Hey guys, i'm new here! Sorry if this isn't the right forum to ask, but i couldn't see an apropriate one.

Anyway, some of you may remember the old Shadowrun trading card game done by FASA about 10 years ago. Me and 2 other friends still buy cards (on ebay) and play every week, and we had a nasty argument the other day about a card. None of the rulings or the unofficial FAQ could enlighten us with the answer.

I'm pretty sure i'm right, and one of the guys agrees, but the third guy just refuses to accept it because he thinks we're wrong. That led us to stop playing with the card that generated the confusion, but it's the most effective counter to his tactics, so we need to know this. It's like this:

He plays Special cards like "Riots - all runners in play take 2 damage" and "Drive By - turn runner you control with Piloting to inflict 3 damage on any runner in play". When i played "Bad Reputation - target player who just attacked an opponent's runners loses 10 Reputation", he says i can't, because he didn't attack my runners, that attacks only occur in runner vs runner combat, damage dealt via a game effect isn't an "attack".

The manual and FAQ don't help, the manual only states attacker / defender in runner vs runner combat, and the FAQ only states "Bad Reputation" being played with cards like Bar Fight or Unstable Ally (cards which force runner vs runner combat).

But i think i can play the card, since it clearly states "target player who just attacked", not "target player's runners who just attacked".

So, which is it? Can i play it, or can't i?

Thanks for reading this long text, and if this is not in the apropriate section, again i apologize. I really dunno where to go for this, and i know the dumpshock admins/founders used to run or be around the old SRCard mailing list.

Cheers

I don't have any of my many copies of the rulebook on hand, but from your description, I would say that you cannot play it—he's damaged your runners, not attacked them.

~J

Well, technically the Drive-By requires the player to 'turn' a Rigger-dude to do damage, which should in all ways count as an attack. Riots does not have that stipulation, so is not as clear cut.

The nature of "bad reputation" requires an enemy runner that did something. You can play it after a "drive by", but not after "riots". Riots doesn´t discriminate between targets even, everyone takes damage is not an attack by him on you specifically.

Based on my general CCG experience, there is a distinction between damage dealt in attacks, and damage dealt from other sources.

I don't know if SR CCG makes that distinction anywhere else, though.

The key would be if there were any cards that refer to runners doing damage outside of attacks, I think.

I presume there's an actual runner combat phase in there?

I think Ryu did a good enough job of clarifying what I am saying. Drive By requires the Player using the card to actually turn (tap) a Shadowrunner to do the stated damage to a target Shadowrunner. This definitely counts as an 'attack' for the purposes of the Bad Reputation card.

I'm not following your logic there, though. Is there anything in the rulebook that supports the idea that turning a runner to do damage is an attack?

~J

I can't find it right now, but I know I've read something specific about this very type of thing. I really can't follow why you'd have a problem with it, as it seems logical to me. You can Bad Reputation someone who used Wanted (play on target runner ... turn runner to attack target runner) or Test Of Honor (force target runner to attack one of your Yak runners). A prerequisite of some kind of runner-on-runner action seems to be the key to the use of Bad Reputation, at least in my experience.

Right. Both of those cards involve attacking a Runner. As described, Drive By involves turning a Runner to deal damage to a Runner. There's no attack there that I can see—I can't follow why you wouldn't have a problem with it, so one of us is clearly missing something.

Would you classify using Lord Togo's special ability as an attack? I certainly wouldn't.

~J

No, because he could just as easily affect his own team mates (assuming he was stupid), as the damage is somewhat indiscriminate. The same thing for Riots, because the card does not descriminate in its damage dealing, and does not rely on turning an actual Runner to perform the act. Drive By is specific in that the Runner turned has to have the required skills to perform the task (himself), and therefore implies an attack.

I guess you could technically rule it either way, but to me it is certainly a no-brainer.

Lord Togo is specific in that you have to turn him to pay x nuyen and kill x elves. I guess you could accidentally overpay and end up having to kill more elves than all of your opponents have, thus killing some of your own, but…

Basically, I'm not sure how you're getting that to be "indiscriminate".

It's a no-brainer for me too—I don't even agree that you could rule either way. It's just that it's a no-brainer for me in the exact opposite direction as your conclusion

~J

There are two versions of Lord Torgo. The first, and no longer official or supported version is as you describe. The second, and official Lord Torgo reads ...

Ah, fair enough. Damn errata. Then would you consider the original Lord Togo's ability to be an attack?

Also, I get what you're saying, but to call anything in this game "official" or "supported" is kinda silly given that it's deader than most doornails

~J

I don't consider either Lord Torgo to have an attack ability (outside that normal to any shadowrunner that is ).

I don't think we are going to convince each other that they are wrong about Drive By. This is one of those situations where the rules suggest flipping a coin for a result.

[edit] Thinking about it more, I might actually consider the original Lord Torgo's ability to qualify as an attack. I know you won't agree though.

I don't agree, but it would maintain consistency with what I think your view is.

~J

Basically my view of what constitutes an 'attack' on a runner is the act of a Player turning a runner to facilitate the dealing of damage to one (or more) specifically targeted runner(s). Does that help?

Yeah. Whereas I consider it to be initiating Runner vs. Runner combat.

~J

Roll the d6 ...

I pick evens.

A 4. Guess I win

~J

Postscript: Yes, I really did roll that one

Wow, didn't expect to spark a discussion over here! Thanks for replying guys.

That said, i'm still not convinced, because the card reads "target player who just attacked", and how can the actual player attack? He can A) block or do a Test of Honor or Wanted or some such card or B) give "game effect" damage.
It comes down to what constitutes an "attack", and for me that means all physical damage dealt to runners, except when defending

Still, i'll let him read this and we'll talk about it. We usually decide these kinds of arguments with a dice roll, but he even refused to do that, so it ended up unsettled.

He can initiate an Attack, that being Runner Combat.

IMO, of course, but I'm right

~J

So, Fortune, could you play cards that boost attack damage on a drive-by, assuming such cards exist (I've never seen the SR CCG, though I think I should get it.)? I wish I knew more about the game, to know if there is armor, weaponry, etc to consider....

CCGs are, by nature, incredibly precise. A well written game will never use attack to refer to anything besides a specific phase called the attack phase, and a card with text including the phrase "Attack a runner". I don't know if the SR CCG is well written.

But, for instance, in M:tG, simply tapping a creature to deal damage to another creature is *specifically* not an attack. Same with Magination, and, iirc, Warlords (it's been a while).

I'm with Kagetenshi 100% on this one. If the card doesn't describe the action as an attack, it's not an attack. I've spent enough time running or participating in tournaments for various games that I know that entire games will hinge on that distinction, and I would be comfortable ruling that tapping/exhausting/what have you a card to deal damage to another card is *not* an attack.

Edit:

Based on this statement:

RESOLVING COMBAT
Combat may only occur between cards that have Threat Ratings. Combat is resolved by comparing the Attack Value of a card to the Body of an opposing card. Attacks and damage take place simultaneously and the cards involved inflict and receive damage at exactly the same time. This is true in all combat situations, whether they involve two cards or ten cards.

found at http://www.ccgworkshop.com/games/sr/rules/...#betweenrunners

I'm perfectly willing to agree that it's not an attack. You don't compare attack values, the runner starting the combat can't get hurt.

Attacks seems to refer specifically to the action taken when you compare threat ratings in a combat. Not when you deal damage.

Fortune: You cannot, under any circumstances, use common sense in a CCG. It'll *always* bite you on the ass.