there will still only be one Ganger Leader in
> play, he doesn't re-become a Leader, he simply gains a higher level of
> Leadership, no his Leadership skills don't improve because those have to
> do with other people, the higher level of leadership that torgo undergos
> comes from the inside.
>> Torgo can't become a Ganger Laeder because HE IS A GANGER LEADER! You
>> can't become a fireman if you are a fireman. A caterpillar changes into
>> a butterfly. A candidate becomes president. Torgo was a Ganger. Then he
>> became a Ganger Leader. Then he became a card. Then he became the
>> subject of a hellish debate…
> No, but a Senator can become a President, both are Leaders, the Presidency
> is just a higher version of Leadership. Same goes with the fireman
> example, though I don't know their ranking system. As far as the
> caterpillar goes, your talking physical metamorphical changes, not changes
> in profession or personal Leadership.
Ok. Stop. This is Shadowrun Trading Card Game, not English Trading Card
Game. Use logic not english to settle arguements. M:tG fell to this trap
long ago. I don't want to see SRTCG coming up with 'definations of language
in gameplay'. Anyway nowhere on these two cards is the word 'becomes'
mentioned. Where the heck did you two come up with this word????
>> This was an awesome post... seeing the wording, I totally agree. Stick
>> in the FAQ!!! You can't become something you already are. Captain
>> strikes again, thwacking hordes of cheeseballs trying to make Lord Torgo
>> the Leader of the Pack. Death to cheese! Long live logic!
You used English (Language to prove your point) actually....
> Only cheeseballs I see are the ones that like carting around hordes of
> pages of FAQ's. Makes logical sense to me that LotP should be allowed to
> be played on the big man. I personally don't and probably will never play
> the combo (I prefer an elven Ancients deck, similar to Loki's), I just
> feel strongly enough about it because to me, the way you are viewing it is
> "cheese". That's our difference in opinion.
Torgo and LotP is not cheese. Cheese cards are cards like wanted... They are
violent and put alot of holes in you... Like swiss cheese.....
>> Okay, I don't usually gloat this much when I come out on the winning side
>> of a debate. I just considered this one to be a bit inane, along the
>> of a 'can the Maze of Ith stop the Serra Angel' ad nauseum (and trust me,
>> I'm nauseous) debate.
Yes, Maze of Ith can stop Serra Angel, but this is not the place to discuss
it. If you're interested e-mail me about it privately.
> You may have won as far as what FASA thinks about it (which to a lot of
> people is all that's important), but, IMHO, it's still a crappy ruling
> that I'd like to see thought out some more.
He hasn't won yet... The discussion will continue......