BW 2010 feedback

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman

User avatar
Sir Sporktimus
Minifig
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:00 pm
Location: Kingston Ontario

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Sir Sporktimus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:28 pm

stubby wrote:
Sir Sporktimus wrote:So, is the Armies chapter in 2010 up for most people? It's still displaying an ominous Brikthulu in my experience. Thrilled that we finally are getting those rules, though!
You've probably got the old version in your browser cache. Try shift-reloading.
You're the best, Stubs.
Tzan wrote:Violence is a renewable resource.
Natalya wrote:Overwatch died. Put this in your profile if you miss Overwatch.

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5174
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:06 pm

Sir Sporktimus wrote:You're the best, Stubs.
it's true
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5174
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:57 pm

That reminds me of a story though. When everybody was waiting for BW2001 chapter 9, I set up a script so that anyone who loaded the page would only get the first 1,000 - 9,000 characters, and then it would randomly cut off. I thought sullis3's head was going to explode.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
Tzan
Has anyone ever used those holes before?
Has anyone ever used those holes before?
Posts: 4693
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:41 pm
Location: Boston

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Tzan » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:59 pm

Hahaha! perfect.

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5174
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:41 pm

*CRAZYHORSE* wrote:
stubby wrote:I might just say that a Squad whose combined Size is at least as great as the combined Size of everyone they're engaged with can move the whole engagement with its angry inch each turn.
You just explained to me why pushing when FE is out of the question. There is just to much mixing and the coherency of the front lines is gone. So moving the whole engagement along doesn't seem to make any sense to me in that context.
This isn't about pushing, it's just about the fact that nobody's standing still when they're fighting. If you make up at least half the rioting mob, then you have a certain amount of influence over where the overall mob is moving. It's just the angry inch applied to a more generalized context.

If there are multiple sides with as many or more size inches than their opponents, then they'd each get to influence the movement on their own turns.
*CRAZYHORSE* wrote:Maybe it makes sense that a push attack from skirmish range increases with effectiveness the more heavily you outnumber your opponent, thus allowing big squads to push/bully smaller squads around.
It depends. For a regular Shove attack with regular distributed effects, it's the same whether it's a skirmish or a full engagement - a lot of individual matchups between squad members on both sides. For a Combined Shove, which can only be staged while squads are separated by Skirmish range, then they just each add up their own Effective Size totals, and treat it as a shove from one super-unit to another, with the standard Size bonuses for Shove attacks (ch. 8.2).
*CRAZYHORSE* wrote:The problem is that a minifig fighting two other minifg can take an angry inch back and might still be able to hit one of them while while a minifg FE with a squad of two dudes needs to withdraw first, eating shots in the process and then gets to swing his weapon.
I just disagree. You can outmaneuver one guy with an angry inch, but trying to outmaneuver two guys working as a unit is a lot more complicated if they're paying attention at all.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5174
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:01 pm

stubby wrote:That's the plan. There's some extra fiddlery about exactly how much a shield wall can cover - two guys in a shield wall can't protect a rifle line fifty guys wide standing behind them, or intercept potshots at a four-story mech that towers over their heads.
Right now, the way I'm planning it, a Shield Wall is formed when a shield-bearing Heavy Infantry guy is close enough to touch another Heavy Infantry guy with his shield. Those two guys are now adjacent, and start getting bonuses.

If a Heavy Infantry is part of a Shield Wall, and he has another Heavy Infantry on one side of him, then he can Parry with his shield as many times as he wants. It's never used up, at least for Parrying purposes. If he has Heavy Infantry on both sides of him, then his shield Parry is automatic against anything on the shield side of the Shield Wall. He is always Shielded against anything that his shield can Parry against.

No one in front of a Shield Wall can target anything directly behind it, unless they can knock some holes in the Shield Wall first. They can fire over the top or around the side, but not through.

A Shield Wall should be aligned with one edge of a Squad Plate. Enemies cannot Fully Engage the Squad if they're touching a part of the Squad Plate directly in front of the Shield Wall, unless the Heavy Infantry decide to allow it for some reason. A Squad that is Fully Engaged can't have an effective Shield Wall.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
Kaplan
Supercharged Tank
Supercharged Tank
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Kaplan » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:53 am

I am happy you kept the original Officer card in the army section of the rules. So I can still own the original officer figure :)

ImageBrikwars Statcard Officer IRL by Kaplan, on Flickr

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5174
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:09 pm

One of the items on the to-do list is to make a much higher resolution painting of that character, with a better backdrop. Computers were still pretty weak for painting when I made that one, so I had to keep it small and simple. I think he was a Photoshop 5 project, if you can believe it.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
Kaplan
Supercharged Tank
Supercharged Tank
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Kaplan » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:24 am

stubby wrote:One of the items on the to-do list is to make a much higher resolution painting of that character, with a better backdrop. Computers were still pretty weak for painting when I made that one, so I had to keep it small and simple. I think he was a Photoshop 5 project, if you can believe it.
Do you plan to change the details of his costume?

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5174
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:18 am

No, the costume will be the same.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

StarshipH
Nice Dubs
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: Death Star Exhaust Vent Maintenance Specialist Quarters

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by StarshipH » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:30 pm

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

What size are bastard weapons? 1.5"? Can they be mounted on creations? I have a spider robot with twin linked guns, but 2d6 damage is too high, and too many inches, while 6" is not enough range.
Just the friendly neighborhood Anorak, nothing to see here.

User avatar
Silent-sigfig
can you feel me?
Posts: 2534
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Number one in USA

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Silent-sigfig » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:24 am

Yes, they certainly can.
BFenix wrote:
Silent-sigfig wrote: :dog:
Coolest 1000th post ever :D

StarshipH
Nice Dubs
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: Death Star Exhaust Vent Maintenance Specialist Quarters

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by StarshipH » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:22 am

Awesome. The ROM-yule-ens will rise to victory on their festive terminators!
Just the friendly neighborhood Anorak, nothing to see here.

User avatar
Silent-sigfig
can you feel me?
Posts: 2534
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Number one in USA

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Silent-sigfig » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:52 am

So I was thinking about how co-pilots and nurses and the like would work. I know that someone mentioned a technician unit that could boost the skill die of another specialist, but I think that when two or more of the same specialist type are working together(two pilots in a helicopter, three medics in a surgery) additional units should be allowed to use their actions to increase the size of the first's skill die by one level apiece.

This wouldnt change how gunnery support works that much--currently, each additional gunner currently adds +1 to the gunner's skill roll, while moving up a dice size increases the average roll by 1 as well.

Of courage, after typing all this out I realise that additional units could add a +1 to the roll of the first instead, but I still think the skill die idea would work better.
BFenix wrote:
Silent-sigfig wrote: :dog:
Coolest 1000th post ever :D

User avatar
RedRover
I want you to be
I want you to be
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:36 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by RedRover » Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:15 am

The skill doe increase is nice because there is still that off chance that the 3 man tank crew will still utterly fail with a d10 instead of it being harder to fail with 1d6+2. They also have a chance of succeeding more than a 1d6+2

Post Reply