BW 2010 feedback

[stubby]

The "Armored" idea is really just ripping off all the ideas that were going by over BFenix's Juggernaut thread. Increasing an Armor roll from 1d6 to 1d10 never really felt like a game-changer to me, but making a guy (feel) invulnerable to small arms as soon as he puts on a bulletproof vest or plate mail? That has huge appeal, especially in targeting that six-year-old's action-movie mindset I always try to aim for.

It's just taken me a long time to figure out how to make them feel invulnerable without actually being invulnerable. The OverSkill dice did the job in that regard, and by putting dice into OverSkill Damage and taking dice out of Parrying (at least for Shields), it puts the rolling emphasis where I like it: in doing damage rather than avoiding it. And it cuts down on rolling overall, which I also like.

Shoving is completely unaffected, so in theory you could overcome the movement penalty by just having guys standing behind them shoving them into place.

[Rev. Sylvanus]

Just to clarify; an armored fig who successfully parries would remove two damage die from a weapon?

[IVhorseman]

I'm looking through the 2010 rulebook and I don't see anywhere that dice rolls got removed from shields or parrying. Does blocking immediately remove one of the d6s from the attack rolls now or something? And why would armor drop another of the attacker's die?

As far as I understand it, an armored fig parrying an attack simply subtracts his weapon's damage from the attacker's weapon's damage, and any leftover damage is dealt to the defender's armor.

[Rev. Sylvanus]

Reread the sections on bodily protection and shields. They are being revamped to act like the "juggernaut" trait that people have been talking about...

[stubby]

Just to clarify; an armored fig who successfully parries would remove two damage die from a weapon?

That's right! Just think of all the less math you'll have to do.

[IVhorseman]

A Shield is like a Hand Weapon devoted exclusively for Parrying (5.2: Close Combat), although they can sometimes also be handy for Shoving opponents into proper position for a follow-up attack. A minifig can Parry a wider range of incoming attacks with a Shield than with a regular Hand Weapon, including Joust attacks (H.3: Fighting From Horseback), Crash Damage, thrown weapons, and even some slower projectiles like arrows and slingshot bullets (although not, for instance, rifle rounds or lightning bolts).

For the purposes of Parrying, a Shield has a Damage rating of 1d6. It cannot be used in regular attacks, no matter how much you sharpen the edges.

Am I missing something? this is from the 2010 page

EDIT:

If the Parry succeeds, the Countering minifig rolls the Damage of the weapon he was using to Parry, and subtracts this amount from the Damage dealt by the attacker.

Again, from the 2010 rules.

Are you guys telling me that shields take away a die before it's rolled? because if so that's totally awesome. Not sure if regular body armor should work the same way, but i'll play around with it to see if i'm totally wrong.

[Rev. Sylvanus]

Hrrmm...interesting....this is what my 3.3 section says in the 2010 book...

A Shield is like a Hand Weapon devoted exclusively for Parrying (5.2: Close Combat), although they can sometimes also be handy for Shoving opponents into proper position for a follow-up attack. A minifig can Parry a wider range of incoming attacks with a Shield than with a regular Hand Weapon, including Joust attacks (H.3: Fighting From Horseback), Crash Damage, thrown weapons, and even some slower projectiles like arrows and slingshot bullets (although not, for instance, rifle rounds or lightning bolts).

A minifig who successfully Parries an attack with a Shield is Armored against that attack. Shields cannot be used to make attacks of their own, no matter how much you sharpen the edges.

And this is the new definition of "armored" (which also applies to body armor now)...

When striking a target wearing Body Armor, or one that successfully parries with a Shield, it's considered to be Armored against the blow. Striking an Armored target removes one die from the Damage rating of each weapon (or one die of each type, for weapons with multiple die types) when Damage is rolled.

[IVhorseman]

Weird. Are you using this link to it?

Also, WOW, one die of each type from the attack? To me, that sounds pretty damn overpowered, although I haven't tried using it. Does body armor work the same way but without a roll?

[Cakeman]

Chapter 8.2, Section about firearms and mounting of them refers to armorlevels of hinges etc. To avoid trouble if this changes <a href='http://tinyurl.com/y42zurt'>alot</a>, maybe just a reminder about lower armor and a link to that section?

[stubby]

Weird

Clear your cache and try again.

Also, WOW, one die of each type from the attack? To me, that sounds pretty damn overpowered, although I haven't tried using it. Does body armor work the same way but without a roll?

Yep. Not too many attacks have more than one die type though, so it's almost always just removing one die. Body armor feels a little OP, until you take the severely restricted movement into account.

It blocks the different dice separately because the different die types signify different types of damage. If the concussion from an explosion (1d10) sends a chunk of flaming (+1d4) debris (+1d6) at you, it'd be weird if the armor blocked all of the concussion but none of the flame, or all of the flame but none of the physical debris, etc. On the other hand if you're getting hit by the same number of just one kind of dice (say, a 3d6 chunk of debris) then it only blocks one die of the damage (reducing to 2d6).

I'm wondering if I should add an exception for d12s, since those are a type that generally isn't affected by armor - bolts of lightning or magic, etc. And d8s aren't really used for much of anything yet, damage-wise.

Chapter 8.2, Section about firearms and mounting of them refers to armorlevels of hinges etc.

dammit

[IVhorseman]

Personally I'd avoid adding yet another damage type in the form of d8s, but the d12 sounds like an appropriate candidate for ignoring armor, since it's the most "valuable" die anyways. Also, now that I see move is reduced to -50% instead of -1" the ability to ignore a flaming chunk of debris from a nearby explosion seems a lot more appropriate. Is there going to be some version of this for larger creations as well?

Having an armored plate on the front of a tank would mean that attacks from the front would be considered Armored, and having the entire creation covered in armor plates would mean that all Structural damage would be considered to be armored against, but component damage could still be dealt towards the exposed surfaces.

What's also great about this version of armor is that "armor piercing rounds" finally make sense in the context of Brikwars.

[stubby]

What's also great about this version of armor is that "armor piercing rounds" finally make sense in the context of Brikwars.

For a long time I was considering using the d8 for armor piercing damage, and changing Rifles and Heavy Weapons into dmg:d8 instead of 1d6+x. It'd mean introducing d8s a little earlier in the rulebook than I'd originally planned though, and I'd still want armor to block at least some of the armor-piercing damage. A rule like "d8s become d8-2" or something makes it one level too complicated to be worth it though.

[Whiteagle]

Well I do like the idea of rifles doing d8 damage.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for my Mobile Infantry to only do +1 damage more with their rifles then the pistol equipped RED-SHIRT clones.

[IVhorseman]

But it DOES make a whole lot of sense that rifles are mostly better than pistols in range, and only slightly deal more damage. Besides, +1 may not seem like a lot, but in statistical reality it makes a huge difference between a shot that kills and a shot that bounces off.

I do like the idea of rifles dealing d8, and I ESPECIALLY like heavy weapons dealing d8 because it actually gives them a significant edge over heavy autoguns (besides just range).

The way I'd handle it is to put 1d6+1 in the book, and as a parenthetical addition, "(or d8s if you have any)." If someone already has a bunch of d8s, they'd be more likely to use them than not.

Furthermore, I think armor carries enough penalties associated with it to really necessitate armor-piercing rounds being as common as the standard minifig 2-handed gun. Armor-piercing rounds (IMO) should be something either delegated to a minifig ability, or as a weapon modifier. I like the idea of shots that can completely ignore the armor being rather rare, as opposed to fairly common. Or, you could include this idea, and simply bring armor's move penalty back to -1" to compensate.

[Whiteagle]

But it DOES make a whole lot of sense that rifles are mostly better than pistols in range, and only slightly deal more damage. Besides, +1 may not seem like a lot, but in statistical reality it makes a huge difference between a shot that kills and a shot that bounces off.

I do like the idea of rifles dealing d8, and I ESPECIALLY like heavy weapons dealing d8 because it actually gives them a significant edge over heavy autoguns (besides just range).

The way I'd handle it is to put 1d6+1 in the book, and as a parenthetical addition, "(or d8s if you have any)." If someone already has a bunch of d8s, they'd be more likely to use them than not.

True, but then again I was also going to increase the Use score from 3 to 4 as well.
I figured it better refelected the "Morita Assault Rifles" used in the film.

Furthermore, I think armor carries enough penalties associated with it to really necessitate armor-piercing rounds being as common as the standard minifig 2-handed gun. Armor-piercing rounds (IMO) should be something either delegated to a minifig ability, or as a weapon modifier. I like the idea of shots that can completely ignore the armor being rather rare, as opposed to fairly common. Or, you could include this idea, and simply bring armor's move penalty back to -1" to compensate.

Indeed, especially since an anti-armor ability would give snipers greater utility then just being able to shoot farther then most figs.