BW 2010 feedback

[IVhorseman]

Flanking is just for melee attacks, right? Why not just treat it exactly like Ganging up?

Number of units in a squad shouldn't matter either, but flanking attacks should come from the opposite side in order to get the bonus. Still, two ninjas on opposite sides of even a moderately sized squad could be a death sentence.

Besides, getting around a Heavy Infantry's shields and attacking them is still an attack made possible by flanking, even if it doesn't force the opponent to start taking penalties.

Hey, this might be stupid, but is the whole "surrounded on four sides" thing a good place to play with morale? Something like at the beginning of each turn when surrounded, the squad must make a collective d6 roll, where 1 means run screaming and 6 means double actions or something like that?

Ker-rounded!

[stubby]

Officers are currently slated to raise the Skill of everyone in the Squad from 1d6 to 1d8 (or from 1d4 to 1d6 if you have especially useless Squad members) for any Action taken by the Squad as a whole.

They will probably also get the Drill Sergeant ability, which means they take a power drill to the temple of one of their Squaddies who wasn't paying enough attention (sacrifice one Squaddie), promoting discipline among the remaining members (the Squad gains one Benny which must be spent immediately).

[Cakeman]

I like that change to officers, alot more useful then the old special rule. But their price might go up because all of a sudden, they have a pretty cool ability (and the skill-raising ability too!). Squad of specialists?

[IVhorseman]

Or you could get rid of the one-time benny by making the officer have to sacrifice a useless squadmate in order to "unlock" the skill raise. Once the squad is dispersed, another member must be "disciplined" before they're able to use the ability again.

[IVhorseman]

There's something vaguely along those lines being cooked up for the new way armor works. Vehicles that ignore a die of armor would indeed have some kind of penalty to movement, but IDK what.

Hey I think I K what: Vehicles with full armor plating cannot move farther than they are long. So, an 8" armored tank cannot move faster than 8" and a 2" armored deathbot could only crawl at 2" a turn.

Armored Planes with regular flight maneuvering would drop out of the sky, but Armored Helicopters would still work.

Individual armor plates (like just adding side skirt armor or a bulldozer plow in front) do not slow down movement, but only protect the physical parts of the creation that they're built over. Some armor may be easier to (forcibly) remove than others.



Another idea would be to mess with acceleration: armored objects can only adjust their speed by halves, so a heavily armored APC that has a maximum speed of 12" will move 6" on it's first turn, then 12" if it continues to accelerate. Turning radius would not be affected, but slowing down would: even after hitting the brakes, the APC would travel another 6" before grinding to a halt.

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

Another idea would be to mess with acceleration: armored objects can only adjust their speed by halves, so a heavily armored APC that has a maximum speed of 12" will move 6" on it's first turn, then 12" if it continues to accelerate. Turning radius would not be affected, but slowing down would: even after hitting the brakes, the APC would travel another 6" before grinding to a halt.

I like this. It increases the chance of epic crashes.

[SnakeMittens]

Another idea for epic crashes is actually making the speed of the vehicle factor into turns? So if it's going too fast and it's not stable enough, it flips over and crashes into stuff. Or, it might just end up right side up and keep going. Who knows?

[IVhorseman]

Covered by stunt dice.

[sjosten]

Pages 10 and 11 don't show up when I try to get to them. I keep getting an error message that says the page wasn't found.

[Falk]

It's still WIP.

[IX_Legion]

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.

Vs. non-armor piercing weapons: armor removes one die of each type from damage.
Vs. armor-piercing weapons: armor reduces one die (each die?) by one die size (i.e. 1d8 becomes 1d6 rather than 0)

Would an armored fig with a shield who parries remove two dice of each type from damage?

And would it be OK to let the attacker roll for damage anyway, because critical success die can increase the number of dice in the attack, or would that be too complicated?

This would probably be player-made homebrew stuff, but you could also have selectively armor-piercing weapons. For example, my longbow might be AP vs. a chainmail-clad man-at-arms, but against the armored Death Tank it's useless.

[Gungnir]

I would think using armor-piercing damage against a unarmored target would reduce the damage due to over-penetration.

[IVhorseman]

If you ask me, piercing is piercing is piercing. either the attack penetrates the armor (and ALL armor) and deals full damage, or none at all. If you want to classify a weapon as armor-piercing, just say so and it is. You could also have your hero heroicly "find" some AP rounds in his back pocket and start handing them out like candy.

An armored fig with a shield totally blocks two dice of damage if he wants to; the attacker should NOT roll for damage however, since it still adds an extra 1/6 chance that the armor will be negated.


I've been tinkering about with a few "damage types" that could be applied to weapons for versatility (especially against armor) which might be more your fancy. The idea is that attacks made with these weapons would be best off just trying to do a normal kill shot unless in a specific situation, like warriors with blunt weapons being able to attempt to break bones and cripple limbs through armor. Piercing would have some bonus vs. armor (my current idea is that piercing weapons may treat armor as if it added 1d6 armor instead), and I'm still unsure how slashing/cutting attacks would fit into that (the ability to sever a limb on a matched armor roll already seems pretty nice).

[stubby]

Would an armored fig with a shield who parries remove two dice of each type from damage?

On a successful Parry, yes.

And would it be OK to let the attacker roll for damage anyway, because critical success die can increase the number of dice in the attack, or would that be too complicated?

The point of the heavy armor is to reduce the number of rolls and speed up play. Instead, look for a critical success when you make the skill roll for the attack, and then use the Overskill Dice as the extra damage that overcomes the armor.

This would probably be player-made homebrew stuff, but you could also have selectively armor-piercing weapons. For example, my longbow might be AP vs. a chainmail-clad man-at-arms, but against the armored Death Tank it's useless.

Chainmail is just a stronger version of regular armor (say, 1d10 rather than 1d6). Heavy armor that gives you the Armored bonus is made up of thick armor plating that slows you down but protects against everything.

[DeltaV]

'xept for 10 and 11 currently being banished into the 404-zone, it's good stuff.

Also, hellothereIamnewherewelcomeandshiz