From:	Noah Overton <NOAH_OVERTON@*************.OM.HP.COM>
Subject:	Re: Uncle Joe
Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:46:04 -0700

>This is one of those nebulous cards that could go either way.
However, as >a player, since it doesn't *say* that Joe automatically
loses 2 essence, >then why should I make the assumption that he does?
If you want to get >into implications, why can't I imply that the jack
itself isn't cyberware, >but some twisted bio-organic growth that
formed from his mage days?

>>>Except that the card text is:
>>"Built-in Chipjack 2. You may play up to 2 Skillsofts on Uncle
Joe."
>>>Chipjack 2 is a cyberware gear card.

>You can't argue with that kind of thinking, but do you see what I'm
getting >at?

>>>Yes, if the card didn't *explicitly* say it had a built in Chipjack
2. If the card had instead said:
"You may play up to 2 Skillsofts on Uncle Joe."
>>>>

>>>It would be kind of obscure *how* he can do that in the first
place. As it stands, it is unobscure.
>>>>


what if you did not own a chipjack2 and know how much essence is lost
when it is deployed. where does it tell you that joe loses essence..



>I can make assumptions all day (like assuming that Joe DOES lose
>essence automatically) but by the same token I can assume that he
doesn't. >If people want to go by the rulebook, it doesn't say that
runners >pre-equipped with Cyberware automatically lose essence, but
it doesn't say >that they don't as well. In fact, while I'm thinking
about it <shuffle, >shuffle, through a rulebook...>

>>>>>No, but as you illustrated, it does say that the runner loses
essence when cyberware is deployed on the runner.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the cyberware was deployed on
Uncle Joe before the Player controlled him.>>>>

it is never deployed it comes with. rulebook says lose essence when
deployed.....


>Okay...Text says that every little bit of cyberware costs life force,
and I >think we're all in agreement here on that. The text also says
that >Cyberware cards DEPLOYED on a runner and the runner loses
essence.