New CP idea

Supplement ideas, house rules, homemade stat cards, homebrew weapon types, and other cool variations

Moderators: warman45, Rev. Sylvanus

Re: New CP idea

Postby Ham701 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:08 pm

IVhorseman wrote:We can call it the Inch Point Addendum - IPA for short!
:guinness:


You can measure your forces IPA by using a plastic basic ruler, or PBR for short.
stubby wrote: my floppy penis gets first dibs on it for tradition's sake, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll want to stick around long enough to play.

Image
User avatar
Ham701
Galidor
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:11 pm
Location: Watching DS9

Re: New CP idea

Postby Quantumsurfer » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:46 pm

stubby wrote:Not sure what you mean by Story Tags, but I like the sound of them. Can you give some examples of how these would work?


Well, I was thinking of your existing narrative templates. "After the Battle" and "BUT ALSO." Following a similar formula, we could create the very basic outline of a Kanon system. Here's what I'm thinking.

Instead of Customization Points, you have Kanon Points. KP. That's even funny because it's spelled with a K. So, at the beginning of a battle, you can spend your KP to acquire Story Tags. These are effects that are always relevant to the story, battle, army, unit, etc. The most basic and common uses of KP would be to bump stats on the whole one for one basis. I spend one KP and the minifig with the cool hat in my five man squad gains the Story Tag "Grizzled Veteran Badass" and he bumps his skill up a die. I spend one KP and my tank gains the Story Tag "Built in the Hephaestus Plant" and bumps its armor up a die. (Side note: Maybe there is a premium for bumping movement? Like 2 inches for 1 KP?) Obviously, these Story Tags can be any description the player wants. They just help to build the narrative. KP could also be used to create situational effects. For example, I spend a KP to make it where my two leaders, Brik and Brak are never Cranky with one another because they're brothers and they've worked together in the past many times. I gain the Story Tag "Brik and Brak, Twin Leaders." I should keep in mind, though, that my opponent gets the same leeway:

BrikWars 2010 Story Negotiation wrote:remember that you are setting the tone for the stories they'll be inflicting on you just as hamfistedly.


These initial KP would be freebies. Pure advantages that help to shape the narrative and everyone gets them. But where the Kanon System could really shine would be during the battle. If you didn't have any KP left during the battle, you could declare that you are creating a Point of Kanon. Some situation has cropped up and you want to take advantage of it. I suppose you could even limit it like Heroic Feats or number per battle, if you wanted. These would not be free and would follow the template, Kanon Effect-However. You state how you're taking advantage (either by bumping a stat or by creating an effect) and your opponent gets to modify it. (Side thought: that would pretty much mean that actual heroic feats were really heroes creating their own free Points of Kanon). So, for example, let's say I have a minifig who survives something he shouldn't. I decide he's a badass and I want to keep him around so I declare a Point of Kanon on my turn that gives him the Story Tag "Tough as Balls" and I bump his armor up one. But I didn't have any KP to spend, so my opponent gets to modify it. She says that while it was a miracle he survived at all, it fucked up his leg real bad and his move is reduced by 1 (or 2 inches with the premium in play), giving him the Story Tag "Hobbled as Fuck." As another example, maybe my opponent put all his redcoats in a pretty little line and my sniper has them in his sights. I declare a Point of Kanon and give my sniper the Story Tag "Super Bullet" or "Specialized Training" or "I've Got You Now" or something and he gets to fire one shot that travels straight through each of them. I don't have any KP left, so my opponent also gives my Sniper the Story Tag "One Bullet Left" or "Recoil is a Bitch" and my sniper is either out of shots and must dump his weapon or the recoil knocks him from his perch and he takes falling damage.

Of course, you could limit (or let players decide) by saying that KP can only be spent Pre-Battle and/or During Battle. I don't think KP should carry through. It should probably be a case of if you don't spend them by the end of the fight, you lose them. Then, you do Post-Battle Kanon according to the "After the Battle-BUT ALSO" template and start over with a new battle.

Edit: It also occurs to me that since you are creating Points of Kanon before and during the battle and since you negotiate Points of Kanon during Post Battle, that you're discussing the same thing both places. Which means that even pedestrian stat bumps can lead to cool stories. Consider the minifig who starts as a badass. All I did was give him a stat bump for KP. But since its technically a Point of Kanon, I could negotiate it at the end of the battle in a campaign. Maybe he becomes a hero. BUT ALSO, his superiors don't trust him quite yet so he can only use his heroic feats next battle to affect himself and a specially chosen squadron. The evolution of a hero.
User avatar
Quantumsurfer
Thank god for Colette.
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby Silent-sigfig » Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:42 pm

I think CP works just fine. People who don't use CP probably won't use this system, which seems very hard to balance out specializations and armor. CP, while arbitrary, did that adequately.
BFenix wrote:
Silent-sigfig wrote: :dog:

Coolest 1000th post ever :D
User avatar
Silent-sigfig
Clown-Face Bologna
 
Posts: 2172
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Number one in USA

Re: New CP idea

Postby IVhorseman » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:59 pm

Actually I never used CP, but I am 100% behind this balancing aspect. Here's why:

Most of the time when my friends and I decide to play brikwars, we want to at least PRETEND the fights are even-ish. Since I know the rules better than anyone at my tables, I'm usually afraid of being at a significant advantage since I'm going to actually remember to take my opportunity attacks and counter attacks etc. Putting a strict CP limit on armies requires the other players to follow the rulesets even more closely, and 9/10 times they'd rather just put on netflix or something instead.

However, by switching to a size-based balancing system, all players have to do is measure things out, and fill in the gaps by adding or removing a couple minifigs on each side. Is it actually as precisely balanced as CP was? No, but who cares as long as you're actually playing the game?

In carpentry, the rule goes "measure twice, cut once." For wargaming, I'm a massive proponent of "measure once, play twice."
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:37 pm

Silent-sigfig wrote:I think CP works just fine. People who don't use CP probably won't use this system, which seems very hard to balance out specializations and armor. CP, while arbitrary, did that adequately.

Armor already balances itself out with the Half Speed and no-fly restrictions. Most of the specializations do too, if you add equipment requirements. There are some that are tricky, for sure. Supernatural Dice are the biggest obstacle here. But the division is easy: Everything in the Core Rules is simple enough for the simplified inches system. MOC Combat has the fancier stuff that requires customization points, so they don't have to be introduced until then.

So some slight revisions. You're paying for inches of units (or the equivalent) rather than inches of creations (because "Unit Inches" is basically the best basis for measuring value in any wargame ever).

Creatures cost their size in UI.

A vehicle+pilot is equivalent to a creature. So: Vehicles and Steeds cost their size in UI, but come with a free Pilot/Rider.

Structures and weapons are free, but you still have to buy the Gunners to operate any weapons or devices.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby IVhorseman » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:58 pm

Fancy weapons could guarantee explode on a critical failure to help balance them out, too.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: New CP idea

Postby silasw » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:21 am

I believe that this system would end up reducing the players' options. Now there's no reason to build a troop transport without putting a huge gun on it, for example. I feel that it's very important that the game works well with any random creations the players want to bring to the table, and if you make certain creations strictly worse than others, that might just leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth. (Basically, you end up telling people that there's a right way and a wrong way to build Brikwars creations.) At least with CP there's some justification for fielding a questionably useful creation.
I like the idea of specializations being free though. Maybe siege weapons need an extra cost?
TROLOLO
silasw
BrikWars Legend
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:45 am

silasw wrote:I believe that this system would end up reducing the players' options. Now there's no reason to build a troop transport without putting a huge gun on it, for example.

I feel that it frees the player up to do more. CP is more likely to prevent you from putting a huge gun on your transport, limiting your options.

Big guns are self-limiting; there's no point in having one if you don't have the gunners to operate it properly and some tactical reason to need a big gun in the first place. Gunners cost inches, and you don't want to waste them on a big gun if it's not going to add to your army's effectiveness - big guns are only useful if you're planning to take them against big targets. A vehicle without a big gun isn't "strictly worse" than one with a big gun, unless you can afford the gunners and you're taking it into a situation where a big gun is called for.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby Vason » Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:18 pm

6. While I think using a basic inches system would make the game easier to pick up, and simpler to play, I also have the feeling that the game's flow would shift radically, and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I feel like the basic inch system would be great for a quikwars style of play, for those who don't want to get into the full extent of the rules and just want to play, but adding customization points would easily make it just as complicated as it is now. I enjoy using CP, have a ton of fun chucking a bunch of CP into a small amount of minis and tanks, and I've found that when my opponent and I have a similar amount of CP worth of stuff, the fight is an even bloodbath on both sides and we have a great time. On the other hand, introducing someone brand new to Brikwars will likely take a couple of sessions to introduce unit abilities, weapon types, Supernatural dice, and restrictions and costs of each, no matter if it's Inches + Customization Points, or Construction Points. Overall, I feel like Construction Points would be more balanced for those who care about that sort of thing, while going pure Inches is good for those who don't.

7. Having a boatload of different weapons on a MOC, at zero additional cost, adds a ton to the units flexibility. On a minifig scale, there may not be a lot of difference; but as one scales up, the differences also increase. I may only be able to fire up to a certain number of inches per round, but having a MOC with the option to choose between firing a 16" megacannon, or 8 x 2" machineguns, , or 4 x 4" Launchers, or 16 x 1" shotguns, or whatever combination thereof / additions I'd like, is much more adaptable that a MOC of the same size that only has 4 x 4" Guns, and both MOCs would want 16 minis in a central gunnery room to be effective. I see no reason I wouldn't slap extra guns of every size I could think of onto my MOCs, even if I didn't have a bunch of gunners, because who knows? I may need to shoot at something massive that will give me bonuses to my roll. The armed-to-the-teeth MOC would most certainly be much more badass and hilarious to use (and I would CP it out in a heartbeat), but to say that it isn't worth more than the one with less guns doesn't really sit right. To expand on stubby's earlier post, not only would a Horse cost the same as a Robot Horse, it would cost the same as a 2" armored car with a 2 x 2" gun turret on top. Inches may encourage us to dakka up, but I'd hate to be the guy who shows up to a session with an army less ridiculously outfitted because my army's Kanon demands a certain aesthetic...or worse, show up and steamroll that guy just because my army has more stuff to use.

8. Armor has been an interesting topic in my group recently. We started out by armoring up our favorite creations, and having super-long battles where eventually everything is dead except for the vehicles with 4d10 armor sitting around plinking each other with the few guns that hadn't been shot off yet. This got boring fast. We then introduced a house rule that we couldn't go higher than 3d10 armor, and suddenly the battles have become the bloodbaths that Brikwars is made for. In short, I would say no matter what system winds up winning out, there should be some sort of additional restrictions on 4- and 5d10 armor.

9. I feel like the Supernatural dice are currently rather well balanced to the CP system, perhaps just reduce those down to 1 point per d4, up to 5 points per d12? One inch per d4, d6, or d8 and two inches per d10 or d12 seems a little too loose. Why would I ever choose a d6 over a d8, if not for cost? d8 has less chance of fumbling, and the option to add a cone if I want.
User avatar
Vason
Champion
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 10:24 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:43 pm

Vason wrote:6. While I think using a basic inches system would make the game easier to pick up, and simpler to play, I also have the feeling that the game's flow would shift radically, and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I feel like the basic inch system would be great for a quikwars style of play, for those who don't want to get into the full extent of the rules and just want to play, but adding customization points would easily make it just as complicated as it is now.

Adding customization points makes the complicated parts just as complicated as it is now. But most people just stick to the simple parts, and don't touch the complicated stuff at all. It makes 90% of the game much, much more streamlined, and the other 10% is the same as before. And it gives you a way to put specific limits on the complicated stuff separate from the simple stuff, which is a huge bonus in my eyes.

I don't think the games flow would shift that radically, but we'll see after I do some playtesting. My feeling is that eight inches of units on one team will be able to do about the same amount of work as eight inches on another team, even if one has the flexibility of a ton of weapons they're not using due to limited manpower or vehicle size.

The alternate solution, of course, is just to charge customization points for anything beyond a creation's natural weapon size limit, or make weapon inches cost against movement inches (the more you're carrying, the slower you go, naturally).

Vason wrote:7. Having a boatload of different weapons on a MOC, at zero additional cost, adds a ton to the units flexibility. On a minifig scale, there may not be a lot of difference; but as one scales up, the differences also increase. I may only be able to fire up to a certain number of inches per round, but having a MOC with the option to choose between firing a 16" megacannon, or 8 x 2" machineguns, , or 4 x 4" Launchers, or 16 x 1" shotguns, or whatever combination thereof / additions I'd like, is much more adaptable that a MOC of the same size that only has 4 x 4" Guns, and both MOCs would want 16 minis in a central gunnery room to be effective. I see no reason I wouldn't slap extra guns of every size I could think of onto my MOCs, even if I didn't have a bunch of gunners, because who knows? I may need to shoot at something massive that will give me bonuses to my roll. The armed-to-the-teeth MOC would most certainly be much more badass and hilarious to use (and I would CP it out in a heartbeat), but to say that it isn't worth more than the one with less guns doesn't really sit right.

This doesn't seem like the place I'd be seeing the huge difference. 8" of weapons are going to do 8 dice of damage regardless of how you split them, so the flexibility would give you some advantage but not so much that it'd be gamebreaking. It's something I'm going to be looking at in playtests though.


Vason wrote:To expand on stubby's earlier post, not only would a Horse cost the same as a Robot Horse, it would cost the same as a 2" armored car with a 2 x 2" gun turret on top.

Yes, but with different abilities. The creatures can engage in Close Combat, use Angry Inches, jump sideways, swim, etc, while the vehicles are more durable.

Vason wrote:8. Armor has been an interesting topic in my group recently. We started out by armoring up our favorite creations, and having super-long battles where eventually everything is dead except for the vehicles with 4d10 armor sitting around plinking each other with the few guns that hadn't been shot off yet. This got boring fast. We then introduced a house rule that we couldn't go higher than 3d10 armor, and suddenly the battles have become the bloodbaths that Brikwars is made for. In short, I would say no matter what system winds up winning out, there should be some sort of additional restrictions on 4- and 5d10 armor.

We're on the same page here.

Vason wrote:Why would I ever choose a d6 over a d8, if not for cost? d8 has less chance of fumbling, and the option to add a cone if I want.

Because a d8's effects diminish with distance, and a d6's don't. It's grapeshot versus a rifle round.

Edit: I just went back and looked, and I guess that isn't really spelled out very well yet. But yes, the intention with d8s is that they disperse with distance, and most of the time a d6 is the better choice for anything at range.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby IVhorseman » Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:01 pm

I'm going to put it out there that I'm actually not a very big fan of the d8 for damage. Bastard shotguns require a damage roll of 6+ to kill a minifig only 2" away, and any closer than that makes it extremely unlikely that more figs will be killed by the spread.

I also want to point out that things like computer gunners still count as an inch, even if the computer model is under an inch in size.

Here's an exploit I'm looking at: I currently treat jetpacks as size 1 vehicles that grant flying movement. A regular minifig costs 1" currently, and equipped with a jetpack their cost would come up to 2." However pilots come for free with vehicles that need them, so for an inch less I could get a unit that can actually use their jetpack in the same turn as their other action, with only slightly lower armor (on average rolls) than a standard fig in exchange. Thoughts?
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:47 pm

IVhorseman wrote:I'm going to put it out there that I'm actually not a very big fan of the d8 for damage. Bastard shotguns require a damage roll of 6+ to kill a minifig only 2" away, and any closer than that makes it extremely unlikely that more figs will be killed by the spread.

6+ on a d8 isn't overly tough; that's better than 1 in 3 odds. But even in real life, shotguns aren't great for killing people. I was about to say I know a bunch of people who've gotten shot by buckshot and barely even remember it, and then I suddenly remembered that I'm one of them - I got shotgunned in the leg eighteen years ago and completely forgot until just now. It put a bunch of holes in the shin of my luckily least-favorite pair of leather pants.

Bastard Shotguns are good for knocking people over in groups (with 1" of KnockBack) and and killing off 0-hit vermin and cannon fodder in an arc. Larger shotguns get more efficient, because it's -1 per inch, not -1 per d8 per inch.

IVhorseman wrote:Here's an exploit I'm looking at: I currently treat jetpacks as size 1 vehicles that grant flying movement. A regular minifig costs 1" currently, and equipped with a jetpack their cost would come up to 2." However pilots come for free with vehicles that need them, so for an inch less I could get a unit that can actually use their jetpack in the same turn as their other action, with only slightly lower armor (on average rolls) than a standard fig in exchange. Thoughts?

My first thought is, why would you use the minifig as the pilot for any vehicle? If you're going to treat jetpacks as a vehicle, then a pilot is the only logical choice.

If you don't want to be subject to the vehicle restrictions, then just treat the minifig as a 1" flying creature. Cost, one inch. Can't wear armor, limited to one inch of weapons while flying.

In seriousness though, if you really wanted a minifig instead of a pilot, it seems like there's no reason you can't just swap any free specialist for a free regular minifig instead.

Vason wrote:9. I feel like the Supernatural dice are currently rather well balanced to the CP system, perhaps just reduce those down to 1 point per d4, up to 5 points per d12?

Because a d12 isn't worth five times as much as a d4, mainly.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby Rev. Sylvanus » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:26 am

I know this is only a minor consideration in the broader conversation, but I like the prospect of free pilots with any size vehicle. In CP-riven games with the medieval twist, mounted cavalry tend to cost at least 3 times that of an armed foot soldier, and I my army creation crunches, taking three infantry versus one cavalry always erred on the former choice. In terms of combat effectiveness, the mounted soldier always seemed more comparable to two infantry..

Like I said, small random interjection, but I like the prospects of this re-simplified "accounting" system.
For Your Reading Pleasure: Rev's Battle Reports

Reference Sheets: Animals and Mounts / Medieval Weapons

Factions: Dragon Guard / Hiimboredagain Raiders
User avatar
Rev. Sylvanus
Galidor
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:14 pm
Location: Appalachia

Re: New CP idea

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:19 pm

stubby wrote:My first thought is, why would you use the minifig as the pilot for any vehicle? If you're going to treat jetpacks as a vehicle, then a pilot is the only logical choice.


Only because I like treating jetpacks as an alternate form of sprinting. Run 5", jetpack another 5" averages out to slightly better than standard sprinting does - pilots only run at 4" per turn and had to actually roll their armor values. Most of the time we'd only realize that the pilot had moved or taken damage as a regular minifig until it was too late, so I started opting for using regular minifigs. Is there an actual reason to give pilots lower armor and speed if we're no longer factoring in CP?

And shotguns do 1" knockback? I did not know that, and it's not super clear in the rules. This makes shotguns significantly cooler - is it 1" per d8 or just 1" regardless of size?

EDIT:
Chapter 8.1.3: Knockback wrote:Whenever large weapons successfully hit a small target, there's a potential for KnockBack similar to a collision (5.4: Charge!). In most cases this can be safely ignored, and players are encouraged to forget about this rule except in special instances where it would be sufficiently awesome and/or funny. In those instances, any time the Size of a weapon is larger than the Size of a target it strikes, the target is Knocked Back one inch for every die in the weapon's Damage rating, with the usual potential for being Disrupted as a result.


I think it'd be fun for blastguns to have a special exception that gives knockback when the size of the target is equal or less than the size of the gun. It brings more attention to this rule I never remembered existed, AND makes shotguns a bit more useful.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:05 pm

IVhorseman wrote:Only because I like treating jetpacks as an alternate form of sprinting. Run 5", jetpack another 5" averages out to slightly better than standard sprinting does - pilots only run at 4" per turn and had to actually roll their armor values. Most of the time we'd only realize that the pilot had moved or taken damage as a regular minifig until it was too late, so I started opting for using regular minifigs. Is there an actual reason to give pilots lower armor and speed if we're no longer factoring in CP?

This kind of jetpack works a lot better as an equipment item that grants a stat boost. Call it 2CP, +5" Thrust.

The reason to give them lower armor and speed is because otherwise there's no reason not to make all minifigs Pilots. Which is kind of the quikwars way of doing things, so it wouldn't be game-breaking or anything. Maybe I should just get rid of Pilots altogether, or let regular minifigs act like the current Pilots and give Pilots new options to operate even more systems at a penalty or something.

IVhorseman wrote:And shotguns do 1" knockback? I did not know that, and it's not super clear in the rules. This makes shotguns significantly cooler - is it 1" per d8 or just 1" regardless of size?

Nope, I misremembered. Weapons used to do an optional inch of knockback per damage die, but I limited it just to larger weapons later. It might be cool to add it back in just for shotguns vs. minifigs or smaller.

IVhorseman wrote:I think it'd be fun for blastguns to have a special exception that gives knockback when the size of the target is equal or less than the size of the gun. It brings more attention to this rule I never remembered existed, AND makes shotguns a bit more useful.

Oh look, you had the same idea. Did you edit that in while I was in the middle of replying?

Technically all Bastard Weapons are supposed to be counted as Size 1.5", so they're already "bigger" than minifig targets stat-wise. I should add in a note.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bonus Material

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest