Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Donald Arganbright <jayden63@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Security Consultant Questions
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:46:16 PST
Hoi,
>
>Here's some hypotheticals that may never happen, still I would be
>interested in peoples opinions.
>
>For reference here's the text for Security Consultant: "Runner team
>must face top card of shadowrunning player's own Challenge stack on
>this Objective. Trash new Challenge if sleazed or defeated; >otherwise,
return it to top of Challenge stack.If player has no >Challenges on this
Objective, then the shadowrun is over. Trash >after revealed."

>1. Your security consultant causes the other player to uncover his
>security consultant. Does he then have to uncover his next challenge
>also?

This actually happened in a game I played. We just followed the card
text and continued. Running against player 1. Player 1's consoltant,
forced us to unturn player 2's consoltant. So then player 2's
consoltant put us to running against player 1's second challenge. Once
that challenge got defeated, the run just continued against player 1's
stack.

>2. You have a security Consultant followed by a Double Jeopardy. >Does
the double jeopardy duplicate the other players last challenge >
(revealed by Security Consultant) or duplicate the Security >Consultant
causing the other player to fight another of his own >challenges?

>Regards,
>Adrian.

Double Jeopardy is an exact duplicate of the challenge that was just
faced. So if a security consoltant forces you to look at a Hunting
Gargoyle, then you turn over a double jeopardy... you must then again
face another hunting gargoyle.

*** Knife Sharpens on Stone... Man Sharpens on Man ***
*** - Tao ***

Jayden Stormwalker
Donald Arganbright


______________________________________________________
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.