BW 2010 feedback

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman

User avatar
Zupponn
if you give us money we will give you product
if you give us money we will give you product
Posts: 5564
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
Location: Back in Wisconsin!

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Zupponn » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:52 pm

I didn't think Zombie Lincoln was in ZZD.
Image

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5194
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:38 pm

Huh, I thought he made an appearance since he was the source of the Undead Deadly Spacemen, but it looks like you're right.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
Zupponn
if you give us money we will give you product
if you give us money we will give you product
Posts: 5564
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
Location: Back in Wisconsin!

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Zupponn » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:01 pm

I remember that Zombie Michael Jackson was in the battle. Maybe you were thinking of him?
Image

User avatar
dilanski
Now with added tractor fetish
Now with added tractor fetish
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
Contact:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by dilanski » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:38 am

stubby wrote:In For a Benny rules have been added to the sidebars for What I Say Goes Rolls and Heroic Feats. You can now skip rolling against WISG and Feats and reward yourself a Benny for being so generous.
Does that really make sense for a WISG roll? Seems like an awfully silly way to slow the game down when players would just take bennies anyway. I'm kind of seeing it unfolding like this

Player 1: I think these red barrels are explosive
Player 2: I don't
Player 1: Fine, want to WISG it?
Player 2: OK, I'm in for a benny
(Player 1 realises a benny is worth more to player 2, then some barrels being explosive are to him)
Player 1: Never mind then

Seems like it could lead to some awkward situations.

I do like the rule for heroic feats though.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5194
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:37 pm

dilanski wrote:Does that really make sense for a WISG roll? Seems like an awfully silly way to slow the game down when players would just take bennies anyway. I'm kind of seeing it unfolding like this

Player 1: I think these red barrels are explosive
Player 2: I don't
Player 1: Fine, want to WISG it?
Player 2: OK, I'm in for a benny
(Player 1 realises a benny is worth more to player 2, then some barrels being explosive are to him)
Player 1: Never mind then
Yep, that's the idea! I wondered how soon before someone noticed this. If you have an idea and the other players aren't excited about it, but contesting it isn't worth a Benny to you, then you just skipped a needless roll and can focus your attention for stuff that matters at least a Benny-ante's worth. I think it's great.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
dilanski
Now with added tractor fetish
Now with added tractor fetish
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
Contact:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by dilanski » Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:31 pm

stubby wrote:
dilanski wrote:Does that really make sense for a WISG roll? Seems like an awfully silly way to slow the game down when players would just take bennies anyway. I'm kind of seeing it unfolding like this

Player 1: I think these red barrels are explosive
Player 2: I don't
Player 1: Fine, want to WISG it?
Player 2: OK, I'm in for a benny
(Player 1 realises a benny is worth more to player 2, then some barrels being explosive are to him)
Player 1: Never mind then
Yep, that's the idea! I wondered how soon before someone noticed this. If you have an idea and the other players aren't excited about it, but contesting it isn't worth a Benny to you, then you just skipped a needless roll and can focus your attention for stuff that matters at least a Benny-ante's worth. I think it's great.
Ah, I see it now, guess I was looking at it from the old perspective of the WISG roll. Players will now only contest with a WISG only if it is worth more than a benny, and otherwise just not bring it up.

Damn that is good. Is there some kind of "no-take-backs" rule? Once a WISG is declared, can a player back out if the other guy wants a benny, or is he stuck with it?
Almond Status: ACTIVATED

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5194
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:16 am

Nothing's locked in until the dice are rolled.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
piltogg
Clown-Face Bologna
Clown-Face Bologna
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Fictional Deutschland
Contact:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by piltogg » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:02 pm

I would like to question the necessity of including chapter H. Seems like horses are already covered by both creations and half-minds, and don't need their entire own chapter. It's inclusion adds unessecary complexity and length to the rulebook.

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5194
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:31 pm

Ugh, then I have to move Riders and Jousting to other chapters.

The logic behind the horses chapter is the same as the logic behind the minifigs chapter. We don't need a chapter on minifigs either, since you can just build them out of the creatures rules. But people use minifigs so much more than any other creature that there's no need to force people to learn the creatures rules just to play with minifigs.

The big advantage of the minifigs chapter is that it's a lot shorter than the horses chapter. I might go back in and abbreviate the hell out of H.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
piltogg
Clown-Face Bologna
Clown-Face Bologna
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Fictional Deutschland
Contact:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by piltogg » Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:42 pm

Minifigs seem more necessary since they are the "basic" unit of combat as most people would recognize; whereas they might not understand them in the more abstracted "creation" terms.

I would say the horse chapter is kind of useful as an example of how to stat out a vehicle for example, as well as how momentum works. But given that's that case, it seems like something that should be ordered after you explain how to do those things in the first place, rather than in the middle. Possibly as an ad hoc chapter? Like the oriental warfare thing in 2000?

From my perspective though, the ideal way to deal with it would be to just show how you would stat out a Horse in like chapter 9 as an example, and then also include the jousting example to explain MOM and POP.

Also, the "rider" is identical to the pilot, so I would present those together as alternate artworks rather than as seperate entities to help avoid confusion. (I.E. someone might try to field an army with both pilots and riders, and view them as incompatible things)

In particular, "types of Horses" such as steel horses or flying horses seems like it could be confusing to new players, as it sounds like horses are basically just being defined as "any vehicle", but then later in the rules you go on to explain the same kinds of vehicles in different terms without refering to them as horses, which to someone reading the rules for the first time seems like it could be confusing.

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5194
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:20 pm

piltogg wrote:Minifigs seem more necessary since they are the "basic" unit of combat as most people would recognize; whereas they might not understand them in the more abstracted "creation" terms.
Well sure, but so are horses. For those of us fighting castle battles (or really, anything before the modern age) instead of space ones, anyway.
piltogg wrote:Also, the "rider" is identical to the pilot, so I would present those together as alternate artworks rather than as seperate entities to help avoid confusion. (I.E. someone might try to field an army with both pilots and riders, and view them as incompatible things)
No, they're unrelated. A Rider's specialty is that he can engage in close combat while riding, and a Pilot's specialty is that he can do stunt driving. Which is why jousting fits in a chapter about horses but doesn't really come up in any other area of combat. (I mean theoretically it could, but I've never seen it happen.)
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

User avatar
piltogg
Clown-Face Bologna
Clown-Face Bologna
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Fictional Deutschland
Contact:

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by piltogg » Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:47 pm

That's an update right? Previously, the pilot's ability was to be able to drive the vehicle and fire a weapon at the same time?

So now for a vehicle that's larger than "horse" scale, you would need a designated pilot to drive, and then a secondary minifig to control weapons systems?

User avatar
Gungnir
Jaw-Jaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:01 am

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Gungnir » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:59 pm

Using a vehicle's weapons while driving no longer needs the Pilot ability. Any minifig can drive and shoot now as long as he can reach the controls.
BrikThulhu eats 1d6 minifigs each turn.

User avatar
Silent-sigfig
can you feel me?
Posts: 2543
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Number one in USA

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by Silent-sigfig » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:54 am

Well poop, time to update some statcards.
BFenix wrote:
Silent-sigfig wrote: :dog:
Coolest 1000th post ever :D

User avatar
stubby
tl;dr: the rule of fudge is the entire rulebook
Posts: 5194
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BW 2010 feedback

Post by stubby » Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:40 am

Yeah, that change was way back in August 2014. It's been that way a while now.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?

Post Reply