BW 2010 feedback
Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman
- Zupponn
- if you give us money we will give you product
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
- Location: Back in Wisconsin!
Re: BW 2010 feedback
I didn't think Zombie Lincoln was in ZZD.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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?
- Zupponn
- if you give us money we will give you product
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:15 pm
- Location: Back in Wisconsin!
Re: BW 2010 feedback
I remember that Zombie Michael Jackson was in the battle. Maybe you were thinking of him?
- dilanski
- 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
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 thisstubby 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.
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
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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.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
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- dilanski
- 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
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.stubby wrote: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.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
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
Re: BW 2010 feedback
Nothing's locked in until the dice are rolled.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- piltogg
- Clown-Face Bologna
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:16 pm
- Location: Fictional Deutschland
- Contact:
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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.
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?
- piltogg
- Clown-Face Bologna
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:16 pm
- Location: Fictional Deutschland
- Contact:
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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.
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.
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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: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.
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.)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)
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- piltogg
- Clown-Face Bologna
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:16 pm
- Location: Fictional Deutschland
- Contact:
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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?
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?
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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.
- Silent-sigfig
- can you feel me?
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:20 pm
- Location: Number one in USA
Re: BW 2010 feedback
Well poop, time to update some statcards.
BFenix wrote:Coolest 1000th post everSilent-sigfig wrote:
Re: BW 2010 feedback
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?