Page 43 of 103

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:14 am
by Gungnir
Introductions are unnecessary when you can just fade into existence. :twisted:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:22 am
by IX_Legion
Just thought of a potential problem with armor. I was reading the section in the 2010 rulebook on collisions, and it said trample damage was equal to the difference in the sizes of the attacker and defender. What happens when a size 6 tank runs over an armored size 1 minifig? The five difference in size will cause enough damage to kill the minifig, and no die is rolled for the armor to remove. So is armor ineffective vs. trample damage?

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:53 pm
by Gungnir
IX_Legion wrote:Just thought of a potential problem with armor. I was reading the section in the 2010 rulebook on collisions, and it said trample damage was equal to the difference in the sizes of the attacker and defender. What happens when a size 6 tank runs over an armored size 1 minifig? The five difference in size will cause enough damage to kill the minifig, and no die is rolled for the armor to remove. So is armor ineffective vs. trample damage?

Think about what happens to a person when a tank rolls over them.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:07 pm
by stubby
Yeah, a size 6 tank is a pretty big tank.  I'm pretty sure the armor just pops at that point.

Armor is mainly meant to make small hand weapons irrelevant.  Getting crushed by supertanks should still be considered relevant.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:14 pm
by Gungnir
stubby wrote:Yeah, a size 6 tank is a pretty big tank.  I'm pretty sure the armor just pops at that point.

Better yet, the armor compresses the 'fig within and squirts his insides out like toothpaste.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:02 am
by IX_Legion
Okay, just curious.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:33 pm
by Ross_Varn
But the armor is completely fine! It's just coated in a fine red paste when the next guy picks it up.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:54 am
by IVhorseman
Sweet, free paint job!

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:29 pm
by aoffan23
I found an inconsistency between the chapters 5 and H.

Chapter 5 wrote:A cowardly minifig wishing to escape Close Combat can attempt to Withdraw, moving away as part of his regular Movement.

Chapter H wrote:Normally, if a minifig in Close Combat attempts to Withdraw (5.2: Close Combat), he must use his Action to do so

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:24 am
by stubby
:fu:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:05 pm
by mercury19
I don't know if this has been posted already, and I'm not going through 43 pages to find out, but, for me at least, chapters ten and eleven go to a 404 page, on all of my browsers (IE 9, google chrome, and safari)

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:49 pm
by Ham
mercury19 wrote:I don't know if this has been posted already, and I'm not going through 43 pages to find out, but, for me at least, chapters ten and eleven go to a 404 page, on all of my browsers (IE 9, google chrome, and safari)

Image

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:07 pm
by aoffan23
stubby wrote::fu:

So which one is right? Just curious.

EDIT: Mercury, because Ham apparently doesn't have anything useful to say, they're not finished/published yet.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:52 pm
by IVhorseman
I'm pretty sure the first one - Minifigs used to have to spend an action to withdraw AND get attacked out of it, but now they get to keep their action. They still take the opportunity attack though.

Re: BW 2010 feedback

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:12 pm
by Gungnir
Makes sense to me. That's how it is in D&D.
[big fat nerd/]