From:	hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject:	Re: Corporate Challenges (was Re: Suggestions for 2nd Edition)
Date:	Sat, 16 May 1998 15:33:40 +0800

>>
>> the <foo> rule is my problem.... Say a card (It'll never be designed I
hope)
>> Ex-Lone Star whatever - will it be a Lone Star card??? the <foo> rule
>> promotes the use of common sense over cold logic making more rules fuzzy.
I
>> don't see any problems with the <foo> rule in the next year or two (Yes,
>> SRTCG will last longer than that!! Yah!!) but if SRTCG ever prints say a
>> 2000+ card these rules will return to haunt you....
>
>I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you. Still, you
>need the <foo> clause to maintain backwards compatability for cards you
hadn't
>thought of before.


Yup.. thats why I suggested it for 2nd run... You'll only need to clairify a
few cards... Btech CCG just came up with a new idea, vehicles & battle armor
to be exact, the backward compatibility (how to use with new cards) was
explained on the inside of each booster wrapper.

>To try and keyword every possibility would mean either:
>
>A. Expansions could only introduce new ideas for themselves and future
>releases. IOW if cards like Lone Star HQ required a keyword for their
effect,
>like one affecting Challenge (Lone Star) or Elf Lone Star Runner cards,
they
>wouldn't be able to touch anything in the Limited Edition. That's extremely
>limiting and would be even worse for such a card in the 4th, 5th or 6th
>expansion.

Nope. Correct it in now.... Remember no matter whatever version u use the
ruling always uses the latest print. Eg (M:tg): If you use an alpha print
orcish oriflame and try to cast it for 1 red & 1 generic mana in one of my
tournaments, I'd correct u & give u a warning 4 trying to misrepresent the
card (ie trying to cheat).

>B. You'd have to introduce at least one of each kind of keyword you think
>you'll use in your first printing of the game. So they'd have had to get in
>Awakened, Personnel, Corporate, Electric, Street, Elf, Ork, Troll, Dwarf,
>Runner, Gear, Magic, Matrix, Weapon, ... plus anything else they could
foresee
>using in the future: insect, toxic, immortal, great form, military, astral,
>... Otherwise they wouldn't be able to include due to limitation strictures
>and only forward compatability or support.

The problem with keywords is the flexibility it gives... theres a infinite
amount of keywords out there waiting to be used.... I definatly don't want a
80 page rulebook just for keywords.... The idea is just to keep them simple
and rather general.... Actually, I'm not too hot with the Lone Star
thing.... I mean what about other law enforcement agencies eg Knight Errant
& NYPD Inc?
Hmmm... Maybe for such specific groups use the <foo> rule but clarify in the
book on when to use and when not to.... Maybe identify them by placing them
in italics or square brackets or something....

>Also, keep in mind Runner archetpye keywords are technically in the card
title
>(rigger, street sam, mage, shaman, decker, mercenary, ...). A
>location/objective/challenge referring to a decker, for example, is
pointing
>to card tile (Ice Queen * Decker) and not the cards actual keyword line
(Elf
>Runner). Their decription keyword line merely carries race and runner
>designation (elf runner, dwarf runner, troll prime runner, etc. Thus I
would
>say keyword is valid for card title and description line.

So is Torgo a Ganger?

>> BTW.... Lone Star is a Corp while we are using common sense......
>
>True, but even further common sense in SRTCG would dictate that only the
RPG
>veterans will know that. Corporate in the SRTCG seems to currently apply
only
>to the Big Eight. Lone Star has it's own designation and keyword.