Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Felix Hoefert <FHoefert@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Challenges & Objectives
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 01:53:46 +0200
Donald Arganbright wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought I'd just spur a new discussion. I've noticed that most
> >combos
> >and discussions revolve around runners and gear but not much on the
> >challenge side of deck building. One of the things I like about SRTCG
> is
> >deck building and the fact that the objectives and challenges can be
> >pretty
> >much separate from the runners/gear/other. In fact, I'll swap the
> >objectives/challenges in and out of decks.
> > Any thoughts/favorite strategies? I like putting all the awakened
> >challenges with Amazonian Hunt, Critter Hunt, etc... and others that
> give
> >bonuses to awakened challenges. Or put all electrical challenges with
> >Robo
> >Plant Revolts and a Renraku or two.
>
> Placing challenges on objectives that give them bonuses is always
> a good plan. However I find the more devisating challenges are the
> type that stack together. Example, place a nets as the top card,
> followed by an incubus or booby trap, followed by a double jeapordy or
> better yet a chomps 2000. The Nets are going to send someone home, thus
> triggering the alarm. Some people might get through and continue on.
> With the next card they must trash or frag a runner because the alarm
> had already gone off. And if they still want to continue another booby
> trap because of double jeapordy destroys another runner or in the case
> of chomps, they just go home. These are the stacks that I like to try
> and produce. Unfortunatly I play mostly in multiplayer games, and
> challenge stacking is real difficult when you can only put down 1 or 2.

Most players like to send only one Runner onto Nets, and going for the
rest of the Challenges later. Of course, they can only do so if they´ve
Reconned. ---Felix

Disclaimer

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.