|From:||Bradley Aaron Rebh <brebh@*****.BGSU.EDU>|
|Subject:||Re: Lord Torgo again....He's fun to talk about :)|
|Date:||Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:30:39 -0400|
> <snip long discussion>
> 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).
So, the keyword, Ganger Leader can only appear on LT once, right? Not
arguing with you here. No matter how many times a Ganger gets initiated,
they're still just a ganger, right? My thoughts exactly. Maybe you
should think of LotP as a sort of initiation into Ganger Leadership, a
ganger that goeson the initiation objective still earnes the rep, so why
wouldn't LT not gain the experience token? And before anyone pipes up, I
don't buy the parenthesis and bonus argument, IMO the bonus on the card is
equivalently important to the reputation earned and vice/versa.
> 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).
exactly, you play LotP on Torgo, who is a ganger, he becomes a ganger
leader, which he already is, so you ignore it, gains the experience token
and there is still only ONE ganger leader in play. That whole argument
about him being a Ganger, Ganger Leader and Ganger Leader again is BS,
sorry. Save the math theories for math class.
> >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'.
Didn't I say that this argument doesn't apply to the card? It's called
a defense and it's equally as relevant as the response that originated
it. And just to be the Devils advocate, does that mean that Lurker, a
Ganger Mage isn't a 'Ganger+Leader', he's just a 'ganger mage' (I have a
ton more examples, but I'll be good)?
> >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
> >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?
How can you say that? If LT already possessed the experience token, then
I'd agree with you, but obviously he has some more to learn. He doesn't
have the experience token, so obviously he lacks the experience. Maybe
you should think a little more about what the cards represent.
note: I'm not saying that my slant on LotP is what the DLOH's were
invisioning the card to be, it's just my slant on the subject.
> 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).
I don't know about you (and this isn't the reason that I got my degree),
but a lot of people get multiple degrees in a similar areas for self
growth and accomplishment. A degree is something that can never be
stripped from you and represents a level of accomplishment that only a
percentage of the populous has obtained. Having more than one only makes
you "qualified" in more areas. I would hardly say that it's pointless.
Maybe there are less reduntant ways to earn an education, but that doesn't
make the other degrees any less important to the individual.
now back to the real debate...
> >> 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
Yeah, he has some sort of experience, but he obviously doesn't have the
experience granted to him by Leader of the Pack, otherwise he'd get +x/+x
for each ganger present with him. Wouldn't he?
> different token on every card for whatever experience the runner has
> aquired.... Messy..... The token from LotP represents an extra edge the
right, that's why cards like turf war and Leader of the Pack are in the
game, to represent the runners expereinces as they run the shadows. The
base delpoyment of the card represents the runners experience thus far.
> 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.
then why is it called an experience token?
> >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...
again, why doesn't he come with the token then? If he already has the
experience, then shouldn't he already have the ability?
> 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 :
I agree completely.
> 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
I don't recall the SRRPG argument ever coming out in this thread, but ok.
also, If this were a proof, your algebra could come in really handy, but
unfortuneately we're dealing with more than simple numbers and tried and
true rules. the game and it's components are constantly changing and
adapting and static numbers and rules don't apply to that sort of
argument. what if a card came about that targetted a 'Leader' would LT
be a valid target? This is ridiculous actually, logic is one thing,
Boolean Algebra is another.
> 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....
logic should lay down the base of the game and a certain amount of logic
is necessary to be able to interpret the cards. Seems to me you should
take some more logic classes. Logically, to me, there is no restrictions
preventing LT from having the card played on him and none to leave it on
him. Guess that's why logic is hard to work with in the human language
(especially english) sometimes, because there can be many interpretations
from the same statement.
Bradley Aaron Rebh
920 E.Wooster #4
Bowling Green, OH 43402