Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: David Reis <david.reis@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: David's Non-Combat Mage Deck (Corrected)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:44:25 -0700
>>Gear (19):
>>2x Bullet Barrier
>>4x Combat Fetishes
>>4x Fireball
>>1x Lucky Wabbit's Foot
>>2x Ram Spell
>>4x Sleep
>>2x Spell Lock
>>
>>Sleep and Ram Spell should get me past most of the challenges my opponents
>>usually play with the help of the Combat Fetishes. The Spell Locks should
>>help make sure I have enough Sleeps. Just in case I can't sleaze a
>>challenge, the Fireballs and Bullet Barriers should carry the day.
>>Finally, a Lucky Wabbit's Foot is always handy to have.
>>
>Hmmm, just curious, but why no Invisibilities? Admittedly it sends the
rest of the team home, but it's great to have in combination with the
sleeps. I personally, if this was designed to be a sleazer, would take out
the 4 fireballs and add 4 invisibilities and 2 Jinx Spells (these puppies
are quickly becoming one of my favorite spells).
>
>Just a suggestion...
> Hurricane
>
Thanks for the comments!

I didn't include Invisibility for the very reason you suspect, that it
sends the rest of the team home. I figured Sleep already covers the
awakened and personnel challenges, and my opponents don't play that many
street challenges. I didn't include Jinx because the electrical challenges
my opponents play are also barrier challenges, so Ram Spell with a runner's
sorcery rating added in is at least as effective as Jinx. I guess it all
depends on what challenges you think you're going up against.

One change I am thinking about making is substituting 2 Dazzles for the 2
Spell Locks. Many of the awakened challenges I might face have a stealth
requirement, so the Dazzles might keep me from using up my Combat Fetishes
on rolls for Sleep. Plus, I need more spells to maximize the casting
potential of my runners.

David

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.