Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: AlSeyMer <AdSM@******.BE>
Subject: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 13:38:21 +0200
These questions have been annoying me for some years, and i've never
found a good answer. I would like to have your opinions about them.

1) In BBB (FASA7901) p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
complex action. At p.100, it's stated that the third step of melee
combat is: "3. Compare the Successes / The character who rolls the most
successes has hit his or her opponent. (...)".
As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?
If so, does he loose his next action?

2) From the Shadowrun FAQ, M2:

"M2: How does grounding spells into a spell lock work?
(snip)
Any combat spells grounded through a dual-natured entity (such as a
spell lock) will effect that entity and anything in direct
contact with it. Targets not in the direct contact of the entity used
for grounding cannot be effected by the spell, even if they are
in the spell's area of effect. This is because there is no aura
syncronization bridge between these bystanders and the caster of the
spell in astral space. Some combat spells have elemental effects. While
such spells will not do standard damage to the
bystanders, the elemental effects will still affect them and may do some
damage or have other effects.
A few examples:
(snip)
Powerball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, the focus'
user, and anyone in the area of effect.
Powerball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter
and anyone in the area of effect. "

Is it me, or is there a contradiction in this? I mean, Powerball is
listed as an area-effect combat spell. I agree about the syncronisation
stuff (BBB p.149). I also agree about the fact that a grounded
area-effect physical combat spell keeps its area-effect attribute (BBB
p.150). Is the limitation only in LOS or something else?

3) Stll about grounding spell: you can ground a spell through an active
focus.
_a: But, can you ground a spell through a sustained spell?
_b: If not, how can you ground a spell through an active spell lock, as
the aura of the locked spell is around the aura of the spell lock?
_c: A quickened spell doesn't need any physical object to be "sustained"
(as opposed to a spell locked one needing a spell lock), so how can you
ground a spell through a quickened one?

I'm sure these question have already been answered, but as i'm a new
list member, i would really appreciate clarifications about them.

Thanks.

AlSeyMer
Message no. 2
From: roun <roun@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 05:02:40 PDT
hey there, don't worry about being new and asking questions...that's what
the list is for...(of course i am NO expert, just very opinionated!!! hehe)

----------
| These questions have been annoying me for some years, and i've never
| found a good answer. I would like to have your opinions about them.
|
| 1) In BBB (FASA7901) p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
| in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
| Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
| complex action. At p.100, it's stated that the third step of melee
| combat is: "3. Compare the Successes / The character who rolls the most
| successes has hit his or her opponent. (...)".
| As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
| initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?
| If so, does he loose his next action?

melee combat is an interactive process and involves several hits and blocks
in one combat phase and if the defender gets more successes (s)he has
managed to hit his attacker. note that the attacker wins in case of a tie
so the attacker does have a slight advantage. no, (s)he does not lose
their next action, in effect two characters in melee combat get a chance to
hit each other during attack and defense.

| 2) From the Shadowrun FAQ, M2:
|
| "M2: How does grounding spells into a spell lock work?
| (snip)
| Any combat spells grounded through a dual-natured entity (such as a
| spell lock) will effect that entity and anything in direct
| contact with it. Targets not in the direct contact of the entity used
| for grounding cannot be effected by the spell, even if they are
| in the spell's area of effect. This is because there is no aura
| syncronization bridge between these bystanders and the caster of the
| spell in astral space. Some combat spells have elemental effects. While
| such spells will not do standard damage to the
| bystanders, the elemental effects will still affect them and may do some
| damage or have other effects.
| A few examples:
| (snip)
| Powerball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, the focus'
| user, and anyone in the area of effect.
| Powerball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter
| and anyone in the area of effect. "
|
| Is it me, or is there a contradiction in this? I mean, Powerball is
| listed as an area-effect combat spell. I agree about the syncronisation
| stuff (BBB p.149). I also agree about the fact that a grounded
| area-effect physical combat spell keeps its area-effect attribute (BBB
| p.150). Is the limitation only in LOS or something else?

i do not quite understand the question here, reading it it seems as if you
answered yourself correctly....?!!?

| 3) Stll about grounding spell: you can ground a spell through an active
| focus.
| _a: But, can you ground a spell through a sustained spell?

well, a sustained spell is sustained by YOU, hence the drain and stuff, so
it does not have an astral connection between it and our physical plane of
existence

| _b: If not, how can you ground a spell through an active spell lock, as
| the aura of the locked spell is around the aura of the spell lock?
| _c: A quickened spell doesn't need any physical object to be "sustained"
| (as opposed to a spell locked one needing a spell lock), so how can you
| ground a spell through a quickened one?

a focus and a quickened spell both have astral conduits open through which
a spell can be grounded

| Thanks.
|
| AlSeyMer

hope that helps.

roun aka david
roun@***.net
Message no. 3
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 13:02:04 -0400
>As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
>initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?

Yes.

>If so, does he loose his next action?

No.

>2) From the Shadowrun FAQ, M2:
>" Powerball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, the focus'
>user, and anyone in the area of effect.
> Powerball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter
>and anyone in the area of effect. "
>
>Is it me, or is there a contradiction in this?

It's you. I don't understand what contradiction you see here.

>3) Stll about grounding spell: you can ground a spell through an active
>focus.
>_a: But, can you ground a spell through a sustained spell?

No. Spells cannot be cast at spells (BBB, pg. 148, end of col. 2).

>_b: If not, how can you ground a spell through an active spell lock, as
>the aura of the locked spell is around the aura of the spell lock?

I don't think the aura "wraps" around the lock. They are connected, but not
like an onion. I say this because if the aura wrapped, then you'd be
correct and spells could not ground through locks. Since they can ground
through locks, the aura's must not wrap. The same holds for spells around
people. A sustained, say, invisibility spell does not provide any sort of
"astral armor". You can still get to the aura of the person through the
spell. (Barriers are a slightly different story, however).

>_c: A quickened spell doesn't need any physical object to be "sustained"
>(as opposed to a spell locked one needing a spell lock), so how can you
>ground a spell through a quickened one?

Check question M10 in the FAQ, it deals with this. Basically, there is no
FASA rule stating that that you can ground through quickened spells. There
is also no rule stating that you _can't_. If they ever allowed such a
thing, it would seem to me to be a radical exception to the magic rules,
for just the reasons you mention.

>I'm sure these question have already been answered, but as i'm a new
>list member, i would really appreciate clarifications about them.

No sweat. Thanks for reading the FAQ first! BTW, the FAQ being discussed
here can be found at http://pobox.com/~wordman/ShadowFAQ.html.

Wordman
Message no. 4
From: Damion Milliken <milko@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 04:41:00 +1000
Wordman writes:

> >2) From the Shadowrun FAQ, M2:
> >" Powerball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, the focus'
> >user, and anyone in the area of effect.
> > Powerball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter
> >and anyone in the area of effect. "
> >
> >Is it me, or is there a contradiction in this?
>
> It's you. I don't understand what contradiction you see here.

The contradiction stems from the text above the examples that you quoted:

"Targets not in the direct contact of the entity used for grounding
cannot be effected by the spell, even if they are in the spell's
area of effect."

This implies that it is _impossible_ to affect any targets other than the
target actually in contact with the object being grounded through. This
line of reasoning is in open conflict with the examples of Powerball that
are given. I think that the explanation might be worth rewording to avoid
confusion, as the examples are correct but the explanation seems to disagree
with them.

...Says he, in awe of being in the presence of the famed Wordman...

<grin> ;-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: milko@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a22 C++$ US++$>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+$>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--)
O-@ M-- V- PS+ PE Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b++(+++)
DI+++ D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r(--) y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:58:37 +0100
AlSeyMer said on 13:38/14 Jun 98,...

> 1) In BBB (FASA7901)

Mine's 7900 :P

> p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
> in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
> Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
> complex action. At p.100, it's stated that the third step of melee
> combat is: "3. Compare the Successes / The character who rolls the most
> successes has hit his or her opponent. (...)".
> As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
> initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?

Yes. If a street sam on initiative 26 tries to punch a merc with
initiative 8, and the merc gets more successes, then the sam
takes a punch in phase 26, even though the sam was the one
who initiated the combat.

> If so, does he loose his next action?

No. In the above example, the merc can still act in phase 8.

> 2) From the Shadowrun FAQ, M2:
>
> "M2: How does grounding spells into a spell lock work?
[snip]
> A few examples:
> (snip)
> Powerball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, the focus'
> user, and anyone in the area of effect.
> Powerball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter
> and anyone in the area of effect. "

Yay! My examples again! :)

> Is it me, or is there a contradiction in this? I mean, Powerball is
> listed as an area-effect combat spell. I agree about the syncronisation
> stuff (BBB p.149). I also agree about the fact that a grounded
> area-effect physical combat spell keeps its area-effect attribute (BBB
> p.150).

I was trying to be absolutely clear in this, so there would be no
confusion over who or what gets hit. I don't see a contradiction,
at least not in the examples. However, reading Wordman's
explanation that preceeds the examples (which you quoted but I
snipped), then I agree, yes there is a contradiction. However, my
view is that my examples are right and the answer to question M2
needs to be revised -- carefully reading the text about spells and
astral space in SRII (just before the spell lists) will hopefully
make you agree with me :)

> Is the limitation only in LOS or something else?

All area-effect combat spells only affect targets in LOS of the
caster. So, a target hiding behind a corner would not be hit even
if he or she is in the spell's AoE. (And don't ask about complex
mirror constructions. Please... :)

> 3) Stll about grounding spell: you can ground a spell through an active
> focus.
> _a: But, can you ground a spell through a sustained spell?

No.

> _b: If not, how can you ground a spell through an active spell lock, as
> the aura of the locked spell is around the aura of the spell lock?

Because the spell lock forms a bridge between the physical and
astral planes, like any other focus. That's what's needed to
ground out a spell.

> _c: A quickened spell doesn't need any physical object to be "sustained"
> (as opposed to a spell locked one needing a spell lock), so how can you
> ground a spell through a quickened one?

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
*Gurth runs away screaming to hide under his stairs, then very
carefully locks the door once he's there*

Now at the computer under the stairs, I should be able to answer
this safely. Or as safely as this can be answered, that is...

The official answer, from FASA Mike, is that you can't ground
through a spell lock. My advice is NOT to argue over this, it has
caused some very big discussions in the style of "yes you can"
"no you can't" "yes you can" "no you can't" "yes you
can" "no you
can't" "yes you can" "no you can't" "yes you can"
"no you can't"
"yes you can" "no you can't" "yes you can" "no you
can't" "yes
you can" "no you can't" "yes you can" "no you can't"
... which
tended to devolve into flame wars.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:58:38 +0100
Wordman said on 13:02/14 Jun 98,...

> >Is it me, or is there a contradiction in this?
>
> It's you. I don't understand what contradiction you see here.

I do. The contradiction is that your answer says that spells won't
ground out to area-effect, while my examples mention that
Powerball affects everything in the AoE.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 7
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 17:54:56 -0400
At 01:38 PM 6/14/98 +0200, AlSeyMer wrote these timeless words:
>These questions have been annoying me for some years, and i've never
>found a good answer. I would like to have your opinions about them.
>
>1) In BBB (FASA7901) p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
>in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
>Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
>complex action. At p.100, it's stated that the third step of melee
>combat is: "3. Compare the Successes / The character who rolls the most
>successes has hit his or her opponent. (...)".
>As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
>initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?
>If so, does he loose his next action?
>
This was answered fairly well already, so I'll let it go... :]

>2) From the Shadowrun FAQ, M2:
>
>"M2: How does grounding spells into a spell lock work?
>
[SNIP]

Grounding has always been a fun topic. :]

SR 3rd Edition should be out ina few months, with the magic book coming
shortly after that. Steve Kenson and Mike Mulvhill have been hard at work
trying to fix some of these fun and confusing rules, and Grounding, Spell
Locks, and QUickenings were at the top of that list.

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in semi-production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/
UIN: 6460938

"Bill gates is just a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being a James
Bond villian."
-- Dennis Miller on HBO
Message no. 8
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:23:15 -0600
AlSeyMer wrote:
/
/ These questions have been annoying me for some years, and i've never
/ found a good answer. I would like to have your opinions about them.
/
/ 1) In BBB (FASA7901) p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
/ in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
/ Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
/ complex action. At p.100, it's stated that the third step of melee
/ combat is: "3. Compare the Successes / The character who rolls the most
/ successes has hit his or her opponent. (...)".
/ As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
/ initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?
/ If so, does he loose his next action?

The target of a melee attack may defend himself (and possibly hit his
attacker) without spending a complex action, and/or before his action
takes place. I.e., if the attacker goes on 24 and the target doesn't
go until 14, the target can still defend on 14.

BTW, believe it or not this does reflect real life *if* the target has
unarmed combat skill or melee skill (and is armed appropriately).
Counter attacking is taught in such a way so that it is reactive and
does not require conscious thought. I'm currently studying Hopkido.
When we go over self defense techniques we drill a defensive maneuver
repeatedly until it becomes second nature. And all self defense
maneuvers have a counter attack (or several possible counter attacks).
If someone attacks me with an attack that I've trained to defend
against I won't have to think about it, because my motor cortex knows
what to do and has been trained to react.

However, here's some house rules that I use.

If a target of an unarmed/melee attack is suprised, he doesn't get to
defend himself. (This might be a real rule, but I can't remember for
sure :)

If the target of an unarmed/melee attack defaults to defend himself
(doesn't have unarmed/melee skill) he can't counter attack. If he gets
more successes than the attacker then the attack fails and that's it
(the target blocks or dodges). This reflects that the person has
natural talent, but hasn't drilled to reactively counter attack.

If the target of an unarmed/melee attack is doing something that
doesn't allow him to use his unarmed/melee skill he can't defend
himself, or if the situation is fuzzy he has negative modifiers. For
example I don't feel that a person who is weilding a PAC attached to a
gyro mount can use his unarmed combat skills effectively. This one
requires GM judgement.

And finally, in my game defending oneself from an unarmed/melee attack
costs a Free Action. This just keeps a target from defending himself
from multiple attacks on the same combat phase.

Hope that helps.

-David
Message no. 9
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:43:38 +0200
> These questions have been annoying me for some years, and i've never
> found a good answer. I would like to have your opinions about them.

So, here is mine... :)

> 1) In BBB (FASA7901) p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
> in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
> Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
> complex action. At p.100, it's stated that the third step of melee
> combat is: "3. Compare the Successes / The character who rolls the most
> successes has hit his or her opponent. (...)".
> As a character can only act at his initiative, may someone with a lower
> initiative damage his opponent in defense, even if he may not act?
> If so, does he loose his next action?

That's the main problem of melee combat IMO... By the rules, the
defender succeeds in injuring the attacker and can then attack at his
action.
Here is a house rule used by many GMs :
* When you defend in against a melee attack, you can only use a
maximum combat pool equal to your skill if you choose to counter
attack (i.e. do damage with your defense) but can use all your pool
if you choose to only defend yourself.
It doesn't resolve all the problems but some of them... :)

> 3) Stll about grounding spell: you can ground a spell through an active
> focus.
> _a: But, can you ground a spell through a sustained spell?

No.

> _b: If not, how can you ground a spell through an active spell lock, as
> the aura of the locked spell is around the aura of the spell lock?

The important point is that a spell lock has a physical part as well
as an astral one (i.e. It is dual).
The spell in the spell lock doesn't protect the spell lock. In
addition, the karma spent to put the spell in the lock makes the two
things only one entity.

> _c: A quickened spell doesn't need any physical object to be "sustained"
> (as opposed to a spell locked one needing a spell lock), so how can you
> ground a spell through a quickened one?

There are two main opinions (READ BEFORE REPLY : None is better than
the other. These are two different opinions with no sufficient
arguments from the rules. DON'T START A FLAME WAR ON THIS THREAD) :
* The Yes : Since you used karma to create the quickening, you did a
bridge between the physical and the astral plane. The conclusion is
that grounding is possible.
* The No : A quickening has no physical component. The conclusion is
that grounding isn't possible.

Make your choice as a GM or suffer it as a player. :)
Either way, think about the impact on the magic in your SR world.

> I'm sure these question have already been answered, but as i'm a new
> list member, i would really appreciate clarifications about them.

Welcome to the list. Do you want a beautiful shirt ? <commercial
smile> :)

> Thanks.

You're welcome.



    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 10
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:54:54 -0600
David Buehrer wrote:
/
/ The target of a melee attack may defend himself (and possibly hit his
/ attacker) without spending a complex action, and/or before his action
/ takes place. I.e., if the attacker goes on 24 and the target doesn't
/ go until 14, the target can still defend on 14.
^^
Drat, meant to type "24" there.

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 11
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:51:33 -0400
>> It's you. I don't understand what contradiction you see here.
>
>The contradiction stems from the text above the examples that you quoted:
>
> "Targets not in the direct contact of the entity used for grounding
> cannot be effected by the spell, even if they are in the spell's
> area of effect."

Ah-ha! I see now. The reason you are confused is that my editing sucks.
That sentence has no business being in the FAQ. I will remove it. In fact,
I think I meant to delete that whole paragraph. D'oh!

>...Says he, in awe of being in the presence of the famed Wordman... <grin> ;-)

"I seen all those heroes with feet of clay whose mighty ships have sprung a
leak."


Damn, damn, damn.

Wordman
Message no. 12
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:11:42 EDT
In a message dated 6/14/98 1:42:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
milko@***.EDU.AU writes:

> ...Says he, in awe of being in the presence of the famed Wordman...
>
> <grin> ;-)
>
Oh my, give -that- a rest Damion, -please- I beg of you... I knew Wordman
over the nets back then as well, and do remember you too. Lester's already
got an ego as big as mine, he doesn't need help.. :P

-K
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:18:47 +1000
> > 3) Stll about grounding spell: you can ground a spell through an active
> > focus.
> > _a: But, can you ground a spell through a sustained spell?
>
> No.

Gurth, you should have saved that answer for below when you warned him 'bout
trying to ground through a quickened spell. This is just as controversial
(and just as definitively answered). :)

Hope it's all fixed, with big bold letters giving the correct answer, in
SR3. :) If not, we'll ground a mana ball into the DLOH's office. :) (Via
ritual sorcery of course...)

--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robert.watkins@******.com *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 14
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:10:22 -0500
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:58:37 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>AlSeyMer said on 13:38/14 Jun 98,...
<SNIP>
>> _c: A quickened spell doesn't need any physical object to be
"sustained"
>> (as opposed to a spell locked one needing a spell lock), so how can
you
>> ground a spell through a quickened one?

>AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
>*Gurth runs away screaming to hide under his stairs, then very
>carefully locks the door once he's there*
>
>Now at the computer under the stairs, I should be able to answer
>this safely. Or as safely as this can be answered, that is...
>
>The official answer, from FASA Mike, is that you can't ground
>through a spell lock. My advice is NOT to argue over this,
^^^^^^^^^^
<SNIP>
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl -
<SNIP>

I think you mean Quickening? and I thought there wasn't an official
ruling ... :/

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:14:51 +0100
Alfredo B Alves said on 2:10/15 Jun 98,...

> I think you mean Quickening? and I thought there wasn't an official
> ruling ... :/

Yes, I meant quickening. The ruling wasn't official, but it was by
Mike Mulvihill, and made on this list IIRC (or else somebody
forwarded his reply to the list). That's as close as we're going to
get until SRIII's magic book comes out and we can see whether
or not they cleared it up there.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
An intelligent computer would be one that doesn't work most of the time.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 16
From: Grahamdrew <grahamdrew@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:08:58 -0400
> 1) In BBB (FASA7901) p.100, it's stated that melee combat is conducted
> in 5 steps. The fist and and second steps are Make Attacker's Test and
> Make Defender's Test. BBB p.83 states that Melee/Unarmed Attack is a
> complex action.

The first set of "melee combat" rules are for a straight you and me
going aou behind the schoolyard" brawls and stuff. You know sword and
monowhips, n guns or bows or anything. The complex action is if guy A)
is shooting at guy B, and guy B is trying to kick guy A's butt with a
monowhip. A ranged combat situation wherein people are using melee
weapons too.
--
DISCLAIMER: All grammatical and spelling errors are inserted
deliberately to test the software I am developing. In fact,
that is the only reason I am posting. Yeah, that's the ticket!
All my postings are just test data! Yeah!!
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/1673/
Message no. 17
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:25:03 -0400
K wrote:
>Lester's already got an ego as big as mine

...at _least_.

Wordman
Message no. 18
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some SR questions.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:32:12 -0400
I fixed the text in the ShadowFAQ that led to the surfacing of the exact
quickening demons the ShadowFAQ is meant to stop. My apologies to the whole
list. Sorry, everyone.

Wordman

"If I would have known that my son was going to be president of Bolvia, I
would have taught him to read and write."
-- Enrique Penaranda's mother

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Some SR questions., 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.