Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Proposal: Some more stunts

Timed out 7 votes to 9. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Feb 2009 08:02:33 UTC

Add a subrule called “Speed Burst” under rule 2.4.1 Stage Directions:

Prerequisites: The Stuntperson has not used this stunt within the last week.

Results: The Stuntperson can once within the next 10 minutes perform one daily or weekly action without having to meet the usual restrictions on when the action can be performed.

Cost: 2 AP

Add a subrule called “Dual-Wield” under rule 2.4.1 Stage Directions:

Prerequisites: The Stuntperson has two weapons in their Holster.

Results: The Stuntperson can once within the next 10 minutes make two attacks against the same enemy using two different weapons in his Holster; the enemy does not return fire due to the first of these attacks, regardless of what the combat rules say.

Cost: 1 AP

Add a subrule called “Covering Fire” under rule 2.4.1 Stage Directions:

Prerequisites: The Stuntperson has not made an attack today.

Results: The Stuntperson cannot attack today, and must spend 10 ammo if they can (i.e. deduct the ammo from their total without allowing the total to go below 0). If the ammo deduction happens this way, all Enemies’ Damage scores are treated as 1 lower than they actually are for purposes of resolving combat, until the end of the day.

Cost: 1 AP

Our research and development teams are making our soldiers faster, more dextrous, and better at teamwork by the day. The pace of military advancement is such that we should soon be able to overwhelm the Enemy, no matter what their plans and abilities are.

Comments

Devenger:

18-02-2009 12:40:46 UTC

for  arrow I particularly like the idea of spraying bullets in the direction of the Enemy actually having an effect other than personal satisfaction and wasted ammo.

Gnauga:

18-02-2009 16:17:30 UTC

arrow  for For great justice

Klisz:

18-02-2009 16:55:52 UTC

for  arrow

SingularByte: he/him

18-02-2009 16:59:08 UTC

against  arrow Speed burst could possibly be interpreted as being able to ignore all prerequisites. Other to that, I like this proposal.

Rodlen:

18-02-2009 17:05:04 UTC

against  arrow COV

ais523:

18-02-2009 17:45:27 UTC

@Rodlen: How can you CoV when you didn’t have a V to C?

Rodlen:

18-02-2009 17:47:39 UTC

...RODLAN WUZ HARE, FALING TO COV CORACTLY.

Devenger:

18-02-2009 17:55:25 UTC

CoV against Speed burst could probably be a declaration of victory if interpreted openly.

Devenger:

18-02-2009 17:58:45 UTC

Well actually the above is only true in certain, interesting cicumstances, but I can nonetheless see some very funny things happening. Funny in a bad way.

Wooble:

18-02-2009 18:04:09 UTC

for  arrow

TrumanCapote:

18-02-2009 18:18:09 UTC

against  arrow

arthexis: he/him

18-02-2009 19:37:05 UTC

for

Hix:

18-02-2009 20:25:09 UTC

against

Wakukee:

18-02-2009 21:34:51 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

18-02-2009 22:11:22 UTC

Ok, this sentence makes no sense to me:

“The Stuntperson cannot attack today, and must spend 10 ammo if they can”

Isn’t that self-contradictory? against  arrow

Devenger:

18-02-2009 22:31:51 UTC

They must spend 10 ammo if they are able to spend 10 ammo. Really, I’d prefer if 10 ammo was a Requirement of the stunt so it can just say ‘decrease ammo by 10’,

Devenger:

18-02-2009 22:36:03 UTC

CoV for  arrow damn you for having valid arguments.

ais523:

18-02-2009 22:36:03 UTC

@Qwazukee: it’s a cost that has to be paid to use the ability, and that isn’t part of combat. In other words: you do this, you’re losing 10 ammo. (Incidentally, “spend” probably ought to be in the Glossary, it’s a concept that often has to be mentioned in BlogNomic rules by spelling out the definition.)

Qwazukee:

18-02-2009 22:39:33 UTC

Ok, so if a soldier uses this ability, they cannot attack no matter what?

CoV against

Darknight: he/him

18-02-2009 23:09:43 UTC

imperial

Kevan: City he/him

19-02-2009 10:56:06 UTC

against Even with tighter wording, I don’t think an in-skirmish Speed Burst should be able to affect any out-of-skirmish daily and weekly actions.

dogfish:

19-02-2009 11:04:13 UTC

imperial I would love some new stunts, these ones seem a bit l00p-holey though

Wooden Squid:

19-02-2009 20:43:48 UTC

against “within 10 minutes” kind of bugs me. i don’t know why.

Klisz:

20-02-2009 15:37:29 UTC

CoV against