Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rookie)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Wed May 23 22:05:01 2001
Ok couple weeks back a question regarding magic loss came up in my
group.

I was under the impression that when you take a deadly wound. i.e.. 10
boxes of damage any person with a magic attribute must role for magic
loss.

However the rest of the group I play with disagreed with me.
They stated that if you reach "Deadly Wound" 10 boxes be it through 3
moderates and a light or 10 lights. Then you = a deadly wound and must
role magic loss.

Figured I would see what you all say.

-Rookie


-Rookie

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with
low self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If
you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or
implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas.

Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context
somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no
grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the
transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on
borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear
of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden
message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that
Alert Notice from Microsoft.

However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your
computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you
have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg
whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Simon and Fiona)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Wed May 23 22:15:01 2001
-----Original Message-----
From: Rookie <rookie@*************.net>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:11 PM
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss


We always played that it didn't matter how you got near death, a thousand
cuts or one big blow. I'm a little bit confused by the third edition
concept, since I don't actually own the books yet, but the second edition
says that when you get cyberware, you lose essence because your body no
longer matches your astral template and the energy can't go through as
easily. So the same thing would occur with deadly wounds, scars and trauma
would mess with the energy flows. In this case, lots of little wounds would
actually mess with the flow more than one deep wound.
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Patrick Goodman)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Wed May 23 22:45:00 2001
From: Rookie
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:09 PM

> However the rest of the group I play with disagreed with me.
> They stated that if you reach "Deadly Wound" 10 boxes be it through 3
> moderates and a light or 10 lights. Then you = a deadly wound and must
> role magic loss.

Talked with Mike Mulvihill about this some months back, when I was actively
game-mastering a campaign. All it takes is getting to the Deadly mark,
whether you take an HVAR burst in the back or you get a whole lot of paper
cuts. You get to D, you check for magic loss.

Patrick
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Wed May 23 23:35:00 2001
On May 23, 10:55pm, Patrick Goodman wrote:
> From: Rookie
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:09 PM
>
> > However the rest of the group I play with disagreed with me.
> > They stated that if you reach "Deadly Wound" 10 boxes be it through 3
> > moderates and a light or 10 lights. Then you = a deadly wound and must
> > role magic loss.
>
> Talked with Mike Mulvihill about this some months back, when I was actively
> game-mastering a campaign. All it takes is getting to the Deadly mark,
> whether you take an HVAR burst in the back or you get a whole lot of paper
> cuts. You get to D, you check for magic loss.

What? Was this for SR2 or SR3 (since you say it was "some months
back")? SR3, at least, says "_a_ Deadly wound" (pg 129)... Possibly
this is a case of the DLOH being applicable?

About the only thing that I can see suggesting that it's cumulative is
that SR3 pg 129 has "major invasive surgery" to replace organs/limbs
as possibly causing Magic loss due to damage, even though M&M pg 150
only has it as being Serious for any given limb or organ, implying a
need for other damage (e.g., from the limb/organ being bioware and
thus harder to install and/or for the body being difficult to get used
to). (In regard to non-bioware limb/organ transplantation, I would
personally scale this up to Deadly if it's a really major organ (e.g.,
the skin) or a set of organs (e.g., the entire digestive tract
including, say, pancreas); that's the assumption I was making
regarding whether bioware was removable and reusable sans Deadly
surgical damage.)

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Patrick Goodman)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 00:15:03 2001
From: Allen Smith
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 PM

Before we commence: It's completely unnecessary to send this both to the
list and to my personal email. I can assure you I'll see it if you simply
post it to the list.

> > Talked with Mike Mulvihill about this some months back, when I was
> > actively game-mastering a campaign. All it takes is getting to the
> > Deadly mark, whether you take an HVAR burst in the back or you get
> > a whole lot of paper cuts. You get to D, you check for magic loss.
>
> What?

I believe I was more than clear in that paragraph.

> Was this for SR2 or SR3 (since you say it was "some months
> back")? SR3, at least, says "_a_ Deadly wound" (pg 129)...

SR3; it was within the past year. If I'd meant any longer, I'd have said
something besides "some months ago." Don't read things into my words that
aren't there.

> Possibly this is a case of the DLOH being applicable?

I wouldn't know. I traded in my psychic's license some years ago, as it was
too expensive to maintain. You'd have to ask him, and I've misplaced his
email address at his new job for the moment; it's on my desk somewhere, but
I'm in the middle of a move.

In any case, that was the ruling I was given when I asked for clarification,
and that's good enough for me. It make sense to me that this was how it
worked, so I guess this is a case of mileage varying.
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 00:35:01 2001
On May 24, 12:31am, Patrick Goodman wrote:
> From: Allen Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 PM
>
> Before we commence: It's completely unnecessary to send this both to the
> list and to my personal email. I can assure you I'll see it if you simply
> post it to the list.

The list software is set up so that if I hit "reply" it goes only to
the person in question, but if I hit "replyall", it goes to both the
list and the person in question. Normally, lists tend to be set up
this way to avoid reply loops. In order to send this reply that should
be going only to the list, I had to manually edit the reply addresses.
I try to do this when people request it, but I don't always remember to.

> > > Talked with Mike Mulvihill about this some months back, when I was
> > > actively game-mastering a campaign. All it takes is getting to the
> > > Deadly mark, whether you take an HVAR burst in the back or you get
> > > a whole lot of paper cuts. You get to D, you check for magic loss.
> >
> > What?
>
> I believe I was more than clear in that paragraph.

I wasn't saying you weren't clear. It was an expression of startlement...

> > Was this for SR2 or SR3 (since you say it was "some months
> > back")? SR3, at least, says "_a_ Deadly wound" (pg 129)...
>
> SR3; it was within the past year. If I'd meant any longer, I'd have said
> something besides "some months ago." Don't read things into my words that
> aren't there.

I wasn't; I was simply losing track of when SR3 came out... sorry.

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 04:40:05 2001
According to Rookie, on Thu, 24 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> I was under the impression that when you take a deadly wound. i.e.. 10
> boxes of damage any person with a magic attribute must role for magic
> loss.

10 boxes from a single attack, I suppose you mean. Otherwise, this is
saying exactly the same thing as the next paragraph :)

> However the rest of the group I play with disagreed with me.
> They stated that if you reach "Deadly Wound" 10 boxes be it through 3
> moderates and a light or 10 lights. Then you = a deadly wound and must
> role magic loss.

As I've always understood it, any time your Physical Condition Monitor
reaches Deadly or highr, you have to roll for Magic loss. Regardless of
whether it's from 10 Light wounds or a single Deadly one.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Who needs that now?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Brother Justice)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 09:00:01 2001
>From: "Allen Smith" <easmith@********.rutgers.edu>
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.com
>To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
>Subject: Re: Question regarding Magic Loss
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 00:40:06 -0400
>
>On May 24, 12:31am, Patrick Goodman wrote:
> > From: Allen Smith
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 PM
> >
> > Before we commence: It's completely unnecessary to send this both to the
> > list and to my personal email. I can assure you I'll see it if you
>simply
> > post it to the list.
>
>The list software is set up so that if I hit "reply" it goes only to
>the person in question, but if I hit "replyall", it goes to both the
>list and the person in question. Normally, lists tend to be set up
>this way to avoid reply loops. In order to send this reply that should
>be going only to the list, I had to manually edit the reply addresses.
>I try to do this when people request it, but I don't always remember to.

Really? Are you sure it's not on your end? I simply just hit reply here, and
the address is automatically the list's address.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 10:50:01 2001
At 12:08 PM 2/15/2000 +1100, Simon and Fiona wrote:
^^^^^^^^^

Check you're email settings Simon, you're living in the past ;)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 10:50:04 2001
At 12:40 AM 5/24/2001 -0400, Allen Smith wrote:
>On May 24, 12:31am, Patrick Goodman wrote:
> > From: Allen Smith
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 PM
> >
> > Before we commence: It's completely unnecessary to send this both to the
> > list and to my personal email. I can assure you I'll see it if you simply
> > post it to the list.
>
>The list software is set up so that if I hit "reply" it goes only to
>the person in question, but if I hit "replyall", it goes to both the
>list and the person in question. Normally, lists tend to be set up
>this way to avoid reply loops. In order to send this reply that should
>be going only to the list, I had to manually edit the reply addresses.
>I try to do this when people request it, but I don't always remember to.

Sorry Allen, but the list isn't set up that way.

The list software tacks on a Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.com header before
it sends it out to subscribers. Most email programs are configured so that
if there's a reply-to: header they use that for replies instead of the
from: header. Somehow your email program is ignoring that header.

I'd suggest looking in your emailer's settings.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Question regarding Magic Loss
Date: Thu May 24 17:45:01 2001
On May 24, 11:07am, Graht wrote:
> At 12:40 AM 5/24/2001 -0400, Allen Smith wrote:
> >On May 24, 12:31am, Patrick Goodman wrote:
> > > From: Allen Smith
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:40 PM
> > >
> > > Before we commence: It's completely unnecessary to send this both to the
> > > list and to my personal email. I can assure you I'll see it if you simply
> > > post it to the list.
> >
> >The list software is set up so that if I hit "reply" it goes only to
> >the person in question, but if I hit "replyall", it goes to both the
> >list and the person in question. Normally, lists tend to be set up
> >this way to avoid reply loops. In order to send this reply that should
> >be going only to the list, I had to manually edit the reply addresses.
> >I try to do this when people request it, but I don't always remember to.
>
> Sorry Allen, but the list isn't set up that way.
>
> The list software tacks on a Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.com header before
> it sends it out to subscribers. Most email programs are configured so that
> if there's a reply-to: header they use that for replies instead of the
> from: header. Somehow your email program is ignoring that header.

Yes. This is called avoiding accidentally sending to a list when one
wishes to send to the originator of the message; I am on sufficient
email lists where private matters are frequently discussed that this
is far preferable... Reply-To is used for the "replyall" command in
MediaMail, but not for "reply".

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Question regarding Magic Loss, 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!