Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Schaftlein <robert@****.UTS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:29:25 +1000
Hi,

I've just joined this mailing list today.

Any other Rigger chumski's out there?
What's the best value Airborne Civilian vehicle to get my riggerware into?
Methinks it's the Fiat-Fokker "Cloud Nine" Amphibian. (p47 Rigger Black
Book).

I was just mulling over this today weighing up the benefits of getting
some airborne equipment to transport the team around in...

Btw. What is the availability of the vehicles listed in the Black Book?
Or in FOF (Fields Of Fire) for that matter. I believe FOF lists
everything there is to be listed in Shadowrun accessories...yet there are
no availability ratings for vehicles or the drone on my "most wanted"
list - the Steel Lynx.

I also have another query regarding decking.

In Virtual Realities, there is a staging option for attack programs. Now
it states that the EFFECTIVE rating of the program is +5 for a deadly
staging. Say your Software skill rating is 6. Does this mean that you can
write a rating 1 Attack program with a deadly staging or a rating 6
program with a deadly staging but going for a target number of 11 when
writing it. If it is the latter. I believe that starting characters
should not be able to get a deadly staging attack program as the maximum
rating that a starting character can have is 6, yet a deadly staging
attack program would be EFFECTIVE rating 11...not to mention a Frigging
huge killer!

Thankyou for your time.

- Robert Schaftlein
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:37:59 +1000
Robert Schaftlein writes:

> Hi,

Greetings and welcome aboard! Hope you like it here.

> Any other Rigger chumski's out there?

You bet there is (not me though).

> I was just mulling over this today weighing up the benefits of getting
> some airborne equipment to transport the team around in...

Myself I think it's a great idea, if a tad expensive and occasionally
conspicuous. Great for a bar crawl around Seattle though (like my players
did in their riggers chopper once).

> Btw. What is the availability of the vehicles listed in the Black Book?

Look at the top of the page on page 264 of the main book. It says:

"|Note:| Vehicles generally have an Availability equal to
Cost/10,000."

This, however, seems a little odd to me. It makes it rather difficult to get
ahold of, say, a Mitsubishi Nightsky, which costs 250,000. I'd like to see
too many people roll a 25 to find one of those. When all you'd really have
to do is walk down to the Mitsubishi dealer, and he'd be only too happy to
get one in for you to buy. It also makes various military vehicles
_impossible_ to get (like TN 500 to find an EFA variant). I prefer to use
GM's discretion.

> I also have another query regarding decking.

Ergh, decking. I hate decking questions...Gurth maybe?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 3
From: Andre' Selmer <031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 08:32:29 +0200
:-> "|Note:| Vehicles generally have an Availability equal to
:-> Cost/10,000."
:->This, however, seems a little odd to me. It makes it rather difficult to get
:->ahold of, say, a Mitsubishi Nightsky, which costs 250,000. I'd like to see
:->too many people roll a 25 to find one of those. When all you'd really have
:->to do is walk down to the Mitsubishi dealer, and he'd be only too happy to
:->get one in for you to buy. It also makes various military vehicles
:->_impossible_ to get (like TN 500 to find an EFA variant). I prefer to use
:->GM's discretion.

Slight differece, with the Dealer, you get a full background
check (cred), the sale is logged in a hundered difference places,
Lonestar gets the registration etc etc etc

Off the street however, the vehical is 'rather warm' probably it has
had the security devices like the satellite tracking removed ec.
There is no refernence to the rigger on computer anywhere (execpt
perhaps at your fixers office.

The only problem is that the warrenty is no longer valid ;->

Andre'
<031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>

Its time for a new sig, when I think of one I'll append it.
-Andre'

Boom Boom Shake the Room !
-Phoenix, Pyromanical Hermetic Mage of Seattle 2053
Message no. 4
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <sneakabout@**********.HOL.GR>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:54:09 +0300
On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > Btw. What is the availability of the vehicles listed in the Black Book?
>
> Look at the top of the page on page 264 of the main book. It says:
>
> "|Note:| Vehicles generally have an Availability equal to
> Cost/10,000."
>
> This, however, seems a little odd to me. It makes it rather difficult to get
> ahold of, say, a Mitsubishi Nightsky, which costs 250,000. I'd like to see
> too many people roll a 25 to find one of those. When all you'd really have
> to do is walk down to the Mitsubishi dealer, and he'd be only too happy to
> get one in for you to buy. It also makes various military vehicles
> _impossible_ to get (like TN 500 to find an EFA variant). I prefer to use
> GM's discretion.

I used to have that kind of problem with my team. I don't know if anyone
realised the advantage the Electraglide has over the Scorpion: A Hardpoint.
My players wanted Electraglides, but they were security vehicles, cop things.

Anyway, I decided on giving them a "Civilian Variant", a little tuned down,
but with the same hardpoints (higher cost... the cops have mass sale
contracts, they get 'em cheaper :-)) and they went for it.

Oh well. It always seemed to me as if vehicles in SR aren't VARIED enough.
One day I'm going to sit down and write a whole new set of rules for my
favourite gaming area: Vehicles :-). I hate the abstract "position test"
thing. Anyway, right now I'm working on Decking, so that'll have to wait!
_________________________ ______________________________
______/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneakabout@**********.hol.gr \______
Aspiring Linux hacker, computer nut, RP gamemaster, sci-fi fan, High School
student, amateur writer, forensics champion, A-level candidate, math adept,
science geek, rave fan, people person, pleasantly plump, or in other words:
GCS/S/M/L/PA d- s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E- W++ N+ K w--- O-
M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e->++++ h! r y?

...QED
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 11:46:56 +0200
> I've just joined this mailing list today.

Welcome :)

>Any other Rigger chumski's out there?

I've been playing a rigger/samurai/wannabe-rocker for the past two years...

>What's the best value Airborne Civilian vehicle to get my riggerware into?
>Methinks it's the Fiat-Fokker "Cloud Nine" Amphibian. (p47 Rigger Black
>Book).

Our team once pooled resources to buy an Embraer-Dassault Mistral, but they
sold it in California to make some money when they needed it badly (GMs
beware -- anyone who's read this will now want to find a copy of the NAGNA
and look up the price tables...)

>Btw. What is the availability of the vehicles listed in the Black Book?
>Or in FOF (Fields Of Fire) for that matter. I believe FOF lists
>everything there is to be listed in Shadowrun accessories...yet there are
>no availability ratings for vehicles or the drone on my "most wanted"
>list - the Steel Lynx.

It says at the top of page 264 (SRII) that availability is cost/10,000 while
street index is .75 if the cost is less than 10,000 nuyen, 1 if cost is less
than 50,000 nuyen, and 2 for more than 50,000 nuyen. They've already figured
all that out for the vehicles in the Corporate Security Handbook, though.

>I also have another query regarding decking.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! DEKKING!!! :)

(I just had to get that out... Many people here know my attitude toward
decking :) The last bit, BTW, isn't a spelling error but a word joke I don't
think many people will get :)

>In Virtual Realities, there is a staging option for attack programs. Now
>it states that the EFFECTIVE rating of the program is +5 for a deadly
>staging. Say your Software skill rating is 6. Does this mean that you can
>write a rating 1 Attack program with a deadly staging or a rating 6
>program with a deadly staging but going for a target number of 11 when
>writing it. If it is the latter. I believe that starting characters
>should not be able to get a deadly staging attack program as the maximum
>rating that a starting character can have is 6, yet a deadly staging
>attack program would be EFFECTIVE rating 11...not to mention a Frigging
>huge killer!

The effective rating is only for determining size in Mp. So if you want to
buy an Attack-6 program its normal size is 72 Mp (6^2 x 2). Buy it with D
staging, and it becomes (6+5)^2 x 2 = 242 Mp. It's still only an Attack-6.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wicked mental dope
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 11:47:00 +0200
>> I also have another query regarding decking.
>
>Ergh, decking. I hate decking questions...Gurth maybe?

I did answer it (I think -- just ask again if I gave you an answer you can't
use :), but you should know decking isn't my favorite part of Shadowrun :)
Why do you think I wrote those alternate rules (which still haven't been
tested yet -- if anyone has used them, please email me your findings :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wicked mental dope
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 7
From: Robert Schaftlein <robert@****.UTS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 22:53:55 +1000
On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >I also have another query regarding decking.
>
> AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! DEKKING!!! :)
>
>
> The effective rating is only for determining size in Mp. So if you want to
> buy an Attack-6 program its normal size is 72 Mp (6^2 x 2). Buy it with D
> staging, and it becomes (6+5)^2 x 2 = 242 Mp. It's still only an Attack-6.

OK. I knew that much, but can a character with Computer Skill 6 _write_ a D
Staging Attack program? I mean, wouldn't you have to have skill 11 to
write it?

>
> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Wicked mental dope
> GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
> t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
> Guru :)
>

- Robert Schaftlein
Message no. 8
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:39:00 PDT
>OK. I knew that much, but can a character with Computer Skill 6 _write_ a D
>Staging Attack program? I mean, wouldn't you have to have skill 11 to
>write it?

Uh, dunno, but it's Computer _Theory_ you use for programming, right? But
that was probably what you meant, anyway. Xcuse moi for wasting your
bandwidth. :)


MxM
Message no. 9
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 18:25:11 +01.0
On 7 Aug 95 at 11:46, Gurth wrote:

> Our team once pooled resources to buy an Embraer-Dassault Mistral,
> but they sold it in California to make some money when they needed
> it badly (GMs beware -- anyone who's read this will now want to find
> a copy of the NAGNA and look up the price tables...)

Denver is a better place to sell it if you want to make a quick
profit.

> >I also have another query regarding decking.
>
> AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! DEKKING!!! :)
>
> (I just had to get that out... Many people here know my attitude
> toward decking :) The last bit, BTW, isn't a spelling error but a
> word joke I don't think many people will get :)

The two or three Dutchmen still on the list will :) and maybe the
Inquisitor if he's still there :)

> >latter. I believe that starting characters should not be able to
> >get a deadly staging attack program as the maximum rating that a
> >starting character can have is 6, yet a deadly staging attack
> >program would be EFFECTIVE rating 11...not to mention a Frigging
> >huge killer!

The program will be an attack 6 regardless of the staging. The
effective rating is only used to see how much memory the program
takes up. Your rating 1 attack (D) would have the size of an attack 6
but still you can only attack with 2 dice (1 for the program and 1
hacking pool) which makes it pretty useless.

> OK. I knew that much,

That wasn't obvious from you post, you wrote it like you thought an
attack 6 (D) would become attack 11 (D).

> but can a character with Computer Skill 6
> _write_ a D Staging Attack program? I mean, wouldn't you have to
> have skill 11 to write it?

No a skill of 6 would be enough to write an attack 6 (D). As in VR
page 42: "Note also that any increases in the efftective rating do not
affect the limitation on the maximum rating of programs the decker
can design, that being his computer skill. Any increases of the
effective maximum are fine, as long as the rating for the base
program does not exceed that maximum".
Don't forget that the staging option gobbles up lots of memory which
can be better used by a sleaze or deception program. Don't let them
know you are there is much better than hacking your way through
nodes.

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 10
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 14:08:19 -0400
On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, Gurth wrote:

> The effective rating is only for determining size in Mp. So if you want to
> buy an Attack-6 program its normal size is 72 Mp (6^2 x 2). Buy it with D
> staging, and it becomes (6+5)^2 x 2 = 242 Mp. It's still only an Attack-6.

Yes, but a single success over the node threshold does 10 boxes
of damage to a persona or IC construct. A normal Attack 6 only does 1
box at 1 success over. So it all kind of balances out, neh?

Marc
Message no. 11
From: "Stephen M. Bugge" <bugge@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:21:54 -0700
*-------------------------------------------*
|Stephen M. Bugge|<bugge@********.edu> |
|President, |<buug@***.com> |
|College GOP @ SU|<75764.240@**********.com>|
*-------------------------------------------*
>
> Oh well. It always seemed to me as if vehicles in SR aren't VARIED enough.
> One day I'm going to sit down and write a whole new set of rules for my
> favourite gaming area: Vehicles :-).

Personally I don't think that there are enough vehicles. It seems like
there are more different types of vehicles in existance now than in 2055.
Have the corps monopolized things that much?

Anyway I would like to work with anyone interested on developing some more
vehicles, I am especially interested in highend Military Vehicles to throw
at my players. <Warning in my campaigns the military and intelligence
forces are allowed to have some very questionable tech. warn me if things
get to hard to swallow, my overall intent is to create a certain level of
fear of authority>

> _________________________ ______________________________
> ______/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneakabout@**********.hol.gr \______
> Aspiring Linux hacker, computer nut, RP gamemaster, sci-fi fan, High School
> student, amateur writer, forensics champion, A-level candidate, math adept,
> science geek, rave fan, people person, pleasantly plump, or in other words:
> GCS/S/M/L/PA d- s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E- W++ N+ K w--- O-
> M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e->++++ h! r y?
>
> ...QED
Message no. 12
From: Andre' Selmer <031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 08:07:39 +0200
:->>
:->> Oh well. It always seemed to me as if vehicles in SR aren't VARIED enough.
:->> One day I'm going to sit down and write a whole new set of rules for my
:->> favourite gaming area: Vehicles :-).
I agree they are not varied enough, our group tried the rules and
loathed them, ie we don't have a rigger in our party

:->
:->Personally I don't think that there are enough vehicles. It seems like
:->there are more different types of vehicles in existance now than in 2055.
:->Have the corps monopolized things that much?
:->
:->Anyway I would like to work with anyone interested on developing some more
:->vehicles, I am especially interested in highend Military Vehicles to throw
:->at my players. <Warning in my campaigns the military and intelligence
:->forces are allowed to have some very questionable tech. warn me if things
:->get to hard to swallow, my overall intent is to create a certain level of
:->fear of authority>
:->
In our campaign magic is the questionable, and anyway it will
give me something to do in my packed schedule <grin>
Andre'
<031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>

Its time for a new sig, when I think of one I'll append it.
-Andre'

Boom Boom Shake the Room !
-Phoenix, Pyromanical Hermetic Mage of Seattle 2053
Message no. 13
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <sneakabout@**********.HOL.GR>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:47:18 +0300
On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, Stephen M. Bugge wrote:

> Anyway I would like to work with anyone interested on developing some more
> vehicles, I am especially interested in highend Military Vehicles to throw
> at my players. <Warning in my campaigns the military and intelligence
> forces are allowed to have some very questionable tech. warn me if things
> get to hard to swallow, my overall intent is to create a certain level of
> fear of authority>

Yeah, well, I already tossed the idea over to Gurth and he tossed it back and
right now it's tossing it about in my head and one of these days it's going
to be tossed back through my keyboard and into a file with some workable
vehicle rules, which I'll promptly toss back to the list. After we decide on
format (sue me, but half of the current stats are practically arbitrary....
yyyeech!) we can start doing MASSIVE vehicle lists... everyone can pick a
manufacturer and storm us with 50-100 products or something.

When a sam wants to buy a chopper, and there are only 4 choppers about (of
which one is clearly better than the rest), you tend to get pretty one-sided
vehicle selection. We want VARIETY amongst other things.

Stay tuned, I'll get back to ya!
_________________________ ______________________________
______/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneakabout@**********.hol.gr \______
Aspiring Linux hacker, computer nut, RP gamemaster, sci-fi fan, High School
student, amateur writer, forensics champion, A-level candidate, math adept,
science geek, rave fan, people person, pleasantly plump, or in other words:
GCS/S/M/L/PA d- s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E- W++ N+ K w--- O-
M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e->++++ h! r y?

...QED
Message no. 14
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:08:00 PDT
>When a sam wants to buy a chopper, and there are only 4 choppers about (of
>which one is clearly better than the rest), you tend to get pretty
one-sided
>vehicle selection. We want VARIETY amongst other things.

Another thing that might make rigging even more interesting is keeping track
of what software runs on the vehicle's computer/autopilot/whatever. Like
targeting programmes and so on. But maybe that is simplified into the sensor
etc. rules already? I just like the idea of the rigger uploading that
program which does evasive maneuvers with the plane, abandoning all lesser
programmes, for example. But maybe it becomes too much decking of it all? I
dunno. Just something that popped up in my head one day. Anyone else thought
of this?

>Stay tuned, I'll get back to ya!

Great! :)
And good luck!


MxM
Message no. 15
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <sneakabout@**********.HOL.GR>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 11:55:51 +0300
On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:

> Another thing that might make rigging even more interesting is keeping track
> of what software runs on the vehicle's computer/autopilot/whatever. Like
> targeting programmes and so on. But maybe that is simplified into the sensor
> etc. rules already? I just like the idea of the rigger uploading that
> program which does evasive maneuvers with the plane, abandoning all lesser
> programmes, for example. But maybe it becomes too much decking of it all? I
> dunno. Just something that popped up in my head one day. Anyone else thought
> of this?

Evasive maneouvers (sp, so sue me OK?) are Auto-4 or Auto-5, I don't have the
RBB in front of me (actually, by chance, I do, but it's on the wrong page and
being the lazy bastard I am I won't bother) and wasn't there something in
there about Autopilot hindering control? No, sorry, that's removing Autopilot
that gives you less Handling. Anyway Auto is not the way to go... Auto is for
whimps! :-)

Anyway, what I was thinking about was a more precise description of driving.
Shifting, taking corners and so on. We already have meters/turn, all we need
to do is get a good random system for road design and roll for maneouvers
(sp, at least I'm consistent). Give the GM a piece of paper and a die, and
put two counters on the paper (better yet, get Matchbox cars! Cool!) and
roll 2D6, one for what's next, the other for "severity" (right, 90! Bumps!
Long hard left! Narrows!) and then the driver rolls to see how he gets past
it. If it's an Americar, it oversteers and slides down the road for 100m
before hitting a lampost. If it's a Lancia (they gotta have these babies in
'56, just gotta!) it methodically drifts across the inside of the curb and
gradually realigns and goes on :-)

I'll stop here because if I go on I'll write it right here, and I hate
messages that turn into pieces of writing :-)

[Seriously, did you notice the only Italian cars in SR are the Appaloosa and
the Eurovan? Don't care what you say, guys, but if we do this, I do the
Gruppo Fiat line!]
_________________________ ______________________________
______/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneakabout@**********.hol.gr \______
Aspiring Linux hacker, computer nut, RP gamemaster, sci-fi fan, High School
student, amateur writer, forensics champion, A-level candidate, math adept,
science geek, rave fan, people person, pleasantly plump, or in other words:
GCS/S/M/L/PA d- s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E- W++ N+ K w--- O-
M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e->++++ h! r y?

...QED
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 12:41:55 +0200
>After we decide on
>format (sue me, but half of the current stats are practically arbitrary....
>yyyeech!) we can start doing MASSIVE vehicle lists... everyone can pick a
>manufacturer and storm us with 50-100 products or something.

I don't mind vehicle stats being arbitrarily set. It only makes it easier on
everyone -- I think making a vehicle design system for Shadowrun just won't
work. I tried fitting Guns! Guns! Guns! into SR, and it only worked after a
lot of tinkering. As a result, I don't use it :)
No, I say let's keep it the way it is and just go on a "that looks cool,
let's use it" basis, while preserving all SR vehicle stats and inventing no
new ones.

>When a sam wants to buy a chopper, and there are only 4 choppers about (of
>which one is clearly better than the rest), you tend to get pretty one-sided
>vehicle selection. We want VARIETY amongst other things.

There's a good number of vehicles floating out across the net, though...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wicked mental dope
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 17
From: Peter Bailey <pbailey@*****.IPSWICHCITY.QLD.GOV.AU>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:59:27 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hi Robert,

> I've just joined this mailing list today.

Welcome aboard!

> Any other Rigger chumski's out there?

You betcha ass. I play a very interesting young lady rigger.

> What's the best value Airborne Civilian vehicle to get my riggerware =
into?
> Methinks it's the Fiat-Fokker "Cloud Nine" Amphibian. (p47 Rigger Bla=
ck
> Book).

Yeaccchhhh! Why you want to go lugging your meat around for? Much safer
doing it from remote. (I like drones in case you hadn't noticed.)

> I was just mulling over this today weighing up the benefits of gettin=
g
> some airborne equipment to transport the team around in...

Bit conspicious chummer. Besides you have to hangar it somewhere.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui (Amiga)

iQBFAgUBMCtgAlEe8TY+oxZ5AQHwVAGAvKcMI7jOAx4hXJTmZGsZ6PfrNV0nsdQC
skDiHMHsb8M8ckQD7IRb0K639JV7Eq8+
=7DeP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 18
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Intro
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:50:11 -0500
Hi Everyone,

Finally am back after a loooong hiatus, like since '94'. Still playing the
game by the rules in the SRII book with my same old "2 house rules" of
realistic firearm damage and "you can get killed with one shot". I've been
playing the game since 89 and have no intention of changing again. SRII
was needed, SR3 isn't.

I do not use the "Companion" nor will I use Rigger 2 nor do I use the whole
Dunkelzahn for Pres/Assasinated deal at all nor do I read or use anything
from the fiction books. I think that understanding the core rules, and
following them if one writes for FASA is all that is needed. They work
very well, IF they are used completely.

Hoi again,

Ivy K
Message no. 19
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:02:44 +0100
Ralph and Ivy Ryan said on 10:50/22 Dec 97...

> I think that understanding the core rules, and following them if one
> writes for FASA is all that is needed. They work very well, IF they are
> used completely.

For all the newcomers, that sums up in two and a bit lines exactly what
caused Ivy to become so well-known. Well, that and her tendency to argue
over statements like this with people who have different opinions.

Not that I'm saying you should go away, though. Welcome back :) (I don't
think I said that, did I?)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Frankly my damn, I don't give a dear.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 20
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:23:50 -0700
> Hoi again,
> Ivy K

I seem to have forgotten my manners..Welcome back Ivy..
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
Kind of a bummer. Gettin' your butt kicked by a dead guy.
- Lt Col McQueen
The truth is a three edged sword. - Kosh
Message no. 21
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:25:16 +0000
And verily, did Ralph and Ivy Ryan hastily scribble thusly...
|
|Hi Everyone,
|
|Finally am back after a loooong hiatus, like since '94'. Still playing the
|game by the rules in the SRII book with my same old "2 house rules" of
|realistic firearm damage and "you can get killed with one shot". I've been
|playing the game since 89 and have no intention of changing again. SRII
|was needed, SR3 isn't.

Ahhh. A man after my own heart... Almost.
I still prefer 1st edition meself...

I think 3rd ed is going to be just a lot of rules tidying and clarification.
(As opposed to a new rewrite).

They'll finally address the lists arch nemesis... Grounding through qui
<cough> <cough> <splutter>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 22
From: Ralph and Ivy Ryan <sgmpaws@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Intro
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:53:13 -0500
Hi Spike,

----------
> From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Intro
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 7:25 AM
>
> And verily, did Ralph and Ivy Ryan hastily scribble thusly...
> |
> |Hi Everyone,
> |
> |Finally am back after a loooong hiatus, like since '94'. Still playing
the
> |game by the rules in the SRII book with my same old "2 house rules" of
> |realistic firearm damage and "you can get killed with one shot". I've
been
> |playing the game since 89 and have no intention of changing again. SRII
> |was needed, SR3 isn't.
>
> Ahhh. A man after my own heart... Almost.
> I still prefer 1st edition meself...
>

Ummm, Lady after your own heart maybe? I'm the Ivy, distaff, side.

I liked the 1st edition too, but I do think the 2nd is easier to use.
Though the 1st did have better weapon rules.

> I think 3rd ed is going to be just a lot of rules tidying and
clarification.
> (As opposed to a new rewrite).
>
> They'll finally address the lists arch nemesis... Grounding through qui
> <cough> <cough> <splutter>
> --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> |u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a
|
> | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8
bit |
> |Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4
bit |
> |Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company,
that|
> |Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition.
|
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> |GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y
t+ |
> |5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now!
:( |

The amazing thing to me is that the grounding through quickenings was
settled back in 94 with the pronouncement by P. Hume, backed by T. Dowd,
that a physical Combat spell *could* be grounded through a quickening just
as through a focus.

Oh well, different year, same ****. Grin

Ivy K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Intro, you may also be interested in:

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.

Thwap!