|
|
| |
LEGO Breaking Bad - The Video Game parody
YouTube.com
Created by Brian Anderson
YT Channel: BrianKAnimation
The real TV show Breaking Bad is an American television drama series created and
produced by Vince Gilligan. Seen on AMC.
Enjoy!
|
|
| |
FUNCOM TO DEVELOP MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME BASED ON LEGO®
MINIFIGURES
Published on (2012-06-28)
Funcom signs license agreement with the LEGO® Group to develop MMO game based on
the hugely popular LEGO® Minifigures line of collectible play materials.
Durham, USA - June 28th, 2012 - Funcom, a world leading independent developer
and publisher of online games, is excited to announce that the company has
signed a license agreement with the LEGO Group, one of the world’s most
successful manufacturers of play materials, to develop a massively multiplayer
online game based on the hugely popular LEGO® Minifigures franchise.
LEGO® Minifigures are the inhabitants of an unimaginable number of spectacular
creations put together by both kids and grown-ups over the past several decades.
Whether it is a knight in shining armor, a brave firefighter or just an oddball
in a gorilla suit, these figures breath life into elaborately constructed
cities, castles and even space stations around the world. The LEGO Group
estimates that 340 million minifigures will be produced in 2012 (including
minifigures not part of the LEGO® Minifigures collectibles).
The massively multiplayer online game that Funcom will develop based on the
LEGO® Minifigures franchise will focus on maximum accessibility. Funcom and the
LEGO Group will work together to make the game available to consumers in their
online channels and will be coordinating activities to provide a broad and
enhanced experience for the product line. The game will be a prominent part of
the LEGO® Minifigures online experience which already has millions of unique
visitors per month.
“The market for family-friendly online experiences intended for children and
youngsters is brimming with potential,” says Funcom CEO Trond Arne Aas. “Being
able to work with a world-renowned brand such as the LEGO® brand to develop an
MMO for this audience is incredibly exciting to us as game developers and for
Funcom as a company. This is source material we all know and love and we simply
cannot wait to get started working with the LEGO Group on realizing this
exciting project.”
For more information about Funcom please visit http://www.funcom.com. More
information about LEGO® Minifigures can be found on the official website.
###
ABOUT FUNCOM - Funcom is an independent developer and publisher of online
games for PC and consoles. Funcom has provided outstanding entertainment since
1993 and continues to expand its track-record of more than twenty released
games. Recent titles include ‘Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures’, ‘The Longest
Journey’, ‘Anarchy Online’ and ‘Dreamfall: The Longest Journey’. For corporate
information please visit www.funcom.com. For information about Funcom games
visit www.anarchy-online.com, www.dreamfall.com, www.thesecretworld.com or
www.ageofconan.com. Funcom is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange under the ticker
FUNCOM.
ABOUT THE LEGO GROUP: The LEGO Group is a privately held company based in
Billund, Denmark. The company is still owned by the Kirk Kristiansen family who
founded it in 1932.
The LEGO Group is engaged in the development of children’s creativity through
playing and learning. Based on the world-famous LEGO® brick, the company today
provides toys, experiences and teaching materials for children in more than 130
countries. The LEGO Group has approximately 10,000 employees, and it is the
world’s third largest manufacturer of play materials.
Our head office is in Billund, Denmark but we have subsidiaries and branches
throughout the world, and LEGO products are sold in more than 130 countries.
Funcom.com
-end of report-
|
|
| |
LEGO Universe Opens Nexus Tower
Posted by Bjorn - May 23rd, 2011
The LEGO Group today announced the opening of the “Nexus Tower” in “LEGO
Universe”, which is claimed to be the largest in-game structure ever built.
“As Nexus Tower opens its doors soon, tons of new content is being released for
all players to explore and enjoy. This will include new characters, weapons,
Faction-specific pets, and over 50 new missions, as well as access to the new
LEGO Universe Vault system for safe-keeping extra models and gear.
Thanks to the multitudes of minifigures who donated bricks to the recent
community mission, Nexus Tower is now complete! Standing tall as the largest
structure in LEGO Universe, Nexus Tower serves to protect Imagination from the
chaotic Maelstrom, and is the new headquarters for the four Factions of the
Nexus Force coalition.
Nexus Tower will be the main social center of the Universe, with existing and
future content accessible from portals within the hub. You can blast off from
Nexus Tower’s Launchpad to game worlds far and wide – Nimbus Station, Crux
Prime, LEGO Club, Starbase 3001 and beyond! Beginning soon, players can fly to
Nexus Tower from the Race Place launch pad in Nimbus Station.
Learn more about how you can explore LEGO Universe at
LEGO Universe!”
LEGO Universe trailer video. YouTube.com
-end of report-
|
|
| |
Hi,
I’ve just uploaded the version 1.2 of the rules. In this new version, nothing
changed about the rules, but I rewrote some sentence and clarified some
paragraph. I also added more pictures. The PDF of this new version contains 6
more pages but 194 less words which clearly shows that I tried to make it easier
to read.
The place is still the same, and here is
the direct link to the
pdf.
I’ve also added some additional rules for those who want more! :-)
Bye.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
This looks like a really neat system. The “description sheet” is very
similar to a system I’ve used (though regrettably never got around to
publishing) in a tactical dungeon game.
|
Thanks!
Recently I had the chance to test it myself with a friend and I’m now really
convinced of all the fun you can get from it.
| |
One refinement you might consider would be to put the minifigs onto 2x4
plates, and keep them there as they move around the battlefield. This gives
you a consistent place to put damage markers (and mana/spirit-point markers,
if you use those).
|
Yes, this might be an idea to try. However, it may becomes more difficult to
move the minifig around. During my test, I found very convenient to just move
the minifig one stud after the other, orienting it at the same time, just by
counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...
| |
The only thing that really bugs me about the rules is that you seem to be
using the term “hit points” backwards relative to every other game I’ve ever
played. In normal usage, HP are points you start with, and then lose as you
take damage. In your system, you start with zero HP and gain them as you take
damage. I think I would frequently forget this, and get confused during
play.
|
Yes, you’re right, most of the game give health point at the begining and then
remove them during the game. It is still possible to do it in BOW with your
Heroes. At the begining of the game you can add all the Marking Bricks on top of
the HP on the Description Sheet of your Hero, then you remove them each time you
take one point of Damage.
And for the Troopers, normally they only have one point of damage so the problem
doesn’t really exist.
| |
But otherwise, it looks like a very sensible system. Thanks for contributing
it and writing it up so nicely — I know that’s a lot of work!
|
Thank you. I will soon release the version 1.2 of the rules. Nothing changed but
I rewrote some passage and add more pictures to make it easier to read.
Bye.
|
|
| |
Is anyone playing wargames with the LEGO Star Wars minifigs and vehicles? I am
looking for stats for the different minifigs such as the StormTroopers, Han,
Luke, Rebel Troopers, etc.
I am aware of Brik Wars and the Brick Troop Score sites, but these are generic
and I would like to game with the LEGO Star Wars minifigs.
Thanks...
-- Don
|
|
| |
Abner wrote:
> From Blog website: www.brettspiel.co.uk By Brett J. Gilbert
>
> July 12, 2009
>
> [LEGO Board Games: Interview with Cephas Howard]
Great stuff.
> Cephas worked with Knizia on both Ramses Pyramid and Lunar Command specifically,
> but Knizia also acted as a consultant on the project as a whole and continues to
> work with LEGO on future games.
Lunar Command (the only game I've bought so far) really does feel
like it's been designed by someone with a good feeling for what works
in boardgames. Turns out it's not someone but sometwo. :-)
Maybe it's just me, but I found the game descriptions at shop.lego.com
a bit too vague. It's wasn't easy to figure out from that information
which game I'd like best, but I went with Lunar Command because I
rarely have more than one person to play against. So I figured I'd
write a little something about what the game is like, especially since
it doesn't have any reviews over at shop.lego.com yet. So here's my
description/review, including some suggestions for how the rules can
be clarified:
*Lunar Command*
Lunar Command is a strategy board game for two players. The goal of the game
is to build space stations that encircle the units on the map: astronauts
(microfigs) and robots (little cones). Players take turn to roll the dice and
choose one of the actions it offers. The most common action is to build a
segment of wall; these come in two shapes that must be alternated. The other
basic action is to build a coloured piece. These help players claim ownership
over the wall, particularly important when the players' walls meet. Any
closed loop becomes a space station, and the player with majority ownership
gains points from the encircled units. There are three types of coloured
pieces, including airlocks through which units can move during spacewalk, the
third action. Finally, there are UFOs which may be moved in order to block
movement and building in small areas of the map.
Some aspects of Lunar Command are vaguely reminiscent of The Settlers (the
board game), and there are probably other games even closer in concept. The
game is for two players only, so you don't have to suffer rules that barely
work with just two players. Instead, the rules make for a varied game with a
good balance between luck and skill, where a better player has an advantage
but never a guaranteed win. I have not played the game with anyone under the
age of 30, and I can't say much about whether the 7+ rating is reasonable,
but the rules are reasonably simple. I can imagine that a 7-year-old would
actually stand a chance against an older player, and if not it's easy enough
to e.g. modify the starting position. One minor complaint (which, to be fair,
I've had with most games I've ever played) is that the rules do not cover all
possible situations that may arise. I have made a little list of ambiguities
and proposed solutions (see below). I should also note that in my limited
experience (two games played so far), the 15–30 minutes stated on the box are
a bit too optimistic, and upwards of 45-60 minutes can be expected for a long
game unless both players are quick thinkers.
/Suggested rule clarifications/
The rules do not explicitly state that you can build long stretches of walls
(alternating 1x4 and 2x2) without coloured pieces, but it is implied by the
rules for building coloured pieces (which cannot be connected [only] through
uncoloured 2x2s).
What squares, if any, are blocked by the UFOs in the starting position? It
cannot be the pattern described in the rules, as the UFOs start between
studs. Suggestion: they do not block any squares, so you should remove
unmoved UFOs from the map if you need to build/move near them.
In the description of how to close a space station, "outer wall" should be
inner wall (as in: the minimum set of pieces that encircle the area).
When should a moved piece be considered to have entered a space station? It
must be when it moves into an airlock, not when it emerges on the other side,
as there is not room to park an astronaut (or even a robot) under the arch.
It is difficult to build an airlock on top of a robot or astronaut.
Suggestion: this is not allowed, not even when the airlock is the piece
closing a space station.
Can a unit move through an airlock when it is not part of a finished space
station, and then what about the problem of the unit stopping under the arch?
Suggestion: This is forbidden because "the airlock is not operational yet".
When points are divided because the players have the same number of coloured
pieces surrounding a space station, what happens when the robots and
astronauts cannot be divided equally? For example, what if there is only a
single astronaut? Or an astronaut and two robots? A few solutions are possible:
1. divide the points and forget about keeping the right number
robots/astronauts in the score sections,
2. divide points evenly as far as possible, having one player trade in a
robot from the score section in exchange for an astronaut if needed (odd
number of astronauts and less than two robots to be divided) and possible (at
least one robot already in a score section), but forfeit points if there is
no solution that allows score sections to be accurate,
3. divide points evenly as far as possible but do not touch the score
sections (so with an odd number of astronauts and less than two robots to be
divided, an astronaut would be lost), or
4. round the numbers of astronauts and robots down separately before
dividing.
Suggested solution: 3. (which in practice very rarely differs from 1. or 2.).
Can an astronaut/robot be moved into a space station with joint ownership,
and if so what happens? Suggestion: points are divided according to 3. above,
which would mean that any astronaut or robot moved into the airlock of a
jointly owned space station would be lost.
When a space station is closed but not all of its 2x2 walls are coloured,
what happens if the non-owner manages to colour some of the remaining 2x2s so
that the apparent ownership changes? Suggestion: ownership changes (to joint
when the numbers of coloured pieces are equal, then to the player with
majority). Astronauts or robots that have already been gained from the space
station have been moved to the score section and are completely unaffected –
only newly entered units are affected, and as always you can only move them
in through your own airlocks.
//Carl
|
|
| |
I'm continuing to develop the game - latest release is 1.2.2.0 with a bunch
of improvements in the graphics, and support for adding your own models for
vehicles and the like.
Hope you enjoy the game - feel free to email me with any
comments/suggestions you have.
cheers
Steve
"Steve Cook" <steve.cook1[att]excite.com> wrote in message
news:KCy2y6.Fwo@lugnet.com...
> I've written a free and open-source computer game for Windows, based on
> Mike
> Rayhawks excellent BrikWars wargame rules. It's a turn-based strategy
> where
> you create an army of minifigs and battle against the computer or other
> players.
>
> Download is available from Sourceforge:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/brikwars/ you can also look at the Wiki
> there for documentation (user guide etc.), and download the source code if
> you're interested.
>
> I plan to keep working on the project over the next couple of months, so
> check back from time to time for updates. I'm also looking for help with
> development - particularly with the graphics & website. Drop me a line if
> you are interested in helping out.
>
> Happy new year to all
> /Steve
>
|
|
| |
I've written a free and open-source computer game for Windows, based on Mike
Rayhawks excellent BrikWars wargame rules. It's a turn-based strategy where
you create an army of minifigs and battle against the computer or other
players.
Download is available from Sourceforge:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/brikwars/ you can also look at the Wiki
there for documentation (user guide etc.), and download the source code if
you're interested.
I plan to keep working on the project over the next couple of months, so
check back from time to time for updates. I'm also looking for help with
development - particularly with the graphics & website. Drop me a line if
you are interested in helping out.
Happy new year to all
/Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
My son is finally old enough to get into LEGO wargaming, so I asked him today
whether he was interested in giant robots, knights & dragons, spacemen... and
he says he’s most interested in space ships. We talked about it a bit, and
agreed that we could probably build a decent fleet (or two) of micro-sized
spaceships.
Are there any relatively simple tactical games already designed for LEGO
spaceships?
Thanks,
- Joe
|
Wizards of the Coast had a collectible card game called
Rocketmen, similar to their Pirates of
the Spanish Main. I haven’t tried it, but you can
download the rules
and give it a shot.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
> My son is finally old enough to get into LEGO wargaming, so I asked him today
> whether he was interested in giant robots, knights & dragons, spacemen... and he
> says he's most interested in space ships. We talked about it a bit, and agreed
> that we could probably build a decent fleet (or two) of micro-sized spaceships.
>
> Are there any relatively simple tactical games already designed for LEGO
> spaceships?
>
> Thanks,
> - Joe
Hi,
I am designing a table top game for space battles right now, the working title
is Brickfleet. You can design ships and make battles with it. And I am looking
for people to test play it, and improve the game. Are you interested, at least I
can send you the draft it should be playable already.
Cheers Arend
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
I’m in the throes of designing a LEGO space battle game. I’m borrowing some
ideas from Full Thrust, at Wayne’s suggestion, but I’m probably going to
monkey with the combat substantially. For example, I really like giving the
defender a defense roll, so that they have something to do during the
attacker’s turn.
|
| |
- Ad6 requires more dice (or else, rolling multiple times and adding up in your head), which could be an issue for some players.
|
I’m not a numbers guy, so I can’t really help with the mathematics, but from a
purely physical point of view, I’ve always loved the idea of rolling more dice.
It’s fun to see an opponent’s face when you starting picking up d6’s, and they
say “Wait... How many dice do you get to defend with??”
-Elroy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
But these considerations are all pretty academic -- you guys are actually out
| |
there in the trenches; what’s your view?
|
|
Wow. I opened this thread expecting to defend the 1d6+A option, but Dave
presents a convincing argument for the Ad6. Even with an opposing defense roll
(with a defense value also 1-4), a ship with defense 1 would (with a 1-6 range)
dodge once in a rare while.
Though I’m used to the d+bonus from other experience, I can see how the Ad6 plan
could work. And if I read correctly you would not end up in the scary scenario
of 9d6 or 90d6 because your stats are likely to be only 1-4...? The stat of the
ship is how many you throw. You get to learn your addition from there (good for
kids!).
If you did not have the opposing defense roll, I might feel differently, because
one advantage of d+bonus is that it creates a creeping advantage on results
charts. Also, (such as in d20 role playing games), the d+bonus allows a slow
development of stats (such as character skills) over time. If your game needs a
ship to slowly improve in small ways, again this option might be better. But
you mention nothing like that, so I am swayed to side with Dave.
| |
Incidentally, the larger plan is for both attacker and defender to roll,
| |
using whichever scheme is chosen, and consider the attack to have succeeded
if its roll is equal to or greater than the defense roll. In that case, the
defender takes one point of damage. There are also “special damage” >and
|
“special failure” tables that are invoked when a successful attack rolled >a
natural 6, or a failed attack rolled a natural 1; these are special effects
| |
like more damage, loss of an attachment, or changing a ship’s heading. Any
feedback on this general scheme would also be also appreciated.
|
|
I’m a fan of critical hit and critical failure rolls and charts. I just find
them fun. Keep in mind that with d6’s, you’d see a higher number of natural
lows and highs though, so perhaps the result of a critical might be impressive,
but not immediately deadly or game-altering.
Good to see you are continuing with this idea!
-Hendo
|
|
| |
Hi Joe!
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
Full Thrust’s solution, of having a 12-point (clock) heading plus a current
speed, with rules about how fast you can change your heading or speed, seems
like a very good compromise between reality and playability. I’m a little
concerned that ships will quickly go flying right off the table, but I’m sure
there are ways to deal with that.
|
This sounds similar to Evil Stevie’s Pirate Game (ESPG) which uses an 8-point
compass plus rules about speed, turning, etc. based on ship size. While that is
Age of Sail ships, I have thought of adapting it to a Space setting. (Well,
mostly because I have a friend with a spiral galaxy drawn on his basement floor,
which doesn’t fit well with the Pirate theme.) I will have to check out this
Full Thrust. ...Oh, and that is one way to avoid the table issue - if you have
a large floor space, you could use that instead.
| |
I can already see ways I will want to simplify and LEGOfy these rules a bit,
though. For example, I’m going to steal an idea from Mechaton and have
interchangeable weapons and shield generators that you can scavange from
wrecked ships. (Hmm, should wreckage continue at the same speed and heading
as the doomed ship? Mr. Newton certainly says so, but I think that might make
too much busywork, and prevent the fun of scavanging.)
|
Assuming your son is still somewhat young, you might not want to use Newton’s
laws too much here. As I see it, there are games that have more realism, and
games that have less realism. But those with more realism generally have more
rules to control or describe it. More rules is not only more work for you to
setup and test, but it is also more for your son to learn and deal with during
gameplay. Some players love the detail and having more rules. (Only you know
if your son might.) But if you want a game the two of you can just jump into,
then less realism becomes more attractive. Something to consider.
Anyhow, now matter how you decide to tackle this, might I suggest that you
include your son in the entire process - not just the Lego building, but the
thinking of and testing of rules. I imagine it would be a fun and educational
experience.
And I hope to see the results of your efforts here too! :)
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
> Full Thrust's solution, of having a 12-point (clock) heading plus a current
> speed, with rules about how fast you can change your heading or speed, seems
> like a very good compromise between reality and playability. I'm a little
> concerned that ships will quickly go flying right off the table, but I'm sure
> there are ways to deal with that.
One Lego-specific thing I tried years ago when playing with the idea of
microscale space combat, was to use one-stud-width plates to mark off the speed
and direction of all the objects on the field. Plant one end of the plate on
the object, point the other end in the direction the object is going, and put a
1x1 round plate on top, however many studs out were equal to the object's
velocity.
The nice thing was that it made adding thrust vectors pretty easy; you just tack
the new vector plate onto the end of the old one, and the endpoint of the
combined vectors shows the new direction and speed of movement. Very quick,
very Lego. I ended up getting bogged down later trying to decide the best
method for handling rotational momentum, but otherwise it was kind of neat.
In regards to what dice system is best, you're going to have to get specific
about the feel of game you're going for - whether you want ships with reliable
and well-established capabilities for solid strategic play, for instance, or if
you want the surprises and wild swings of fate of fantasy space opera. Lately
I'm a fan of just switching between different kinds of dice and avoiding the
math entirely, but I know that doesn't work for everybody. What's the feeling
of play that you're hoping to design towards?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
- Ad6 tends to form more of a normal (bell-curve) distribution as A increases, leading to more “average” rolls and fewer extreme rolls; 1d6+A stays a uniform distribution no matter what the value of A.
|
Another difference is that there’s a large variance in Ad6, and very little
variance in 1d6+A. With A=4 (for instance) you get Ad6 resulting between 4 and
24, which is a huge range. With 1d6+A, you get between 5 and 10.
For that reason, I’d prefer the Ad6, because it adds more randomness. Units that
are outmatched might feel a glimmer of hope that they roll really well, and
units that outclass everything else still have that fear that they’ll roll
badly. Obviously it doesn’t happen much in practice thanks to the bell-curve
nature, but it’s always good to have hope of a resounding victory!
| |
- Ad6 obviously means more addition for values of A > 2, though on the other hand, young players could just count the spots, whereas 1d6+A is only one addition but has to be done in your head.
|
I’d also go with the Ad6 method on this point because Ad6 is very physical, not
very abstract. Knowing that you’ve got to add some number to your roll after the
fact always seems a little strange to me... “I rolled an 8, but I also get to
add 3 to that.” I always prefer it if it’s a straight roll.
| |
- Ad6 requires more dice (or else, rolling multiple times and adding up in your head), which could be an issue for some players.
|
That’s definitely a bonus for 1d6+A. Rolling 9d6 (say) can get tedius, both in
counting and in rolling (if you only have 2 dice or something), whereas 1d6+A is
usually much more feasible with a single die.
Without knowing any real details about your game, I’d probably go with the Ad6
method, but that’s by no means an informed decision-- your game mechanics might
make more sense the other way, too, depending on how you want to work things.
DaveE
|
|
| |
I’m in the throes of designing a LEGO space battle game. I’m borrowing some
ideas from Full Thrust, at Wayne’s suggestion, but I’m probably going to monkey
with the combat substantially. For example, I really like giving the defender a
defense roll, so that they have something to do during the attacker’s turn.
One of my primary goals is to keep it simple enough for kids to play, since my
oldest son is only 7 and has never played a wargame before. (And to be honest,
I’m not much of a wargamer myself anymore, as I haven’t had anyone to play with
in many years.... though hopefully this is starting to change!)
All that preamble out of the way, here’s my question. I’ve seen two common ways
to represent different attack (or defense) strengths. One is roll a die for
each strength point (i.e. Ad6, where A is the attack strength). Another is to
roll one die, and add the strength (1d6+A). Assume that values of A tend to
range from 1-4 or so. Which do you prefer?
Things I’ve considered:
- Ad6 tends to form more of a normal (bell-curve) distribution as A increases, leading to more “average” rolls and fewer extreme rolls; 1d6+A stays a uniform distribution no matter what the value of A.
- Ad6 obviously means more addition for values of A > 2, though on the other hand, young players could just count the spots, whereas 1d6+A is only one addition but has to be done in your head.
- Ad6 requires more dice (or else, rolling multiple times and adding up in your head), which could be an issue for some players.
But these considerations are all pretty academic -- you guys are actually out
there in the trenches; what’s your view?
Incidentally, the larger plan is for both attacker and defender to roll, using
whichever scheme is chosen, and consider the attack to have succeeded if its
roll is equal to or greater than the defense roll. In that case, the defender
takes one point of damage. There are also “special damage” and “special
failure” tables that are invoked when a successful attack rolled a natural 6, or
a failed attack rolled a natural 1; these are special effects like more damage,
loss of an attachment, or changing a ship’s heading. Any feedback on this
general scheme would also be also appreciated.
Thanks,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> > I've always wanted to try a Lego mircoship game. But my group is a little too
> > BrikWar oriented to break away (frankly, I love to try something like
> > Battlestations in Lego; where there's a miniature ship-to-ship combat part and
> > then a full-interior ship part).
>
> That does sound like fun, though it'd be quite a lot of work to set up. (Fun
> work, of course, but still...)
>
> > For a strict ship-to-ship game, I suggest adapting the rules for Full Thrust.
> > ...
> > The rules can be simplified--especially if you just use Cinematic Movement--and
> > are pretty much a d6 affair.
I have been playing Full Thrust for years, it is the only Starship combat game I
play. I use the old Micro Machine Star Trek ships. I have over 500 of them. I
also have a fleet each of the NAC and ESU. I hav'nt thought of using micro
scale LEGO ships, but they would work. I am sure once the class of each type of
ship is worked out. Such as a ship of x number of studs long by x wide is a
cruiser class, etc.
After being familuar with the rules, a fellow gamer worked out a 1 page sheet
that has all the info one needs to play a game. A worksheet with each class is
filled in and off you go.
-- Don
|
|
| |
Hi Wayne,
> I've always wanted to try a Lego mircoship game. But my group is a little too
> BrikWar oriented to break away (frankly, I love to try something like
> Battlestations in Lego; where there's a miniature ship-to-ship combat part and
> then a full-interior ship part).
That does sound like fun, though it'd be quite a lot of work to set up. (Fun
work, of course, but still...)
> For a strict ship-to-ship game, I suggest adapting the rules for Full Thrust.
> ...
> The rules can be simplified--especially if you just use Cinematic Movement--and
> are pretty much a d6 affair.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one before, and it does look good. I've only taken a
quick perusal so far, but I like the movement system already. I had been trying
to think of some way to capture the ships-in-space nature of the subject, so
that you couldn't just swap out your spaceships for mechs or well-armed minifigs
and have it still make sense. In other words, I didn't want it to be just
another "move then shoot, or shoot then move" game. But any way I had thought
to bring Newton's laws into it seemed way too complex.
Full Thrust's solution, of having a 12-point (clock) heading plus a current
speed, with rules about how fast you can change your heading or speed, seems
like a very good compromise between reality and playability. I'm a little
concerned that ships will quickly go flying right off the table, but I'm sure
there are ways to deal with that.
Note that in the standard rule set, there's no mention I can find of Cinematic
Movement -- is this from one of the extensions?
I can already see ways I will want to simplify and LEGOfy these rules a bit,
though. For example, I'm going to steal an idea from Mechaton and have
interchangeable weapons and shield generators that you can scavange from wrecked
ships. (Hmm, should wreckage continue at the same speed and heading as the
doomed ship? Mr. Newton certainly says so, but I think that might make too much
busywork, and prevent the fun of scavanging.)
> If you do end up playing (using whatever rules) be sure to take pics and post
> the details. I can't wait for my kid to be old enough.
Will do!
Thanks,
- Joe
|
|
|
