BW 2010 feedback

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:18 pm

stubby wrote:There's nothing stopping you from breaking everybody out of the squad if you want to do it all one-on-one style, but when you've got big groups of dozens-vs-dozens the game bogs down fast.

You are right that it slows the game down too much when dealing with a lot of troops. But there must be a better way then the whole engagement ring rules to do squad combat.
Maybe a better version of the 2005 skirmishing rules as they felt kind of lacking as they only addressed two handed weapons. It would also give people options which is always good.
Massive amounts of units on the battlefield engaged in a smash fest of epic proportions? Sure let's just save precious time and do some simple quick rolls. Huge battles require you to roll hands full of dice and don't have any room to fuss about things such as formation.
Only a few skirmishes on the battlefield? Play a more in-depth style of squad close combat as it will increase fun and the time it takes isn't that much of a problem.
This is of course analogues with the difference between how a general commands a huge horde of foot-soldiers versus how a small raider force captain commands his men. Small battles can go pretty in depth with the tactics involved with CC, it would just be nice if there where some options.
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 Quantumsurfer » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:11 pm

stubby wrote:I do plan on having Heavy Infantry with a shield wall ability, but I was hoping to think of some little bit of extra flavor somehow because the shield wall ability (automatic Armored for any shieldsman with more shieldsmen on both sides) isn't all that exciting by itself.


At first blush, the math seems to work out in favor of doing static bonuses, limited to +2 (one for each adjacent shieldmate) to armor. Basic minifig in the middle boosts armor to 6, minifig on outside boosts armor to 5. Attacking the middle is riskier, requiring exploding dice for normal weapon attacks, but screws the whole line. Attacking the sides would be common, wittling the line down more slowly. This is how I've seen it done, allowing small variation for rules idiosyncrasies, in other games. However, didn't I read that you wanted to scrap static bonuses? Also, this seems even less inspiring than the armoured solution and might well fall outside balance when shield walling with non-basic minifigs (being that they have a static 4 armour value). Doesn't feel like the right solution for *this* game.

...now that I've talked about something that I don't think will work and have no solutions to offer instead...

I'm a helper. I can give it some more thought as well. I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.
User avatar
Quantumsurfer
Thank god for Colette.
 
Posts: 1368
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:50 pm

Why not both? Static defenses AND armored bonus?

My beef is that we now have card names of "heavy" and "heavy infantry," which nobody has noticed is the exact same thing.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6346
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby aoffan23 » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:51 am

On a different note, I think there should be a line in the machine gun entry that the gun must some way of pivoting in order to arc fire. If a machine gun is fixed to the front of a vehicle that's moving straight forward, it doesn't have the ability to spray left and right. The same goes for chin-mounted guns on aircraft.

Not exactly sure what to say for flame throwers, though. Arcing ability would depend on what kind of flame thrower you were using, so stream-firing ones would act differently than the fan-firing ones. Yes, those are technical terms.
Tzan wrote:
Quantumsurfer wrote:I generally agree with Tzan
Warhead wrote:I agree with QuantumSmurfer.



I agree with Warhead.
User avatar
aoffan23
Pooplord
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:41 pm
Location: America's conjoined twin.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:26 am

I just found this in the rulebook:
When speed is critical, a minifig (or any mobile unit) can Sprint, giving itself extra inches of Move for the turn equal to its Skill Roll, as long as the minifig's entire Movement for the turn (including the Sprint) is in a straight line.

Somehow I always just rolled a d6 for sprinting even with hero's and elite unit's. Good to know.
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 Falk » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:31 am

Can you sprint up a hill?
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: 766
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:43 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby stubby » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:19 am

As long as it's not so steep that you have to climb instead of walk. The usual rule is that you can run or jump over anything two bricks tall, but for anything taller, you have to climb.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4715
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Colette » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:58 am

Just to clarify, can a flying unit "sprint" more flying movement as well, or is it just ground-based movement?
Image
Image
Because everything's better with math...and firepower.
User avatar
Colette
I for one personally welcome clown face bologna
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:04 pm
Location: This Forum

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby stubby » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:09 am

Yes. This includes flying vehicles also.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4715
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:33 pm

aoffan23 wrote:On a different note, I think there should be a line in the machine gun entry that the gun must some way of pivoting in order to arc fire. If a machine gun is fixed to the front of a vehicle that's moving straight forward, it doesn't have the ability to spray left and right. The same goes for chin-mounted guns on aircraft.

Not exactly sure what to say for flame throwers, though. Arcing ability would depend on what kind of flame thrower you were using, so stream-firing ones would act differently than the fan-firing ones. Yes, those are technical terms.


I guess, but I feel like this is the kind of things players would figure out at the table, and WISG if needed.

Something I HAVE been thinking about though is heavy MGs, and how to separate them from assault rifles rules-wise. Right now, I'm leaning towards them having the exact same stats, but for 1cp/size, a machinegun can be made heavy, and when it fires it's arc, it creates a zone that persists through the next turn. Any units walking into this zone friendly or otherwise, are hit with the weapon's damage once. Units hit on the player's turn wouldn't get hit again on their turn either: once you take a hit, you've taken a hit and that's that.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6346
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Whiteagle » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:08 am

aoffan23 wrote:On a different note, I think there should be a line in the machine gun entry that the gun must some way of pivoting in order to arc fire. If a machine gun is fixed to the front of a vehicle that's moving straight forward, it doesn't have the ability to spray left and right. The same goes for chin-mounted guns on aircraft.

Not exactly sure what to say for flame throwers, though. Arcing ability would depend on what kind of flame thrower you were using, so stream-firing ones would act differently than the fan-firing ones. Yes, those are technical terms.

Eh, I personally just limit fixed guns to a single arc...

After all, nobody can claim a wall of bullets needs to be accurate!

IVhorseman wrote:Something I HAVE been thinking about though is heavy MGs, and how to separate them from assault rifles rules-wise. Right now, I'm leaning towards them having the exact same stats, but for 1cp/size, a machinegun can be made heavy, and when it fires it's arc, it creates a zone that persists through the next turn. Any units walking into this zone friendly or otherwise, are hit with the weapon's damage once. Units hit on the player's turn wouldn't get hit again on their turn either: once you take a hit, you've taken a hit and that's that.

Eh, that seems a bit complicated and hard to keep track off...

I mean, is there really a need for Heavy Machine Guns to be separated from regular Autoguns?
Only reason I can think of is to create an instant field hazard in front of a machine gun nest, which could probably be house-ruled as a regular field hazard you have to roll skill checks for.
User avatar
Whiteagle
Mega Blok
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:30 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:24 pm

Whiteagle wrote:I mean, is there really a need for Heavy Machine Guns to be separated from regular Autoguns?
Only reason I can think of is to create an instant field hazard in front of a machine gun nest, which could probably be house-ruled as a regular field hazard you have to roll skill checks for.


Pretty much exactly this.

I want that exact idea as something more than a house-rule. People make miniguns and big bulky repeaters all the time - but stats-wise it's no different than your common AK. For the most part, this is okay and encouraged. But that idea to create an instant field hazard would be something that a minifig with a big-ass minigun should be able to do. Suppressive fire,for the most part, means that my guys have to have a response action saved up, and can choose to either wait until all the guys are in range of an arc (at which point they'd advance one at a time to take pot-shots), or waste that action on just a single guy. A properly setup machine-gun turret however should totally be able to just set up a field hazard, and completely avoid having to make that decision at all.

The best part is that if an autogun were setup and ready to mow down every minifig that came their way, each shot would make it more and more likely to run out of ammo. So, a machinegun nest could be overran if enough figs get thrown at it. Totally brikwars.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6346
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Rev. Sylvanus » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:43 pm

It seems to me, then, that you CAN do exactly what you suggest. Ch. 8 has the rules for purchasing field hazards of various sizes for various CP and damages (even fire for a flame-thrower fixture if you like). These field hazards could be centered around whatever the "Heavy" machine gun is. It takes an extended action to create the field hazard in front of the gun. The field can be dismissed (stop firing bullets) at any time in the event that figs want to reposition the gun. Then with another extended action, the field hazard can be replaced in the new location relative to the machine gun.

I actually really like this idea.
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: 1000
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:14 pm
Location: Appalachia

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby Whiteagle » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:56 pm

Rev. Sylvanus wrote:It seems to me, then, that you CAN do exactly what you suggest. Ch. 8 has the rules for purchasing field hazards of various sizes for various CP and damages (even fire for a flame-thrower fixture if you like). These field hazards could be centered around whatever the "Heavy" machine gun is. It takes an extended action to create the field hazard in front of the gun. The field can be dismissed (stop firing bullets) at any time in the event that figs want to reposition the gun. Then with another extended action, the field hazard can be replaced in the new location relative to the machine gun.

I actually really like this idea.

Yeah, that sounds like the best option.

So a heavy machine gunner can take an extended action to set up his "Kill cone" or "Killone", where each enemy unit entering it has to beat his Skill roll to detect them or else they get a belly full of lead.
Each additional arc outside of his killone increases his Skill and Auto Penalties by one.

Thoughts?
User avatar
Whiteagle
Mega Blok
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:30 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Postby IVhorseman » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:49 am

Nnnnnope, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind too. Creative uses of field hazards.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6346
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

PreviousNext

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests