BW 2010 feedback

[IVhorseman]

Actually, armor-piercing d8s would make shotguns armor-piercing as well, which is a definite no-no.

And why would the specific Starship Troopers assault rifle should be treated as anything other than a standard minifig rifle? I don't want to hear "hurr durr cause starship troopers is awesum," because your opponent with elves and longbows probably thinks their guys's weapons are pretty "awesum" too. I wouldn't bother with increasing the UR by 1 either, since it's just going to be an extra bit of information to remember.

If you're still absolutely committed to "but but it's better," the best workaround when I play with people is to just refer to it as a "big-ass" weapon, for +1 to both damage and UR. increasing from 1d6+1 to 1d8 doesn't actually increase the average damage by very much at all, since they statistically work out to be about the same. So, by current rules a big-ass rifle would deal 1d6+2 damage, or by potential new ones, 1d8+1.

[Whiteagle]

Well the idea was that the "Starship Troopers" rifle is pretty damn powerful, but because it's so powerful you nearly get knocked on your ass firing it.

Perhaps it would just be easier to have a Use score of 3 and 1d6+1 damage, then again I simply don't have any real experience with table top war-gaming to begin with.
That's kind of why I asked for help stating my troops in my armory thread.

[IVhorseman]

Recently, I've started playing a lot of Brikwars. I'm starting to get a real good feel for the rules and figure I should use my expertise for good, and not evil.

It's not only easier to just leave it as a standard rifle, but it'll also keep the question of whether or not a fig is killed by an attack an actual point of debate and excitement, instead of the same thing happening every single time, regardless of what numbers show up on the dice. Too often I see people posting their home-brew weapon types, which end up being along the lines of UR:5 and 4d6-4(auto) for damage or something. Your standard minifig dies as soon as he takes FOUR damage, which means minifigs die most of the time that they take most kinds of damage. Thus, adding stupid amounts of damage to weapons DOES guarantee that they'll kill their targets when they hit, but that's just not quite as tense of a game as when a guy gets shot and just laughs about it.

[Keldoclock]

I really like that the UR system effectively caps minifig-based weaponry, with a gun like Whiteagle's, you would be missing more than you hit.

If you want better troops, simply give your guys more skill instead of giving them better gear. Thus, not only will your opponents not be able to take your guns, you can have your omg tacticool super special forces ninja hacker elite squad, and get it out of your system right away.

[Whiteagle]

I really like that the UR system effectively caps minifig-based weaponry, with a gun like Whiteagle's, you would be missing more than you hit.

Uh, Keldoclock, that's was kind of the point.
Remember, these guys are expies of the soldiers in the Starship Trooper films, thus while their guns powerful, they are also notoriously hard to use.

If you want better troops, simply give your guys more skill instead of giving them better gear. Thus, not only will your opponents not be able to take your guns, you can have your omg tacticool super special feces ninja hacker elite squad, and get it out of your system right away.

Well I was going to give the MI the "Marksmanship" specialty, which would effectively negate the extra UR while further gimping them in Close Combat.
This allows for the use of their "Oh CRAP!" faces, since most of these guys don't want the enemy right in their face.
Thing is, they aren't "elites", just actual, womb-born, semi-trained soldiers instead of vat-grown REDSHIRT clones.

[Rev. Sylvanus]

then again I simply don't have any real experience with table top war-gaming to begin with.
That's kind of why I asked for help stating my troops in my armory thread.

IVhorseman seems to be implying this, but I would greatly suggest getting some experience with the basic stats of brikwars first, that way you can begin to understand how the game works, how table top war games work, etc. After then, then it'll make more sense to stat unique things. Learn the game through trial/error, use that to learn your own play style, and then make unique stats accordingly.

Cheerio.

[Whiteagle]

then again I simply don't have any real experience with table top war-gaming to begin with.
That's kind of why I asked for help stating my troops in my armory thread.

IVhorseman seems to be implying this, but I would greatly suggest getting some experience with the basic stats of brikwars first, that way you can begin to understand how the game works, how table top war games work, etc. After then, then it'll make more sense to stat unique things. Learn the game through trial/error, use that to learn your own play style, and then make unique stats accordingly.

Cheerio.

Will do, just got two more Battle of Naboo sets, so once I get them built and my block table clean, I'm going to have a little war between the droids of Briktoid Automata and the Soccer Hooligans.

[IVhorseman]

Better words than I'd have said! But yes, this is wisdom. If you feel like pushing mods for weapons in extreme directions, just to see what would happen, by all means do it once you've actually got some actual games to compare it to! who knows, maybe you'll find some cool ideas to show the rest of us!

[IVhorseman]

3.3: Bodily Protection. I'm working on how to make them scalable for Ch. 8.

I don't see this as too big a problem for non-swingable armor, as you'd just pay for the size of the armor patches and attacks made against areas covered with armor would take the armored penalty. I suppose you could also take -1" move per inch of armor as well, although that doesn't scale well to minifig armor. It also means that a size 10 fully-armored tank would crawl at -10" to it's movement of about 10" already (bringing it to zero), but maybe the penalty could cap out at -50% move?

Swingable armor like huge-ass shields do run into a bit of a kink, and I see the dillema. Should a size 3 shield remove 3 dice of each type from every single attack it successfully parries or not? Which also raises the question that if shields can negate more than one die of damage, why not thick armor plating?

Perhaps it's best to treat large shields as creations all on their own, and if the attack has enough dice to still do damage after a successful parry, then it must overcome the shield's own armor rating to do enough overkill damage to hit the target? or perhaps even just go back to the old large shield rules of (size)d6 armor? I'm all for getting rid of maths too to streamline brikwars, but maybe in the case of MOC combat it's still for the best, lest we make up complicated rules for avoiding less-complicated math.

[stubby]

I suppose you could also take -1" move per inch of armor as well, although that doesn't scale well to minifig armor. It also means that a size 10 fully-armored tank would crawl at -10" to it's movement of about 10" already (bringing it to zero), but maybe the penalty could cap out at -50% move?

This is tricky because movement is already so arbitrary to begin with. If I've got a -10" to Move, then I just spend 5CP and buy up another +10" Move to make up for it. The -50% is more meaningful because, even if the inches are arbitrary, the flat ban on alternate movement types makes a big difference.

The most logical thing seems to be to make creations pay for Body Armor by size, have it eat up weapon size inches, and disallow alternate movement types no matter how big or small the armored section is.

Swingable armor like huge-ass shields do run into a bit of a kink, and I see the dillema. Should a size 3 shield remove 3 dice of each type from every single attack it successfully parries or not? Which also raises the question that if shields can negate more than one die of damage, why not thick armor plating?

This one I'm even less sure about, but I have a feeling that removing a ridiculous number of dice might be balanced by simply ramping up the Use rating and making successful parries rare.

Perhaps it's best to treat large shields as creations all on their own, and if the attack has enough dice to still do damage after a successful parry, then it must overcome the shield's own armor rating to do enough overkill damage to hit the target? or perhaps even just go back to the old large shield rules of (size)d6 armor? I'm all for getting rid of maths too to streamline brikwars, but maybe in the case of MOC combat it's still for the best, lest we make up complicated rules for avoiding less-complicated math.

Yeah, this may make more sense. Shields treated as separate creations, automatically Armored. Leave it up to the attacker to decide if he wants to try and punch through with component damage or destroy the shield with size damage or whatever.

[Legofighter]

Rotation due to Gravity
The rotational effects on an object resulting from gravitational Thrust are easily calculated.

In BrikWars, an object's mass (m) is equal to its Structure Level times its Size. The acceleration from gravity (g) is equal to 5" of Thrust per turn. This mass times the acceleration (mg) equals the total force (F).

The angle of rotation (ϴ), meanwhile, is trivially determined by multiplying the angular velocity (ω) times the number of turns (t).

With these values in hand, the relation between rotation and gravity is clear:

ϴmg = ωtF

OH YEAH, OH YEAH, OH YEAH BABE!
OH, i have fukin nothing to say
If i not mistaken the equation is: Oh my god=what the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!
Pure AWESONESS!

[IVhorseman]

I have a feeling that removing a ridiculous number of dice might be balanced by simply ramping up the Use rating and making successful parries rare.

Perhaps, but then nobody's going to field or use big-ass shields on their titans because of how rarely they'd block damage. It'd be a big hulking useless piece of equipment.

I'm more for treating the shields as a creation, or giving large shields the ability to shield bash and actually deal damage. Something along the lines of (WS-1)d6 damage.


In other news, I play-tested a game where we used d8s as rifle damage instead of 1d6+1 and it worked out awesomely and we had a blast. In fact, we had so much of a blast that I even recommend dropping bastard autoguns from 1d6+1 damage down to 1d6 damage, since they have the ability to deal multiple shots anyways. Unaltered, it would stand to reason that they deal 1d8 damage just like a rifle does, since they too deal 1d6+1 damage.

I get that bastard weapons all deal dice+1 damage for consistency's sake, but is that really necessary? In that vein, are size 1 weapons wieldable by minifigs in just 1 hand?

[Keldoclock]

Maybe if we upped the Rifle's CP by one to compensate. 1d8 damage is better than 1d6+1, even if they average toward the same, Brikwar's armor system rewards the ability to roll an 8 as opposed to a 7.

[Whiteagle]

In other news, I play-tested a game where we used d8s as rifle damage instead of 1d6+1 and it worked out awesomely and we had a blast. In fact, we had so much of a blast that I even recommend dropping bastard autoguns from 1d6+1 damage down to 1d6 damage, since they have the ability to deal multiple shots anyways. Unaltered, it would stand to reason that they deal 1d8 damage just like a rifle does, since they too deal 1d6+1 damage.

I get that bastard weapons all deal dice+1 damage for consistency's sake, but is that really necessary? In that vein, are size 1 weapons wieldable by minifigs in just 1 hand?

Oooh, so my idea has merit?

As for removing the +1 from Autogun damage... I don't know...
On the one hand, it just make them MachineGuns with 3 extra inches of range...
...While on the other, doing 1d6+1 over such a large area is a bit too much...

How about an Autogun making a single shot attack does 1d6+1, while Arc and Burst attacks do 1d6?

[IVhorseman]

doing 1d6+1 over such a large area is a bit too much...

Nah, it's already two-handed. Two-handed weapons should all be clearly superior to one-handed.

Oh, and Keldoclock, a 6 comes up on a d6 more often than an 8 does on an 8.

How about an Autogun making a single shot attack does 1d6+1, while Arc and Burst attacks do 1d6?

Naaah, doing different damage with the two modes doesn't make sense either. Maybe 1d8 per shot isn't that overpowered...