Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Donald Arganbright <jayden63@*******.COM>
Subject: Problems with wired reflexes
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:41:38 PDT
Hoi,

The following situations came up in a game. I know in the "real
world" some couldn't happen... but following CCG rules, some of the
combinations are possible. Just wondering what you think.

I have Uncle Joe with both wired reflexes and a fireball. Fire ball
states that the card replaces your attack rating. Wired reflexes says
that on a 4+ you inflict damage a second time. So can I use the
fireball and do say 8 damage. Roll my D6 for the wired reflexes and do
the 8 damage again. I say you can because of the following. FireBall
replaces your attack value for the combat. Wired reflexes says you
inflict damage twice. It never specifies where that damage comes from.
And the fireball (even though it is a one time use spell) is your attack
value for THAT combat. Just wondering.

Situation II.

Uncle joe again with wired reflexes and an ares preditor. Is
Shadowrunning. A challenge comes up with an armor rating. Lets say a
6/7 (A2) Challenge comes up. Uncle Joe does 5 points of damage with but
that is reduced to 3 because of the challenges armor. Now I roll for
the wired reflexes and it works. He then inflicts damage a second time.
My question is does the challenge get the benifit of armor for the
second time? Armor takes its rating away from the attack value of each
source attacking it. Now Uncle Joe is just one source. I would say all
5 points of damage go through on the second application of damage
killing the challenge, not just another 3. This one is a little hazy.
Just wondering what your opinions are.

*** In ruling, the Sage attends to the heart, not the eye ***
*** - Tao ***


Donald Arganbright
Jayden Stormwalker


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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.