"So what does FUBAR need to really take off?" Topic

It's a great rule set and is a "go to" for me. But I've always felt like it's missing something that makes it from just being good to becoming a great set. What is that something?

Do the activation rules need need tweaking?

Are the rules for vehicles need a makeover?

Should the die type be moved to d8? d10?

Something I've missed?

What do you thing? What does FUBAR need to move to the next level?

Put it in a box, include an army list and charge 20 dollars :-)

As far as the actual game, I think moving to two pages, making it a bit less cluttered and including a few options would be great.

I;ve thought about using d8 instead of d6. The main reason was that I've found firefights in urban areas to be quite unplayable. With so much hard cover availables, rolling a successful hit was almost impossible. It may be realistic, but it made for a frustrating game for everyone.

D10 for at least initiative determination.

Other die rolls as you prefer.

As mentioned, one page, front and back is a decent option.

Sounds like just the ticket for urban fighting then. It's supposed to be. Just look at the retaking of Mosul, Stalingrad, or Berlin, for examples.

I agree. Urban combat is the very definition of frustration. It's hard to mass the firepower needed to clear a building, so I keep them down to a minimum in my games. Maybe a building or two total. Also, not every building is well protected. Some only provide concealment at best.

I agree with the two pages format. I think Age of Sigmar really hit the mark with keeping core rules down to a minimum and keeping a fun and playable rule set.

PDF link

I think my biggest beef with the game is the activation system and the vehicle combat system. Maybe the higher die type is the fix for the activation system?

The vehicle combat results rule has always bothered me. I keep going back to my main battle tank tossing a round at a light APC and only knocking off its machine gun. That happens A LOT. The LDT FUBAR set tries to fix this through adding a modifier for each successful die beyond the first for the damage table. I also like his fix giving units two different FP numbers: one for what amounts to basically troops and vehicles.

I think these three fixes will go a long ways to moving the system forward.

I do agree with a D10. When we've used it, that worked far better for us.

Adding a cumulative bonus to vehicle damage is a good idea as well.
I'd make it simple by just making it +1 per previous damage.
I did sort of feel that it was intended to just be an infantry game but I could be wrong.

Maybe we can use different dice depending on troop quality, the way Force on Force does.

I've used it with my Grav Armor rules (FUBAR mod.) for several playtests, and it worked quite well, I thought.

For larger, company level games, activate by platoons, instead of individual vehicles or squads of troops.

Are we sure FUBAR rules haven't "taken off" it appears a lot of people are using them?
Anyway I think they are a good set of rules with lots of room for personalising.
Suits my VSF needs perfectly.
Re: activation I've had complaints about them in other rules too i.e. Song of Series, Fat Lardies card/dice systems so not sure this is something applicable to just FUBAR yet everyone bangs on about it.
One thing I am about to test with a VSP PULP scenario I've created concerning activation is each unit gets one action a turn but passing its activation test gives it a second one, solves the 'can't do anything' complaint and rewards better units as they have the chance to do twice as much.
Have lots of my personal adaptations on my blog…

Different name. FUBAR doesn't exactly inspire confidence!

@Weasel

It is an infantry based game. However the armor fighting vehicle rules don't have the right feeling to me. I'm not looking at this from a "rivet counter's" prospective. It's that most of the time I don't feel like it gives a reasonable result.

For example, in many of the games I've played using the 4th Edition rules I wind up with this as a fairly usual result:

Big mech with equally big gun aims at a poor APC and tosses an big shell at it. The round hits and most/many armor saves fail. I go to the result table and roll. It's a head on shot so I have to take the best result from a 2d6 die toss. I knock off the thing's coax machine gun… yeah…

Odds are in the real world I have a dead APC, and I would know! However the FUBAR rules, as they stand, give results like that more often than not. It's really difficult to kill vehicles in the game and that just doesn't feel right to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love FUBAR. But it feels like it's missing stuff and the right tweaks could make it a world beater. That's why I ask what is keeping this game from REALLY taking off.

Tgunner – Yeah, the damage table I think is the main culprit.

Someone I talked to said they had done something like rate certain weapons as "tank killers" and they roll twice, picking the better roll for damage.

I like the fix this guy put in:

When attacked, a vehicle rolls on the following table for
each unsaved hit. Add +1 to the roll for each unsaved hit
after the first, per volley of received fire. If hit on the
front: take the best of two dice. If the vehicle is hit on
the side: roll 1 die. If hit on the rear: take the worst of
two dice. If the same effect is rolled twice take the next
highest effect.

It make it a bit more likely that a big gun will take out a lighter vehicle outright. He also assigns two FPs for each heavy weapon: vs. Inf and vs. Armor. So a 6FP vs. Armor going against a vehicle with a 5+ save will probably get 3+ hits in which would give it say a +2 on the damage chart, probably higher. That means that a roll of 5+ will probably kill the APC. But you still have a 2 in 6 chance of knocking out a machine gun…

I do like that option a lot.

2 in 6 is probably okay within the context of a kind of stylized game.

The Grav Armor rules I came up with for FUBAR work pretty well, I think. They're two pages, or one-page, front and back.

They're listed under the 15mm Sci-Fi heading, here:

link

You have the option to use Firepower modifiers vs. armor, if a shot gets thru the active and passive defenses, when determining damage done to the vehicle(s).

On the Vehicle Sheets, there are Main Weapon Firepower values (FP).

You can compare those against the armor, if desired, and use the difference as a modifier for damage, if the shot(s) get(s) past the defensive systems to actually impact the armor.

It isn't explicitly stated, but the way it works is as follows:

FP ratings for weapons generally vary from 3 – 8, and 12 for the short-range, Urban Assault Vehicle's weapon.

For Defensive Armor, use the following armor ratings:

2+ Armor Save = Armor Level of 5 (saves 5 out of 6 times);
3+ Armor Save = Armor Level of 4 (saves 4 out of 6 times);
4+ Armor Save = Armor Level of 3 (saves 3 out of 6 times);
5+ Armor Save = Armor Level of 2 (saves 2 out of 6 times);
and
6+ Armor Save = Armor Level of 1 (saves 1 out of 6 times).

So, a FP6 weapon hitting a vehicle with an armor level of 4 adds two to the damage die roll, if it penetrates the armor.

A FP8 weapon vs. armor level 5 adds 3 to the damage die roll, if it penetrates.

For non-penetrating hits, you have the option of just ignoring those, or assuming they may still do some damage to the vehicle, as outlined below, if you choose the latter option

*** (IMPORTANT NOTE – FP values for infantry are vastly different than those for Vehicle Weapons, e.g. a FP3 for a vehicle is probably 10X – 20X more powerful than the FP3 for a hand-held laser – IMPORTANT). ***

A FP3 weapon vs. armor level 4 SUBTRACTS 1 from its damage die roll., since it can't penetrate.

A FP4 weapon vs. armor level 4 results in no modification to the damage die roll.

Take the Offensive Firepower Value (FP), and subtract the Armor Level from that (or add to it if a negative value, in order to get the Damage Modifier.

Add, or subtract that from the Damage Die Roll result to determine what occurs to the vehicle when it is hit. Values for Front, Side, and Rear may be different, depending upon the vehicle, so be sure to take that into account.

As some mentioned above, if desired, Add 1 to subsequent Damage die roll results, when hit again by the same weapon, or one more powerful than it. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply to small arms fire, or light crew support weapons.
Here's the page with numerous Sci-Fi and other FUBAR variants.

You're also free to tweak the various armor and firepower values for your vehicles, depending upon how lethal you want your game(s) to be.

I think the formula for what games need to take off is fairly well known.

1) An easy to understand high production rulebook with color pages
2). Factions or army lists so people can create "their army"
3). Product sold in convenient packaging corresponding to the army list choices
4). Organized play events and tournaments

5) A new update produced on an annual basis, with just enough rules changes to make the previous one(s) obsolete.

Actually, on a more serious note, I suspect it could just use some good battle reports with nice looking minis being used on attractive terrain, in order to get more people interested in it.

That usually works for all the other rules sets I've seen and become interested in.

Some pics from one of the several Star Wars clone Wars Fubar battles I have run.

I do not use the suppression rules. I modified the vehicle damage rules. Each unit always gets at least one action. This dramatically improves the game! There do need to be morale rules and army morale rules. I may tack my own ones from my Company Commander rules onto Fubar.

Count me completely out of the 1 or 2 page requirement for the rules. Why not have n EXCELLENT set that consists of 6 to 12? That always struck me as not seeing the forest through the trees. There were actually discussions about page format, etc. to keep them at 1 page. Never understood it.

Anyway, I have played games with 200+ figs and 30+ vehicles on the table and finished in 2.5 to 3 hours.

Thanks.

John

Looks great!

Thanks for sharing your pics.

IIRC, the one page requirement was made by the author as this was originally a fun challenge he made for himself.

Great stuff!

Where did you get all the vehicles that weren't part of the Wizard's Star Wars line?

I like two pages, front and back, or one page in a sheet protector.

They are Titanium, Action Fleet, Diecast and like you said WOTC.

I've been using the FUBAR VSF rules (with a couple of moifications) for years now…

Lots of stuff on my Blog about my rule additions…
link

Over the years I've had some gripes about unit activation rolls but if you just increase the chance by lowering the activation number most activate and those that don't can hit the dirt or go to over watch anyway. Players should realise there's such a thing as command control not every soldier is going to do what their officer wants every turn :-)

Thinking about giving the FUBAR WW II a whirl some time next year!

Cheers

What scale do you guys use for FUBAR? I usually use 1/72 scale.

I've experimented with FUBAR before. But decided yesterday to use it for my up coming WW2 project and modern Africa. Working on my own basic armour rules substitution though.

Hi guys

I'm a huge fan of the FUBAR rules which I've used for several years now. That said I use an expanded version of the rules for 15mm sci-fi gaming which I developed with the assistance of some friends at my local club. The armour rules are fully fleshed out and IMHO work fine.

There are download links embedded in this my Blog page of mine: link

I've also done some gaming with the 28mm 40K FUBAR variant. That provides quite a good game as well.

Kind regards to all fellow FUBAR fans

Vulture

Thanks for posting your club's rules Vulture. Well done!