Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: kimgoyret@*****.es (Jong-Won Kim)
Subject: State of the Art: 2064 -- Opinions?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:23:58 -0500 (CDT)
So, what do you think of the book?

Jong-Won

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
Message no. 2
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: State of the Art: 2064 -- Opinions?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:20:23 -0400
At 06:23 PM 10/14/2004, Jong-Won Kim wrote:
>So, what do you think of the book?

I haven't had a chance to read it in depth yet, but I liked the brief skim
through I did. The back panel sums up the topics pretty well, and they're
all things that need deeper covering, or re-covering since Second Edition
(such as Lone Star).

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 3
From: pb3209@****.utah.edu (Jamison Cooper-Leavitt)
Subject: State of the Art: 2064 -- Opinions?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:58:56 -0600
Jong-Won Kim wrote:

>So, what do you think of the book?
>
>Jong-Won
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
>Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
>
>
I really enjoyed this book. Each section was interesting, with a
special mention about the Intelligence and Lone Star as being my
favorite sections. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the Adept section and
the European magic section. Surpirisingly I found the artwork to be
very good also. I generally don't like most gamming art, particularly
Shadowrun art, but the art in this book was done really well.

Veracusse

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about State of the Art: 2064 -- Opinions?, 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!