IVhorseman wrote:I'm aware that real-life copters carry around tanks and shit, but we're not talking about real life. This is Brikwars. Everything is blown comically out of proportion.
IVhorseman wrote:Things that are considered to be wearing heavy enough armor to get the ability to shrug off a die of damage are considered too heavy to be in the air.
IVhorseman wrote:In general, as cool as armored units may be, having living soldiers and functioning vehicles at the end of a battle should NEVER be a priority.
IVhorseman wrote:Think about it this way: rules in brikwars are supposed to be forgotten about in favor of awesomeness. Rules in brikwars are NOT meant to be fandangled around nitpicking at the technicalities in order to achieve the awesome.
stubby wrote:I feel like the rule about beating the shit out of any player acting like an asshole covers this well enough. If some people think that flying a tank around is worth beating you up over, then you're getting beat up. Otherwise it's fine, who cares.
stubby wrote:As for the idea of a flying frame carrying an armored chassis - if you really wanted to do this, the "frame" would have to be an independent chassis and have a Structure larger than whatever it's carrying, obviously. It couldn't just be a skeleton frame and a helicopter blade, that's all Surface Elements and no Structure.
stubby wrote:I think I can safely rule out the idea that you could control the flying vehicle from within the carried Armored vehicle, or vice versa. The flying vehicle's cockpit is part of the flying vehicle's chassis, which is unarmored by definition.
Kirillyos wrote:IVhorseman wrote:Things that are considered to be wearing heavy enough armor to get the ability to shrug off a die of damage are considered too heavy to be in the air.
Unless they're spacecraft. But even spacecraft sometimes fly through atmosphere.
Kirillyos wrote:IVhorseman wrote:I'm aware that real-life copters carry around tanks and shit, but we're not talking about real life. This is Brikwars. Everything is blown comically out of proportion.
So that means you want my heli to carry an entire battalion of tanks? I'll see what I can do.
Kirillyos wrote:So forget the "no flying armor" rules and simply bask in the awesomeness that is flying armored gunships? Got it.
Kirillyos wrote:if one person has a superweapon and everyone else has peasants with sharp sticks, that's poor sportsmanshipo.
Well let's take LEGO set 5886 as an example.
stubby wrote:Ahh, I forgot LEGO actually made a SkyCrane!stubby wrote:Right. Except for Armored spacecraft. Those are built in space and have to stay in space. They aren't atmospheric craft.
So like Star Destroyer vs. X-Wing?IVhorseman wrote:I'd honestly rather see you do that than try to lawyer your way around technicalities so that you're "allowed" to have an armored flier.
Kirillyos wrote:it's kind of a moot point.
I know a lot of people mess this one up, but "[urlhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot?s=t]moot[/url]" actually means: "subject or open to debate"
Definition of MOOT
a : open to question : debatable
b : subjected to discussion : disputed
: deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
Examples of MOOT
- The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.
- I think they were wrong, but the point is moot. Their decision has been made and it can't be changed now.
Jasper Eastman · Camel Driver at Ancient Oriental Trading Company
For those who think the two definitions of moot as an adjective are contradictory, here is an example where something may be moot in both senses as the same time.
"Upon entering the kitchen, Jill found milk spilled on the floor and her two sons arguing over whose fault it was and who would have to clean it up. Bruce, the bulldog, then came in and licked it all up. The question of who was responsible was moot."
Here, who was responsible for cleaning up the mess was still very much open to discussion, but was deprived of practical significance since the dog had taken care of the mess. Just because there is no longer any practical reason for debating a matter does not mean that the question is not debatable.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest