The BrikWars Forums

After some lengthy discussions on College Confidential, I finally found another UCSD student who wants to play Brikwars, and he's meeting me to discuss it at 2:00. I still need two more players before I start a team, but it's a step in the right direction. We might even find some way to play the game unofficially, though I doubt it.

good luck

leagues and tornaments remove the brikwars spirt since people start to play to win not play to have fun.

That's not true, I've been in leagues and tournaments where the entire purpose was to get together and drink beer and hook up.

There was always a team or two in the league that got all serious and thought it was about training hard and winning, but the rest of us just laughed at them for being morons and missing the point entirely. That's the nice thing about having teams though, you can put all the retards in one place and then ignore them.

Rayhawk wrote:That's not true, I've been in leagues and tournaments where the entire purpose was to get together and drink beer and hook up.

There are other purposes to stuff?

hmmm

"people who play to win go to that room over there to discuss tactics"
*once there all in the room*
"every else,lock that door"
"ok lets do this properly, snacks are over there lego pile is over there, just remember the rules 1:don't open the door 2:have fun 3:ignor rule 3

NatalyaAF wrote:

Rayhawk wrote:That's not true, I've been in leagues and tournaments where the entire purpose was to get together and drink beer and hook up.

There are other purposes to stuff?

I know, right?

Rayhawk wrote:That's not true, I've been in leagues and tournaments where the entire purpose was to get together and drink beer and hook up.

There was always a team or two in the league that got all serious and thought it was about training hard and winning, but the rest of us just laughed at them for being morons and missing the point entirely. That's the nice thing about having teams though, you can put all the retards in one place and then ignore them.

You can bite my plastic yellow ass; I take that personally, and I am no retard. If you're such a pissant about doing the slightest degree of calculations or tactics, I'd say the bigger retard is you. Thinking men may have less fun, but don't call them retards.

Might as well say it right now: I detest the informal, fudge-minded, "official" perception of Brikwars. Not saying I like math, but I'll do it if that means making it an actual game that can be won and lost validly. I detest vain social activities based solely around socializing and drugs. For me, there needs to be a sense of purpose. You may wonder why I'm even here when I dissaprove so strongly of the "official" way of playing BW. The reason is that I came on here for the 2001 version, which, granted, had somde very stupid rules (having to buy rockets for a bazooka, for example), but the 2005 version became just as stupid by sliding too far into the opposite direction, and denouncing lawfulness in general.

Sorry for acting like something crawled up my ass and died; now here is my explanation. The person I found and met at UCSD has not played with Legos since she(!) was a toddler, and back then all she was doing was building simple towers and walls. She has never played a roleplaying game in her life, and would not know the first thing about playing Brikwars.

So looks like this isn't happening, after all.

Well is she cute?

Professor Fairfield wrote:

Rayhawk wrote:That's not true, I've been in leagues and tournaments where the entire purpose was to get together and drink beer and hook up.

There was always a team or two in the league that got all serious and thought it was about training hard and winning, but the rest of us just laughed at them for being morons and missing the point entirely. That's the nice thing about having teams though, you can put all the retards in one place and then ignore them.

Might as well say it right now: I detest the informal, fudge-minded, "official" perception of Brikwars.

go play a diffrent game, brikwars main rules are the "what i say gos roll" and "fudge", the what i says gos means that you never need to look at the rule book (unless its vittal), and Fudge allows you too have that extra 1/4 of an inch of weapons on your flyer.

IVhorseman wrote:Well is she cute?

Apparently not since he doesn't want to take the time to teach her how to play.

RoC77 wrote:

IVhorseman wrote:Well is she cute?

Apparently not since he doesn't want to take the time to teach her how to play.

by "teach her how to play" im guessing you mean "get into her pants"

tahthing wrote: go play a diffrent game, brikwars main rules are the "what I say gos roll" and "fudge", the what I says gos means that you never need to look at the rule book (unless its vittal), and Fudge allows you too have that extra 1/4 of an inch of weapons on your flyer.

By extension, that also means you can play BW however the fuck you like, which means house rules can be thrown in. That's what I'd do, although there's also a good deal of complex rules I'd take out.

I don't really have a problem with fudging things when all the players agree that they'd rather not do extra math when it isn't vital. For example, when two infantry squads with similar weapons face off, the players might agree to fudge the shooting rolls and go right to the damage rolls. That is understandable. Of course, that one is case by case; if the players don't have many available reinforcements they might not fudge that one, to increase the length and excitement of the battle. It's more the justification Rayhawk and co give to the whole thing that I can't stand; when you're going to call somebody a retard for not wanting to fudge the rules because his army has rifles and the opposing army has pistols, that is too close to home for my tastes. Some people want to win, there's nothing wrong with that; and I'd say if somebody builds a huge army of tanks, dragons, and the like, and his opponents just have wooden spears, he logically should win; fudging or no fudging.

The rule I have much more of a problem with is the What-I-Say-Goes Roll. Mainly because, while the Rule of Fudge is designed to streamline the game, WISGRs can easily have the exact opposite effect, but still get associated therewith. Again, in his endless glaring bias, Mike only recognises jerky, cumbersome behavior as being constant reference to the rulebook; he's completely ignoring that anybody who wants to make a constant WISG role when the "less-important" rules give him a clear disadvantage is also being a jerk and holding up the game, and in fact, is an even bigger one. Sure, that's an opinionated statement, but an excessive rules-lawyer is only annoying if he's slow and biased; if not, a lawyer can actually be useful for saving other people the trouble of making calculations. As far as I'd run my games, the two initial rules would stay, with some annotations, but a third rule would say that under no circumstances can a sore loser use a WISGR to force everybody to fudge in his favor. Do that, and before long, you're just playing Craps.

Professor Fairfield wrote:

tahthing wrote: go play a diffrent game, brikwars main rules are the "what I say gos roll" and "fudge", the what I says gos means that you never need to look at the rule book (unless its vittal), and Fudge allows you too have that extra 1/4 of an inch of weapons on your flyer.

By extension, that also means you can play BW however the fuck you like, which means house rules can be thrown in. That's what I'd do, although there's also a good deal of complex rules I'd take out.

I don't really have a problem with fudging things when all the players agree that they'd rather not do extra math when it isn't vital. For example, when two infantry squads with similar weapons face off, the players might agree to fudge the shooting rolls and go right to the damage rolls. That is understandable. Of course, that one is case by case; if the players don't have many available reinforcements they might not fudge that one, to increase the length and excitement of the battle. It's more the justification Rayhawk and co give to the whole thing that I can't stand; when you're going to call somebody a retard for not wanting to fudge the rules because his army has rifles and the opposing army has pistols, that is too close to home for my tastes. Some people want to win, there's nothing wrong with that; and I'd say if somebody builds a huge army of tanks, dragons, and the like, and his opponents just have wooden spears, he logically should win; fudging or no fudging.

The rule I have much more of a problem with is the What-I-Say-Goes Roll. Mainly because, while the Rule of Fudge is designed to streamline the game, WISGRs can easily have the exact opposite effect, but still get associated therewith. Again, in his endless glaring bias, Mike only recognises jerky, cumbersome behavior as being constant reference to the rulebook; he's completely ignoring that anybody who wants to make a constant WISG role when the "less-important" rules give him a clear disadvantage is also being a jerk and holding up the game, and in fact, is an even bigger one. Sure, that's an opinionated statement, but an excessive rules-lawyer is only annoying if he's slow and biased; if not, a lawyer can actually be useful for saving other people the trouble of making calculations. As far as I'd run my games, the two initial rules would stay, with some annotations, but a third rule would say that under no circumstances can a sore loser use a WISGR to force everybody to fudge in his favor. Do that, and before long, you're just playing Craps.

tahthing wrote:

RoC77 wrote:

IVhorseman wrote:Well is she cute?

Apparently not since he doesn't want to take the time to teach her how to play.

by "teach her how to play" im guessing you mean "get into her pants"

I would rather not answer directly to any of these, for one key reason. One, because I despise misogynists (and Uncanny Valley pears too, but I digress), and two, because my screenname here is almost the same as on the forum where I contacted her, and I don't want to be an asshole behind her back. The actual problem is that she seemed less than enthusiastic, and she isn't really enough of a Lego fan to be enthusiastic; she was just being nice, so I don't want to infringe. See, all you anarchistic hooligans may see me as a deplorably anal Jewish professor, but I view myself as a gentleman. Of course, my armies are a great deal less gentle, and they'll chew yours to shreds with their AKs and their amphibious cars, but I will always be civil about it.

we're going to have some fun with you, Professor