Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 3rd, 2012, 9:42 pm

I have taken the latest 2pg Fubar draft and incorporated all the VSF stuff into it, as well as substantially reworking the weapons, morale, vehicles, and a bunch of other stuff.

In particular, I made movement variable, speeds being expressed as a number of D6, with D6 being added and removed due to circumstance.

All you angry gamers with chips on your shoulders: RIP IT APART!

Thank you.

Here it is: (May 8th, now in Beta playtesting)
VictorianSciFi-FUBAR_2012-05-08_01.pdf
(101.52 KiB) Downloaded 196 times
Last edited by Froggy the Great on May 14th, 2012, 7:53 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
ianrs54
Posts: 99
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 8:30 am

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby ianrs54 » May 4th, 2012, 8:15 am

On movement - I'd make it 6+xD6, or simialr, ie Gone to Ground would be 3"+1/2 D6 etc.

IanS
IanS - author, moderator TOE group

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 4th, 2012, 8:22 pm

Here's a new vesion to mess with:
Changes:
-Lots
-Non-variable movement
-Added ramming and collisions.

VictorianSciFi-FUBAR_2012-05-04_06.pdf
(98.38 KiB) Downloaded 214 times

DrVesuvius
Posts: 5
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 9:47 am

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby DrVesuvius » May 6th, 2012, 8:25 pm

Froggy

Just played two games with my regular oppo. The first was a combined arms game with three units of infantry (one on my side was of automata), one character and a vehicle per side. When that reached a resolution without the vehicles really becoming involved with eachother, we switched to an all-vehicle game with 7-8 vehicles per side.

One change we made before starting was to flip the formation rules from an Activation penalty when not in formation to become an Activation bonus when in formation. Failing Activation in FUBAR is horrendously easy as is and it felt much more balanced to make it slightly easier in the special case of troops in close formation rather than penalising everyone. I'd strongly recommend this approach.

Here's the major rules points/typos that came up

1) The morale test is just plumb broken. "roll 2d6 - Activation. If the result is more than the number of live figures in the unit, it withdraws... <snip>" An elite unit rolling 2D6-2 is therefore more likely to fail than a green unit rolling 2d6-5. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's what it says. As a quick and dirty fix, we changed it to "roll 1d6 + Activation", which seemed to work well and I think is mathematically similar to what you intended.

(As an aside, personally I'm not a fan of trying the morale check directly to the number of figures left, as it penalises small units and really ties you down to a standard unit size. An elite 5 man fireteam shouldn't be more fragile in morale terms than a 30 man horde of peasants, but wipe out half the peasants and they still can't fail morale, while if the elites take a single casualty they're in much greater danger of running.)


2) As the rules are written, once troops are in close combat there is no mechanism for winning or losing the melee, but both sides are locked into melee until one side or the other is either wiped out or voluntarily disengages. Is this intended? Personally we preferred having the chance of one side breaking and running before being wiped out, so we had both sides in a melee make Morale checks at the start of every activation (Personally I wasn't 100% happy with that solution, but at least it stopped the fight from dragging out to the last man standing.

3) Under Suppression "After the next activation roll for that unit, stand the figure up. It is no longer suppressed." Well if you follow this to the letter, the whole "Suppressed figures can't fire" rule never kicks in, because the unit takes suppressions, then on its activation removes them before it gets to do its firing actions. We removed suppressions at the end of the unit's activation, which I think is effectively what you meant.


4) Also under Suppression"You may voluntarily suppress or kill models after moving a unit in order to gain an extra d6" of movement." How many models to get that d6 inches? I'm not sure I get what this rule is representing.

5) Under the Close Combat section, there's still a reference to "no figure moving more than the rolled movement" that you probably want to correct

6) Under the Cover section, movement penalties are still in terms of dice rolled.

7) Under Automata you've got "If an automaton is suppressed, roll another 2d6 - on a 4+ something has malfunctioned." Is that 2d6 right? It makes for only a very slim chance of there not being a malfunction. We thought you might have meant 1d6 (making it 50/50)

8) Are vehicles supposed to be able to move and fire? I guess it could be on a case by case basis, but we houseruled no.

9) On the Vehicle Breakdown table, a lot of the results are "May not do 'x' this activation." Well since the most common reason you'll be rolling on the breakdown table is that you rolled 1 on your activation, you wouldn't be able to do a lot of those things anyway.

10) The vehicle damage sections states that vehicles can't be suppressed, but many of the damage results include "crew suppressed". How is this supposed to work? To keep the game rolling we houseruled a -2 to next activation (based on the similar result from the previous edition of FUBAR) which seemed to work really well.

11) Vehicle Damage Table result 5 - FIRE!. Any thoughts about crew putting fires out? My erstwhile opponent argued that a successful activation and spending an action was enough to extinguish a fire, but as a result of that he never wound up taking any further damage from the fire.

Also, while I know if falls outside the remit of the VSF supplement, both my opponent and myself felt that having just the single range for weapons meant there was little motivation to close or manoeuvre. In the vehicle-only game, both of us moved our vehicles into cover just inside maximum range and the game devolved into a slugfest. I suggested making half-range or less into Close Range, giving a +1 or +2 to hit.

And somehow the vehicle damage table didn't click with us. I can't put my finger on why not, apart from the points raised above it looks OK, it just didn't feel right.

Oh and the vehicle table only has Tracked, Walkers or Flyers, but no Wheeled. We counted them the same as Tracked but gave a big move bonus along roads.

***

Having apparently just ripped all your hard work to shreds, I have to tell you that we both really enjoyed the game and my opponent is keen to play it again instead of our regular VSF rules. The 2-side combined FUBAR Core/VSF Supplement is a great format, and I hope you take this post in the spirit of constructive criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing any little wrinkles ironed out and giving the game another shot.

All the best

Dr Vesuvius

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 6th, 2012, 9:38 pm

Thank you, this is EXACTLY the sort of feedback I was seeking!

I will respond point by point later, when I'm at a computed and not typing from my phone.

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 7th, 2012, 3:58 pm

Responses inline
VictorianSciFi-FUBAR_2012-05-07_01.pdf
Update!
(100.56 KiB) Downloaded 231 times


DrVesuvius wrote:Just played two games with my regular oppo. The first was a combined arms game with three units of infantry (one on my side was of automata), one character and a vehicle per side. When that reached a resolution without the vehicles really becoming involved with eachother, we switched to an all-vehicle game with 7-8 vehicles per side.

One change we made before starting was to flip the formation rules from an Activation penalty when not in formation to become an Activation bonus when in formation. Failing Activation in FUBAR is horrendously easy as is and it felt much more balanced to make it slightly easier in the special case of troops in close formation rather than penalising everyone. I'd strongly recommend this approach.

Huh. I disagree. I want to emphasize 19th century battle ideals where the formation was still king until the very end.Adding a bonus instead of a penalty will also disadvantage irregular units where they do not fight in formation by nature.
DrVesuvius wrote:Here's the major rules points/typos that came up

1) The morale test is just plumb broken. "roll 2d6 - Activation. If the result is more than the number of live figures in the unit, it withdraws... <snip>" An elite unit rolling 2D6-2 is therefore more likely to fail than a green unit rolling 2d6-5. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's what it says. As a quick and dirty fix, we changed it to "roll 1d6 + Activation", which seemed to work well and I think is mathematically similar to what you intended.

(As an aside, personally I'm not a fan of trying the morale check directly to the number of figures left, as it penalises small units and really ties you down to a standard unit size. An elite 5 man fireteam shouldn't be more fragile in morale terms than a 30 man horde of peasants, but wipe out half the peasants and they still can't fail morale, while if the elites take a single casualty they're in much greater danger of running.)

Yeah, I agree. Try this:
Morale: If a unit fails Activation and has taken casualties, roll Activation again (-1 if below half-strength). On a failure, it withdraws 2d6" away from the nearest visible enemy, or towards their deployment point if there are none visible.
DrVesuvius wrote:2) As the rules are written, once troops are in close combat there is no mechanism for winning or losing the melee, but both sides are locked into melee until one side or the other is either wiped out or voluntarily disengages. Is this intended? Personally we preferred having the chance of one side breaking and running before being wiped out, so we had both sides in a melee make Morale checks at the start of every activation (Personally I wasn't 100% happy with that solution, but at least it stopped the fight from dragging out to the last man standing.

This is in the core Fubar rules - I didn't change anything. I like the idea of making morale checks before the start of each activation though. I shall ponder this.
DrVesuvius wrote:3) Under Suppression "After the next activation roll for that unit, stand the figure up. It is no longer suppressed." Well if you follow this to the letter, the whole "Suppressed figures can't fire" rule never kicks in, because the unit takes suppressions, then on its activation removes them before it gets to do its firing actions. We removed suppressions at the end of the unit's activation, which I think is effectively what you meant.

This is also part of the core FUBAR rules, and I didn't change it. It is possible for a unit to be on guard, be shot at, take suppressions, and then try to use its On Guard to fire at another unit. Models suppressed at that point cannot fire.
DrVesuvius wrote:4) Also under Suppression"You may voluntarily suppress or kill models after moving a unit in order to gain an extra d6" of movement." How many models to get that d6 inches? I'm not sure I get what this rule is representing.

The intent was one suppression/kill per 1d6" extra movement. This is untested, it just seemed a cool thing to add. I have clarified this to be just a single model for a single d6.
DrVesuvius wrote:5) Under the Close Combat section, there's still a reference to "no figure moving more than the rolled movement" that you probably want to correct

I shall correct that.
DrVesuvius wrote:6) Under the Cover section, movement penalties are still in terms of dice rolled.

I have corrected this so that infantry move through cover at normal speed, but vehicles roll breakdown when moving through cover after failing an armor save.
DrVesuvius wrote:7) Under Automata you've got "If an automaton is suppressed, roll another 2d6 - on a 4+ something has malfunctioned." Is that 2d6 right? It makes for only a very slim chance of there not being a malfunction. We thought you might have meant 1d6 (making it 50/50)

2d6 was the original intent, but I like 1d6 better.
DrVesuvius wrote:8) Are vehicles supposed to be able to move and fire? I guess it could be on a case by case basis, but we houseruled no.

The original Fubar rules have vehicles able to move a distance and fire one weapon. Most of the time when I play, my vehicles have all visible crew and it's obvious whether they have enough crew to fire their weapons. I crave your input on how to handle this. I've taken a swag at fixing it in the attached draft.

DrVesuvius wrote:9) On the Vehicle Breakdown table, a lot of the results are "May not do 'x' this activation." Well since the most common reason you'll be rolling on the breakdown table is that you rolled 1 on your activation, you wouldn't be able to do a lot of those things anyway.

Good point. Fixed.
DrVesuvius wrote:10) The vehicle damage sections states that vehicles can't be suppressed, but many of the damage results include "crew suppressed". How is this supposed to work? To keep the game rolling we houseruled a -2 to next activation (based on the similar result from the previous edition of FUBAR) which seemed to work really well.

Yeah, good point. I've changed "crew suppressed" to "1d3 crew hits", to work with existing mechanisms.
DrVesuvius wrote:11) Vehicle Damage Table result 5 - FIRE!. Any thoughts about crew putting fires out? My erstwhile opponent argued that a successful activation and spending an action was enough to extinguish a fire, but as a result of that he never wound up taking any further damage from the fire.

New wording: 5. FIRE! 1D6 crew must fight the fire next activation, and pass an activation test put it out. The roll damage again for each active fire. New fire starts on subsequent roll of 5.
DrVesuvius wrote:Also, while I know if falls outside the remit of the VSF supplement, both my opponent and myself felt that having just the single range for weapons meant there was little motivation to close or manoeuvre. In the vehicle-only game, both of us moved our vehicles into cover just inside maximum range and the game devolved into a slugfest. I suggested making half-range or less into Close Range, giving a +1 or +2 to hit.

I've noticed this in my playing as well - it very easily turns into trench warfare till one side breaks, then the opponent charges in and sweeps the field. I'll try to add effective/max ranges in, but I'm running into space considerations.
DrVesuvius wrote:And somehow the vehicle damage table didn't click with us. I can't put my finger on why not, apart from the points raised above it looks OK, it just didn't feel right.


DrVesuvius wrote:Oh and the vehicle table only has Tracked, Walkers or Flyers, but no Wheeled. We counted them the same as Tracked but gave a big move bonus along roads.


DrVesuvius wrote:***

Having apparently just ripped all your hard work to shreds, I have to tell you that we both really enjoyed the game and my opponent is keen to play it again instead of our regular VSF rules. The 2-side combined FUBAR Core/VSF Supplement is a great format, and I hope you take this post in the spirit of constructive criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing any little wrinkles ironed out and giving the game another shot.

All the best

Dr Vesuvius

Thank you very much! You've mad this a much better game.

DrVesuvius
Posts: 5
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 9:47 am

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby DrVesuvius » May 7th, 2012, 8:18 pm

Froggy the Great wrote:Huh. I disagree. I want to emphasize 19th century battle ideals where the formation was still king until the very end.Adding a bonus instead of a penalty will also disadvantage irregular units where they do not fight in formation by nature.


Hmmm yes and no. As I understand it, open order drill for regulars (and not just specialist "light infantry") started coming in as through the second half of the 19th century, not just at the very end. Maybe not Crimea, but pretty much anything from the ACW onwards is the transitional period. Close order was still in use, but open order wasn't quite such a radical idea at this time. Smarter folks than me have posited that by the 1880s, open order would have been the norm in open battle, with close order formation restricted to cases where it offered a significant advantage (like massed volley fire against charging fuzzy-wuzzies)

As for the bonus disadvantaging irregulars, aren't they already disadvantaged by always suffering -1 to activation, because if they're played in character they don't have the option of using a formation? A simple way to fix this in either case is to count "Mass" as a formation (all figures in base to base contact in an irregular shape). Soldiers Companion and The Sword And The Flame both do this.

But our decision to switch to the bonus was a matter of personal taste. We both play Song of Blades and Heroes with a similar "play passes to opponent on failed activation" mechanic so we're down with the concept, but both of us felt that the base activation chances of FUBAR lead to failing a little too often (50/50 for a typical regular unit). Penalising this even further would have tipped it over the edge. Making formation a bonus kicked the odds back into our comfort zone.

If you want a further rationale for this, think of it this way. If default FUBAR represents an "ultra modern" style squad, who by default will be doing their damnedest to hide behind any available cover on the battlefield, it makes some sense that it becomes a non trivial task to get them to stick their heads up to shoot, move from behind their nice safe wall to where unkind men with guns might see them etc. Now think of our Victorian age unit, standing proud in their shiny colourful uniform and formed up to advance. It would make sense for them to be easier to get moving. In fact it can get a little nonsensical if they find themselves stuck there for too many turns, standing at attention, unmoving while the battle goes on around them.

Like I said though, it's mainly personal taste.

Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:1) The morale test is just plumb broken.

Yeah, I agree. Try this:
Morale: If a unit fails Activation and has taken casualties, roll Activation again (-1 if below half-strength). On a failure, it withdraws 2d6" away from the nearest visible enemy, or towards their deployment point if there are none visible.


Works for me.

Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:3) Under Suppression "After the next activation roll for that unit, stand the figure up. It is no longer suppressed." Well if you follow this to the letter, the whole "Suppressed figures can't fire" rule never kicks in, because the unit takes suppressions, then on its activation removes them before it gets to do its firing actions. We removed suppressions at the end of the unit's activation, which I think is effectively what you meant.

This is also part of the core FUBAR rules, and I didn't change it. It is possible for a unit to be on guard, be shot at, take suppressions, and then try to use its On Guard to fire at another unit. Models suppressed at that point cannot fire.


Hmmmm but was the intention of original FUBAR that this is the only time that suppressed troops can't fire? I'd always gotten the impression that the suppression was meant to stop them firing in their own activation as well (though looking back, I see the exact same rule phrasing goes back to 4th edition core.) I'm genuinely curious if this is one of those "Everyone knows what he meant" rules :-)



Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:4) Also under Suppression"You may voluntarily suppress or kill models after moving a unit in order to gain an extra d6" of movement." How many models to get that d6 inches? I'm not sure I get what this rule is representing.

The intent was one suppression/kill per 1d6" extra movement. This is untested, it just seemed a cool thing to add. I have clarified this to be just a single model for a single d6.

Gottit, you're basically driving the unit on, force march style, at the cost of some combat effectiveness when they get there. Maybe not necessarily "killing" your men for speed, but in haste some stragglers get left behind. I like.

Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:8) Are vehicles supposed to be able to move and fire? I guess it could be on a case by case basis, but we houseruled no.

The original Fubar rules have vehicles able to move a distance and fire one weapon. Most of the time when I play, my vehicles have all visible crew and it's obvious whether they have enough crew to fire their weapons. I crave your input on how to handle this. I've taken a swag at fixing it in the attached draft.


Erm well I'm exactly the opposite. I don't like to keep track of individual crew at all. Personally I prefer no movement and firing for land vehicles, because it somehow feels right for 19th century contraptions, and it gives a bit of an edge back to the poor bloody infantryman who can move and fire and otherwise tends to get overshadowed by the steel and steam. Move OR fire also leads to some tense choices - you can't just move into line of sight and fire right away, you have to move into firing position and then hope you get to activate first before your target is able to fire at your first. That came up in our playtest game, and was a lot of fun.

There's a strong case for flyers and water vehicles to be able to fire and move freely though.

My oppo suggested allowing vehicles half a move and firing. If you were going to allow moving and firing that would be a good compromise (and would parallel the Walk/Run choice for infantry)

Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:10) The vehicle damage sections states that vehicles can't be suppressed, but many of the damage results include "crew suppressed". How is this supposed to work? To keep the game rolling we houseruled a -2 to next activation (based on the similar result from the previous edition of FUBAR) which seemed to work really well.

Yeah, good point. I've changed "crew suppressed" to "1d3 crew hits", to work with existing mechanisms.


And since I don't want to keep track of individual crew, I'll just count that as a 1d3 penalty to next activation (the equivalent of the same number of suppressions). Again that's just me being awkward.

Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:11) Vehicle Damage Table result 5 - FIRE!. Any thoughts about crew putting fires out? My erstwhile opponent argued that a successful activation and spending an action was enough to extinguish a fire, but as a result of that he never wound up taking any further damage from the fire.

New wording: 5. FIRE! 1D6 crew must fight the fire next activation, and pass an activation test put it out. The roll damage again for each active fire. New fire starts on subsequent roll of 5.

I like. But again I'll have the whole crew fighting the fire (or at least give them the option to - the player might choose to risk the round's damage roll in order to fire or move)

Froggy the Great wrote:
DrVesuvius wrote:Also, while I know if falls outside the remit of the VSF supplement, both my opponent and myself felt that having just the single range for weapons meant there was little motivation to close or manoeuvre. In the vehicle-only game, both of us moved our vehicles into cover just inside maximum range and the game devolved into a slugfest. I suggested making half-range or less into Close Range, giving a +1 or +2 to hit.

I've noticed this in my playing as well - it very easily turns into trench warfare till one side breaks, then the opponent charges in and sweeps the field. I'll try to add effective/max ranges in, but I'm running into space considerations.

I've seen other people houserule different firepower dice at different ranges, which is cool. But if space is a premium a simple "+1 to hit roll if less than half range" is probably enough to add some flavour/tactical options.

DrVesuvius wrote:And somehow the vehicle damage table didn't click with us. I can't put my finger on why not, apart from the points raised above it looks OK, it just didn't feel right.


Sorry I couldn't be more specific on this point, but I genuinely don't know why things felt off. Maybe the changes you've already made will do the trick.

Froggy the Great wrote:Thank you very much! You've mad this a much better game.


You're welcome, and thank-you for your hard work and taking the time to work through the feedback.

All the best

Dr V.

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 8th, 2012, 1:20 am

Formations:
DrVesuvius wrote:Hmmm yes and no. As I understand it, open order drill for regulars (and not just specialist "light infantry") started coming in as through the second half of the 19th century, not just at the very end. Maybe not Crimea, but pretty much anything from the ACW onwards is the transitional period. Close order was still in use, but open order wasn't quite such a radical idea at this time. Smarter folks than me have posited that by the 1880s, open order would have been the norm in open battle, with close order formation restricted to cases where it offered a significant advantage (like massed volley fire against charging fuzzy-wuzzies)

As for the bonus disadvantaging irregulars, aren't they already disadvantaged by always suffering -1 to activation, because if they're played in character they don't have the option of using a formation? A simple way to fix this in either case is to count "Mass" as a formation (all figures in base to base contact in an irregular shape). Soldiers Companion and The Sword And The Flame both do this.

I have a counter for this already built in - the Skirmisher skill - the formation rules do not apply to Skirmishers, which I would give to all irregular-by-nature type units.

Suppression - The way it is in the VSF supplement is the way it's always been in Fubar, unless this is another time where I've been playing it wrong all this time. I'm pretty sure I haven't, but I am as always open to be convinced.


Vehicle crew:
DrVesuvius wrote:Erm well I'm exactly the opposite. I don't like to keep track of individual crew at all. Personally I prefer no movement and firing for land vehicles, because it somehow feels right for 19th century contraptions, and it gives a bit of an edge back to the poor bloody infantryman who can move and fire and otherwise tends to get overshadowed by the steel and steam. Move OR fire also leads to some tense choices - you can't just move into line of sight and fire right away, you have to move into firing position and then hope you get to activate first before your target is able to fire at your first. That came up in our playtest game, and was a lot of fun.

There's a strong case for flyers and water vehicles to be able to fire and move freely though.

My oppo suggested allowing vehicles half a move and firing. If you were going to allow moving and firing that would be a good compromise (and would parallel the Walk/Run choice for infantry)

There's got to be an elegant way to accommodate both ways of handling crew. The "move half and fire" idea seems to work when the crew is abstracted, but for an open-deck aeronef where there is obviously enough crew on the deck to man all the weapons, it just doesn't seem to make sense to tell the player he can't fire because the crew is busy making sure the craft moves safely.

I welcome suggestions on this point, from anyone.

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 8th, 2012, 2:08 pm

I thought about this a lot, and ran it past a couple gamer friends who do things much differently than I do. I believe you have some good points, and I have updated the document accordingly:

• Speed is reduced by half when moving through cover or rough terrain. A vehicle may fire weapons if it does not move more than half-speed. Flyers halve their maximum speed when taking off or landing.

• If you are playing with visible crew models, hits against the crew are resolved normally. If the crew are not visible or abstracted, hits against the crew are treated as suppressions against its activation.

VictorianSciFi-FUBAR_2012-05-08_01.pdf
May 8, 2012, edits #1
(101.52 KiB) Downloaded 190 times

DrVesuvius
Posts: 5
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 9:47 am

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby DrVesuvius » May 8th, 2012, 2:53 pm

Froggy the Great wrote:Formations:
DrVesuvius wrote:As for the bonus disadvantaging irregulars, aren't they already disadvantaged by always suffering -1 to activation, because if they're played in character they don't have the option of using a formation? A simple way to fix this in either case is to count "Mass" as a formation (all figures in base to base contact in an irregular shape). Soldiers Companion and The Sword And The Flame both do this.

I have a counter for this already built in - the Skirmisher skill - the formation rules do not apply to Skirmishers, which I would give to all irregular-by-nature type units.


Well then in the formation-as-bonus world, the Skirmisher skill could give figures in open order a +1 Activation, and balance is restored. :)

But like I said, this is all down to personal preference as to how often activations succeed or fail and is easy to for us to houserule.

Froggy the Great wrote:Suppression - The way it is in the VSF supplement is the way it's always been in Fubar, unless this is another time where I've been playing it wrong all this time. I'm pretty sure I haven't, but I am as always open to be convinced.


As am I. Hey 10 years on I'm finding rules in GASLIGHT I've been playing wrong! I'll post a n00b question in the Core Rules forum.

Froggy the Great wrote:There's got to be an elegant way to accommodate both ways of handling crew. The "move half and fire" idea seems to work when the crew is abstracted, but for an open-deck aeronef where there is obviously enough crew on the deck to man all the weapons, it just doesn't seem to make sense to tell the player he can't fire because the crew is busy making sure the craft moves safely.

I welcome suggestions on this point, from anyone.


Crew availability is only half the issue (and interestingly enough, not the one I usually think of). The other half is weapon stabilisation, or the complete lack thereof. Sure your landship has enough crew to fire its gun barrelling along at 15mph, but the ride is so bumpy it doesn't have a hope of hitting anything. Naval gunners, and by extension aerial gunners, would have a more stable platform to start with, and would be more used to compensating for the movement of the ship (four hundred year tradition of naval gunnery dontcha know)

So personally I''m going to go with land vehicles move OR fire, air and sea water move AND fire. I'm going to plug that rule into the GASLIGHT variant I'm working on as well, as it gives them a more "fluid" feel (pun intended).

And I'm out, with nothing more to contribute till we've played the game a lot more. Good luck with the rules revisions.

Dr V

(EDIT - this post written up just before you posted the latest revision )

User avatar
Froggy the Great
Posts: 149
Joined: September 12th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: Fubar V5 2PG VSF document for review

Postby Froggy the Great » May 14th, 2012, 7:52 pm

I'm calling this done enough to move out of Alpha and into official playtest. Have at it, guys, it's attached to the first post of this topic.


Return to “Victorian Science Fiction FUBAR”

Created by Matti from StylesFactory.pl and Warlords of Draenor
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
 

 

cron