Re: [DL] Hexslinger revision (Spoilers? Boy Howdy!)

[Reemull <reemull@yahoo.co.uk>]

>          Agreed, but I must point out that the editing of 
> that book had far 
> more to do with that than Steve's writing, which rocked on 
> toast as always.
>          I also have to give major props to the Listserver 
> folks here, too. 
> I went back into the archives and checked out all the (really good) 
> questions people asked about that AB over the years, and I 
> took pains to 
> see they were answered in print in LS. Old-timers probably know them 
> already, but I addressed "Do cards appear in their hands?", 
> "Can they hex 
> cannons?" and all the Usual Suspects.

To be honest IMO, there is something about Hexslingers/Shootists that
just seems to fit the Deadlands setting so well.  Thanks for all your
efforts to ensure that our concerns and comments were not wasted, I
remember Shane saying at the time that there was no planned revamp of
the AB - guess it goes to show that it's worth saying something because
you'll never know where it'll lead.

>          I think I can boil the revison down to three points:
> 1) The name--no more confusion!
> 2) The Hexes--some additions (like Acoustic Shadow) and a LOT 
> of tweaks. 
> (With D20 Versions of all--see? I don't hate D20!;-))
> 3) Attitude. We are told that Doc Holliday--melancholy, 
> terminally ill 
> Holliday--was the first of their kind. The Shootist is now much more 
> reflective of Doc's personality, and I think grapples more 
> closely with the 
> issue of "What if you really WERE the deadliest gunslinger of all?"

Ah, I'm sure Steve Long will be pleased to know his creation is in safe
hands.

>          There will be no more ABs in the sense of one 
> getting a whole new 
> set of mechanics. With the Shootist, I hope to show that it's 
> more than 
> possible to tweak the existing ones into something that seems 
> new...sort of 
> like "sub-classes", if you will. (BTW, I'm working on another such 
> "sub-class" for Epitaph #5, but more on that later.)

You know - I could grow to dislike you, Mr McGlothlin.   :)

> >   Those I thought were a good idea - but some
> >were very impractical, i.e. it's fine to spend 3 actions to do a
> >piledriver on your opponent when they are unresisting and 
> it's all been
> >scripted out - but it's another to use a 3 action maneuver in
combat.
> 
>          I agree 3 is impractical, but I did make the Stunner 
> a two-card 
> manuever, just for game-balance sake.

Two actions I can cope with - it was just that with 3 actions it seemed
as if the poor sod was in the air for an awful long time and the player
(who initially thought the moves were excellent) ended up disenchanted
with the whole idea and stopped using them.  I always thought that it
was a bit of a pity really.

Anyway, thanks for your response,


Roy

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com