Page 1 of 2
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 9:28 am
OK, the first rule I want to review is activation.
In my mind this is broken. For the following reasons:
1. It began as an either you do or you don't rule. Leaving good players' units stranded because of dumb luck.
2. We had to fudge the consequences of failure because it pissed so many people off.
3. Even if you succeed you are then straightjacketed into a limited list of tactical options.
I am thinking that we would be better moving to a system similar to, but a little simpler than, Dead Men Walking, i.e.:
Roll Activation die:
- If you roll equal to or more than the required activation number your unit can take two actions this turn.
- If you roll less than the required activation number your unit gets only one action this turn.
The list of possible actions could include:
- Assault (move to enemy and attack them - takes two actions)
- Run (double move - takes two actions)
- Aimed Fire (+1 to shooting rolls - takes two actions)
- Disengage from close combat (single move away from combat - takes two actions)
- Overwatch, reserving your fire until later in the turn (takes two actions)
- Counter-attack, reserving your action until you are assaulted later in the turn, denying the assaulter his assault bonuses (takes two actions)
So as you can see this opens up a huge number of tactical options, but doesn't disproportionately punish the player who made the poor roll.
What do you think?
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 9:39 am
On first look it's a bit too complicated.
Also - aimed fire does not happen all that often, indeed in WWII many did not fire at all. Could restrict it to weapons teams and snipers.
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 10:03 am
First man in. There's an immediate credit in that
At the moment we have a situation where if you activate you choose an option and act. If you fail you go On Guard, unless you've taken 50% casualties in which case you Withdraw.
In the proposed system you either get two actions which can give you a range of tactical options, or one, where you are restricted to Move, Fire or continue in close combat.
I can't see how that is more complicated?
Aimed Fire - I agree, which is why it costs two actions, so is only available if you fully activate. This is much more likely to happen for more experienced units. Also given the fluid nature of the FUBAR battlespace a Commander has to be pretty certain of his situation to allow a unit to spend two actions to get that +1 bonus.
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 10:28 am
Any extra text makes it more complex. Be careful, Barker has copyrighted his version of English.
Does aimed fire apply to anything, so my ATGW, carl Gustav, Smart Missile, SMAW........and so on get it, or is it restricted to small arms?
My understanding is that SFMG and larger weapons are area effect, not point ones, so should not get the bonus, but could fire twice as above. To an extent the same applies to LMG and SAW, the aim is to lay down surpressive fire to allow the riflemen to close with and kill.
Also vehicles - how will they fit in. Cant see many changes needed, although the double move might be a bit silly.
Just a few thoughts from a very unprofessional ex Officer Cadet.
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 11:14 am
I'm thinking small arms mostly at the moment Ian, though good points that need taking into account.
I understand your thought about more text. I'm pretty sure that the text will run to about the same as for the current activation section, but remember that for Ultra FUBAR the one page rule is suspended. However, we will need to be able to pack it back into one page for the at table reference version.
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 11:49 am
Glad to help.
Posted: August 5th, 2012, 3:16 pm
I've never played with elites - only with opponents within one training level of each other. So both sides were stranded about the same amount (over the course of a few games). We really didn't notice it as a problem, but I can see how it could be.
I'm of two minds. First I like the one or two action results. Indeed, I was working along these lines for a horse and musket FUBAR variant. On the other, I like the wild back and forth that failing activation rolls creates. It seems to recreate situations where one side in battle would hold the initive for more than one turn (ie take more than one turn in a row).
To save this while making it more playable/fun for non-elite forces (or bad dice rollers like me), what about something like this: A player can attempt to activate *all* of their units before passing to their opponent. So it you fail your first roll you still have a chance to activate some of your units. Added to this, a unit that fails their activation can fire if they have a target in their line of sight (in addition to the On Guard option). Elite units will tend to move around the battlefield acting while poorer quality troops will tend to hunker down and blast away...That sounds about right to me
P.S. Can Ultra be made with a decent font size (11 or 12 pt) for us folks with bad eyes?
Posted: August 6th, 2012, 6:25 pm
I like this idea. My son is the only person I know with worse luck than myself in the few games he has played has had to sit and get obliterated without much recourse. Most of the other games I play have a two action per activation system, so this isn't out of line with what's already out there in terms of mechanics, and they produce enjoyable games. It isn't overly complex, just different from before.
Posted: August 7th, 2012, 2:29 am
I think it's a nice compromise to let a unit failing an activation roll have one action. With some of the nicer options (going on overwatch, aimed fire, etc.) costing 2 actions, it allows units with good rolls to do more stuff while units with bad rolls can still do something.
I'm still unsure of the suppression issue. I see both sides. Another thought would be to allow suppressive fire (maybe costing 2 actions) where a unit fires upon the target unit in order to keep that target pinned and unable to fire and/or move on their activation. Just an idea that hasn't been though out...
Posted: August 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
My first post, so please forgive an inexperienced n00b.
Would it be possible to add a "Special Action" action that costs one action in the sequence of the proposed two? This would possibly limited to characters / leaders and would allow them to perform some other 'cinematic' action e.g. place and arm a bomb, open an airlock etc. This might be useful for players of Star Wars, SG-1 or Aliens type games to have their characters perform an action central to the game's objective.
I just open this for discussion to see what the more experienced players think. It might serve to incorporate some of the more unusual actions required by players into the game mechanics.
I put this idea to the floor.
Best to you all.
Posted: August 9th, 2012, 7:42 am
I suspect the charater rule would fit better with a "supplement sepcial" or secnario rules, rather than the main body.
Posted: August 9th, 2012, 2:38 pm
Posted: August 10th, 2012, 8:19 pm
The intention would still be to pass the intiative if a unit fails its activation. This is a key and popualr part of the FUBAR rules
Posted: August 11th, 2012, 8:49 pm
Posted: August 11th, 2012, 10:22 pm
I agree it does complicate it, as it means more things happen per turn.
Also what is the difference between "- Run (double move - takes two actions)" and simply doing this twice: "- Move" ?, is there any point in having a "Run" action?
Would anyone bother with aimed fire (+1) when instead they could just shoot twice?
Also regardless of any actual game effects, the wording would need to be clear if these 2 actions must be consecutive or can be split over the course of the turn.
Posted: August 12th, 2012, 12:30 pm
I have read through the responses on Activation so far and can see the arguments people are making.
It is important that we come up with a rule that is easy to remember in the middle of a battle and requires no paperwork or markers. This is key to the FUBAR concept.
Overwatch and Reactive Fire seems to be a bone of contention here. I understand the point that troops who are not actively doing soemthing else would be keeping an eye out for enemy in range and line of sight and would want to engage them in fire.
I often find when I come to an impasse like this to actually get down to what would happen if I were on a bttlefield myself.
So in my mind's eye I have been imagining being a British Infantryman advancing through the Bocage in Normandy in Summer 1944. A couple of hundred yards ahead are some farm buildings. Suddenly half a dozen German Panzergrenadiers sprint from behind one building to another.
They are in range of my Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifle but snap shooting at this distance would be pointless. If I had been ready, possibly expecting that there were Germans in the buildings and had my rifle ready, that would be a different matter.
A minute later two Germans step out of a break in a hedgerow just thirty yards away and level their rifles at us. My section reacts quickly and hoses them with a wild bout of fire.
So here we have reactive fire and overwatch. Overwatch would seem to be limited only by maximum effective range and line of sight. Reactive fire feels like it is something you would only consider if the enemy were close enough.
Overwatch then is a prepared action, and would count against enemy at any range as long as they were in line of sight.
Reactive fire would only count against targets that come into short range, let's say 12". This does not counts against a unit's actions for the turn. Reactive fire would be at a penalty, say -1 as it isn't a readied action.
In each case you could only use either type of fire once in a turn. You will need to choose carefully when you use it.
How about that?
Posted: August 12th, 2012, 12:43 pm
That looks good to me.
Posted: August 19th, 2012, 10:30 pm
Ideas sound interesting so far.
I like the idea of 2 activations if pass and one if fail. I tried playing blitzkrieg commander a few times and gave up because i hated the constant situation where a bad activation roll left me unable to do anything at all. In the end this is agame and should be fun. Being left unable to do anything is not fun.
The proposed idea that you get an action anyway, but if you pass you get two sounds much more like a carrot than a stick. Which i whole heartedly approve of.
Your above comments on overwatch and Reactive fire seem sensible.
Posted: August 20th, 2012, 10:47 am
I just had an idea on activation. Not saying it is a great idea but it is simple.
You roll for initiative as now. If you succeed then have your turn as now and then roll for next unit. i.e. exactly as now.
If you FAIL, then you STILL get to carry out your action, BUT after you have finished the initiative passes to your opponent.
i.e. the only purpose of the activation is to determine whether you keep the initiative.
Simple and avoids units doing nothing, but of course it does water doen the effect of failing your activation roll.....
Posted: August 20th, 2012, 10:55 am
It took me a while to work out what you meant.
Now that I understand, I think it is an interesting idea.
I will go away and imagine games in my head as I cast stuff up and see how it 'plays'
Posted: August 20th, 2012, 1:05 pm
Well it was just one of those spur of the moment ideas you get. I expect when more experienced players think about it they will see a problem with it.
Sorry I confused you. I have reread my message and can't think of a simpler way to word it.
Posted: August 21st, 2012, 3:19 am
It was clear to me
And it's kind of how I just played a game. Except that instead of a full turn, the unit could only fire or move once. Then play shifted to their opponent. It worked well so your idea is a good one I think.
Posted: August 24th, 2012, 7:51 pm
actually, i think the current activation works ok, the main thing is to separate 'on guard' from the ability to do reactive fire, so that failing to activate doesn't leave you in a better position than activating.
my suggestion woudl be to make 'on guard" just mean the troops hunker down and gain a bonus to their cover (or gain cover if stuck in the open.)
move the reactive fire option to another option, say (at the risk of using a gaming trope), which can only be done after a successful activation.
then failing your activation means you stop and turn turtle (like most troops do when waiting for a decision from their officers), while reactive fire takes an actual order to achieve.
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 1:59 am
Thinking of the KISS principal, I thought I'd through this out:
Some feel it doesn't make much sense for a unit to pause mid-charge in the open, or fail to fire at a clearly visible target. I can see this and I think this might solve these situations:
Leave the activation rules as they are now, but
(a) add Reactive Fire Craig described and
(b) allow units in the open who fail their activation roll to charge into contact with an enemy unit (that is within range).
It does add a bit to the rules, but it has the virtue of not changing the current rules - they could even be optional...
Craig, how do you feel about adding side bars or an appendix with optional rules like these or rules for using 2d6/1d10? Players could add them al la carte?
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 1:19 pm
I'm starting to think that a unit that fails its activation should not be allowed to act proactively, or what is the point of Activation (other than the breaking of the IGO-UGO paradigm)?
Instead we should develop a very small range of reactive actions they would be allowed to do, but only one before their next activation. Reactive fire is the most obvious. How about adding Going to Ground, if fired upon, and Counterattack if charged?
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 1:29 pm
Looks logical, the unit will take an action which give it the best survival chance. Apply that test to any proposed actions. You could add run to terrain cover.
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 1:37 pm
I agree, otherwise having super elite units that find it easy to activate lose their eliteness.
I think on guard is enough, but maybe go to ground also.
Much I think depends on narrative and why they failed to activate.
In my games when a unit fails to activate I invent story reasons such as:
Sarge did not quite hear the order.
Steve is taking a leak so the squad can't move yet.
The APC stalled so it does not move.
Steve twisted his ankle.
Steve saw something 'odd' in that bush over there.
Radios jammed, no orders.
Steve dropped his grenades.
Not just they are too green to do it.
With the right story reasons a failure to activate is more plausible I reckon.
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 2:49 pm
So you shoudl shoot 'Steve' and move on
Anyway the most common is actually orders are issued by someone who does not have a clear grasp of the local tactical situation and the squad leader has to question them. the classic example comes from the original Forge of War rules:
"An infantry platoon gets the command to leave cover and advance across open ground towards some dense woodland. From HQ's point of view they know the area is relatively safe based upon the reports of other units.
"However, all the young lieutenant leading the platoon can see is several hundred metres of deadly open ground. He has no idea if the woods are empty or full of dug in enemy infantry. He has a couple of wounded men their comrades are not happy to leave on their own. His platoon are mostly conscripts who have been brought in to replace the heavy losses his veterans have suffered in the last few days. They are cold, hungry, tired and not keen to leave the cover they fought so hard for. To cap it all his commâ€™s operator is dead and the platoon is short of ammo for its support weapons.
In the end he chooses not to move as ordered but sends a runner back to check the orders. In game terms the unit failed its Activation Roll."
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 3:01 pm
I guess it works for that but it would not work so well for a squad that has been 'running' for 2 turns to get across some open ground and taking enemy fire all the way, then suddenly stops and stands up in the open to be shot at (they failed their roll), checking orders in that situation seems irrelevant.
Or a tank that must get to a squad that is under fire, the enemy has no weapons that can harm the tank so the tank has no real reason not to advance, but it could keep failing its roll.
To me that is a stall or mechanical error, not a question of not thinking the order is sound.
Either way I like the fact that the best troops are best because they do the applicable thing and that the worst troops are the worst because they are unreliable and flaky.
I am still singing the FUBAR song and waving its Flag!
Posted: August 28th, 2012, 5:05 pm
I think it would be enlightening for people to watch BBC3's fantastic series 'Our War', which tells the story of the Afghan War through the words of the soldiers themselves and all footage is shot by them on handheld and helmet cams. There are heap of episodes but you can find the first one here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01221bq
I believe it shows why I stand by activation as a mechanic.
Posted: September 23rd, 2012, 10:39 pm
Posted: October 9th, 2012, 12:41 pm
I'm a tad late in getting into this, so apologies there. For what it's worth, I like the current Activation as it does provide quicker games. But I can also see the merits in changing this format.
So, as I see it from what's been laid out so far, and looking at what we would want in our preferences as a playing group:
Unit makes it's Activation attempt, if it fails, it's allowed one Action from a permitted list and no more, and then play passes to the Opponent/s.
If it succeeds in Activating, it may choose and perform two Actions, and play then passes to the next Friendly unit.
Now, back to the Unit that has just failed it's Activation and can select only one Action.
For any Green or Seasoned troops, you could have two choices:
'Go To Ground' - move up to 3" into the nearest cover if possible, with no firing allowed. If successful in gaining cover gain a +1 bonus to the Cover modifier that the Cover provides.
'Run' Action, but not towards any known enemy, but away back to friendly start line or deployment zone, re-occupying any cover that the Unit or it's Friends had previously used.
For any Veteran or Elite troops, you have the two choices above, plus:
'On Guard' - no movement allowed, but they could react with their 'Overwatch' to any enemy unit within LoS.
'Duck & Weave' - a move up to 8" with no firing, to gain a better position or deployment.
I believe these ideas would allow a player to still use good quality forces in a realistic manner even if their own Activation had temporarily stalled. It also means that the poorer quality forces either hold tight where they are for now or bundle back to a location they think is still safe.
Posted: October 16th, 2012, 1:08 am
Posted: October 16th, 2012, 1:38 am
Also agreed - hopefully this will cut down on the tendancy for the "trench warfare" midgame.
Posted: October 23rd, 2012, 3:15 am
I tried it out tonight. I really like it! Craig, you might have a winner here! I'll post a battle report this weekend on my blog to let you know how things went.
Posted: October 23rd, 2012, 6:55 pm
Glad you enjoyed it TG
Posted: October 23rd, 2012, 11:45 pm
I took a little time to look over the previous posts and I noticed that most of the recent posters are inclined to restrict the actions of a unit which has failed its activation roll. Honestly I don't think it's necessary.
Let's look at what happens when a unit fails its activation:
1. It only gets one action,
2. As soon as it finishes the action the initiative goes to the other player.
The concern is that this take away the advantage of being veteran or elite. I disagree with that concern. This rule actually boosts the power of elite and veteran units. Here's why:
1. Both elite and veteran units activate on 3+ or 2+ whereas seasoned and green activate on 4+ and 5+. The lower activation units are far more likely to fully activate and get two full actions. The other two ratings are far less likely.
2. Play only moves to the other side when a unit fails its activation. This is far less likely to happen when its a veteran or elite unit.
So here's the deal: better troop types more likely to get two actions rather than one and they are much less likely to, as we Americans say in our version of football, "drop the ball" and "turnover" the initiative to the enemy. This means that forces with veteran and elite troops are going to move and fire more often and that much larger segments of that force will be able to maneuver together thus creating a much more mobile and hard hitting force.
Limiting the action options available units that fail their activations cripples them even more! Green troops are not likely to ever get two actions because they only activate on 5+. That means that they will almost never be able to actually maneuver against their enemy. They will simply fail activation roll after activation roll and just hunker down. At least with one action they can move or fire which actually gives them something of an offensive capability. The same is true with seasoned troops but they are more likely (50%) to activate and get some ability to be offensive troops.
But the numbers tell the story: lower activation numbers mean more ability to maneuver and be aggressive. If you limit the number of available actions to units that fail their activation roll then you're really crippling the lower two troop levels... almost to the point to where no one will really want to use them because all they will do is hunker down.
Limiting actions for failed activations really is just beating a dead horse. I say leave it to one activation (of the player's choice) and let the play go to the other player.
Posted: October 24th, 2012, 12:16 am
Oh, one question Craig. Are the movement and shooting actions ones you can only do once? Like with two actions I can move (one action) and then shoot (second action), but I can't shoot twice. Also, I can't move twice with my two actions but I could spend both actions to run.
And a suggestion- how about allowing a unit that activates with two actions a benefit if it doesn't move and spends both actions in shooting. Sort of like running is to movement but with its weapons. Maybe extra firepower points which could reflect the unit taking extra care to aim and shoot because they didn't do anything else but acquire and engage targets. I would think that a stationary unit which fires would either lay down more accurate or heavier fires than one which moved. Shouldn't there be a benefit for this? This happened many times in last night's game where a unit was content with where it was but it had two actions... but it has the same chances of laying down effective as a unit which moves then shoots. Something to consider anyway.
Posted: November 4th, 2012, 10:40 am
Posted: November 5th, 2012, 2:40 am
That's excellent stuff Craig, thanks! I'll have to give it a go in my next game. And yes, the aimed action looks like it would fit the bill. I don't know why I missed that.
Now a question about vehicles: I'm assuming that they would work the same way. You roll to activate and if you get two actions then you can move and fire. With one you have to pick either or... so the question is if you have an AFV with several weapons then can you fire all of them with one action? Or would that be something for two actions? I'm inclined to say you can fire all with one action. Is that what you have in mind?
Posted: November 6th, 2012, 7:36 pm
I'm new on this forum, and new to fubar 4, but i'm not new to activation mechanics since i discovered them in Clash of Armor in 94 if i remember well. With my fellow players we had over time almost always twisted the rules so that a failed activation would not be too painful as staying in an open ground and being teared to pieces by enemy fire, but also trying to maintain the fact that under fire people less trained tend to keep a low profile unless really pushed by some NCO or officer.
I have read the topic and juggling some ideas above and twisting them i propose the following to the discussion :
A unit activated may choose TWO actions in list-1 or list-2
A unit that failed activation can choose ONE action in list-2
Duck & weave 4" count as soft cover
Gone to ground 3" drop in nearest cover. Cover +1
Fire 0" can fire or throw grenades.
On guard 0" can fire if succeeding an activation roll onto enemy that moves or fire in their field of fire
Assault 2" move into close combat with enemy
Hit the dirt 0" count as in soft cover
Retreat 8" move away from any visible enemy. Compulsory choice if unit as failed activation and suffered 50% losses
Snap fire figures kneel, hesitate and snap fire at enemy that assault them, or fire at them on a successful activation roll. Cause only suppression.
So what's my ideas behind that ?
I tried to keep the distances moves and run : a run is basically a succesful activation and two walk actions.
Assault is only 2" as it's either the only action of the unit (then it's close combat) or you start it with a walk and then you have your previoulsy 8" of movement, or you throw grenades (FIRE) and you move in.
Duck and Weave as been reduced by half to maintain consistency. You still can do TWO duck and weave and move 8".
Retreat is useful for both activated unit that suddenly find them selves in front of a force they did'nt see before and want to get off, or by unactivated unit which want to take the heat off.
I tried to expand with some uncertainty the on guard and allow units that failed some firing capabilities.
So a unit on guard can basically fire many times if it succeed each time its activation roll. So you can imagine that it does not react to a first unit that fire onto them, then react to a first unit that move in their field of fire, then fail to react to another unit movement.
If that sounds too powerful, you can have a -1 "to hit".
The version for failed unit snap fire as i called it, try to represent unit that stops with some hesitancy, then is endangered by an enemy unit firing at them or assaulting them. It can return fire, or just panick, hesitates. The return fire being uncontrolled, i propose the idea that it causes only suppression. It's simple and make a clear distinction with the on guard
on guard is now a real tactical options, not just something that a unit do because it hesitates. You can have a unit that on purpose go on guard to protect the advance of other units.
What do you think ?
*Sorry for the broken english, i'ts not my mother tongue*
Posted: November 14th, 2012, 11:45 am
I tried two games with my proposals, and there are parts that in my opinion do not work, while other are rather nice.
* being able to shoot twice during an activation, is just too much. Some squads were obliterated !
==> i'll test the two following options :
- limiting to ONE shot
- either by having the 1 action firing as a SNAP FIRE that cause only suppression and AIMED FIRE working as the previous regular fire (no bonuses).
* overwatch was a bit too complex : dicing for activation, then dicing again each time. But the element of randomness on passing in the line of fire of an overwatch unit was really cool.
==> I will test a different approch : INSTEAD of trying to activate a unit can go AUTOMATICALLY on overwatch. During an opponent turn if it sees a movement or a fire in it's field of fire it can then dice for activation and perform its fire, assaut, move,... If it fails its activation it can retry later during the turn if there is an opportunity.
* Double walk to simulate a run worked nicely.
* Walk + assault worked as well.
* not being able to move toward the enemy on a failed activation worked great. It gave to situation where the unit wanted to run home but could not, so they made detour, trie to hide,...
Posted: November 23rd, 2012, 5:39 pm
I've been thinking long and hard about this and here's my two pennyworth. I like the idea of 2 actions and 1 action for those that fail their activation roll. The activation then passes on to the opposition.
I feel that the 1 action for reactive fire should ONLY be allowed to cause suppressions on the target unit and not kills.
Posted: November 23rd, 2012, 6:06 pm
For less futuristic/modern genres, I'd say if a unit fails activation, give it another activation roll which can be used to go on guard - it missed its orders, but is it disordered or cautious?
Posted: November 24th, 2012, 12:16 pm
Posted: November 24th, 2012, 4:07 pm
Hi, My first post here and to throw a spanner into the works. How about this for an idea.
Use the existing Activation numbers but utilise a 2 more or less system.
ie Vets 3+ becomes Vets 3, activate once on a roll of 2-4 but on a roll of 5/6 they activate for free (do not mark as activated) then initiative passes over.
Also keep the convention of 1=fail treat as on guard.
6=success activate for free.
Thus Green 5, activate once on 4/5, free on 6 and 1-3 = fail,on guard.
Elite 2, activate once on 2-3, free on 4-6 and fail on 1.
When one side has activated all of its units the turn ends. Thus small elite forces can fight off large green ones. Also do I keep activating my elites but run the risk of some others not even getting the chance to activate at all once my opponent has finished all of their units. ( some resource management)
I also believe that this would incur the fewest changes to the existing system
Posted: November 29th, 2012, 2:01 pm
Possibly an easier solution.
Roll a natural 6 on activation = Free activation, then pass over initiative.
Fail Activation = on guard or assualt or move 6" no fire.
Have a game this evening and will try this out.
Turn ends when one player has activated all their units.
Posted: January 8th, 2013, 6:39 pm
Has there been any consensus on this yet?
For VSF, I'm leaning towards either:
1. Unit that fails activation may charge an enemy within range or go on Reactive Fire (On Guard but at half-range)
2. Unit that fails activation makes a second activation roll - a pass means they can go on guard, dig in, or charge a unit in range.
Posted: September 27th, 2013, 8:39 am
Hi chaps, my first post here and on a longtime quiet thread.
I have been using FUBAR for a little bit now and am planning a participation game for Salute 2014 which will use a cut down version of the rules.
In regards to activation to speed things up I am activating a section of 13 (two fire teams of 4, two specialist teams of two and an officer) models under one activation. As I don't wan't players to be bored the officers role is to 'force activate' one of the teams under their control so at least they are doing something. These rules do give me an alternative.
In regards to the 'aim' discussed earlier - if you are going the route of two actions I would suggest that some weapons become move or fire and don't get to aim so to speak. I'd also suggest that the likes of assault rifles shooting within 12" are blazing away so shouldn't be able to aim either.
However I have to say that I find the aim rule to be a little problematic in some ways as it encourages poorer troops to remain still and shoot to get a better shot away meaning that for the most part they are going to be more static.
For the participation game 'aim' is one of the options I have removed. I have whittled it down to four I think: Walk, Run, on guard and assault. Again - just to speed things up.
Posted: October 8th, 2013, 3:05 pm
Keep us up-to-date with your Salute Plans. I shall almost certainly be there promoting IHMN again so it would be cool to meet up with you, and any other FoW chaps.
I do like your activation idea.