Combined Fire

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: IVhorseman, Pwnerade

Combined Fire

Postby Natalya » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:07 pm

If I have 6 minifigs with bastard guns and they combine fire on an armoured target and these guns do +1 and they all hit, is that 6 damage, or does it get ignored like the dice?
Image
  ▲
▲ ▲

"Each night alone I dream, that I'm a rebel Roller Queen‼
I'll be a star that shines, I can make the whole world mine‼"


Image
User avatar
Natalya
Tremble in awe, for I am become Admin, Banner of Noobs.
Tremble in awe, for I am become Admin, Banner of Noobs.
 
Posts: 5225
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Now in Ontario

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Rev. Sylvanus » Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:03 pm

Natalya wrote:If I have 6 minifigs with bastard guns and they combine fire on an armoured target and these guns do +1 and they all hit, is that 6 damage, or does it get ignored like the dice?


I've been playing that the +'s are separate from the actual dice when considering what armor removes. This has meant that in medieval games I play, three or four lucky spearmen can pick on an enemy armored knight. A good last resort, though not always cost effective.
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: Combined Fire

Postby stubby » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:19 pm

6 damage. That's part of the fun of bastard guns, they can do that little bit of extra damage that slips past Armor.

Vermin bites, on the other hand, are ineffective against Armor. I would change them to 1d1s but I think that would just confuse people even more.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Combined Fire

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:09 pm

But then if an armored knight get's attacked by three spearmen who's spears then do a combined damage of 6. Would blocking one of the attacks with his shield even do anything at all?
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
Playmobil
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

Re: Combined Fire

Postby stubby » Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:48 pm

Hey, that's a good point. Maybe I should add an option back in for parrying 1d6 in situations where Armored doesn't matter.

Alternately, I could just revise Armored to say that if there are no dice to cancel, then it just cancels all damage completely.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Combined Fire

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:26 pm

I think option two is better.
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
Playmobil
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Zupponn » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:43 pm

Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?
Image
User avatar
Zupponn
No Lego part truly dies
No Lego part truly dies
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
Location: Wisconsin, land of the cheese

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Colette » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:52 pm

Zupponn wrote:Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?

THIS. It's basically the same effect but doesn't feel as shitty and OP as just ignoring damage. I would not accept the new armor rules just because of the psychological effect of basically ignoring damage, not even giving it a chance.
Image
Image
Because everything's better with math...and firepower.
User avatar
Colette
I for one personally welcome clown face bologna
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:04 pm
Location: This Forum

Re: Combined Fire

Postby stubby » Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:14 pm

Zupponn wrote:Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?

We already have the Structure Level rules for that. That would just make Armor into an extra set of rules for doing the same thing we already have rules for, not unique enough to justify their existence.

Colette wrote:THIS. It's basically the same effect but doesn't feel as shitty and OP as just ignoring damage. I would not accept the new armor rules just because of the psychological effect of basically ignoring damage, not even giving it a chance.

That's your option; I'm already pretty clear about your opinion without you just repeating yourself a hundred times. I'm not forcing you to agree with everyone else that Armor is awesome.

Medieval foot soldiers probably felt the same way about armored knights that you do, but I bet the kings still thought they were pretty cool.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Combined Fire

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:09 pm

I really like the armor rules. You can't just overcome it with numbers, you need to bring something heavier then simple infantry weapons to take them down. Which adds rock, paper, scissor esque gameplay. It makes armored knights the dreaded melee tanks they are and makes space marines actually terrifying when they walk unscathed through a laser volley.
It also gives the you the possibility to make tanks feel more tank like. It doesn't matter how many machineguns you fire at a tank, it just won't pierce it's armor.
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
Playmobil
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Zupponn » Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:30 pm

stubby wrote:
Zupponn wrote:Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?

We already have the Structure Level rules for that. That would just make Armor into an extra set of rules for doing the same thing we already have rules for, not unique enough to justify their existence.

Then just have armor increase a minifig's structure level?
stubby wrote:Medieval foot soldiers probably felt the same way about armored knights that you do, but I bet the kings still thought they were pretty cool.

Yet the best way to kill a knight was to knock him off of his horse and beat him with a club.
Image
User avatar
Zupponn
No Lego part truly dies
No Lego part truly dies
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
Location: Wisconsin, land of the cheese

Re: Combined Fire

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:52 pm

Zupponn wrote:Then just have armor increase a minifig's structure level?

You can already just increase a minifig's structure level up to 1d10 armor. So that makes buying armor that reduces your movement by 50% and removes all halfspeed movements feel kind of stupid. Besides it doesn't give that "impenetrable by simple infantry weapons" feel armored unit's should have.
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
Playmobil
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Quantumsurfer » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:15 pm

I've also noticed that using armored rules can speed the game along in spots, which I'm all in favor of.
User avatar
Quantumsurfer
Thank god for Colette.
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Falk » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:18 am

Quantumsurfer wrote:I've also noticed that using armored rules can speed the game along in spots, which I'm all in favor of.

This. While adding stucture levels is all good and well when you're playing by yourself, some opponents just get bored if there's too much rolling and not enough playing.
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: 750
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:43 pm

Re: Combined Fire

Postby Rev. Sylvanus » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:48 am

Falk wrote:This. While adding stucture levels is all good and well when you're playing by yourself, some opponents just get bored if there's too much rolling and not enough playing.


Less rolling is good; this is why I like armor. Tactical decision making is good; this is why I like armor. Seeing a shove actually be useful as a close combat action (at least here we play that a minifig shoved while in armor is knocked over); this is why I like armor.

In fact, much of the time we just use static numbers for almost all armor values. Only having to roll for skill and damage makes for quick turns.
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

Next

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest