BW 2010 feedback

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:31 am

badagle wrote: doing 1d6+1 over such a large area is a bit too much...


Nah, it's already two-handed. Two-handed weapons should all be clearly superior to one-handed.

Oh, and Keldoclock, a 6 comes up on a d6 more often than an 8 does on an 8.

badagle wrote:How about an Autogun making a single shot attack does 1d6+1, while Arc and Burst attacks do 1d6?


Naaah, doing different damage with the two modes doesn't make sense either. Maybe 1d8 per shot isn't that overpowered...
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Whiteagle » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:50 pm

IVhorseman wrote:
badagle wrote: doing 1d6+1 over such a large area is a bit too much...


Nah, it's already two-handed. Two-handed weapons should all be clearly superior to one-handed.

badagle wrote:How about an Autogun making a single shot attack does 1d6+1, while Arc and Burst attacks do 1d6?


Naaah, doing different damage with the two modes doesn't make sense either. Maybe 1d8 per shot isn't that overpowered...

Well then why don't we just keep Autoguns at 1d6+1?
I'd rather they not completely eclipses rifles as long range weapons.
User avatar
Whiteagle
Playmobil
 
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:30 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:04 pm

Long-range weapons already have 2" of range over the bastard autogun, but my question is whether or not that's enough.

I suppose that one could divide them further into SMGs at 1d6 damage and Assault Rifles at 1d8, but that's starting to delve into "too many guns" territory.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:14 pm

IVhorseman wrote:...are size 1 weapons wieldable by minifigs in just 1 hand?


To answer my own question, yes. Written in gray on gray on chapter 8's weapons table, it says under the ranged weapons heading that minifigs are limited to size 1" weapons, meaning that yes, they can wield the weapons in one hand (although would need two to reload). So, machinepistols, sawn-off shotguns and miniature flamethrowers would fall under the stats of a size 1 weapon of their type.

This also gives a little more justification to two-handed machineguns dealing 1d8 damage.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:04 pm

Oh jesus I think I just figured it out.

Treat large shields as Field Hazard energy shields. Give physical shields a UR of (FS+1) to successfully swing into place, so a 3" shield will be UR4 and deflect 3d6 damage. The way it works out, when the shield is overloaded it will even cause shield stun, decreasing the weapon size limit of a creation. These shields can even be specialized like energy shields. These special shields also work at the minifig level at size 1, with bulletproof shields or a dragonslayer's fireproof shield.

Sure, it's not providing the "armored" bonus or whatever, but it's a way to use existing rules in creative ways to create the same effect as a shield. Technically, old shields were already a size 1 field.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby stubby » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:07 pm

IVhorseman wrote:Treat large shields as Field Hazard energy shields.

I'm going to look into this further, but my gut instinct is that the FH rules are going to be too complicated for shields. FH can afford to be more complex because they tend to be one-off niche things, but shields are more utilitarian and need to stick to a simplicity level closer to other melee weapons in order to maintain game flow.

If I can figure out how to deliver something equivalent to what an FH version would do, without overloading the rules text, then that might be the way to go.
User avatar
stubby
Psy.D Manchild Psychology, U. of Wikipedia
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:30 pm

They're much simpler shields, and it'd be a great transition for when you do eventually explain them in the book. Instead of having to activate it, just give it a UR and allow for parries.

Use: (FS+1) Blocks: FSd6 or (FSd10 spec.) CP: (FS)

The field's projector range is the physical space taken up by the shield. After the shield is surpassed, the creation may not parry attacks with that shield until the start of it's turn.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:43 pm

Is it even possible for a minifig that's on fire (as in, not in a burning building but simply running around on tarmac) to burn to death on their own? They're limited to a fire size of 1, which means they'll only ever take 1d4 fire damage. With a total armor of 4, the fire damage can only meet the minifig's armor of 4, and never exceed it. When fire size increases, the extra fire spreads to nearby objects, but NOT to the minifig in question (the wording is: "to a single other object the burning object is touching").

The bastard flamethrower only has a 1/4 chance of dealing lethal damage, and the larger flamers are able to deal enough damage as well, but the only way for a burning minifig to finally sputter out is if he takes grinding damage, which is NOT fun to keep track of. Would it be better to just increase max fire size to size+1?
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Keldoclock » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:12 pm

How about- a minifig on fire must spend all his actions trying to put out the fire. Thus, fire becomes a method of battlefield control, owing to the spread of flamethrowers- you now must decide to kill one dude or put several dudes temporarily out of the fight (rolling on the ground, running towards water, w/e)
Image
stubby wrote:omg noob, balrogs are maiars too, don't you know anything
User avatar
Keldoclock
Pooplord
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: New York City

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:17 pm

According to facebook chat you just keep track of grinding damage on minifigs anyways. It works out to 1 point of grinding damage per turn on fire, which is a pretty manageable statistic. Bigger flamers deal even more grinding damage.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Pwnerade » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:14 pm

Keldoclock wrote:How about- a minifig on fire must spend all his actions trying to put out the fire. Thus, fire becomes a method of battlefield control, owing to the spread of flamethrowers- you now must decide to kill one dude or put several dudes temporarily out of the fight (rolling on the ground, running towards water, w/e)

This makes sense. If you spray burning fuel on someone it will take a little while to kill them. But in the mean time they're not going to be doing anything other than being on fire, and they might even set somethign else on fire in the process.
An army marches on its stomach, and its favorite food is fudge.
User avatar
Pwnerade
Playmobil
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:18 am
Location: Kent, WA

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:11 pm

Yeah but minifigs attempting to shoot the last guy on the other team even though they're on fire are totally awesome.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Keldoclock » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:19 pm

Which my idea encourages?
Image
stubby wrote:omg noob, balrogs are maiars too, don't you know anything
User avatar
Keldoclock
Pooplord
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: New York City

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:22 pm

Your idea forces them to lose their action as a penalty for being on fire, where as of now they can already attempt to attack or do other actions (with a penalty to skill of course).
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Keldoclock » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:44 pm

I read the syntax of your question wrong- i thought you were saying it was hilarious to shoot at a burning dude.

I dunno, I think the added gameplay effect is worth the lost hilarity, Brikwars is full of unintentional hilarity enough that we can afford to drop some of it.

Now if only reconnoissance land vehicles were actually useful...
Image
stubby wrote:omg noob, balrogs are maiars too, don't you know anything
User avatar
Keldoclock
Pooplord
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: New York City

PreviousNext

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests