BW 2010 feedback
Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman
- IVhorseman
- If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
- Posts: 5293
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
- Location: The Abyss
- Contact:
Re: BW 2010 feedback
2" always seemed a little short and silly, but it also works. 4" would stop armored minifigs from being able to make charge attacks, which is probably for the best. Horses would still be able to charge to their full extent, too.
At first I was going to bitch about this, but so far it's just sounding awesome. The only thing that I'm hesitating about is whether or not doubling that length makes the gameplay all that much different, but my gut feeling says that it'll be for the better. It'll make extended charges more useful on big-ass tanks, too.
At first I was going to bitch about this, but so far it's just sounding awesome. The only thing that I'm hesitating about is whether or not doubling that length makes the gameplay all that much different, but my gut feeling says that it'll be for the better. It'll make extended charges more useful on big-ass tanks, too.
Warhead wrote:my head burns with War.
Plastik Armory: a bunch of weapons and abilities compatible with the 2010 rules.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
Just making sure I understand this right: if I charge, I can combine with a sprint, and the distance gets counted from all the turns I spent in the charge, and then for each 4" I traveled in the whole charge, I get +1d6 damage that adds to the weapon's damage. Or did I completely misunderstand this? Also, can a vehicle charge even if it doesn't have any spikes?
Empire of Luchardsko WIP wiki pageBrikWars 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."
- Rev. Sylvanus
- Galidor
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:14 pm
- Location: Appalachia
Re: BW 2010 feedback
I think I would welcome this change.stubby wrote:As I'm doing another simplification round on the momentum rules, I'm thinking of changing the requirement to 4" per +1d6 Mom rather than 2". Comments welcome, even though I know nobody uses Momentum anyway.
I use momentum all the time and love its application. 4" to fully "charge" up a lance always seemed incredibly good and never seemed to mean horsemen had to maneuver very much to stay devastating. I think I would also like it because it would allow infantry, etc, to maneuver a little more in relation to foot spearmen. That is, a minifig with a spear charging two inches is a beast, almost to the point where the folks I play with see very little reason not to use spears over any other kind of heavy weapon, or even hand weapons for that matter. Knowing that (at least for medieval games) you can crowd in and potentially nullify the spear's power with well-planned movements adds tactical variety and also makes non-pointy hand-and-heavy weapons less obsolete.
My two cents, anyway.
For Your Reading Pleasure: Rev's Battle Reports
Reference Sheets: Animals and Mounts / Medieval Weapons
Factions: Dragon Guard / Hiimboredagain Raiders
Reference Sheets: Animals and Mounts / Medieval Weapons
Factions: Dragon Guard / Hiimboredagain Raiders
- Quantumsurfer
- Thank god for Kool-Aid™
- Posts: 2532
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm
- *CRAZYHORSE*
- Mega Blok
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
- Location: Procrasturbating.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
Yes, but! the amount of bonus 1d6's is limited to the creature's size if I remember correctely. So a minifig would never get more than 1d6 charge damage bonus dice. And a horse never more then 2d6.Falk wrote:Just making sure I understand this right: if I charge, I can combine with a sprint, and the distance gets counted from all the turns I spent in the charge, and then for each 4" I traveled in the whole charge, I get +1d6 damage that adds to the weapon's damage. Or did I completely misunderstand this? Also, can a vehicle charge even if it doesn't have any spikes?
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
I'm not sure why I orginally thought 2" was a good idea, to be honest. Maybe I was thinking in terms of exaggerating Damage output rather than exaggerating grand maneuvers? The idea of using SL:1 Armored minifigs as automatic-hitting 1d6 battering rams made me take a second look. (They can still be used as 1d6 battering rams, but 4" would mean they'd have to spend a couple turns building up speed first.)IVhorseman wrote:2" always seemed a little short and silly, but it also works. 4" would stop armored minifigs from being able to make charge attacks, which is probably for the best. Horses would still be able to charge to their full extent, too.
Your Size puts a limit on how many Momentum Dice you can have stored up at any one time. So yeah, minifigs top out at 1d6, Horses at 2d6.Falk wrote:Just making sure I understand this right: if I charge, I can combine with a sprint, and the distance gets counted from all the turns I spent in the charge, and then for each 4" I traveled in the whole charge, I get +1d6 damage that adds to the weapon's damage. Or did I completely misunderstand this? Also, can a vehicle charge even if it doesn't have any spikes?
The number of Mom dice you can spend at once depends on what you're spending them on - up to the Weapon Size for extra Charging Weapon Damage, for instance, or up to your Structure Level for Collision Damage.
So for the vehicle with spikes example: let's say you've got a 4" IceCreamTruck with 2d10 Armor and 1" Spikes on the front. The pilot hits the afterburners for a vehicle Sprint, so it's zooming along at a ridiculous 20". 20" would be enough for a potential 5d6 Momentum, but it's Size 4" so it maxes out at 4d6. It crashes into a billboard. The spikes are 1", so it can spend one of the Mom dice for +1d6 Damage with the spikes. If the billboard survives, then the truck has 2d10 Armor, so it can spend two Mom dice for +2d6 Collision Damage. Now it has one Mom left. Assuming it's successfully crashed through the billboard, then it can keep going and start building up Mom again.
(Also I think it'll be funny to just rename them to "Moms" rather than "Mom Dice.")
I'm getting rid of having to keep track of the Mom Pile for KnockBack; KnockBack is just determined by the Collision Damage roll now. This means that your shoving ability will be based on how heavy you are, rather than your size: a tiny tank is better at pushing things around than a giant zeppelin. Physical Opposition is still purely Size-based though, so the giant zeppelin is better at resisting being pushed around than the tiny tank.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- aoffan23
- You can nail me with your wood. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:41 pm
- Location: Ottawa
Re: BW 2010 feedback
That last bit about Pop is completely wrong. Inertia affects both pushing power and stopping power, and an object's inertia is determined by its mass. It's easier to push a beach ball (assuming it's filled with air) than a bowling ball.
Spoiler
Show
Tzan wrote:I agree with Warhead.Quantumsurfer wrote:I generally agree with TzanWarhead wrote:I agree with QuantumSmurfer.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
But a beanbag is harder to push than a bowling ball. I'm thinking about rigidity and leverage also. (As well as what makes for the simplest dice rolls.)
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- aoffan23
- You can nail me with your wood. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:41 pm
- Location: Ottawa
Re: BW 2010 feedback
Well in the conext of BrikWars it makes sense, since machines and creatures tend to get heavier as they get bigger. That makes me think there might be the possibility of Super Light and Super Heavy rules to account for objects that are large but light or small but heavy. On the other hand, that might be best left for the Bonus Material forum, since I can't really see them being used often.
Spoiler
Show
Tzan wrote:I agree with Warhead.Quantumsurfer wrote:I generally agree with TzanWarhead wrote:I agree with QuantumSmurfer.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
We already have those rules. They're called Structure Level.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- aoffan23
- You can nail me with your wood. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:41 pm
- Location: Ottawa
Re: BW 2010 feedback
It's funny, I thought about that right after I posted, and just logged back in to correct myself. Boy, do I ever look silly.
Spoiler
Show
Tzan wrote:I agree with Warhead.Quantumsurfer wrote:I generally agree with TzanWarhead wrote:I agree with QuantumSmurfer.
- Zupponn
- if you give us money we will give you product
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
- Location: Back in Wisconsin!
Re: BW 2010 feedback
Shhh, don't tell Warhead.stubby wrote:Mom dice
(Also I think it'll be funny to just rename them to "Moms" rather than "Mom Dice.")
Re: BW 2010 feedback
aoffan23 wrote:It's funny, I thought about that right after I posted, and just logged back in to correct myself. Boy, do I ever look silly.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- samuelzz10
- n00b
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:09 pm
- Location: planet express
Re: BW 2010 feedback
I saw you post this in a 2010 topic:
stubby wrote: The 2010 rules are almost done, I'm not going to go back and re-edit them all over again. Just curiosity more than anything else.
Spoiler
Show
my old sig