Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Justin Bell <justin@******.NET>
Subject: MitS
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 13:09:09 -0500
So, I saw that it's now in the latest Previews, does this mean it will
actually ship soon?
--
/------------------ justin@******.net -------------------------\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/
Message no. 2
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MitS
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:16:25 -0500
At 01:09 PM 1/1/99 -0500, Justin Bell wrote:

>So, I saw that it's now in the latest Previews, does this mean it will
>actually ship soon?

Sometime in the next year, or before the turn of the century, whichever
comes first. :)

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to
Marietta, GA | hope for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 3
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MitS
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:41:46 EST
In a message dated 1/1/1999 1:11:49 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
justin@******.NET writes:

> So, I saw that it's now in the latest Previews, does this mean it will
> actually ship soon?

IIRC, MiTS should be available sometime in February / March time frame.

-Herc (fingers crossed on this topic)
Message no. 4
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MitS
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 19:46:26 EST
In a message dated 1/1/99 1:11:50 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
justin@******.NET writes:

>
> So, I saw that it's now in the latest Previews, does this mean it will
> actually ship soon?
> --
LAUGH

-K
Message no. 5
From: Bill Thompson <BillT@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: MitS
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:34:43 -0800
On 1/1/99 Justin Bell wrote:

> So, I saw that it's now in the latest Previews, does this mean it will
> actually ship soon?
> --

My experience with Previews has taught me to NEVER trust the release dates
they put on games. The few times I tried to order through that catalog the
release date was constantly pushed back. When I finally received the
sourcebook I ordered, it was three months after the book appeared in the game
shops. Diamond Distributing seems to be geared fine for the weekly comic book
releases, but the lead time for games and other merchandise is always late.

Bill Thompson - Mahagonny.com
On the Internet there are no independent agents.
Message no. 6
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: MITS
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:09:46 -0400
Just noticed that they are now listing MITS as In Stock on the FASA homepage.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 7
From: AndMat3@***.com AndMat3@***.com
Subject: MITS
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:59:38 EDT
In a message dated 4/30/99 3:10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:

> Just noticed that they are now listing MITS as In Stock on the FASA
homepage.
it was listed as Unavaiable (release: June 1999) on Amazon.com. yesterday.

what's up?
Message no. 8
From: Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject: MITS
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 07:03:03 +1000
At 15:09 30/04/99 -0400 Sommers wrote
>Just noticed that they are now listing MITS as In Stock on the FASA homepage.
>
>Sommers
>Insert witty quote here.
>

The FASA homepage has listed MiTS as "in stock"
since I think about March.

Manx
timburke@*******.com.au
Message no. 9
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: MITS
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:30:51 EDT
In a message dated 4/30/1999 4:11:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
timburke@*******.com.au writes:

>
> The FASA homepage has listed MiTS as "in stock"
> since I think about March.
>
> Manx

Actually Manx, no they haven't. Not unless there are multiple pages to this
one. As recently as April 21st or so I was at that site, and it said "Coming
Soon".

MitS has been shipped, and I did have a chat with Mike M. about "in stock"
vs. "in print" as far as Barnes&Nobles and Amazon.Com were both concerned.
It appears that the delays/changes in their schedules are when the books go
beyond their middle warehouses and are shipped to their stores. Please note,
that the middle (central) warehouses are also their distribution centers, and
when the DC's do the shipping to the stores, they are also shipping to the
direct orderers as well. So, as far as B&N and Amazon doing the "in stock"
in June (which I've been told is what they are saying they will have it),
that is the arrival in the stores (all of them), and May should see more
action than that to the direct people (mid-may most likely, they still use
the "2 weeks to reach destination *A* ruling", which isn't quite up-to-date
in major regions of the USA.

It also tells me that Amazon and B&N are playing games of their own...

-K
Message no. 10
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: MITS
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:52:02 -0500
>> The FASA homepage has listed MiTS as "in stock"
>> since I think about March.
>
>Actually Manx, no they haven't. Not unless there are multiple
>pages to this one. As recently as April 21st or so I was at that site,
>and it said "Coming Soon".

As recently as yesterday, actually. Been following this one rather
anxiously.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 11
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: MitS
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
People have been discussing physical mages (err...adepts who follow the
magical way) and a question just occurred to me.

Under Awakenings rules, I classed physical mages as a separate type of
magicker for the purposes of joining or creating astral groups. Under
MitS, though, it sounds like they would be just classed as adepts. Is
that the case?

Also, in the 'shadowtalk' blurb in Awakenings, a mage mentions astrally
examining a physmage. He says that his aura was different to that of a
mage OR a physad. Now, would that be the case under the MitS rules?
Would magical adepts look different under the astral spotlight? Or has
that bit of trivia gone by the wayside?

*Doc' blinks LOOOONG eyelashes earnestly. "Please, Mr. Man, can you
answer my questions?"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: MitS
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:10:28 -0400
At 11:48 PM 6/16/99 , Rand Ratinac wrote:
>People have been discussing physical mages (err...adepts who follow the
>magical way) and a question just occurred to me.
>
>Under Awakenings rules, I classed physical mages as a separate type of
>magicker for the purposes of joining or creating astral groups. Under
>MitS, though, it sounds like they would be just classed as adepts. Is
>that the case?

I would class them as the same as adepts for purposes of additional types
of traditions for forming groups. However, there couls very easily be a
Group Stricture that only allows certain types of adpets, such as a grop of
thieves that only admits adpets who follow the Invisible Way.

>Also, in the 'shadowtalk' blurb in Awakenings, a mage mentions astrally
>examining a physmage. He says that his aura was different to that of a
>mage OR a physad. Now, would that be the case under the MitS rules?
>Would magical adepts look different under the astral spotlight? Or has
>that bit of trivia gone by the wayside?

I'm sure it would still look a lot different. A shaman's aura would have
the same kind of characteristics as another shaman, but most of the details
would be different depending on the totem that they follow. In the same way
adepts would look the same in astral space in general, but there would be
lots of differences in the details depending on which Way they follow. An
adpet in the Magician's Way would look like an adept, but would have a lot
of details that would look like they cam from a mage. If someonehad never
seen that kind of aura in astral space, it would still look very confusing.
Message no. 13
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: MitS
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:53:06 EDT
In a message dated 6/16/99 11:52:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

<< *Doc' blinks LOOOONG eyelashes earnestly. "Please, Mr. Man, can you
answer my questions?"* >>


<shudder> Misery flashback. "I don't want to eat the special candle in the
middle!"










-Twist
Message no. 14
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: MitS
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:56:22 +0200
According to Rand Ratinac, at 20:48 on 16 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> Under Awakenings rules, I classed physical mages as a separate type of
> magicker for the purposes of joining or creating astral groups. Under
> MitS, though, it sounds like they would be just classed as adepts. Is
> that the case?

Yes. They're normal physads, erm, I mean _adepts_ who have learned a power
that allows them to cast spells and conjure spirits. There is no actual
difference, for practical purposes anyway, with the old physical
magicians, though -- they're just called by a different name and the game
mechanics are slightly different, but the end result is the same.

> Also, in the 'shadowtalk' blurb in Awakenings, a mage mentions astrally
> examining a physmage. He says that his aura was different to that of a
> mage OR a physad. Now, would that be the case under the MitS rules?
> Would magical adepts look different under the astral spotlight? Or has
> that bit of trivia gone by the wayside?

I don't see why that should have changed; adepts with the Magical Power
ability seem to me as sitting somewhere between the auras of full
magicians and adepts, so their auras would "feel" differently.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Now all of them have gone or changed
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: cmpetro@*********.com cmpetro@*********.com
Subject: MitS
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:23:23 -0500
>>According to Rand Ratinac, at 20:48 on 16 Jun 99, the word on
>>the street was...
>>
>>> Under Awakenings rules, I classed physical mages as a separate type of
>>> magicker for the purposes of joining or creating astral groups. Under
>>> MitS, though, it sounds like they would be just classed as adepts. Is
>>> that the case?
>>
>>Yes. They're normal physads, erm, I mean _adepts_ who have learned a
power
>>that allows them to cast spells and conjure spirits. There is no actual
>>difference, for practical purposes anyway, with the old physical
>>magicians, though -- they're just called by a different name and the game
>>mechanics are slightly different, but the end result is the same.
>>
>>> Also, in the 'shadowtalk' blurb in Awakenings, a mage mentions astrally
>>> examining a physmage. He says that his aura was different to that of a
>>> mage OR a physad. Now, would that be the case under the MitS rules?
>>> Would magical adepts look different under the astral spotlight? Or has
>>> that bit of trivia gone by the wayside?
>>
>>I don't see why that should have changed; adepts with the Magical Power
>>ability seem to me as sitting somewhere between the auras of full
>>magicians and adepts, so their auras would "feel" differently.

Correct me if I'm wrong... But Physical Magicans are priority A Magic.

I would say that for Group purposes you could go one of 2 ways.

1) The group must allow both Magicians and PhsyAds.

2) Physical Magicans are a seperate category and must be specifically
allowed.

I'd go with nunber 2... In addition I'd also say the PhysAds that follow a
totem also count as a different category.
Message no. 16
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: MitS
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:51:30 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Gurth wrote:

> According to Rand Ratinac, at 20:48 on 16 Jun 99, the word on
> the street was...
>
> > Under Awakenings rules, I classed physical mages as a separate type of
> > magicker for the purposes of joining or creating astral groups. Under
> > MitS, though, it sounds like they would be just classed as adepts. Is
> > that the case?
>
> Yes. They're normal physads, erm, I mean _adepts_ who have learned a power
> that allows them to cast spells and conjure spirits. There is no actual
> difference, for practical purposes anyway, with the old physical
> magicians, though -- they're just called by a different name and the game
> mechanics are slightly different, but the end result is the same.

Well, there's one big change. As I read Awakenings, a Physical Mage with a
Magic Rating for Spells of 4 would have lost 2 points of Magic, and thus
have a Geas. Now, they start from 0 and go up to what they have, giving no
option for a Geas. Otherwise, though...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts,"
and you put your two cents in, what happens to the other penny?
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: MitS
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
> << *Doc' blinks LOOOONG eyelashes earnestly. "Please, Mr. Man, can
you answer my questions?"* >>
>
>
> <shudder> Misery flashback. "I don't want to eat the special candle
in the middle!"

*Doc' blinks eloquently. "Say what?"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 18
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: MitS
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:52:26 EDT
In a message dated 6/17/99 10:41:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

<< > <shudder> Misery flashback. "I don't want to eat the special
candle
in the middle!"

*Doc' blinks eloquently. "Say what?"* >>


In Misery the crazy nurse continually calls the crippled writer "Mister Man".
And about halfway through the book she cuts off his thumb for complaining
about the old typewriter she's making him write the new Misery novel on, and
then later dances around his room with a cake that has a ring of candles
around the severed thumb stuck in the middle. She says if he's a good boy he
won't have to eat the "special candle" in the middle. Ick.





Twist
Message no. 19
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: MitS
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:01:29 +1000
Twist0059@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/17/99 10:41:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> docwagon101@*****.com writes:
>
> << > <shudder> Misery flashback. "I don't want to eat the
special candle
> in the middle!"
>
> *Doc' blinks eloquently. "Say what?"* >>
>
> In Misery the crazy nurse continually calls the crippled writer "Mister
Man".
> And about halfway through the book she cuts off his thumb for complaining
> about the old typewriter she's making him write the new Misery novel on, and
> then later dances around his room with a cake that has a ring of candles
> around the severed thumb stuck in the middle. She says if he's a good boy he
> won't have to eat the "special candle" in the middle. Ick.
>
> Twist

Ok, we are DROPPING this thread now.. even if im not gridsec...

GreyWolf
Message no. 20
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: MitS
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:59:40 +0200
According to Damian Sharp, at 13:51 on 17 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> Well, there's one big change. As I read Awakenings, a Physical Mage with a
> Magic Rating for Spells of 4 would have lost 2 points of Magic, and thus
> have a Geas. Now, they start from 0 and go up to what they have, giving no
> option for a Geas. Otherwise, though...

That's true, I forgot about that one. Perhaps FASA discovered through some
feedback that the geas requirement was a bit too much -- one of their
overbalancing rules, like the cost of 3 Magic points for the Quickdraw
ability in Awakenings -- and they fixed it in MITS.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Now all of them have gone or changed
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: Ulrich Haupt sandman@****.uni-oldenburg.de
Subject: MitS
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:10:04 +0200
Gurth wrote:

<snip>
> Perhaps FASA discovered through some
> feedback that the geas requirement was a bit too much -- one of their
> overbalancing rules, like the cost of 3 Magic points for the Quickdraw
> ability in Awakenings -- and they fixed it in MITS.

Wouldn't it be interesting to compile a list what adept
abilities have been chosen by characters/shadowRN
listmembers. Maybe this shows which abilities are really
taken at what level and what abilities could be left because
no one has taken that special power.
It would also be interesting which abilities are not chosen
because of their price but a lot of people would like to use.

Just a thought.



Sandman

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about MitS, 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!