| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> [snip sword story]
> ================================================
That said, is there any plot going on here concerning this here sword? Or
said '3-mile-high-castle'?
Is the goal to capture the sword? Might the sword be guarded by some 3rd
party? Perhaps capturing the sword is only useful insofar as it's a prime
butt-kicking sword?
> Lastly, if you think the total army CP count should be modified (like to
> 1200 or 999.44), bring it up...and no, Shaun, you can't have 3000+ CP.
So, just to be clear, we're saying 1000 CP per *team* not per *team member*,
I'm assuming.
> Oh, and one more thing...I think it would be helpful (necessary?) if at
> least a couple of us worked on the scenery together, regardless of what team
> you may ultimately be on. Any on-lookers are also welcome to build things,
> if they so desire.
It would be awesomely cool to have a rubble-shell of a once-great-castle
sitting there to fight around. If there is indeed a 'Sword of Agot' (is that
name inspired by the conversation at Picadilly?) that's in the game, I'm
thinking there'd be, say, 3 entrances (evenly spaced, one in the middle, one
on each end) to get to said sword? Dang. I just took apart one huge layout,
and I'm thinking about a 2nd one. Dang.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > [snip sword story]
> > ================================================
>
> That said, is there any plot going on here concerning this here sword? Or
> said '3-mile-high-castle'?
Oh yes! The Sword of Agot will be there for the taking, but it shouldn't be
the only thing to focus on...afterall, if you hack all of your opponents to
bits, there really is not need for the Sword. AND, the Sword will *not* be
so powerful that should someone get, the game is over. What I'm thinking
here - and this is just an idea - is that each team come up with some sort
of power or side affect for the sword. There will also be at least one
negative affect. Each one of these powers will be assigned a number(s) and
so when it is used, you will not necessarily get the desired outcome
(afterall, you haven't been cleansed, have you, hmmm?)
As for the castle/Ancient's Keep, I have an idea of something mountain-like
at the base with pieces of castle poking out the higher you get. This is
the main thing that I think would need multiple people to build...it's also
a call for BURPs and POOPs. It should definitely engourage warfare on and
around its surface.
> Is the goal to capture the sword? Might the sword be guarded by some 3rd
> party? Perhaps capturing the sword is only useful insofar as it's a prime
> butt-kicking sword?
See above.
> > Lastly, if you think the total army CP count should be modified (like to
> > 1200 or 999.44), bring it up...and no, Shaun, you can't have 3000+ CP.
>
> So, just to be clear, we're saying 1000 CP per *team* not per *team member*,
> I'm assuming.
Yes, 1000 CP per team, but, again, we can alter that count, if you think
that's best. The idea is to have large armies...troops, magic folk,
ballistae and the like. I would be fine with increasing the total count.
> > Oh, and one more thing...I think it would be helpful (necessary?) if at
> > least a couple of us worked on the scenery together, regardless of what team
> > you may ultimately be on. Any on-lookers are also welcome to build things,
> > if they so desire.
>
> It would be awesomely cool to have a rubble-shell of a once-great-castle
> sitting there to fight around. If there is indeed a 'Sword of Agot' (is that
> name inspired by the conversation at Picadilly?) that's in the game, I'm
> thinking there'd be, say, 3 entrances (evenly spaced, one in the middle, one
> on each end) to get to said sword? Dang. I just took apart one huge layout,
> and I'm thinking about a 2nd one. Dang.
Hmmm, I don't seem to recall the conversation you're referring to, but I
actually wrote the story before the weekend. I created 'Agot' by taking the
first letter of each word from the book I'm currently reading: A Game of
Thrones (by George R. R. Martin - it's remarkable). And, yes, it would be
cool to have something as you or I have described in the center of our
Little Earth.
- Joe
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> Oh yes! The Sword of Agot will be there for the taking, but it shouldn't be
> the only thing to focus on...afterall, if you hack all of your opponents to
> bits, there really is not need for the Sword. AND, the Sword will *not* be
> so powerful that should someone get, the game is over. What I'm thinking
> here - and this is just an idea - is that each team come up with some sort
> of power or side affect for the sword. There will also be at least one
> negative affect. Each one of these powers will be assigned a number(s) and
> so when it is used, you will not necessarily get the desired outcome
> (afterall, you haven't been cleansed, have you, hmmm?)
Ahh, cool :)
Yeah, that's more or less what I thought would be cool-- the sword is really
helpful, but if you're restricted to running up to enemies and slashing
them, it doesn't prevent you from being killed along the way or whatever.
> As for the castle/Ancient's Keep, I have an idea of something mountain-like
> at the base with pieces of castle poking out the higher you get. This is
> the main thing that I think would need multiple people to build...it's also
> a call for BURPs and POOPs. It should definitely engourage warfare on and
> around its surface.
I've probably got enough BURPs for the whole project if need be... Wow. I
just checked Peeron-- I should have 176 BURPs (Grey/Dk Grey rectangular &
triangular). Dang. I didn't realize I had so many.
> I would be fine with increasing the total count.
I'd actually be inclined to lower the max SP/CP allotment per character,
assuming I understand it right. As I understand it you can have 50 CP for
your SP allotment per character? So I could have a trooper who cost 25
points, and 50 points of SP's on top of that? If that's the case I could see
someone (aka me) going nutso and buying 13 troops who all maxxed out their
CP limits who were super-hard to kill. IIRC it's 20 CP to get that 'hover
flight' like Ram Man, and then 30 extra points to spend on more SP's to do
highly damaging things, not including whatever you might have equipment-wise.
I guess I should say I'm envisioning characters being about as powerful
(maybe a bit more) than the superheros in the Super-game we played a while
back; which were mostly 27CP (base) + a max of 23 CP's spent on SP's.
I'm thinking maybe... hmm... I guess you could fix it in one or more of a
few ways:
#1 - lower the SP's CP limit per troop to, say... 30 CP max spent on SP's?
#2 - set a ratio limit for magic users (like, oh, I dunno, 7 non-magic
troops per 1 magic troop?)
#2a - set a ratio limit for magic users based on their SP-- IE ratio
increases by 2 for every 10 CP spent on SP's?
#3 - have an SP limit per team? IE each team is limited to, I dunno, 200
CP's spent on SP's?
#4 - similar to the ratio idea, maybe each team can have a max of 1 50
CP-on-SP character, 3 30 CP-on-SP characters, 10 10 CP-on-SP characters or
whatnot?
#5 - set the *total* CP limit per character to 50 CP, including any spent on
SP's (that way you're less inclined to have *champions* running around with
mega SP's, since you can cram more SP's into a trooper/hero than a champion)
> Hmmm, I don't seem to recall the conversation you're referring to, but I
> actually wrote the story before the weekend. I created 'Agot' by taking the
> first letter of each word from the book I'm currently reading: A Game of
> Thrones
Heh, I was thinking: "Toga! Toga! Toga!" (backwards)
> And, yes, it would be
> cool to have something as you or I have described in the center of our
> Little Earth.
Note on the sword-- if it's more or less "up for grabs", it'll go pretty
quick, is my guess. Spend a bunch of points on hover-flight like Ram Man and
people can go right in and snatch it. Hmm... I'm thinking 'traps'. Or some
3rd party guard who you don't want to take on all alone...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
<SNIP>
> > (afterall, you haven't been cleansed, have you, hmmm?)
>
> Ahh, cool :)
>
> Yeah, that's more or less what I thought would be cool-- the sword is really
> helpful, but if you're restricted to running up to enemies and slashing
> them, it doesn't prevent you from being killed along the way or whatever.
Exactly...it's good to have, but you still are not invulnerable from flying
cows and what not.
> > As for the castle/Ancient's Keep, I have an idea of something mountain-like
> > at the base with pieces of castle poking out the higher you get. This is
> > the main thing that I think would need multiple people to build...it's also
> > a call for BURPs and POOPs. It should definitely engourage warfare on and
> > around its surface.
>
> I've probably got enough BURPs for the whole project if need be... Wow. I
> just checked Peeron-- I should have 176 BURPs (Grey/Dk Grey rectangular &
> triangular). Dang. I didn't realize I had so many.
Woa...it's to bad they don't make any in green and brown, but we can easily
add bits and pieces of earth and vegitation once the general structure it there.
> > I would be fine with increasing the total count.
>
> I'd actually be inclined to lower the max SP/CP allotment per character,
> assuming I understand it right. As I understand it you can have 50 CP for
> your SP allotment per character? So I could have a trooper who cost 25
> points, and 50 points of SP's on top of that? If that's the case I could see
> someone (aka me) going nutso and buying 13 troops who all maxxed out their
> CP limits who were super-hard to kill. IIRC it's 20 CP to get that 'hover
> flight' like Ram Man, and then 30 extra points to spend on more SP's to do
> highly damaging things, not including whatever you might have equipment-wise.
>
> I guess I should say I'm envisioning characters being about as powerful
> (maybe a bit more) than the superheros in the Super-game we played a while
> back; which were mostly 27CP (base) + a max of 23 CP's spent on SP's.
Actually, yes...any unit should be limited to a maximum of 50 CP that is
utilizing SP, including the cost of the unit itself is what I was thinking
(but didn't state that way), but a true cap specifically on SP for a given
unit/weapon is probably a better idea. What we don't want is a cheezy way
of getting around the rule by creating an SP unit of 50 CP then designing a
magical weapon of 50 CP, thus creating a 100 CP unit with unstopable power.
BUT, there should be some flexability here. Brikwars tends to favor larger
numbers of weaker units than fewer, more powerful ones. I do have a race in
mind for the game that will cost a bit of CP and will utilize some SP...if I
decide I only need a small amount of SP, it seems imposing an arbitrary
limit of total CP causes issues (ballistae can easily cost more than that).
Also, we may want to decide to use the hitpoint option for any SP unit (or
any powerful unit, regardless of whether they use SP) to ensure that a horde
of unorganized regular units can still take down a more powerful one. I
think this gets around the invulnerable-unit issue.
> I'm thinking maybe... hmm... I guess you could fix it in one or more of a
> few ways:
>
> #1 - lower the SP's CP limit per troop to, say... 30 CP max spent on SP's?
I like this option.
> #2 - set a ratio limit for magic users (like, oh, I dunno, 7 non-magic
> troops per 1 magic troop?)
This isn't a bad idea, although I think saying something like no more than
25% of your army's CP can be allocated to SP.
> #2a - set a ratio limit for magic users based on their SP-- IE ratio
> increases by 2 for every 10 CP spent on SP's?
At first I didn't like this, but I'm warming up to it.
> #3 - have an SP limit per team? IE each team is limited to, I dunno, 200
> CP's spent on SP's?
This would be fair, and it also gives flexibility as to how you use it.
> #4 - similar to the ratio idea, maybe each team can have a max of 1 50
> CP-on-SP character, 3 30 CP-on-SP characters, 10 10 CP-on-SP characters or
> whatnot?
I think this is too restrictive.
> #5 - set the *total* CP limit per character to 50 CP, including any spent on
> SP's (that way you're less inclined to have *champions* running around with
> mega SP's, since you can cram more SP's into a trooper/hero than a champion)
I think this can be too restrictive. Having some large/powerful units
involved in the mayhem is a good thing and it also means that you will tend
to have fewer overall units which may be problematic, depending on your
strategy. I'd like to keep this as open-ended as possible.
> > Hmmm, I don't seem to recall the conversation you're referring to, but I
> > actually wrote the story before the weekend. I created 'Agot' by taking the
> > first letter of each word from the book I'm currently reading: A Game of
> > Thrones
>
> Heh, I was thinking: "Toga! Toga! Toga!" (backwards)
Oh, *that* conversation. Too funny.
> > And, yes, it would be
> > cool to have something as you or I have described in the center of our
> > Little Earth.
>
> Note on the sword-- if it's more or less "up for grabs", it'll go pretty
> quick, is my guess. Spend a bunch of points on hover-flight like Ram Man and
> people can go right in and snatch it. Hmm... I'm thinking 'traps'. Or some
> 3rd party guard who you don't want to take on all alone...
Well, Agot was wise. I'm sure when he sealed the castle, he placed a few
wards in and around the castle and the Sword itself :) Again, I think this
is an opportunity for everyone to create some potentially hazardous
situation which we roll against. This keeps it random and also prevents one
person/team from knowing everything that lies ahead.
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> Woa...it's to bad they don't make any in green and brown, but we can easily
> add bits and pieces of earth and vegitation once the general structure it
> there.
I'll have to see what I can dig up... I've been sorting my basic bricks now
that the Hoth base is down-- All the grey & white we could want. Tan, Green,
& Brown are great for scenery, though... maybe if we get a 'basic' idea for
a layout we can try and allot chunks of it for people to build? Hmm... I
wonder how much I could do with those colors. I'll have to check.
> > I guess I should say I'm envisioning characters being about as powerful
> > (maybe a bit more) than the superheros in the Super-game we played a while
> > back; which were mostly 27CP (base) + a max of 23 CP's spent on SP's.
>
> Actually, yes...any unit should be limited to a maximum of 50 CP that is
> utilizing SP, including the cost of the unit itself is what I was thinking
> (but didn't state that way), but a true cap specifically on SP for a given
> unit/weapon is probably a better idea.
Ah, ok :) That works much better... Just making sure we don't have champions
or whatnot floating around that cost base 60 CP + 50 CP's spent on SP's on
top of that or anything.
> What we don't want is a cheezy way
> of getting around the rule by creating an SP unit of 50 CP then designing a
> magical weapon of 50 CP, thus creating a 100 CP unit with unstopable power.
> BUT, there should be some flexability here.
Yeah-- I could of course see someone unsportsmanlike (say, Shaun) making 1
character with magic 40CP plate armor, one character with a magic 40CP
sword, and one who was a 50CP base character with crazy SP's, then just
having his armor & sword characters give their weapons to the 50CP
character. Shame on you, Shaun for even thinking that.
Anyway, should go without saying that there's no switching weapons &
equipment except where it would make sense (like if your squad of troopers
kills an opposing magic-sword-wielder and one of them drops his short sword
in exchange for the magic one)
> Brikwars tends to favor larger numbers of weaker units than fewer, more
> powerful ones.
Huh... I always kinda thought the opposite-- Vehicles and mass-power units
often seem to dominate the game, although squads can be useful at times. I'm
just reminded of:
- Neil's death knight chewing through 2 squads of our troops without blinking
- Joe's TL2 dual-chakrum-thrower-hero, who mowed down squads at a whim
- Most TL5+ games, where troopers were more-or-less useless (being why we
decided we liked more troop-intensive games)
- One of my crazy-knights being ganged up on by *4* of Neil's troops, who in
turn killed *3* of them (on *Neil's* turn nonetheless)
- Eric J's TL2 giants swooshing through innocent troopers at a whim
> I do have a race in
> mind for the game that will cost a bit of CP and will utilize some SP...if I
> decide I only need a small amount of SP, it seems imposing an arbitrary
> limit of total CP causes issues (ballistae can easily cost more than that).
Yeah, it's difficult since I'd like to allow, say, a race of X who each have
like 5 SP's, and be able to use them as though they were regular troops, but
I also want to ensure there's no cheaty-type-super-units.
> Also, we may want to decide to use the hitpoint option for any SP unit (or
> any powerful unit, regardless of whether they use SP) to ensure that a horde
> of unorganized regular units can still take down a more powerful one. I
> think this gets around the invulnerable-unit issue.
I like that idea-- perhaps any unit with an AV greater than some number gets
turned into a hit-point unit?
> > Note on the sword-- if it's more or less "up for grabs", it'll go pretty
> > quick, is my guess. Spend a bunch of points on hover-flight like Ram Man and
> > people can go right in and snatch it. Hmm... I'm thinking 'traps'. Or some
> > 3rd party guard who you don't want to take on all alone...
>
>
> Well, Agot was wise. I'm sure when he sealed the castle, he placed a few
> wards in and around the castle and the Sword itself :) Again, I think this
> is an opportunity for everyone to create some potentially hazardous
> situation which we roll against. This keeps it random and also prevents one
> person/team from knowing everything that lies ahead.
That works :)
DaveE
|
|
| |
> I'll have to see what I can dig up... I've been sorting my basic bricks now
> that the Hoth base is down-- All the grey & white we could want. Tan, Green,
> & Brown are great for scenery, though... maybe if we get a 'basic' idea for
> a layout we can try and allot chunks of it for people to build? Hmm... I
> wonder how much I could do with those colors. I'll have to check.
I could work on a ruff layout if I had a list of things we wanted to include
on the layout.
I have a bunch of green, brown, and extra NELUG gray bricks that I can use
for this event. Plus I can use some of the gorge sections.
<snip>
> > What we don't want is a cheezy way
> > of getting around the rule by creating an SP unit of 50 CP then designing a
> > magical weapon of 50 CP, thus creating a 100 CP unit with unstopable power.
> > BUT, there should be some flexability here.
>
> Yeah-- I could of course see someone unsportsmanlike (say, Shaun) making 1
> character with magic 40CP plate armor, one character with a magic 40CP
> sword, and one who was a 50CP base character with crazy SP's, then just
> having his armor & sword characters give their weapons to the 50CP
> character. Shame on you, Shaun for even thinking that.
So what is really wrong with this concept? If Shaun made an army of
servants and one warrior, I could keep him stuck in one place for the entire
game by using an SP power.
> Anyway, should go without saying that there's no switching weapons &
> equipment except where it would make sense (like if your squad of troopers
> kills an opposing magic-sword-wielder and one of them drops his short sword
> in exchange for the magic one)
We could also make the weapons themselves have an AV level allowing them to
be targeted and destroyed.
> > Brikwars tends to favor larger numbers of weaker units than fewer, more
> > powerful ones.
>
> Huh... I always kinda thought the opposite-- Vehicles and mass-power units
> often seem to dominate the game, although squads can be useful at times. I'm
> just reminded of:
>
> - Neil's death knight chewing through 2 squads of our troops without blinking
> - Joe's TL2 dual-chakrum-thrower-hero, who mowed down squads at a whim
> - Most TL5+ games, where troopers were more-or-less useless (being why we
> decided we liked more troop-intensive games)
> - One of my crazy-knights being ganged up on by *4* of Neil's troops, who in
> turn killed *3* of them (on *Neil's* turn nonetheless)
> - Eric J's TL2 giants swooshing through innocent troopers at a whim
Forgot one. Dave's Panzer destroying Jon's entire squad in one turn.
<snip>
> > Also, we may want to decide to use the hitpoint option for any SP unit (or
> > any powerful unit, regardless of whether they use SP) to ensure that a horde
> > of unorganized regular units can still take down a more powerful one. I
> > think this gets around the invulnerable-unit issue.
>
> I like that idea-- perhaps any unit with an AV greater than some number gets
> turned into a hit-point unit?
I would say an AV and or an SP greater than some number. That way Shaun
could have his troops give up there weapons to one warrior. That warrior
would then convert to hit points for the rest of the game.
Now with the hit points, do we want to prevent the use of healing elixer?
<snip>
Jonathan D.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> <SNIP>
... can't let you guys have all the fun now ...
Anyway, here's my thoughts:
I like the 50 CP total limit per character ... that allowed for a ton of
creativity, but prevented any trooper from being overly powerful. And it's a
nice balance .. the stronger you make a character magic-wise, the weaker you
may want to make them physically, to get points for SP. Reminds me of D&D,
where wizards were physically pansies, but powerful nonetheless.
I'd also advocate the 1000 CP limit be per person :P I have a whole army
scored up - about 120 troops all told, I think, maybe a little less - and the
total is 2500, WITHOUT counting a whole bunch of extras - catapult, ballista,
war elephant, and a few guys from a few other races. That's just a total for
*troops*.
I suppose, if pressed, I can get my total down to 1000 CP via massive layoffs.
Especially once we split into teams, so we can start formulating plans on who
supplies what types and numbers of troops ...
As for scenery: I told Joe that I recently built a huge tower - it's about 6 or
7 stories tall, each story about 10 bricks high. It's not that wide (16 studs?
18?), but each floor is accessible. I also built it without any drawbridges,
closable doors, or gates, since that would make it waaaayyy too valuable as a
fortification. As it stands, it's cool scenery and a swell place to frolic
around. I'll take some pictures of it this weekend to post.
I also built another patented Rock Outcropping, which I'm quite pleased with.
I tried to model it on that baseplate with the curved road, and the high
embankment. I basically did it the same way Joe described - grey and dark
grey, with brown and green highlights and some scattered foliage.
Lastly - do we want to try and incorporate multiple objectives? I think some
our most successful games have been when there have been multiple "objects" to
hunt down, worth various points, for example. A single objective might simply
lead to a full-frontal engagement ... which is worthwhile in and of itself, of
course ...
How about this? What if we also scattered gold around the field? Collecting
it could be used to do such interesting things as (a) buy the allegiance of
peasants, enemy troops, etc, (b) purchase various goods or equipment or siege
weapons or magical weapons upgrades at indestructible depots, (c) or other
money-related things. It could also count for value at the end of the game -
if you spent it, you might have been more successful in some objectives. If
you saved it, it counts as treasure that adds to your "score", much like the
various colored 1x1 tiles did. Just ideas :P
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> [snip]
> Yeah-- I could of course see someone unsportsmanlike (say, Shaun) making 1
> character with magic 40CP plate armor, one character with a magic 40CP
> sword, and one who was a 50CP base character with crazy SP's, then just
> having his armor & sword characters give their weapons to the 50CP
> character. Shame on you, Shaun for even thinking that.
> [snip]
Word has it that Dave has been busy with a fine-tipped paintbrush. So far, all
of his troops have plate armor, warp engines, and poisonous fangs. And wings.
And, strangely, John Travolta chest hair.
I've got photographs to prove it!
:P
We really need to select teams soon ... I've got some ideas that need to be
shared with *somebody*. And I need to mercilessly riducule the rest of you.
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > Yeah-- I could of course see someone unsportsmanlike (say, Shaun) making 1
> > character with magic 40CP plate armor, one character with a magic 40CP
> > sword, and one who was a 50CP base character with crazy SP's, then just
> > having his armor & sword characters give their weapons to the 50CP
> > character. Shame on you, Shaun for even thinking that.
>
> So what is really wrong with this concept? If Shaun made an army of
> servants and one warrior, I could keep him stuck in one place for the entire
> game by using an SP power.
Well, ok, a magic plate armor and sword aren't good examples, but let's just
say a mega-powerful character doesn't need to worry much about where on the
board he is. Consider Neil's necromancer. Ouch.
> > Anyway, should go without saying that there's no switching weapons &
> > equipment except where it would make sense (like if your squad of troopers
> > kills an opposing magic-sword-wielder and one of them drops his short sword
> > in exchange for the magic one)
>
> We could also make the weapons themselves have an AV level allowing them to
> be targeted and destroyed.
They actually already have AV for most things-- It depends on what material
the item is made from. Somewhere in the beginning of the trooper's arsenal,
IIRC. Although I don't think there are rules about modifying the AV of a
weapon. As for targeting, I assume it would count under the 'smaller than a
minifig head' for most things.
> > - Neil's death knight chewing through 2 squads of our troops without blinking
> > - Joe's TL2 dual-chakrum-thrower-hero, who mowed down squads at a whim
> > - Most TL5+ games, where troopers were more-or-less useless (being why we
> > decided we liked more troop-intensive games)
> > - One of my crazy-knights being ganged up on by *4* of Neil's troops, who in
> > turn killed *3* of them (on *Neil's* turn nonetheless)
> > - Eric J's TL2 giants swooshing through innocent troopers at a whim
>
> Forgot one. Dave's Panzer destroying Jon's entire squad in one turn.
Heh, I probably forgot a bunch :) Actually, another good one was Shaun's
powerful unit blowing up in a hallway and consequently causing ... how many
troops' deaths?
> > I like that idea-- perhaps any unit with an AV greater than some number gets
> > turned into a hit-point unit?
>
> I would say an AV and or an SP greater than some number. That way Shaun
> could have his troops give up there weapons to one warrior. That warrior
> would then convert to hit points for the rest of the game.
Well, the idea being that the extra equipment would theoretically have magic
to increase the unit's total AV. So his AV would jump from, say, 10 to 50,
and then he'd need to convert.
> Now with the hit points, do we want to prevent the use of healing elixer?
Hmm... good question. I think I'd probably opt for one or more of
- healing over time (say... 3HP per round?)
- majik mediks
- healing potions (same as whatever mediks use, but SP applied to a potion)
I'm not sure I'm against healing potions, since you'd need to make a potion
be pretty powerful to fully-heal a unit. Plus (assumedly), it takes a full
turn to drink the potion, so that unit is incapacitated for the turn. I
would say it's an all-or-nothing thing. So no "I'm gonna drink 1/2 of it,
and save the next 1/2 for later". That way if you want to splurge on healing
potions, that's just more you could have spent elsewhere.
In *FACT*... Hmm. Maybe you're not allowed to give healing potions to other
characters, so the points alloted to the potions just count towards the 50CP
total? That would prevent a quasi medic running around handing out potions,
too. Hmm...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > > Yeah-- I could of course see someone unsportsmanlike (say, Shaun) making 1
> > > character with magic 40CP plate armor, one character with a magic 40CP
> > > sword, and one who was a 50CP base character with crazy SP's, then just
> > > having his armor & sword characters give their weapons to the 50CP
> > > character. Shame on you, Shaun for even thinking that.
> >
> > So what is really wrong with this concept? If Shaun made an army of
> > servants and one warrior, I could keep him stuck in one place for the entire
> > game by using an SP power.
>
> Well, ok, a magic plate armor and sword aren't good examples, but let's just
> say a mega-powerful character doesn't need to worry much about where on the
> board he is. Consider Neil's necromancer. Ouch.
Is there some way of allowing the switching of items between troops without
one warrior becoming to powerful. Maybe we limit the range of SP weapons or
make long range SP powers only an ability of the minifig. Are there rules
on what a Mage can wear (armor). I could see having a powerful mage, with a
weak AV level.
I never saw Neil's Necromancer. Do we have specs on him?
<snip>
Jonathan D.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > <SNIP> • <SNIP>
>
> Lastly - do we want to try and incorporate multiple objectives? I think some
> our most successful games have been when there have been multiple "objects" to
> hunt down, worth various points, for example. A single objective might simply
> lead to a full-frontal engagement ... which is worthwhile in and of itself, of
> course ...
>
> How about this? What if we also scattered gold around the field? Collecting
> it could be used to do such interesting things as (a) buy the allegiance of
> peasants, enemy troops, etc, (b) purchase various goods or equipment or siege
> weapons or magical weapons upgrades at indestructible depots, (c) or other
> money-related things. It could also count for value at the end of the game -
> if you spent it, you might have been more successful in some objectives. If
> you saved it, it counts as treasure that adds to your "score", much like the
> various colored 1x1 tiles did. Just ideas :P
Oh man, you gave me an idea...what if *no* units inherently possed any magic
and it is *always* derived from objects? We could scatter these objects
which have various powers all over the place and depending on what you
find/take, those are the abilities that you get (for the unit that posses
it)? One modification to this is that perhaps each side gets *one*
magic-being character (like Merlin) as they see fit, but all other majic
comes from the objects as I've just mentioned. Just a thought.
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
>
> I never saw Neil's Necromancer. Do we have specs on him?
> <snip>
The basic recipe was:
Take 250 CP and cram it into one minifig, predominately in SP.
Equip the necromancer with two spells (to save on the cost of SP):
fireball
raise/animate/control dead
The basic strategy was:
Hole up in some corner somewhere.
Wait for other players' troops to start killing each other.
Raise said dead troops.
Launch massive fireballs four feet away.
Raise said burned troops.
Send dead troops to fight living troops.
Raise said newly dead troops killed by pevious dead troops.
... and so on.
[shakes fist in air]
"DANG YOU, NEIL! DANG YOU FOR ALL ETERNITY!"
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > <SNIP> • <SNIP>
> >
> > Lastly - do we want to try and incorporate multiple objectives? I think some
> > our most successful games have been when there have been multiple "objects" to
> > hunt down, worth various points, for example. A single objective might simply
> > lead to a full-frontal engagement ... which is worthwhile in and of itself, of
> > course ...
> >
> > How about this? What if we also scattered gold around the field? Collecting
> > it could be used to do such interesting things as (a) buy the allegiance of
> > peasants, enemy troops, etc, (b) purchase various goods or equipment or siege
> > weapons or magical weapons upgrades at indestructible depots, (c) or other
> > money-related things. It could also count for value at the end of the game -
> > if you spent it, you might have been more successful in some objectives. If
> > you saved it, it counts as treasure that adds to your "score", much like the
> > various colored 1x1 tiles did. Just ideas :P
>
> Oh man, you gave me an idea...what if *no* units inherently possed any magic
> and it is *always* derived from objects? We could scatter these objects
> which have various powers all over the place and depending on what you
> find/take, those are the abilities that you get (for the unit that posses
> it)? One modification to this is that perhaps each side gets *one*
> magic-being character (like Merlin) as they see fit, but all other majic
> comes from the objects as I've just mentioned. Just a thought.
>
> - Joe
Ack, it's a great idea, but I have a wonderful troop who needs a magical
backpack and another that needs a magical cloak.
I still love the idea, but taking away the magic items or abilities of the
troops will make then a lot less interesting to design. I will give you
that this idea adds a certain spice to the game.
This idea may even help reduce a strong mage into nothing. What if some of
the magical items didn't give power, but took it instead. Or they could
transform the minifig into a toad. Or transport him back to the start, but
without his clothing.
Jonathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> Is there some way of allowing the switching of items between troops without
> one warrior becoming to powerful. Maybe we limit the range of SP weapons or
> make long range SP powers only an ability of the minifig. Are there rules
> on what a Mage can wear (armor). I could see having a powerful mage, with a
> weak AV level.
>
> I never saw Neil's Necromancer. Do we have specs on him?
Well, the concept behind the Necromancer was basically that the
*Necromancer* himself didn't matter. His sole purpose was to enhance his own
troops. Let's say you had an army of 20 figs, each 50 points.
19 of them are non-pacifistic slaves, each with 1 pitiful weapon and 1
super-cool-enchanted weapon (min CP cost per unit is 2, so you can balance
that out by subtracting power/etc, then add on a piddly weapon et all). 1 of
the figs is a champion. Crazy stats, just focused on making him hard to kill
(fast moving, teleport ability, super-high AV).
Um. Ok, well, I can't think of 19 different super-things to give the
champion, but let's say the slaves give him:
- Magic sword (46 CP, 14 SP)
- Magic armor (47 CP, 13 SP)
- Magic helmet (44 CP, 14 SP) [kill da wabbit!]
- Magic cape (44 CP, 14 SP)
- Magic shield (45 CP, 14 SP)
- Magic skis (46 CP, 14 SP)
- Magic container (45 CP, 14 SP)
Well, that's enough. You get the idea. Anyway, let's say the sword's magic
ability is an indexed ability to increase a unit's skill. The shield can
increase a unit's AV. etc. By the end of the 2nd turn (Assuming it takes
some time for the champion to equip all this junk), one of the slaves can be
turned into a **SUPER-SLAVE**!!! (Pretend the font size is like +a million
right there-- and bolded. Gotta be bolded.) Anyway this **SUPER-SLAVE**!!!
has a duration of 3d6 turns:
Move rate: 16" - 66" (depending on how well you rolled)
Damage: just enough to do max damage without breaking the piddly slave weapon
Skill: Stupidly high (11d6 - 1)
AV: Stupidly higher (41d6 - 1)
If you thought Ram Man had crazy hit points... Well, damn. That was nothing.
Average AV would be about 142. Over 400 hit points. Ram Man had 90. And each
subsequent turn you get yet another **SUPER-SLAVE**!!! with which to go and
wreak havoc on your opponent. And with a move rate of over 3 feet, there's
not much that's safe from them at all. Heck, since skill is a multiplicative
component of throw-range, a **SUPER-SLAVE**!!!(tm) could just throw
beefed-up rocks up to 65" (since there's no throw limit on rocks), making
his *effective* range between 26" and 131".
Now, hmm.. You don't NEED to give all these things to the champion to use
them-- the slaves could cast them on each other, but then again, they can't
go off and fight if they're busy helping beef up other slaves.
Anyway, now I'm concerned. This should really be addressed. I don't like the
idea of beefing up soldiers to the Nth degree, since duration is so cheap
(since SP regenerate 100% on each turn). Yeah. I don't like that idea at
all. Or, that is to say, I really *LIKE* the idea, but only if *I'm* the
only one who can use it :P. Perhaps... no more than X SP can be used to beef
up a particular trooper? Or maybe only 1 beef-up spell per trooper (IE you
can beef up movement, and when that wears off, you can beef up their AV, but
you can't have both at the same time). Yeah, I think I like that idea. And
you don't need to wait until duration wears out necessarily, but adding a
new beef-up spell only cancels out the pre-existing beef-up.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > <SNIP>
> <SNIP>
> Oh man, you gave me an idea...what if *no* units inherently possed any magic
> and it is *always* derived from objects? We could scatter these objects
> which have various powers all over the place and depending on what you
> find/take, those are the abilities that you get (for the unit that posses
> it)? One modification to this is that perhaps each side gets *one*
> magic-being character (like Merlin) as they see fit, but all other majic
> comes from the objects as I've just mentioned. Just a thought.
NOW we're talking! How's about:
Europe, mid 1300s. Castles, knights, damsels, catapults, and so on.
Without warning or explanation, there is an upswing in the potency of magic.
Typical corner fortune tellers and soothsayers suddenly display impressive acts
of mystical insight, while the more serious of the practitioners -
illusionists, alchemists, arcanists, witch doctors, etc. - suddenly find
themselves tingling with an inexplicable energy. Where before their
experiences had been mere showmanship and frustrating dead-ends, their
backgrounds now grant them access to new-found power and divination.
Keep in mind, these are times when the entire worlds' understanding and
background, even those with new-found magical powers, are grounded in the real,
the tangible, the physical. So, in truth, even the most magical of individuals
"before the rift" are still pretty weak by comparison with our wizards of
legend - hence the 50 CP cap, and a probable limit of but one or two magic
users per side.
HOWEVER, rumors have stretched from one end of Europe to the other, of the
origin of this unleashed magical energy. Not an explanation of its advent,
just a location. Various lieges, religious leaders, powerbrokers, and minor
players throughout Europe send legions of their troops, along with their most
trusted or powerful magical subjects, to the source, in the hopes of garnering
enough understanding, enough power, and enough insight that their claims for
supremacy might stand unthreatened. Kings want their troops and magicians to
become all-powerful, religious leaders hope to see their paladins bestowed with
holy smiting power, and even the random barbarian warlord sojourns to the
source in the hopes of becoming a godlike warrior.
So it is that various factions start to arrive in a land rent by the release of
magical energy. As they approach the mystical source, they stumble upon more
and more legendary creatures: goblins, orcs, living undead. And scattered
throughout the land, they find various magical objects that were created,
appeared, or were dragged by unknown creatures of the night in this land of
mystery.
Like I said, even the magic users are new to this stuff. Your regular troop is
well beyond his experiences ... but bravely soldiers on.
I like this idea: some of the magical items throughout the land are spellbooks.
Of course, very few can read them! Heroes, perhaps, certainly magic users.
Maybe some others, who have paid the 3 CP for literacy (Literacy: Costs 5-TL
CP, with a minimum of zero). So troops can collect spellbooks, but they are
useless until they are in the hands of someone who can make use of them.
It also helps explain why there might be some odd races skulking about, maybe
even teaming up with legions of troops. They either emanate from the great
Rifts in the fabric of the physical world that released magic, or they are
drawn to it for the seductive power it offers.
Furthermore, this lets each side create a story behind them. Are they a
delegation sent from Rome to wipe out all demonic lore? Are they a band of
Barbarian warriors who want to become strong enough to beat back the Knights?
Are they the forces of a greedy king, who hopes to use magic to conquer new
lands?
Maybe we could tie something like this into Joe's story?
Just a thought ...
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > <SNIP>
> > <SNIP>
> > Oh man, you gave me an idea...what if *no* units inherently possed any magic
> > and it is *always* derived from objects? We could scatter these objects
> > which have various powers all over the place and depending on what you
> > find/take, those are the abilities that you get (for the unit that posses
> > it)? One modification to this is that perhaps each side gets *one*
> > magic-being character (like Merlin) as they see fit, but all other majic
> > comes from the objects as I've just mentioned. Just a thought.
>
> NOW we're talking! How's about:
>
> Europe, mid 1300s. Castles, knights, damsels, catapults, and so on.
>
> Without warning or explanation, there is an upswing in the potency of magic.
> Typical corner fortune tellers and soothsayers suddenly display impressive acts
> of mystical insight, while the more serious of the practitioners -
> illusionists, alchemists, arcanists, witch doctors, etc. - suddenly find
> themselves tingling with an inexplicable energy. Where before their
> experiences had been mere showmanship and frustrating dead-ends, their
> backgrounds now grant them access to new-found power and divination.
>
> Keep in mind, these are times when the entire worlds' understanding and
> background, even those with new-found magical powers, are grounded in the real,
> the tangible, the physical. So, in truth, even the most magical of individuals
> "before the rift" are still pretty weak by comparison with our wizards of
> legend - hence the 50 CP cap, and a probable limit of but one or two magic
> users per side.
>
> HOWEVER, rumors have stretched from one end of Europe to the other, of the
> origin of this unleashed magical energy. Not an explanation of its advent,
> just a location. Various lieges, religious leaders, powerbrokers, and minor
> players throughout Europe send legions of their troops, along with their most
> trusted or powerful magical subjects, to the source, in the hopes of garnering
> enough understanding, enough power, and enough insight that their claims for
> supremacy might stand unthreatened. Kings want their troops and magicians to
> become all-powerful, religious leaders hope to see their paladins bestowed with
> holy smiting power, and even the random barbarian warlord sojourns to the
> source in the hopes of becoming a godlike warrior.
>
> So it is that various factions start to arrive in a land rent by the release of
> magical energy. As they approach the mystical source, they stumble upon more
> and more legendary creatures: goblins, orcs, living undead. And scattered
> throughout the land, they find various magical objects that were created,
> appeared, or were dragged by unknown creatures of the night in this land of
> mystery.
>
> Like I said, even the magic users are new to this stuff. Your regular troop is
> well beyond his experiences ... but bravely soldiers on.
>
> I like this idea: some of the magical items throughout the land are spellbooks.
> Of course, very few can read them! Heroes, perhaps, certainly magic users.
> Maybe some others, who have paid the 3 CP for literacy (Literacy: Costs 5-TL
> CP, with a minimum of zero). So troops can collect spellbooks, but they are
> useless until they are in the hands of someone who can make use of them.
>
> It also helps explain why there might be some odd races skulking about, maybe
> even teaming up with legions of troops. They either emanate from the great
> Rifts in the fabric of the physical world that released magic, or they are
> drawn to it for the seductive power it offers.
>
> Furthermore, this lets each side create a story behind them. Are they a
> delegation sent from Rome to wipe out all demonic lore? Are they a band of
> Barbarian warriors who want to become strong enough to beat back the Knights?
> Are they the forces of a greedy king, who hopes to use magic to conquer new
> lands?
>
> Maybe we could tie something like this into Joe's story?
You...what...but...huh?
I was thinking how cool it would be that *any* unit in posession of a
magical object reaps its benefits. The exception would be a book of spells
(which needs to be read). But if you found a red mystical gem, you would
receive the ability to cast a fire spell with, say, a total of 9 SP (for
example). You could even "stack" them potentially, so two objects of the
same type increases the power (although not doubling it). You could give
this gem to another unit and you most definitely can lose it if the unit is
slain and your opponent picks it up. A magical sword would clearly give the
unit some sort of enhanced attack, yet does not do anything for it's armor.
Units could use up to two unique magic-granting items at the same time (more?).
To make this completely fair, we could even make it so that every army (or
player) *must* create a certain CP worth of magic items which will randomly
get scattered around.
Now I have to go back and see if I can follow what you wrote...
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > > > > > > > ... oh, enough already
>
> I was thinking how cool it would be that *any* unit in posession of a
> magical object reaps its benefits. The exception would be a book of spells
> (which needs to be read). But if you found a red mystical gem, you would
> receive the ability to cast a fire spell with, say, a total of 9 SP (for
> example). You could even "stack" them potentially, so two objects of the
> same type increases the power (although not doubling it). You could give
> this gem to another unit and you most definitely can lose it if the unit is
> slain and your opponent picks it up. A magical sword would clearly give the
> unit some sort of enhanced attack, yet does not do anything for it's armor.
> Units could use up to two unique magic-granting items at the same time
Oops! Sorry, I didn't mean to get so wrapped up. Of course anybody could pick
up a magical sword, chalice, amulet, talisman, armor, shield, plunger, or what
have you ... but spellbooks, with things like fireballs and levitate and stuff
like that, could only be utilized by the literate. Similarly, you probably
wouldn't hand that kick-butt sword to a magic user, who doesn't have any
special combat bonuses or anything.
In general I'm not a huge fan of objects that can cast spells (or provide their
users the innate ability to). I'm much more partial to objects that see
magical bonuses - like a sword imbued with a magical sense of balance that
provide a skill bonus to use, and a magical edge that keeps a razor's sharpness
adding to the damage. Or, to use a popular example, a sword that glows blue in
the presence of orcs or goblins. I'd prefer consistent and ongoing effects,
properties that were magically imbued into the weapon (which, by the way, is
not mutually exclusive with the notion of SP ... the power can be drained
through excessive use during a single turn!), versus a tongue ring that allows
the user to launch fireballs whenever they'd like. Seems like that sort of
usage would need to be wielded by someone who had spent some time studying
magic specifically.
Anyway, just some small coinage for your perusal. Feel free to overrule!
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> Oops! Sorry, I didn't mean to get so wrapped up. Of course anybody could >pick up a magical sword, chalice, amulet, talisman, armor, shield, plunger,
> or what have you ... but spellbooks, with things like fireballs and levitate
> and stuff like that, could only be utilized by the literate. Similarly, you
> probably wouldn't hand that kick-butt sword to a magic user, who doesn't have
> any special combat bonuses or anything.
I kinda like the idea-- We could go for some extra added randomness too, by
doing something like:
- Each team brings.. oh... 10 magical objects (or whatever).
- Each of the 20 objects are put into brown treasure chests (or some other
type of container)
- 10 (or some arbitrary percentage) of the 20 objects are scattered on the
board at random.
OR, if we want to go for MORE randomness:
- Each team brings 10 objects.
- Each team brings 10 slips of paper. On each piece of paper, there's a
magical bonus. (Note some may need multiple bonuses depending on what's
applicable, like... well.. a magic shield shouldn't increase your weapon
range or do explosion damage, but might instead allow you to fly or give
you extra AV from missile attacks)
- Each object is placed at random with a piece of paper into chests.
- 1/2 of the chests are laid out to be found.
> In general I'm not a huge fan of objects that can cast spells (or provide
> their users the innate ability to). I'm much more partial to objects that see
> magical bonuses - like a sword imbued with a magical sense of balance that
> provide a skill bonus to use, and a magical edge that keeps a razor's
> sharpness adding to the damage. Or, to use a popular example, a sword that
> glows blue in the presence of orcs or goblins. I'd prefer consistent and
> ongoing effects, properties that were magically imbued into the weapon
> (which, by the way, is not mutually exclusive with the notion of SP ... the
> power can be drained through excessive use during a single turn!), versus a
> tongue ring that allows the user to launch fireballs whenever they'd like.
> Seems like that sort of usage would need to be wielded by someone who had
> spent some time studying magic specifically.
Some things like that I don't mind, others I probably would... Probably
depends on how powerful the spell is and how much control the user has over
it. I'm not against (say) magic boots that can make the wearer teleport up
to 2d6" in a general direction (direction quasi-random), but I would be
against a sword that can cast fireballs 4d6" in the user-chosen-direction at
UR 0, doing 3d10 explosion damage. (Especially since IIRC there's no aiming
involved in SP's as long as you can make the distance)
Anyway, I'd probably be ok with items not actually having SP of their own--
or maybe if you want to use the SP of an item it costs all of your movement
for that turn? Or something. I dunno. Maybe it's better if they can't have SP.
Also, I proposed a "bug fix" to the duration rules:
http://news.lugnet.com/fun/gaming/?n=1436
(quickie summary) Duration normally costs 1 SP per 1d6 rounds. Proposed
duration would cost however many SP's the total *effect* costs (range not
included), divided by 2, times the duration - 1. In other words:
You want to create an ice wall 6" from you, and give it a duration of
roughly 6 turns. Currently, you spend 2 SP's on range, 2 SP's on duration,
and 16 SP's on Create Matter (total 20 CP's).
Proposed system:
You spend 2 SP's on range, 16 SP's on Create Matter (for *this* round), and
8 times 5 SP's on duration, resulting in 58 SP's. (Why 8? it's 1/2 16. Why
5? It's desired rounds of duration (6) minus 1 for the current round, cuz
you already paid for that one at full price)
Anyway, maybe such a proposed rule is a little on the harsh side, and it
doesn't have the wonderful randomness aspect to it, but it's *way* more fair
in retrospect. Thoughts?
DaveE
|
|
| |
<snip>
> > As for the castle/Ancient's Keep, I have an idea of something mountain-like
> > at the base with pieces of castle poking out the higher you get. This is
> > the main thing that I think would need multiple people to build...it's also
> > a call for BURPs and POOPs. It should definitely engourage warfare on and
> > around its surface.
>
> I've probably got enough BURPs for the whole project if need be... Wow. I
> just checked Peeron-- I should have 176 BURPs (Grey/Dk Grey rectangular &
> triangular). Dang. I didn't realize I had so many.
I created a ruff draft of what I think would be an interesting layout:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/april2003/april2003.txt
Just to warn you, this file may end up getting deleted by the moderator.
I've used a modular system to the design to allow us to build seperate
sections. Most of these sections are only a single thickness of brick
placed on a baseplate which is then supported by a support structure under
neither. This should greatly reduce the amount of green brick we need and
add more changes in elevation.
The hardest pieces on this layout to build will be the castle and the river
sections. The castle will need a lot of pieces to build and will probalbly
need more space than I allowed for. Since I design the river to be two
bricks lower in height than its surroundings, more bricks will be needed to
raise the ground.
I'm willing to tackle building a large mountain on at least the top two gray
48x48s and hopefully the third one while I'm away on vaction. I can also
contribute one Black Smith Shop to the village.
Any thoughts or suggestions on improving this design?
Jonathan D.
|
|
| |
I'm thinking the mountain-castle should be in the center. Keep in mind that
we'll most likely have three armies and we will not want any unfair
advantage from board placement. Of course, you can still have the river
encircle the base of the mountain, like a mote of sorts.
- Joe
"Jonathan Dallas" <jonathan@dallas-family.com> wrote in message
news:HCw8BA.166s@lugnet.com...
> <snip>
>
> > I created a ruff draft of what I think would be an interesting layout:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/april2003/april2003.txt
> > Just to warn you, this file may end up getting deleted by the moderator.
>
> Well it was.
> Here is another link:
> http://www.geocities.com/ilikeitgui/april2003/april-2003.htm
> If you get an error page, just try viewing it later. Geocities won't let
> that many people view the page at the same time.
>
> <snip>
>
> Jonathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> <snip>
Regarding Scenery:
I have a couple of items to offer up. I alluded to them in another post, but
never gave any dimensions:
(1) Tall tower castle - the base of the tower will fit on a large baseplate
(2) Small hill and pond - two large baseplates in size (seen at some train
shows)
(3) Rock Outcropping - Can fill up a large baseplate area pretty well
(4) Post and Beam house - same style as the Blacksmith shop, though much
larger. About a large baseplate in size
(5) Three large trees, each on a 16x16 baseplate
I never took any pictures this weekend, because I am just that naughty. I'll
try and do so tonight (hey! it'll be light when I get home!)
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > Oops! Sorry, I didn't mean to get so wrapped up. Of course anybody could >pick up a magical sword, chalice, amulet, talisman, armor, shield, plunger,
> > or what have you ... but spellbooks, with things like fireballs and levitate
> > and stuff like that, could only be utilized by the literate. Similarly, you
> > probably wouldn't hand that kick-butt sword to a magic user, who doesn't have
> > any special combat bonuses or anything.
>
> I kinda like the idea-- We could go for some extra added randomness too, by
> doing something like:
>
> - Each team brings.. oh... 10 magical objects (or whatever).
> - Each of the 20 objects are put into brown treasure chests (or some other
> type of container)
> - 10 (or some arbitrary percentage) of the 20 objects are scattered on the
> board at random.
>
> OR, if we want to go for MORE randomness:
>
> - Each team brings 10 objects.
> - Each team brings 10 slips of paper. On each piece of paper, there's a
> magical bonus. (Note some may need multiple bonuses depending on what's
> applicable, like... well.. a magic shield shouldn't increase your weapon
> range or do explosion damage, but might instead allow you to fly or give
> you extra AV from missile attacks)
> - Each object is placed at random with a piece of paper into chests.
> - 1/2 of the chests are laid out to be found.
Okay, here's an idea that might work for everyone. I *do* like the idea of
granting certain magical powers (spell casting) through objects, *but* I
also think these objects are special. So my idea is that while any unit can
pick it up, no unit can remove it unless the unit is slain. So once a unit
picks it up, good, bad or indifferent, that unit is stuck with it. We could
put a caveat in where actual mage-type units can collect the items without
being stuck with them, but I'm inclined to not allow that.
This provides an element of strategy and also a fun way to hang in the game
once we annihilate yo...um...in case an army should crumble right away. The
rest of it about each team creating 'n' objects and scattering them about
would still hold - and there's a strategy in this too. Thoughts?
- Joe
|
|
| |
> Okay, here's an idea that might work for everyone. I *do* like the idea of
> granting certain magical powers (spell casting) through objects, *but* I
> also think these objects are special. So my idea is that while any unit can
> pick it up, no unit can remove it unless the unit is slain. So once a unit
> picks it up, good, bad or indifferent, that unit is stuck with it. We could
> put a caveat in where actual mage-type units can collect the items without
> being stuck with them, but I'm inclined to not allow that.
Are magical items resistant to fire? If they aren't then I should proably
avoid picking them up since I am prone to firey deaths.
> This provides an element of strategy and also a fun way to hang in the game
> once we annihilate yo...um...in case an army should crumble right away. The
> rest of it about each team creating 'n' objects and scattering them about
> would still hold - and there's a strategy in this too. Thoughts?
>
> - Joe
Do we have a willing neutral to scatter the items?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> Okay, here's an idea that might work for everyone. I *do* like the idea of
> granting certain magical powers (spell casting) through objects, *but* I
> also think these objects are special. So my idea is that while any unit can
> pick it up, no unit can remove it unless the unit is slain. So once a unit
> picks it up, good, bad or indifferent, that unit is stuck with it. We could
> put a caveat in where actual mage-type units can collect the items without
> being stuck with them, but I'm inclined to not allow that.
>
> This provides an element of strategy and also a fun way to hang in the game
> once we annihilate yo...um...in case an army should crumble right away. The
> rest of it about each team creating 'n' objects and scattering them about
> would still hold - and there's a strategy in this too. Thoughts?
Hmm... quite interesting. Effectively, if (say) I pick up some magical plate
armor that ends up *forcing* me to run everywhere in straight lines at twice
my move rate every turn, I would have to drop any plate armor (or other
thing that might block armor from going on) that I already posessed, yes?
And at what point do we find out what an item does? Does the finding unit
necessarily equip/use the item? Or can it bring it back to another unit, and
as soon as *that* unit equips it, we find out its magical abilites, *and* it
gets stuck on the user? I kinda like the 2nd option better...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > Okay, here's an idea that might work for everyone. I *do* like the idea of
> > granting certain magical powers (spell casting) through objects, *but* I
> > also think these objects are special. So my idea is that while any unit can
> > pick it up, no unit can remove it unless the unit is slain. So once a unit
> > picks it up, good, bad or indifferent, that unit is stuck with it. We could
> > put a caveat in where actual mage-type units can collect the items without
> > being stuck with them, but I'm inclined to not allow that.
> >
> > This provides an element of strategy and also a fun way to hang in the game
> > once we annihilate yo...um...in case an army should crumble right away. The
> > rest of it about each team creating 'n' objects and scattering them about
> > would still hold - and there's a strategy in this too. Thoughts?
>
> Hmm... quite interesting. Effectively, if (say) I pick up some magical plate
> armor that ends up *forcing* me to run everywhere in straight lines at twice
> my move rate every turn, I would have to drop any plate armor (or other
> thing that might block armor from going on) that I already posessed, yes?
> And at what point do we find out what an item does? Does the finding unit
> necessarily equip/use the item? Or can it bring it back to another unit, and
> as soon as *that* unit equips it, we find out its magical abilites, *and* it
> gets stuck on the user? I kinda like the 2nd option better...
>
> DaveE
I was thinking whoever touches it automatically gets equiped with it, so
your only choices are to pick it up or leave it (or position another unit to
grab it). As for when you find out what it does, I kind of like the idea of
not knowing until someone picks it up...that's the problem with magic, you
never know what'll happen when you start tinkering with these things. And,
yes, items can be a liability as well as a boon, although nothing should be
able to kill a unit outright, just by picking it up. Ideally, a magic item
is both a liability and a boon, but that's up to whomever creates the items.
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > Okay, here's an idea that might work for everyone. I *do* like the idea of
> > > granting certain magical powers (spell casting) through objects, *but* I
> > > also think these objects are special. So my idea is that while any unit can
> > > pick it up, no unit can remove it unless the unit is slain. So once a unit
> > > picks it up, good, bad or indifferent, that unit is stuck with it. We could
> > > put a caveat in where actual mage-type units can collect the items without
> > > being stuck with them, but I'm inclined to not allow that.
> > >
> > > This provides an element of strategy and also a fun way to hang in the game
> > > once we annihilate yo...um...in case an army should crumble right away. The
> > > rest of it about each team creating 'n' objects and scattering them about
> > > would still hold - and there's a strategy in this too. Thoughts?
> >
> > Hmm... quite interesting. Effectively, if (say) I pick up some magical plate
> > armor that ends up *forcing* me to run everywhere in straight lines at twice
> > my move rate every turn, I would have to drop any plate armor (or other
> > thing that might block armor from going on) that I already posessed, yes?
> > And at what point do we find out what an item does? Does the finding unit
> > necessarily equip/use the item? Or can it bring it back to another unit, and
> > as soon as *that* unit equips it, we find out its magical abilites, *and* it
> > gets stuck on the user? I kinda like the 2nd option better...
>
> I was thinking whoever touches it automatically gets equiped with it, so
> your only choices are to pick it up or leave it (or position another unit to
> grab it). As for when you find out what it does, I kind of like the idea of
> not knowing until someone picks it up...that's the problem with magic, you
> never know what'll happen when you start tinkering with these things. And,
> yes, items can be a liability as well as a boon, although nothing should be
> able to kill a unit outright, just by picking it up. Ideally, a magic item
> is both a liability and a boon, but that's up to whomever creates the items.
How about this? And I steal this, without apology, from the classic ASCII
graphics game "Rogue", which was the predecessor to "Moria": The function of
an item is unknown until it is used ... and items with penalties are considered
"cursed", and cannot be dropped or removed until a "remove curse" spell or
potion is found and used. To help the intrepids out, once a remove curse spell
or potion is identified (either by use or some sort of magic-user's skill
roll), all others of the same ilk are readily identified.
Example: Slingblade, Joe's hideously ugly Chakram tosser, find a suit of plate
mail. Wanting to emphasize her already godawful physique, she dons it. And
the first time she is struck by a rock, it become clear that the armor is
cursed and she can't remove it. However, she finds a pink potion in the next
treasure trove. She doesn't know what it is, but she drinks it out of
desparation .. maybe it's a remove curse potion! No such luck, it's an
"amplify armpit hair" potion, condemning her forever in the eyes of even her
blinded compatriots. In the meantime, another hero on her team discovers a
blue scroll, and reads the spell on it. It's a remove curse! Unfortunately,
as he has no cursed items in his posession, he is reduced to curing himself of
a nasty rash. However, now Joe's unbelievably vile hero knows that a blue
scroll is what she needs!
By contrast, a beneficial items can be handed off, dropped, thrown, or
whatever.
There is one catch in this context though - what is to prevent one from simply
having peons don the armor first, to verify whether or not they are cursed? IN
Rogue, you only had one character, so if you were getting the tar beaten out of
you you were willing to don anything in the hopes of it being enchanted. I
mean, I even tried on a chain mail thong in that game, when I was being creamed
by Trolls, hoping that it was a "Thong +8". In this game ... hmmm - well,
there is the time frame, I suppose. If one is going to have a peon don the
armor, get attacked to find out if it is useful or not, then transfer it to a
hero, who then must don it, the game might already be over.
Alternatively, if we *really* wanted to be cruel (DEFINITELY!), we could say
that a weapon or armor, or any item that is *continuously* useful (versus a
spell or potion, which is use-it-and-it's-gone), might have a different effect
on each individual. Even if peon tries it on and it's good, Uglification
Personified might put it on and find that it is cursed to her. This is more
like unto Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, even. In Harry Potter, a wand
might embrace one user, but backfire hideously in the hands of someone else.
Similarly, in Middle Earth, some weapons were beneficial to humans, but might
burn to the touch or eyes of orcs and goblins (ala Sting).
Stick *that* in your catapult and launch it.
-s
|
|
| |
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 07:35:56PM +0000, Joe Comeau wrote:
> I was thinking whoever touches it automatically gets equiped with it, so
> your only choices are to pick it up or leave it (or position another unit to
> grab it). As for when you find out what it does, I kind of like the idea of
> not knowing until someone picks it up...that's the problem with magic, you
> never know what'll happen when you start tinkering with these things. And,
> yes, items can be a liability as well as a boon, although nothing should be
> able to kill a unit outright, just by picking it up. Ideally, a magic item
> is both a liability and a boon, but that's up to whomever creates the items.
I'm all for this approach. One thing to note though - if you are
already wearing a chainmail, you just wouldn't be able to touch that
glowing piece of platemail on the ground, unless you remove the armor
you're wearing beforehand. right?
Also, this leads to (amusing) self-mutilating figs, that chop off their
hand to get rid of that annoying magic ring... :)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> How about this? And I steal this, without apology, from the classic ASCII
> graphics game "Rogue", which was the predecessor to "Moria": The function of
> an item is unknown until it is used ... and items with penalties are considered
> "cursed", and cannot be dropped or removed until a "remove curse" spell or
> potion is found and used. To help the intrepids out, once a remove curse spell
> or potion is identified (either by use or some sort of magic-user's skill
> roll), all others of the same ilk are readily identified.
>
> Example: Slingblade, Joe's hideously ugly Chakram tosser, find a suit of plate
> mail. Wanting to emphasize her already godawful physique, she dons it. And
> the first time she is struck by a rock, it become clear that the armor is
> cursed and she can't remove it. However, she finds a pink potion in the next
> treasure trove. She doesn't know what it is, but she drinks it out of
> desparation .. maybe it's a remove curse potion! No such luck, it's an
> "amplify armpit hair" potion, condemning her forever in the eyes of even her
> blinded compatriots. In the meantime, another hero on her team discovers a
> blue scroll, and reads the spell on it. It's a remove curse! Unfortunately,
> as he has no cursed items in his posession, he is reduced to curing himself of
> a nasty rash. However, now Joe's unbelievably vile hero knows that a blue
> scroll is what she needs!
>
> By contrast, a beneficial items can be handed off, dropped, thrown, or
> whatever.
>
> There is one catch in this context though - what is to prevent one from simply
> having peons don the armor first, to verify whether or not they are cursed? IN
> Rogue, you only had one character, so if you were getting the tar beaten out of
> you you were willing to don anything in the hopes of it being enchanted. I
> mean, I even tried on a chain mail thong in that game, when I was being creamed
> by Trolls, hoping that it was a "Thong +8". In this game ... hmmm - well,
> there is the time frame, I suppose. If one is going to have a peon don the
> armor, get attacked to find out if it is useful or not, then transfer it to a
> hero, who then must don it, the game might already be over.
>
> Alternatively, if we *really* wanted to be cruel (DEFINITELY!), we could say
> that a weapon or armor, or any item that is *continuously* useful (versus a
> spell or potion, which is use-it-and-it's-gone), might have a different effect
> on each individual. Even if peon tries it on and it's good, Uglification
> Personified might put it on and find that it is cursed to her. This is more
> like unto Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, even. In Harry Potter, a wand
> might embrace one user, but backfire hideously in the hands of someone else.
> Similarly, in Middle Earth, some weapons were beneficial to humans, but might
> burn to the touch or eyes of orcs and goblins (ala Sting).
Unless this is just randomly rolled as a particular race touches the object,
it would mean that we would need to know all of the races
beforehand...something I'm loath to do at this point. I also kind of like
the idea that the same benefit/curse happens to any race and only nuances of
that unit affect the end result. For example, a unit that finds an item that
enables flight, but can already fly doesn't do anything. The item is also
effectively nuetralized (at least until the unit is slain).
I also think that the good and the bad should stay with the unit who picked
it up...we are talking about a very shortlived game anyway, so the ability
to pass an item along is highly unlikely. Also, passing only good items off
also enables an ubber unit to evolve in fairly short order, should the game
actually go long enough...personally, I don't want this to happen; it's
about the clashing of kingdoms, not one unit running amuck.
If a peon, through luck or design, ascends to Hero status through use of
these items and a Hero descends to peon status for the same reasons, that's
good! The bards will have something to talk about. But to actively amass
such items around a particular unit seems to alter a fundamental aspect of
having a large army to begin with.
> Stick *that* in your catapult and launch it.
Moo.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Dan Boger writes:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 07:35:56PM +0000, Joe Comeau wrote:
> > I was thinking whoever touches it automatically gets equiped with it, so
> > your only choices are to pick it up or leave it (or position another unit to
> > grab it). As for when you find out what it does, I kind of like the idea of
> > not knowing until someone picks it up...that's the problem with magic, you
> > never know what'll happen when you start tinkering with these things. And,
> > yes, items can be a liability as well as a boon, although nothing should be
> > able to kill a unit outright, just by picking it up. Ideally, a magic item
> > is both a liability and a boon, but that's up to whomever creates the items.
>
> I'm all for this approach. One thing to note though - if you are
> already wearing a chainmail, you just wouldn't be able to touch that
> glowing piece of platemail on the ground, unless you remove the armor
> you're wearing beforehand. right?
I'm thinking that since this is magic, the magic armor would "magically"
replace your existing armor, so that it takes at the end of the movement
phase. Your old armor would just be left on the ground.
> Also, this leads to (amusing) self-mutilating figs, that chop off their
> hand to get rid of that annoying magic ring... :)
*Love* this!
|
|
| |
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:06:46PM +0000, Joe Comeau wrote:
> > I'm all for this approach. One thing to note though - if you are
> > already wearing a chainmail, you just wouldn't be able to touch that
> > glowing piece of platemail on the ground, unless you remove the armor
> > you're wearing beforehand. right?
>
> I'm thinking that since this is magic, the magic armor would "magically"
> replace your existing armor, so that it takes at the end of the movement
> phase. Your old armor would just be left on the ground.
but that means that you'll be able to switch back and fourth... now, if
the old armor magically disappears, that's a different story. Do you
dare try on the new armor? It might be better than your "thong +3", but
it might not!
> > Also, this leads to (amusing) self-mutilating figs, that chop off their
> > hand to get rid of that annoying magic ring... :)
>
> *Love* this!
does that mean other figs could try chopping off your hand, for that
*good* ring you have on?
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Dan Boger writes:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:06:46PM +0000, Joe Comeau wrote:
> > > I'm all for this approach. One thing to note though - if you are
> > > already wearing a chainmail, you just wouldn't be able to touch that
> > > glowing piece of platemail on the ground, unless you remove the armor
> > > you're wearing beforehand. right?
> >
> > I'm thinking that since this is magic, the magic armor would "magically"
> > replace your existing armor, so that it takes at the end of the movement
> > phase. Your old armor would just be left on the ground.
>
> but that means that you'll be able to switch back and fourth... now, if
> the old armor magically disappears, that's a different story. Do you
> dare try on the new armor? It might be better than your "thong +3", but
> it might not!
You forget, you can't get rid of the magic item unless you die (well, that's
what I'm proposing). Think "face-hugger" like in the movie Aliens...once
it's their, you're bound to it. Only death will set you free. Only in this
case, it might be a good thing.
> > > Also, this leads to (amusing) self-mutilating figs, that chop off their
> > > hand to get rid of that annoying magic ring... :)
> >
> > *Love* this!
>
> does that mean other figs could try chopping off your hand, for that
> *good* ring you have on?
Sure! You'll have to make the appropriate skill role, of course. I think
this is fair. I suspect in most cases it'll be easier to just kill him and
take the item.
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> You forget, you can't get rid of the magic item unless you die (well, that's
> what I'm proposing). Think "face-hugger" like in the movie Aliens...once
> it's their, you're bound to it. Only death will set you free. Only in this
> case, it might be a good thing.
Well... Let's say you're wearing a magic armor plate. Then you find
*another* magic armor plate. Does it magically replace the one you're
wearing? Does it create a matter/anti-matter paradox of both objects vying
in utter contest to be worn, completely obliterating the offending unit?
Does the 1st item take precedence, allowing the unit to carry the 2nd item
around to fellow units (without knowing its abilities, that is)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > You forget, you can't get rid of the magic item unless you die (well, that's
> > what I'm proposing). Think "face-hugger" like in the movie Aliens...once
> > it's their, you're bound to it. Only death will set you free. Only in this
> > case, it might be a good thing.
>
> Well... Let's say you're wearing a magic armor plate. Then you find
> *another* magic armor plate. Does it magically replace the one you're
> wearing? Does it create a matter/anti-matter paradox of both objects vying
> in utter contest to be worn, completely obliterating the offending unit?
> Does the 1st item take precedence, allowing the unit to carry the 2nd item
> around to fellow units (without knowing its abilities, that is)
>
> DaveE
I knew you were going to ask that...I would say that a unit can only possess
one of any kind of magic item (thus limiting their total ability to consume
all magic in the world) and once they have an item of that type, that's it,
so any future armor plates, using this example, cannot be used nor
touched...it's like being near two really powerful magnets with the like
polls facing one another. So this unit can only carry around regular armor,
not magical ones.
This prevents a single unit from carrying two magical swords as well
(although if he has the 2 handed ability, he should be able to carry one
magical one and one regular one). This rule only applies to "always on"
items. Magical elixers and such can be consumed at will.
- Joe
|
|
| |
<snip>
> Hiya Jonathan,
>
> If you don't mind my asking, why was the original deleted during moderation?
The orginal was deleted, because I was trying to sneaky. Brickshelf
automatically deletes any file that has an .htm extension. I've found on
most web sites that if you open a .txt file that has html tags in it, those
tags will be used on the page. So what I did was change my .htm extension
to a .txt extension to get the same results.
This time I did away with the html page.
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/04-2003-brikwars.gif
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/04-2003-brikwars2.gif
The numbers on the baseplate are still the height of the supports under the
baseplate.
Rivers are still two bricks deep, have 8 bumps of blue, 1 bump of yellow
plates along the banks, one bump of brown along the banks (can have green
plate on top), and two bumps of green brick on either side of the river.
The river is then place along an edge of the baseplate. If you want to
build the entire river, which I would suggest, then ignore any restrictions
expect for where it meets the mountain and the elevation changes.
The baseplates only need a few bricks on them (along the high edges). I
used the colors to try and give you an idea of which edge is high. I would
suggest that you put some rocks, trees, and outcropping on these baseplates
as well. You can even put Plaque Cows on them. Again like the river if you
build a large section, you can ignore any restriction except where it meets
someone elses baseplate. So Shaun to fit your Large out-cropping simply
pick a large section to build.
I will try and build the mountain. I thought about dividing it up, but
trying to design the sections to meet is very tricky. Is there anyway I can
get Dave's burps to make this easier?
The castle will be place on top of the mountain, hopefully 20 bricks off the
table, but maybe less after I build it. I had orginally designed the base
to be 32x64, but after Shaun's mention of his castle I added extra space.
I still see the village with 16x16 buildings. I know Shaun has a 48x48, but
I don't know how well the game play will be around or through that building.
I know that if we make small buildings, then we can move through alleys and
hide around more corners.
Again any thoughts for improvement. Or are you so confused by the pictures
that you are seeing milk cows floating in front of your eyes.
> For everyone's benefit, I also uploaded a bunch of pics of my various Scenery
> MOCs (after moderation):
I'll enjoy them when they become public, until then could you post deep
links instead?
> Green Rolling Hill: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39711
> Rock Outcropping: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39152
> Modular Tower Castle: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39701
> Trees: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39705
>
> The Post-and-Beam house is still forthcoming ... some more details need to be
> added.
>
> LMKWYT,
> -s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> As an aside, I've taken to calling the upcoming battlefield "Brickle Earth".
> Does that mean I'm ill?
My, yes! That vast intellect of yours and all you could come up with was
"Brickle?" It's truly a day of mourning for Geeks, Nerds and Dorks the
world round...
Didn't you come up with "Little Earth" earlier? I like that. "Studded
Earth" is also an option, but don't like that as much.
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> Green Rolling Hill: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39711
Shaun,
I just saw this on Brickshelf and I was really struck by it's beauty. You've
got the curved shapes just perfect, and the movement from studs to tiles makes
a great contrast. I've got to get a bigger pile of green plates.
Bruce
|
|
| |
"Hendo (John P. Henderson)" <hendo@valyance.com> wrote in message
news:HD1C9t.1G85@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > Modular Tower Castle:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39701
I love the arch over the entrance to the tower.
A clever idea that begs to be copied ;-)
> Copied briefly to .castle because the images inspire...
And rightly so, they sure do.
Cheers, Twan.
|
|
| |
Hey guys,
I finished most of the mountain for this game. It is 96x96 and about 22
bricks high. It has a 32x64 flat spot on the top that we can put Shaun's
castle on. The mountain is also designed to sit on the table or on posts.
I was thinking about the map I made and thought that it might be too much
for us to build. If you guys think that having the baseplates at different
heights is too complex we can simply do a flat landscape with some hills and
out croppings placed on top. I would like to keep the river, but we'll
either use river plates (which I don't own any of) or add blue plates on top
of the baseplates.
Look and enjoy Mount Agot:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39712
or
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain1.jpg
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain1a.jpg
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain2.jpg
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain3.jpg
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain4.jpg
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain5.jpg
www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain6.jpg
Jonathan D.
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I created a ruff draft of what I think would be an interesting layout:
> > > http:///april2003/april2003.txt
> > > Just to warn you, this file may end up getting deleted by the moderator.
> >
> > Well it was.
> > Here is another link:
> > http://www.geocities.com/ilikeitgui/april2003/april-2003.htm
> > If you get an error page, just try viewing it later. Geocities won't let
> > that many people view the page at the same time.
>
>
> Hiya Jonathan,
>
> If you don't mind my asking, why was the original deleted during moderation?
>
> For everyone's benefit, I also uploaded a bunch of pics of my various Scenery
> MOCs (after moderation):
>
> Green Rolling Hill: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39711
> Rock Outcropping: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39152
> Modular Tower Castle: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39701
> Trees: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39705
>
> The Post-and-Beam house is still forthcoming ... some more details need to be
> added.
>
> LMKWYT,
> -s
|
|
| |
Jonathan,
Let me be the first to say that the mountain looks *awesome*!! I love the
stairways, the nooks, the crannies, and the sheer size of it. My LORD, that is
cool.
I think you have a good point about the raised scenery everywhere - I know I
won't have nearly enough pieces to raise any of my items above baseplate level,
really. I think using baseplates, with as much scenery of note on top of them,
will be fine. So far we have trees, huts, houses, rock outcroppings,
blacksmith shops ... this is going to be another amazing-scenery game!
Thanks for posting the pictures, Jonathan. Very inspirational!
-s
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> Hey guys,
>
> I finished most of the mountain for this game. It is 96x96 and about 22
> bricks high. It has a 32x64 flat spot on the top that we can put Shaun's
> castle on. The mountain is also designed to sit on the table or on posts.
>
> I was thinking about the map I made and thought that it might be too much
> for us to build. If you guys think that having the baseplates at different
> heights is too complex we can simply do a flat landscape with some hills and
> out croppings placed on top. I would like to keep the river, but we'll
> either use river plates (which I don't own any of) or add blue plates on top
> of the baseplates.
>
> Look and enjoy Mount Agot:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39712
> or
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain1.jpg
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain1a.jpg
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain2.jpg
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain3.jpg
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain4.jpg
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain5.jpg
> www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain6.jpg
>
> Jonathan D.
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I created a ruff draft of what I think would be an interesting layout:
> > > > http:///april2003/april2003.txt
> > > > Just to warn you, this file may end up getting deleted by the moderator.
> > >
> > > Well it was.
> > > Here is another link:
> > > http://www.geocities.com/ilikeitgui/april2003/april-2003.htm
> > > If you get an error page, just try viewing it later. Geocities won't let
> > > that many people view the page at the same time.
> >
> >
> > Hiya Jonathan,
> >
> > If you don't mind my asking, why was the original deleted during moderation?
> >
> > For everyone's benefit, I also uploaded a bunch of pics of my various Scenery
> > MOCs (after moderation):
> >
> > Green Rolling Hill: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39711
> > Rock Outcropping: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39152
> > Modular Tower Castle: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39701
> > Trees: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39705
> >
> > The Post-and-Beam house is still forthcoming ... some more details need to be
> > added.
> >
> > LMKWYT,
> > -s
|
|
| |
Thank you, I love building scuplture and if I had enough green brick I would
have covered the table.
I know most people don't have a lot of brick that is why I wanted to put the
baseplates on supports and not build the baseplates up to the desired height.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/supports.jpg
By using supports you can use less brick and it doesn't matter what color
they are. Now you would have still needed a few brick to cover the gaps
between the baseplates, but that would only have been 64x1 bumps worth of
green as a minimum.
I still think trying to coordinate how these raised baseplates would then
interact with each other is too complex so lets just go with a flat design
instead. Does anyone feel like building a river?
Jonathan
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> Jonathan,
>
> Let me be the first to say that the mountain looks *awesome*!! I love the
> stairways, the nooks, the crannies, and the sheer size of it. My LORD, that is
> cool.
>
> I think you have a good point about the raised scenery everywhere - I know I
> won't have nearly enough pieces to raise any of my items above baseplate level,
> really. I think using baseplates, with as much scenery of note on top of them,
> will be fine. So far we have trees, huts, houses, rock outcroppings,
> blacksmith shops ... this is going to be another amazing-scenery game!
>
> Thanks for posting the pictures, Jonathan. Very inspirational!
>
> -s
>
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I finished most of the mountain for this game. It is 96x96 and about 22
> > bricks high. It has a 32x64 flat spot on the top that we can put Shaun's
> > castle on. The mountain is also designed to sit on the table or on posts.
> >
> > I was thinking about the map I made and thought that it might be too much
> > for us to build. If you guys think that having the baseplates at different
> > heights is too complex we can simply do a flat landscape with some hills and
> > out croppings placed on top. I would like to keep the river, but we'll
> > either use river plates (which I don't own any of) or add blue plates on top
> > of the baseplates.
> >
> > Look and enjoy Mount Agot:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39712
> > or
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain1.jpg
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain1a.jpg
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain2.jpg
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain3.jpg
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain4.jpg
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain5.jpg
> > www.brickshelf.com/gallery/guigui/brikwars/042003brikwars/mountain6.jpg
> >
> > Jonathan D.
> >
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > I created a ruff draft of what I think would be an interesting layout:
> > > > > http:///april2003/april2003.txt
> > > > > Just to warn you, this file may end up getting deleted by the moderator.
> > > >
> > > > Well it was.
> > > > Here is another link:
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/ilikeitgui/april2003/april-2003.htm
> > > > If you get an error page, just try viewing it later. Geocities won't let
> > > > that many people view the page at the same time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya Jonathan,
> > >
> > > If you don't mind my asking, why was the original deleted during moderation?
> > >
> > > For everyone's benefit, I also uploaded a bunch of pics of my various Scenery
> > > MOCs (after moderation):
> > >
> > > Green Rolling Hill: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39711
> > > Rock Outcropping: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39152
> > > Modular Tower Castle: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39701
> > > Trees: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=39705
> > >
> > > The Post-and-Beam house is still forthcoming ... some more details need to be
> > > added.
> > >
> > > LMKWYT,
> > > -s
|
|
|
