Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:53:30 +0800
<snip long discussion>

>why would I support something I don't agree with? I'm offering a better
>ruling, or one that stays consistant with the way other cards are played.

Nope... As I said before cards that say 'Lone Star runner...', 'Ganger
Runner....', 'Yakuza runner....' check for a runner with the revelant
keyword. As long as he/she has at least 1 of these affiliation keywords,
he/she is eligible for whatever benefit/penalty for the card. It doesn't
matter if he/she has 1 or 1,000,000 of the keyword; he/she gets it only
ONCE(He/she is 1 runner).

LotP sez '... may not have more than one ganger leader in play at one
time....'. It's checking for the number occurances of the keyword 'ganger
leader', not just the runner's name, profession or attached keywords, it
also checks for this keyword on all cards in play. (therefore you cannot
have the contact Ganager Leader).

>> Again, if you can come up with a better rationale, fine.
>I already have, my oposition (call it what you will) just fails to see it.
>> > > (Although the Senator-President example was nice, I still find it
>> > > flawed: Presidents are no longer senators. Similarly, if you have a
>> > No, senators aren't presidents, but they're still leaders. Just an
>> > attempt to refute the argument by hansen.
>> Oh, so it really doesn't pertain to the card at all. LotP uses the same
>> keyword as LT does; not two different keywords, each belonging to a
>> third category.
>A senator and a President is a leader the same as Scatter and Shasta with
>a Owl Totem played on her are Shaman. Honestly, this was a silly argument
>in the first place. I was simply refuting the argument that used senators
>and presidents against the LT/LotP debate. It doesn't apply to the card
>(that much) and was a bad example on both parts.

Sigh... Note a pres and a senator are not the same.... It doesn't matter if
they both lead... Ok going back to torgo... He's a 'Ganger Leader'. If
another card comes along that has the profession that says 'Leader' and
later gains the ganger keyword, they are not the same. You can play LotP on
the new card. The keyword is not 'Ganger+Leader', it's 'ganger leader'.

>> > > in Fine Arts, and go back to school for a BA in Fine Arts, you don't
>> > > have a "super BA" -- you have the same degree you came in
with. If
>> > > card specified a different, higher level, it would have used a
>> > > keyword.)
>> > I wasn't arguing for a "super" version of the ganger leader, I was
>> > saying that you still remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
>> > Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case,
>> > the Pack status). Torgo will remain the same level, he just has more
>> > experience, hence the experience token.
>> 'Leader of the Pack' isn't the status that you graduate with: Ganger
>> Leader is.
>Not arguing with you here, let me rephrase my part to make it easier for
>you to grasp.
>I was simply saying that you remain the same status (In this case, Ganger
>Leader), you just "graduate" with more knowledge (In this case, Leader of
>the Pack status). Torgo will remain a Ganger Leader, he just has more
>experience, hence the experience token.
>It's the same as the education example. I get my BFA in painting. I go
>back to school and get my BFA in sculpture. I still only have BFA status,
>but I have new experiences and skills.

Wrong. Playing LotP on Torgo is like getting your BFA in painting AGAIN. All
you get is some revision on techniques you've not used in a long time. But
essentially you get nothing new. Therefore am I not wrong in saying that
spent precious resources (time and money) for essentally nothing new?

In real life the univeristy or institution will tell you that it's pointess;
but this is a card game there are no nice people behind the counter to tell
you that, only your opponent (assuming he us that nice).

>> The experience token isn't secondary to the effect (the use
>> of parentheses in the card text suggests the opposite, actually), which
>> itself suggests that Torgo already has his experience.
>then why doesn't he start with the token?

He's got other types of experience like his Gun,Lead,Melee-3,Street-2,(A2),
his ability to kill elves and maybe part of his 9/9. (Lets assume he was
born with the rest :-P). Actually thats not the point, he comes as a
package, his experience and all. He is not a Spike creature from M:tG which
come into play with tokens on them to determine their power. Also it's for
easy game play. Every runner has some sort of experience. can you imagine a
different token on every card for whatever experience the runner has
aquired.... Messy..... The token from LotP represents an extra edge the
runner aquires like gear or spells, except that it is impossible to remove
getting rid of LotP does not get rid of the token (for now unless they
errata the card) because it does not state so.

>> > > ((Incidentally, you *can* go back to school for the same degree,
>> > > although it's rarely done, for obvious reasons.))
>> > I don't know if you meant to, but I think you strengthened my point,
>> > thanks Matt.
>> Your welcome, but I don't see how you might think so. You go back to
>> school for a (renewed) BA, and you end up with the same degree you had
>> before. Old dog; no new tricks.
>EXACTLY! Torgo gets a better understanding of Leadership, he realizes
>that getting others to do what he wants isn't the only part of leading,
>it's also trusting and earning the respect of his followers, which
>strengthens himself.

Nope... It was a revision not a whole new concept he was facing. It's like
relearning the fact that one and one make two. No new revelations but you
ain't gonna forget it for a while...

>> And, again, I challenge you to come up with a more convincing argument
>> why LotP can't be played on Torgo. Put some energy to work for FASA.
>There isn't a convincing argument for this. LotP should be able to be
>played on Torgo. thank you...
There's too much inconsistancies in SRTCG cards esp. the 1st run cards. This
thread is getting so long because of the inconsistancies. Why don't you all
write in to FASA and tell them to make their cards consistant before
releasing second run.
At the moment some problems are :

1. Affiliation and Profession are both listed as one keyword in the
Profession Slot.
2. Cool text (Rat Shaman) is included in the Profession Slot (Makes the
card more
interesting but creates long disscussions like this one.)
3. Some cards are very vague (RoR)

And as a last request ... Stop this thread ... at least hold it until 2nd
run with it's (hopefully) cleaned up Lord Torgo comes out. My intepration of
the rules is based on Boolean Algebra (Logic) and I feel that it's better
than 'if it can be done in SR2 why not in SRTCG'. SR2 is a RPG. there's no
way to 'win' RPGs. RPGs let you play actors and the experince of living in
someone elses shoes is your prize. Card games are more like traditional
games where there is a definate winner and loser. Thus the use of logic to
set rules seems more appropriate to me....

Ok ... Thx to all for letting me ramble.. Next Time.....


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.