Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:05:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
regult@aol.#ihatespam#com
|
Viewed:
|
1405 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 07:26:12 GMT, "Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu>
wrote:
> In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
>
> > I think at the next Ohio BrikWars we will most likely be leaving out
> > some of the rules that slowed down game play. We didn't use fire in
> > the first game, but hopefully we will for the second game, even though
> > it can involve quite a few dice rolls.
>
> Which rules did you have problems with? I remember somebody was complaining
> about having to do the NearMiss calculations for every shot - that's one of
> the rules that we were specifically thinking of when we were writing the
> introduction and said "we heartily encourage you to ignore ninety-nine percent
> of the rules ninety-nine percent of the time... fudge everything your
> opponents will let you get away with." I hope you weren't doing NearMisses
> for every shot - only when there was another important target close by. On
> the other hand, considering how crowded that battlefield was, I guess it was
> pretty much guaranteed that there would always be another potential target
> within NearMiss range.
>
> What else slowed you down? Not that I have any objection to leaving out large
> sections of the rules, in fact I think it's a good idea. But, if you have any
> problems I'd like to bring them up when the editing staff reconvenes next week
> for the bw2000 html rulebook.
>
> Speaking of the NearMiss rules, they're going back under review in next week's
> meeting, so there might be some changes in that area although I couldn't
> really predict what kind just yet. The reason being, we removed the Skill
> Penalties for firing at a target that was especially small or was behind
> partial cover, because those penalties messed up the nearmiss calculations.
> The nearmiss rules were supposed to just naturally make it harder to hit small
> targets. However, we ended up making the nearmiss distances large enough that
> it's no easier to hit a minifig out in the open than a minifig behind 90%
> cover. We're going to have to think of a way to reintroduce the Skill Penalty
> without screwing up the NearMiss rules or making them too complicated, and I
> don't know how we're going to do it yet.
>
> - Mike Rayhawk
I think the NearMiss rules slowed us down, as we just about calculated
where every near miss went. We also didn't play this rule correctly
for the first part of the game. In most wargames I've played I'm used
to a miss is a miss. Granted if you throw a weapon its a good idea to
know where it landed so you can pick it up later. I'd much rather have
the skill penalties for cover and concealment instead of the NearMiss
rule. If anything put some rules in for cover and concealment, and
tell players, either play with skill modifiers, or NearMiss, or
neither, but not with both as the modifiers will change the play of
the game when used in conjunction with the NearMiss rules.
Opportunity fire slowed things down a bit too, and as before, we
misread this rule and played it incorrectly in the first part of the
game. Its a good idea, although with some of the games I've played in
the past there was opportunity fire in the movement and firing phases.
Keeping track of who fired in the previous phase to see if they are
available for opportunity fire is something that might take some work,
especially in larger battles.
There were a few things in regards to vehicles, i.e. turn rates,
acceleration and such, that we might leave out. It seemed, to me
anyway, like too much to keep track of. Charts would have been nice
with all the modifiers and such on a page or two.
I'd like to see initiative rolled for the start of each turn. Also, we
played using the optional rule Phases and had some tough times
figuring out charging attacks, like a knight on a horse charging
someone with his lance. From what we read this takes place during the
firing phase, but the target, if it isn't his turn to move yet, just
has to move out of the way of the charge during his turn. When the
firing phase comes around to the charging player again to resolve his
attack, his target is gone, and is most likely in a position to attack
the charger. Perhaps next time we play we'll move and fire for one
player, then go to the next and so on...
In addition, before we play next time, we should go over the rules and
determine which ones we aren't using and write them down. This way
there won't be any rules lawyering to slow things down.
With nearly all the wargames I've played in the past, I'm used to
attack v. defence odds to determine the outcome of battles. While
BrikWars uses a system similar to what an RPG would use, yet its not
really an RPG either. Its sort of a hybrid, which it has to be to use
LEGO while playing it. No two armies or units will be alike, and thats
where the magic of the game is, to me anyway.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: brikwars...
|
| (...) When we have too many guys on the field to keep track of, we're careful to make sure they always hold their weapons in such a way to indicate whether they are ready to attack, or whether they have just attacked. After firing a ranged weapon, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.gaming)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: brikwars...
|
| (...) Which rules did you have problems with? I remember somebody was complaining about having to do the NearMiss calculations for every shot - that's one of the rules that we were specifically thinking of when we were writing the introduction and (...) (24 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.gaming)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
