Snipers

[Unlimited Overkill]

I'd say just use the Gunner as a template, and say that deploying the bipod/tripod makes the rifle a mounted weapon. This also gives you the option of having two snipers work together, with one of them acting as a spotter.

I find this to be simplest.  Besides, these rules already exist.

[pkbrennan]

I like the above idea, but not for sharp shooters or snipers. I am thinking more weapon platform teams a la Star Wars Ice Planet of Hoth Rebel Defence.

Now to create me some weapon platforms on wheels...

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

But isn't a sniper team exactly that. A long ranged anti personel weapon platform.

[pkbrennan]

It depends on how the sniper is integrated into a platoon or squad. There are squads in the UK and US Armies that are literally three or four snipers with an NCO in command - they set up and lay in wait for the enemy to pop his head up as support for an action by other squads. This formation of the army sniper would be best suited for the gunner template above, with four gunners in a squad and a squad leader.

Meanwhile, I am thinking more of the Russian WWII method of deploying snipers / sharp shooters within ordinary squadrons as just someone who can be called upon to make measured shots when needed.

The lone sniper that the second poster put up I would use very sparingly, simply because it can break the game.

[IVhorseman]

The lone sniper's not nearly as OP as he looks: 50% chance to kill at any range is nice, but there's so many prereqs for setup that it takes forever to actually pull off. Furthermore, a regular 1d6+1 rifle has a nearly 50% kill-rate vs. regular minifigs. The lone sniper's good for killing a high-value target once, maybe twice per game before getting brutally massacred.

If you want ordinary squadrons with ordinary figs to have sharpshooters, the easiest thing still sounds like giving somebody a scope instead of making a whole new kind of minifig. It's more-or-less the same effect (1d6" bonus range comes out to about 4" on average: 50% bonus range comes out to 5" every time [remember standard rifles have 10" range]).

Otherwise, Crazyhorse is totally right. I feel there should be a little side-bar in the rulebook by gunners to show off some of the more "creative" uses for them (giving a gunner the piloting skill turns him into a perfect mech pilot, for example).

[pkbrennan]

I have already been combining specialities together for some rather useful units. Leader stats + cost for Evie with pilot skill added for assed CP cost. Now he can lead a small vehicle squad with steel horses.

I do like your Pilot + Gunner combination for Mech Pilot though. Add some computer wizardry to the basic mech for weapons control and it would be pretty useful to field.

Mechanik + Medik would be an awesome combination for an Orky army - if a limb gets amputated you will never know what will get bolted on instead...

[aoffan23]

It depends on how the sniper is integrated into a platoon or squad. There are squads in the UK and US Armies that are literally three or four snipers with an NCO in command - they set up and lay in wait for the enemy to pop his head up as support for an action by other squads. This formation of the army sniper would be best suited for the gunner template above, with four gunners in a squad and a squad leader.

Meanwhile, I am thinking more of the Russian WWII method of deploying snipers / sharp shooters within ordinary squadrons as just someone who can be called upon to make measured shots when needed.

The lone sniper that the second poster put up I would use very sparingly, simply because it can break the game.

I don't see how the deployment of a sniper/sharpshooter changes their abilities. A sharpshooter is a sharpshooter, no matter who they surround themselves with. It's like saying that a medik should have different stats if he's in a squad as opposed to when he's alone. It's just cluttering up your game with more things to remember. I mean, what happens when the rest of the squad gets killed off? He's on his own, so does he count as a regular sniper after that? It just seems illogical to me.

[pkbrennan]

Then he or she can form up with a new squad just like any other unit can or hole up and take pot shots at stuff. The idea is to have a simple sharp shooter type unit without going all the way to the sniper card someone posted earlier. It's all horses for courses - everyone will work out their own way to do snipers - two other suggestions already being mooted on this tread, and because there is no official canonical "sniper" in the rules that is exactly how it should be. The idea is to make shit up that is fairly in balance with the core rules, according to your own style of play and what you view X should be able to do.

[IVhorseman]

That second sniper is brikwars forum canon, yo. the rulebook's sniper for 2010 will be a bit different, but still sounds heavily inspired by this one. We've all thought about sniper stats, and this is the one we put together a few years ago as "the best."

[pkbrennan]

• Anything that does not suit your style of play, or you feel is inappropriate for what you want to achieve, you may ignore in the rules
• 

[Quantumsurfer]

Anything that anyone comes up with is canon.  The BrikVerse is nothing if not diverse.  We've allowed all sorts of ideas into the "canon" that most of us thought were blatantly stupid.  I think if we're going to say anything is less canon than anything else, its any kind of rules decision, given that the core rulebook itself, that vaunted tome around which all of this is based, advises us to ignore it whenever possible.  Note, I like rules discussion and take a totally opposite philosophical stance on the issue.  But it isn't my creation, whatever I might contribute to it, and I'm sticking as close to the spirit of the thing as I can.  As for myself, I see things as being "more canon" the more work a player puts into its presentation.  An army is more canon the more is written about it and the more often it appears in forum battles and battle reports.  If you've taken the time to draw up your own stat cards, so too will I see that as being more "legitimate."  Even if I totally ignore it.  This is as much because I want to reward creativity as encourage it.

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

the easiest thing still sounds like giving somebody a scope instead of making a whole new kind of minifig.

But because I never took scopes into account on my weapons they are every where in some of my factions, so this option is out of the window for me :[
Besides we all know most minifgs don't even take the effort to put their head besides the gun to look through the scope. They just point it straight forward and pull the trigger with a kill hungering smile on their face.
So my logic has always been that scopes are just there to make the gun look cooler.

[pkbrennan]

Anything that anyone comes up with is canon.  The BrikVerse is nothing if not diverse.  We've allowed all sorts of ideas into the "canon" that most of us thought were blatantly stupid.  I think if we're going to say anything is less canon than anything else, its any kind of rules decision, given that the core rulebook itself, that vaunted tome around which all of this is based, advises us to ignore it whenever possible.  Note, I like rules discussion and take a totally opposite philosophical stance on the issue.  But it isn't my creation, whatever I might contribute to it, and I'm sticking as close to the spirit of the thing as I can.  As for myself, I see things as being "more canon" the more work a player puts into its presentation.  An army is more canon the more is written about it and the more often it appears in forum battles and battle reports.  If you've taken the time to draw up your own stat cards, so too will I see that as being more "legitimate."  Even if I totally ignore it.  This is as much because I want to reward creativity as encourage it.

You get it. You get exactly what I have been trying to articulate over the past couple of posts - the fact of the matter is that the rules are a framework to make the idea of brick toy combat work, and can be messed around with by the players as much as they damn well please, including ignoring stuff other people have created for X Y or Z and just do it in a way that suits them and their needs. Yes there is now a forum-canon sniper. Do I give a shit? No. That sniper only represents one way of doing a sniper in the game, one that does not fit into how I envision snipers working within my games and my world. Therefore I am perfectly at liberty to ignore it and cook up my own house rules for snipers that work in a way I feel they should work. This isn't Warhammer 40,000 you know... So long as the sniper's points system are fair within the general CP cost thingymajig, then it's fine.

[aoffan23]

Why does every rules discussion spiral into "well, everyone does it their own way?" Yes, we know. There's not much need to point this out. You made a thread asking about rules, and we're giving you answers.

My point was just that it seems to me like an unnecessary amount of thought to put into a unit that can be made using one of two rulebook stat cards that already exist. Don't like the sniper? Okay, the Gunner card is a quick fix for making a guy good at shooting. Giving sharpshooter attributes to a weapon is kind of dumb, because that's not really how sharpshooting works. Unless the weapon has a built-in targeting computer or includes a tutorial, not everyone is going to know how to use it effectively.

But I guess it depends on the player, because everyone does it differently. Also, 1+1=2, in case you were wondering.

[Quantumsurfer]

I can't see it as unnecessary.  If we're going to assume that any variant rules discussion has any validity whatsoever in the first place, then players should feel free to share their ideas.  Players who are actually interested should be able to respond and generate intelligent discussion about how to generate those rules.  That is what should seem obvious.  If folks want to contribute, contribute.  If not, don't.  Pretty simple little system.

Constantly pointing at the rulebook or existing rules systems is a total waste of time in these discussions.  If the initial poster was too stupid to see them in the Holy Rulebook or right bloody there in one of the two subforums dedicated to "teh roolz" then, ok, yes, point out what a moron he is and move on.  But if the poster was trying to generate alternate ideas, what the hell is the harm in that?  Surely it isn't so offensive?  If the 2010 thread is any indication, this game's creator himself has drawn inspiration from such discussions.

Still, aoffan has a valid point.  "Everyone does it their own way" is becoming a tired refrain.  I've seen a lot of intelligence and creativity here and I can't see any reason why folks shouldn't be able to learn from one another, even if the end result isn't applied to BrikWars and its unofficial canon.  I think we should be respectful of the source material but I see no reason that we can't do so in concert with promoting external creativity.

Of course, none of the above has anything to do with snipers and their variant rules, so...