Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: IVhorseman, Pwnerade

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:56 am

Voin wrote:How do people handle Construction Actions in forum battles?  :???:

As far as I've ever seen, everybody just fudges it. Hand-waving -> "This is about how much he should be able to build in one turn" -> shrug  :fudge:

I'm always open to new ideas on this one, if anybody has any, because it's been a background sticking point for years.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:37 am

Voin wrote:Chapter 8.7 mentions "force field guns" - how would those work, exactly? Would they trap targets inside them, & if so, what happens when they shrink?

Depends on the force field, really. Some version of a Difficult Terrain or Spiked Obstacle Hazard seems most likely - a main effect of impairing movement, with a possible side effect of damage if you try to resist it.

Voin wrote:Is it perhaps like something out of "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets"?

We've had those in the past - the little minifig spray-bottle/fire-extinguishers were tools for creating bricks out of nowhere in earlier editions - but they never really caught on. I might reintroduce them if I ever do that miscellaneous Combat Equipment supplement with the parachutes and so forth.

Voin wrote:So... are you paying the infiltrator's 7CP cost twice (in which case they really cost 14 CP... damn) or are you paying the 7 CP for the infiltrator plus the specific CP cost for the enemy's unit (something you may have to ask your opponent if they're fielding custom units)?

You're paying twice the U" cost. I haven't got around to CP yet; I just have a placeholder value in there for now. Once I get back around to it, the CP cost is going to be CP:Variable. You get to pick a CP cost, and then you can choose to replace any non-unique enemy unit costing that much or less.

The alternative is coming up with some way to reimburse the enemy for the unit you just replaced. So then the Infiltrator costs 1U" / 7CP as normal, but when you replace an enemy's unit they get Outrage Bennies according to who got replaced and what they were controlling at the time. Right now it gets a little unbalanced if your infiltrator replaces the guy driving the gunship.

I'm also thinking of changing the non-unique requirement to say that the replaced unit has to be non-unique at the time of replacement, not just at the beginning of the battle - that way the Infiltrator can't replace your last one of anything.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:53 pm

Voin wrote:...Perhaps this will be that effect I spoke of earlier that can temporarily trap enemies in a force-field until they bust out or it runs out of energy & collapses?

I can also see it perhaps being used defensively, w/ an abjurer-wizard casting force-fields around friendlies.

The first is Difficult Terrain (-xd6" Move), the second is an Energy Shield (+xd Shielding).

Voin wrote:Say, does a force-field have an inherent structure-level anyway, & if so, what would it be?

Not as a field hazard. If you create it as a supernatural object, then it has whatever structure level you buy for it.

Voin wrote:Well, isn't the whole point of effective infiltration to replace someone who's in a pivotal position (like a leader's bodyguard), rather than "random schlub #147"?

Sure. As long as the leader has two bodyguards, go crazy. If he only has one, then the Leader will notice if he gets inflitrated. People pay more attention to one-of-a-kinds; that's why the heroes disguise themselves as storm troopers instead of Darth Vader.

Replacing someone in a pivotal position is great, but right now there's no roll for it - you pick a guy, you get that guy. There has to be a tradeoff or else I just spend my 7CP and infiltrate whichever guy is in charge of 700CP worth of equipment and win the game automatically.

Voin wrote:Speaking of, do we have at least the prototype stats for the "Bodyguard" specialty? I recall you mentioning it, &  I'd be interested in playtesting that.

Bodyguard: Standard minifig stats, but usually beefed up with Body Armor or Heavy Armor. Specialty: Meat Shield. Can automatically RedShirt for or Swap with any minifig within 5" of Movement (taking Movement Penalties into account) who's about to take Damage or an Attack. The Meat Shield Specialty overrides the Assassin's Vendetta Specialty.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:52 am

Voin wrote:How much CP would Bodyguard cost? I assume +1 like its counterpart Vendetta?

Sure. If I can get all the Specialties to cost 1CP then maybe I can change the whole schema. First Specialty costs +1, second costs +2, etc.

Voin wrote:6. Can "The Elusive 12vard" be reconfigured into a "The Flash"-like "Speedster", what with it's phasing through obstacles ability & stealth (normies effectively can't see a speedster, when he's at speed)?

If you like, but he's not moving all that fast unless you start stacking d12s. A diemon moving 1d12" per turn is pretty normal speed; 2 or 3d12" is starting to get into speedster territory.

Voin wrote:7. Can a d12 be given to a scout to allow them to use their Tracking ability to see through obstacles (X-ray vision, essentially)?

I think it'd be fair for him to tack a d12 onto the Tracking Specialty as inches of Range, so that he could see 1d12" behind the surface of a wall. But only in one place - he wouldn't be able to see behind every wall in his field of vision unless he spent the d10s or d8s to cover the area.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:55 pm

Voin wrote:Right, obviously - or buy regular speed into it. So now that we've established it can, technically be done, how would one make a speedster from the ground up, w/o having to muck around summoning one from a Diemon each time?

Speedster: Skill d6, Move 12", Armor 4, Specialty: Heroic Ego (Speedster), +1 Multitasking, 1d12 SN (Speedster). He'd be using that SN mostly for Move or extra Action.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:53 am

Voin wrote:For "alternate forms of Burning/Poison-like effects", I know it says "penalties to Armor, Skill, and Power", but would it be balanced to sub in variant penalties, such as Move or Damage Roll?

I can see that, for effects that weaken (i.e., disease) or slow (i.e., paralysis) rather than burning. It'd be on a case-by-case basis though.

Voin wrote:Armor-Piercing d6s are described as "a variation of Component Overkill" - does it actually destroy/make a hole in the component it goes through?

Potentially. The component it goes through takes damage, so it could be destroyed. If it's not destroyed, the piercing does make an imaginary hole as it goes through, if holes are important to keep track of (i.e., in a pressurized environment), but not one that destroys the component.

Voin wrote:How would extendable/collapsible weapons work? Folding stocks that make Bastard guns into 1" guns, spears that extended into pikes, etc? I assume you would buy the bigger (more expensive) version first, & then when you collapse it during battle use the smaller version's stats?

Sure, I guess. There'd be a question of whether it took an Action to convert from one mode to the other, but for most weapons I assume it'd be automatic.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:02 pm

Voin wrote:So if I wanted to grandfather in the old Stun/Regen rules (w/ maybe updating the Stun recovery roll to the unit's/operator's skill roll where applicable), are there any glaring reasons they wouldn't be compatible w/ the current rules (or would it be neater to just stick to emulating Stuns using a variant on Burning Rolls, perhaps w/ a -1d4 Penalty to all Skill rolls & Move, & maybe make regen an internally-initiated self-ker-triage roll)?

Sure, the Stun recovery rules would work all right.

For active regen I'd make it cost an Action and require a Skill Roll against Use:6, with potential for OverSkill dice to regen more limbs than just one, and crit fails meaning the limb is permanently lost.

For passive regen I'd treat it like a Burning Roll, except one that heals instead of harms, with the -1d4 Penalty whenever regen is happening whether it's successful or not.

For larger creatures, regen would regen an inch of Size damage or an inch worth of a limb rather than entire limbs all at once.


Voin wrote:Field Hazard: Signal Jammer

Maybe. I'm not a super fan of rock-paper-scissors mechanics though, because a lot of them end up wasted if the other player doesn't bring any of whatever they apply to. Unless it's a scenario where everyone agrees that signal warfare is going to play a big part, I'd want something more generally applicable so that a player could still get a use out of it even if his opponent didn't bring scouts or commanders.


Voin wrote:Targeting Beakon

This is a better example, since how effective it is or isn't doesn't depend on your enemies bringing the right stuff.

I'd treat it as a portable Mark, but only for the Beakon itself; everybody can shoot at the Beakon and just pray they catch whatever else they're trying to hit as collateral damage. That removes the need to keep track of a burnout timer, since the Beakon is likely to get destroyed in the first successful volley, but it makes that one big combined fire push more likely to succeed - as long as the Beakon is in the right place.


Voin wrote:We could give the target a chance to roll Bail and/or have the player trying to phase through obstacles make a Heisenberg Ker-Pow! Roll.

Bailing depends on the target having an unspent Action, or any actions at all; using a d12 to Thrust a castle into the ground would be a quick and cheap way to instantly win a battle. Every other weapon in the game becomes irrelevant if we allow d12 teleport kills.

Heisenberg Ker-Pow! is funny but overly complicated, especially if you're going to be d12ing every turn. That's the kind of table you only want to reference once a game at most. Maybe on a rare d12 Fumble, rather than something you could trigger on purpose by teleporting things into walls.


Voin wrote:8. Can you bounce grenades around corners?

Yes, but be prepared to have it bounce back and accidentally hit yourself. Bouncing off a wall is similar to firing blind, so there's a -5 Attack Penalty.

We were tossing around the idea for a Gunslinger at one point who could do trick bounce shots - also applied to Warrior Princesses / Tron Guys throwing chakrams - but it didn't really pan out as something general-use enough to be worth it.


Voin wrote:Can Mechaniks make a pile of briks into explosives?

You quoted the relevant sections yourself - it's up to the other players. In some games it would make sense, in some games it wouldn't.


Voin wrote:9. Waaait a sec, isn't everything in Brikwars made up of Ablogical Binding Substance/LEG-Ore, which allows
Brikwars Wiki wrote: fuelless vehicles, impossible structures, rebuildable lifeforms, and all of the unexplained sources of energy, thought, and motion that make BrikWars function
?

Yes. So if the other players agree, then you can make explosives out of ice cream and sparkles if you want. You can also declare that your third out of four scouts discovers he's a reincarnated god and uses his god powers to take over the galaxy instantly and you win every battle forever and everyone has to give you all their lego. Anything is possible, as long as the other players agree.


Demolitionist  (+1CP)

This is vaguely all right. I can't really map it to any real-world examples though, so he'd seem out of place in anything but extra-weird sci-fi or fantasy battles.


Voin wrote:10. is a Mechanik able to build new permanent (well, until destroyed like everything else) Field Hazards?

Sure, if other players agree that his creation would work as a field hazard.


Voin wrote:11. Is there any possibility for Medix to deliver "ranged Ker-Triage" (as per the various "healing guns" seen in video games & whatnot)? I looked over the Medix rules, & AFAIK, there's nothing explicitly stating that they have to be adjacent to their patient.

Sure, why not. He'd have to make an Attack Roll with a single-die ranged weapon, and he'd use the Damage Roll as the Ker-Triage roll, with the usual modifiers. Healing flamethrowers that cover an arc but have decreased effectiveness over distance; healing grenades that are super-effective within a radius but get used up, healing rifles for distant aid but with an Out Of Range penalty, etc. Again, healing weapons would be a little out of place outside of weird sci-fi and fantasy, but from a mechanical standpoint they'd be fine.
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:05 pm

Voin wrote:Alright, screw it - until we can find some way (if at all) to reign in offensive d12 in a sane manner, maybe make them personal-use only? So a unit can 12 phase itself, but not enemies?

I think it's fine if you just keep it as is - any teleport into a solid object fails automatically. Only teleports into a clear location succeed.


Voin wrote:Well, it's basically a bomb-maker/defuser. IRL examples would include gunpowder/petard/nitroglycerin/etc- creators from history, up through various improv. explosive-makers (and disarmers) on various sides of conflicts in the modern era (yes, even EOD - bomb-disposal not infrequently involves blowing up a hostile's bomb with another bomb of your own).

Okay, but that involves a guy bringing his own gunpowder/nitroglycerin etc, not making bombs out of random debris. I can't think of any good archetypes for guys who go out and make explosives out of scavenged parts mid-battle.

Voin wrote:6. Is it ok for a creature to have one fine & one cross manipulator in a pair of manipulators? (i.e. Cyborgs, mutants, etc.

Sure.

Voin wrote:7. How do we stat a manipulator that has properties of both fine and gross manipulators? For instance, Hulk can SMASH! (as per Gross Manipulators), but he also regularly grabs & throws things, & uses various objects around him as improvised weapons (as per Fine Manipulators). Do we just start off w/ Fine Manipulators, & "weaponize" them by buying in the equivalent Melee Weapon stats?

In Hulk's case it'd be Fine Manipulators plus a bunch of SN d6es for SuperNatural Strength effects. Super jumps, super throws, super smashes, super damage resistance.

For something less comic-booky, like a big robot, I'd say fine manipulators plus melee weapon stats.


Voin wrote:My question is: does Armor count for carrying/pulling as well as being carried/pulled? In other words, would an Armored train or troll have more carrying/pulling ability than an unarmored one? I mean, wearing more mass would mean they have more inertia/momentum.

Well let's picture this. Let's say I asked you to push a wheelbarrow full of heavy cinder blocks. Then I asked you to push the same load, but this time wearing full plate mail. Would the plate mail make you faster?


Voin wrote:9. Speaking of momentum, if I were to spend 2d10 SND & bump up the Structure Level of a hammer with which one minifig is whacking another (w/ the obligatory +2 to UR to attack for the SND use, of course), would it turn that once-humble instrument of thwacking into a Mark-2 Grav-Hammer, hitting the target with the force of a brick outhouse in the face (as per chapter 7), & thus applying all relevant Collision MOMs & Knockback?

Sure, but remember it takes 8" to build up 2 MOMs, so you wouldn't see their benefit in the distance of an arm swing. You'd be better off spending the d10s to simulate the end effects of the Collision directly (+1d10 Damage, +1d10" Thrust) rather than taking all the extra steps in between.
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby bann154 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:48 pm

With the trade dice rules that are in effect right now if i had a size 6 weapon and traded 2d6 for a single d10 explosive then trade that for area damage is it only doing 1d6 in a 2" AoE or is it doing the full 4d6 in the 2" area?
User avatar
bann154
bann is the mann
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Canada Eh?

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:29 am

bann154 wrote:With the trade dice rules that are in effect right now if i had a size 6 weapon and traded 2d6 for a single d10 explosive then trade that for area damage is it only doing 1d6 in a 2" AoE or is it doing the full 4d6 in the 2" area?

4d6+1d10 in a 2" radius.
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby bann154 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:23 am

OK thanks. What happens when something steps on something smaller? Simply size dice vs size dice or is it more complex?
User avatar
bann154
bann is the mann
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Canada Eh?

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:28 pm

Trample Damage. One point of damage for every inch of size difference. Not very effective on its own (unless you're way bigger than the target), but if you can combine it with Collision Damage it can sometimes make the difference between killing somebody and just knocking them over.
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby stubby » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:56 am

Voin wrote:6. Ok, so under the updated Weapon Mods rules, if I wanted to have, say a High Caliber (+Max Ammunition XSize)/Surgical (Damage or Effect as if 1 Size smaller) 1" Cannon (or Bastard Cannon) that fired a 2d round that a d6 of Penetrating followed up by an exploding d10 (so basically, a precision anti-armor weapon), what would that look like after all the numbers were crunched?

So, if you start with a 1" Cannon, High Caliber would let it fire as a 2" Cannon, and Surgical would bring it back down to a 1" Cannon again. So you'd have a 1" Cannon.

I should really re-combine the Effect and Capacity mods again, separating them was a bad idea. There's no weapon that both can apply to.

Voin wrote:Would I just take half the damage roll on the d6 & d10?

Stacking up half-dice starts to get complicated for rules and side effects based on number and size of dice. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's probably not worth it.

Voin wrote:7. What was the design-philosophy behind allowing cannons, which are direct-fire to have effectively infinite ammo, but making launchers, which do parabolic-fire, have to have all the ammo bought or otherwise provided?

Cannons fire every other turn and can only fire bespoke ammunition, while Launchers can fire anything you put into them, including your own troops or other Launchers. If I steal or shoot your ammunition supply, your Cannon is immediately useless, while a Launcher just becomes a tool for unconventional warfare. So they both have their tradeoffs.

Really, the design philosophy was that we didn't have a category that fit tank cannons, pirate cannons, and FPS rocket launchers very well. I wanted to have something that better matched that gameplay, so I made a new category. Keeping track of the ammo for those weapons isn't fun in the way that having to come up with funny Launcher payloads is fun, but I did still feel that ammo variation is a big part of what makes those weapons fun, so I tried to design accordingly.

Voin wrote:8. Can you fire clusters of smaller projectiles out of a Cannon, & if so, do rules for that from the Launcher section apply?

For grapeshot, etc., I figured d8 Blast projectiles would be the way to go. But if you wanted to break up a single multi-die Cannon shot into multiple single-die Cannon shots, rolled separately, then I'm sure it would be fine.


Sure. Size 2" MachineGun, alternate damage 1d10.

It doesn't work great, because MachineGuns are based on the idea that bullets are flying everywhere and you only track the ones that hit anything, and d10s are based on the idea that you track every single one of them, especially the ones that miss. But that seems to be the least offensive way to handle it.

Otherwise, I've never seen autocannons as having anything interesting or fun to warrant getting special rules attention. They mostly seem like they'd just be annoying to deal with in-game. Explosions are fun as singular events but working out the details for a half-dozen at once seems like it could only be super tedious. Explosions are supposed to be exciting. If I design a system where explosions make people roll their eyes and yawn then I'm an obvious failure.

Voin wrote:10. If "it's brix, not bricks", shouldn't "Marksman" be "Marxman"?

As funny as that is, I've been phasing out the x. It's briks, not brick.

Voin wrote:11. I noticed a new specialty: The Sneak. Can we get a ...wait for it ...sneak peek (sorry, not sorry) at it's specialty write-up?

The Sneak was a temporary working title; now he's just the Thief. Besides Stealth, his skills are Breaking and Entering, allowing him to overcome physical obstacles (as part of regular Movement) and security systems (as an Action), and Theft, which allows him to steal stuff without anyone noticing. Both can be accomplished as normal actions (while visible) or as Shenanigans (while hidden).

Voin wrote:12. What was the design-philosophy in making Bodyguards override Assassins & Snipers? It seems a bit of an oddly... defense-oriented departure from your usual "Attack! Attack! Attack!" focus. Not that I'm complaining, mind you - I tend to play wargames fairly conservatively myself. Just curious

I also play wargames conservatively, which I why I know that BrikWars bogs down fast if it leaves too many openings for players to play that way. So it's not Attack Attack Attack as much as Action Action Action! Killing a Bodyguard instead of a Great Leader is still killing somebody, and Bodyguards bring their own attacks to the fight, so it's a way of defending your high-value targets with action-increasing assets rather than action-reducing assets.
User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby AnnoyedZebra » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:19 am

Voin wrote:Image
(pic unrelated)

A bit late on  that one? All the cool kids have moved onto aancap smileys.
Actually why don't we have those for brikwars? They're super brikwarsy
Spoiler: show
Image
User avatar
AnnoyedZebra
Somebody make this Zebra's rank.
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:46 am

Re: Newbish n00b questions, MkII

Postby Captain-Camper » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:16 pm

AnnoyedZebra wrote:
Voin wrote:Image
(pic unrelated)

A bit late on  that one? All the cool kids have moved onto aancap smileys.
Actually why don't we have those for brikwars? They're super brikwarsy
[
Spoiler: show
img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cpc2-NFUsAA9GNc.jpg[/img]

seems more political then brikwars
User avatar
Captain-Camper
seriously?
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:17 am
Location: Here and There Along the Echo

PreviousNext

Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests