IVhorseman wrote:We can call it the Inch Point Addendum - IPA for short!
You can measure your forces IPA by using a plastic basic ruler, or PBR for short.
stubby wrote:Not sure what you mean by Story Tags, but I like the sound of them. Can you give some examples of how these would work?
BrikWars 2010 Story Negotiation wrote:remember that you are setting the tone for the stories they'll be inflicting on you just as hamfistedly.
Silent-sigfig wrote:I think CP works just fine. People who don't use CP probably won't use this system, which seems very hard to balance out specializations and armor. CP, while arbitrary, did that adequately.
silasw wrote:I believe that this system would end up reducing the players' options. Now there's no reason to build a troop transport without putting a huge gun on it, for example.
Vason wrote:6. While I think using a basic inches system would make the game easier to pick up, and simpler to play, I also have the feeling that the game's flow would shift radically, and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I feel like the basic inch system would be great for a quikwars style of play, for those who don't want to get into the full extent of the rules and just want to play, but adding customization points would easily make it just as complicated as it is now.
Vason wrote:7. Having a boatload of different weapons on a MOC, at zero additional cost, adds a ton to the units flexibility. On a minifig scale, there may not be a lot of difference; but as one scales up, the differences also increase. I may only be able to fire up to a certain number of inches per round, but having a MOC with the option to choose between firing a 16" megacannon, or 8 x 2" machineguns, , or 4 x 4" Launchers, or 16 x 1" shotguns, or whatever combination thereof / additions I'd like, is much more adaptable that a MOC of the same size that only has 4 x 4" Guns, and both MOCs would want 16 minis in a central gunnery room to be effective. I see no reason I wouldn't slap extra guns of every size I could think of onto my MOCs, even if I didn't have a bunch of gunners, because who knows? I may need to shoot at something massive that will give me bonuses to my roll. The armed-to-the-teeth MOC would most certainly be much more badass and hilarious to use (and I would CP it out in a heartbeat), but to say that it isn't worth more than the one with less guns doesn't really sit right.
Vason wrote:To expand on stubby's earlier post, not only would a Horse cost the same as a Robot Horse, it would cost the same as a 2" armored car with a 2 x 2" gun turret on top.
Vason wrote:8. Armor has been an interesting topic in my group recently. We started out by armoring up our favorite creations, and having super-long battles where eventually everything is dead except for the vehicles with 4d10 armor sitting around plinking each other with the few guns that hadn't been shot off yet. This got boring fast. We then introduced a house rule that we couldn't go higher than 3d10 armor, and suddenly the battles have become the bloodbaths that Brikwars is made for. In short, I would say no matter what system winds up winning out, there should be some sort of additional restrictions on 4- and 5d10 armor.
Vason wrote:Why would I ever choose a d6 over a d8, if not for cost? d8 has less chance of fumbling, and the option to add a cone if I want.
IVhorseman wrote:I'm going to put it out there that I'm actually not a very big fan of the d8 for damage. Bastard shotguns require a damage roll of 6+ to kill a minifig only 2" away, and any closer than that makes it extremely unlikely that more figs will be killed by the spread.
IVhorseman wrote:Here's an exploit I'm looking at: I currently treat jetpacks as size 1 vehicles that grant flying movement. A regular minifig costs 1" currently, and equipped with a jetpack their cost would come up to 2." However pilots come for free with vehicles that need them, so for an inch less I could get a unit that can actually use their jetpack in the same turn as their other action, with only slightly lower armor (on average rolls) than a standard fig in exchange. Thoughts?
Vason wrote:9. I feel like the Supernatural dice are currently rather well balanced to the CP system, perhaps just reduce those down to 1 point per d4, up to 5 points per d12?
stubby wrote:My first thought is, why would you use the minifig as the pilot for any vehicle? If you're going to treat jetpacks as a vehicle, then a pilot is the only logical choice.
Chapter 8.1.3: Knockback wrote:Whenever large weapons successfully hit a small target, there's a potential for KnockBack similar to a collision (5.4: Charge!). In most cases this can be safely ignored, and players are encouraged to forget about this rule except in special instances where it would be sufficiently awesome and/or funny. In those instances, any time the Size of a weapon is larger than the Size of a target it strikes, the target is Knocked Back one inch for every die in the weapon's Damage rating, with the usual potential for being Disrupted as a result.
IVhorseman wrote:Only because I like treating jetpacks as an alternate form of sprinting. Run 5", jetpack another 5" averages out to slightly better than standard sprinting does - pilots only run at 4" per turn and had to actually roll their armor values. Most of the time we'd only realize that the pilot had moved or taken damage as a regular minifig until it was too late, so I started opting for using regular minifigs. Is there an actual reason to give pilots lower armor and speed if we're no longer factoring in CP?
IVhorseman wrote:And shotguns do 1" knockback? I did not know that, and it's not super clear in the rules. This makes shotguns significantly cooler - is it 1" per d8 or just 1" regardless of size?
IVhorseman wrote:I think it'd be fun for blastguns to have a special exception that gives knockback when the size of the target is equal or less than the size of the gun. It brings more attention to this rule I never remembered existed, AND makes shotguns a bit more useful.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest