BW 2010 feedback

Post by **Hoboman** » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm

Tzan wrote: -------
Its one of the problems with dice size being skill size.
Big dice, less chance of 1s and max size. So more important figs are actually more steady in their rolls, less extreme. But you already knew that.

6 on 1d6 = 16.6%
8 on 1d8 = 12.5%
10 on 1d10 = 10%

Alternate

9-10 on 1d10 = 20% very close to 16%
Maybe heroes have crit success on 9-10

This is not a bad idea. I kind of like it. Gives the Hero a "heroic" feel while not changing the odds too much.

Post by ***CRAZYHORSE*** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:21 am

Stubby as much as I like the idea this would increase damage allot.
Way to much IMO, this could mean a ground soldier swinging a hand weapon could destroy a mech.

This would result in new dickhead tactics such as putting a soldier on a enemy tank striking at it for turn after turn until he gets that lucky roll.

Also this brings up a question:
Let's say an angry robber gang of 6 minifigs wielding pistols starts shooting at an armored stagecoach with an armor of 1D10.
Do you then do:

6D6 vs 1D10 or (1D6 vs 1D10)x6

Post by **RagnarokRose** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:51 am

I think limiting it to one bonus dice would work well.

Post by **Silent-sigfig** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:56 pm

Last day for 2010 rules.

Oh, and I think limiting it to one bonus die is a good idea.

Post by **Tzan** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:02 pm

SomePeople wrote: I think limiting it to one bonus die is a good idea.

Butt eye gotz teh killz!

Post by **Tzan** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:04 pm

Butt Eye
The very critical minifig that thinks everything he sees is shit.

Post by **Warhead** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:41 pm

That would be J+B.

Post by **Gungnir** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:06 pm

Silent-sigfig wrote:Last day for 2010 rules.

Oh, and I think limiting it to one bonus die is a good idea.

Fuck that! Exploding dice need to explode!

Post by **aoffan23** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:28 am

2010 rules will be done by December 59th, 2010.

Post by **Zahru II** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 3:18 am

Oh goodie, that's not so far aw-

Wait.

Post by **Robot Monkey** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:26 am

It's 2011, Stubby. You may need to re-name those rules.

Post by **ikensall** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:04 am

Lol. Oh well, next time stubhawk wants to make a rulebook he should start it about two to five years before it's intentional release.

As for now the fact that it wasn't completed in 2010 doesn't matter that much. Besides it was started in 2010 and that all that matters.

I think.

Post by **MasterEcabob** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:55 pm

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he already covered this a few pages back-the 2005 rules weren't released until 2008 or something like that.

Post by **muffinman42** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:07 pm

Yeah... lets just call the rules the "3011" rule-set, that way it will be a while until the deadline needs changing

Post by **dilanski** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:12 pm

Or 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999...