BW 2010 feedback

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:59 am

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!
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: BW 2010 feedback

Postby stubby » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:06 pm

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).
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Cakeman » Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:15 am

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? :)
User avatar
Cakeman
Minifig
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Sweden

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:56 pm

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.
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: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:21 pm

IVhorseman wrote: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.
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: BW 2010 feedback

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:00 am

IVhorseman wrote: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.
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
My Little Pony
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby SnakeMittens » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:36 pm

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?
User avatar
SnakeMittens
Galidor
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Somewhere.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:29 pm

Covered by stunt dice.
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: BW 2010 feedback

Postby sjosten » Fri May 25, 2012 11:58 am

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.
Han Solo wrote: Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid.
User avatar
sjosten
Minifig
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:07 am
Location: Franklin Tennessee

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Falk » Fri May 25, 2012 12:53 pm

It's still WIP.
BrikWars 2010 Rules wrote:BrikWars ... stands in pretty direct opposition to many fundamental elements of the LEGO® philosophy, such as "Not Teaching Kids How Funny It Is to Set People on Fire."

Empire of Luchardsko WIP wiki page
User avatar
Falk
Jaw-Jaw
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:43 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IX_Legion » Sun May 27, 2012 9:11 am

stubby wrote:
IVhorseman wrote: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.
This should be in the Rulebook somewhere:

"Any problem on earth can be solved with the careful application of high explosives"
-Valkyrie (the movie)
User avatar
IX_Legion
Minifig
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: Conquering some random country

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Gungnir » Sun May 27, 2012 4:50 pm

I would think using armor-piercing damage against a unarmored target would reduce the damage due to over-penetration.
Give a minifig an inch, and he'll murder for a mile.
User avatar
Gungnir
Dimmy
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:01 am

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Sun May 27, 2012 9:27 pm

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).
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: BW 2010 feedback

Postby stubby » Sun May 27, 2012 10:42 pm

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

On a successful Parry, yes.

IX_Legion wrote: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.

IX_Legion wrote: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.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby DeltaV » Mon May 28, 2012 11:10 am

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

Also, hellothereIamnewherewelcomeandshiz :D
Brickwars: the only tabletop wargame that allows the units to have sexual intercourse with each other, produce offspring, and then use said offspring as Size 1 Explosives.
User avatar
DeltaV
Officer
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest