"An idea for FUBAR: Activation points or pool" Topic

Hi all,

One of the cool, and annoying, parts of FUBAR is its activation system. As it stands now players dice off to see who goes first then each side takes turns activating units. This requires the player to pick a unit and then roll a die against a target number. A success here means that the unit activates and carries out an action. Then that player picks another unit to activate and the process goes on until the active player either successfully activates all of his units or until he fails to activate a unit. At that time play switches to the other player and they continue until they activate all of their units or they fail… and so on until both players finish.

It's a neat system that adds a lot of spice to your game by tossing a goodly dose of uncertainty into the mix. But it can toss in an equal amount of frustration when lady luck raises an arbitrary hand against you. A bad series of die throws can simply cripple a player and really trash what was a really fun game.

So here's an idea that can restore some control to players but still keep the basic activation system, which is fun usually, intact. Activation points.

Here's what I'm thinking. At the start of the game each player gets a pool of activation points… say 10. Players can use these points, like might points in GW's LOTR, to influence activation rolls. This way a player has the ability to occasionally overrule the basic activation rules to keep things going for his force. It's a limited pool though and once its gone you're totally at the mercy of the activation system. Better still players can change the pool to reflect more or less capable forces. Like say a scenario with regulars vs irregulars could give more points to the regulars to reflect their better training and more aggressive attitudes.

What do you guys think?

I like it. Its better than anything our group came up with.

I do that with the use of remote drones.
They fly around the battlefield and can once per game force a re-roll.
This is a one shot deal and only works if the drones are close enough to the action to provide info that allows the re-roll.

Say you fail a save, you can use the drones one off re-roll to make that save again.
The idea being that the drone fed the target information about an incoming attack and your troops made better use of cover, hence the re-roll.

Or maybe the enemy gets a hit you did not need, the drone can interefere with the shooter and make him re-roll.

Just as you can use the drones eye in the sky to alter activation rolls as they feed better intel to the ground troops.

Etc…

Like say a scenario with regulars vs irregulars could give more points to the regulars to reflect their better training and more aggressive attitudes.

I am confused by that though.
You don't need dice pools to make regular better than irregular, with the rules as they stand they already are better…?

I like that idea.
I'll suggest it to my gaming buddies.
Thanks
Joe

Oh for those who don't know what might points are here's how it works. To use the points you roll the activation dice and then add any points you need to the die's total.

For example, it's my turn to activate units and I have a seasoned machine gun team that I REALLY need to activate this turn. So I pick up my die and I roll it needing a 4+ to activate that team and I roll a… 2. Normally that means that team goes "On Guard" and can't move at all. They can still shoot at a target that moves across their field of fire (a sort of overwatch mode). A bad series of luck could literally keep this unit locked in place all game and I REALLY need to move these guys up! So I spend two activation points and now this unit can now activate… but now I only have 8 points left to use.

So like I said, these points give players SOME ability to overrule the basic activation mechanic but it doesn't break the system… after all this game is called FUBAR for a reason!

I am confused by that though.
You don't need dice pools to make regular better than irregular, with the rules as they stand they already are better…?

What I mean is that it's another way. For example lets say I have seasoned and well trained troops going up against a seasoned but not as aggressive or well lead troops. I could fine tune the game more by giving the first force more activation points for their pool. That makes the first force more able to maneuver effectively while the other side is more befuddled by the activation system.

It allows you to do more fine tuning with your forces.

Neat idea. The only thing I really don't like about FUBAR is the whole suppression / kill thing whereby a player chooses to take hits as casulaties or suppression, it just doesn't sound right to me. Has anyone come up with a better system? (I'm a WWII gamer)

Well, I'm a big time fan and playtester of Fubar.
Tgunner, I still don't get the add more AP's for one group of Seasoned. Why not just downgrade their opponents instead?
The basic dice pool idea is ok. It needs some playtesting to see how it impacts the game though.

Steve, we ignore Suppressions. We only do kills. I also don't believe Fubar is a good fit for WWII gaming. It can be used. That doesn't mean it is a BEST choice.

Thanks,

John

"The only thing I really don't like about FUBAR is the whole suppression / kill thing whereby a player chooses to take hits as casulaties or suppression, it just doesn't sound right to me".

I can see an argument for the rule, e.g. a unit of troops that is advancing in the open is receiving incoming fire. They have the option to try to press on, but know they will take casualties if they continue to do so, or they can hit the dirt, to avoid them (thereby becoming suppressed).

I find that for larger games though, it does slow the process down, so for those, I count all hits as kills (suppressions and kills, alike).

Normally that means that team goes "On Guard" and can't move at all. They can still shoot at a target that moves across their field of fire (a sort of overwatch mode).

@Tgunner,

How do you play the "overwatch" rule? Whether your activation points model unbalances the game would depend on how you apply fields of fire and the triggering of opportunity fire.

. Why not just downgrade their opponents instead?

Like I said, it's a way to fine tune a force. Besides downgrading a seasoned unit takes them to green and there is a huge difference between seasoned and green. But giving a seasoned force a few more activation points than its foes gives that unit a bit of an edge over its foes without making them hugely different.

How do you play the "overwatch" rule?

There isn't one, is there? "On Guard" isn't really overwatch. It's just an alternate "stance" that a unit takes if it can't activate. Instead it gets to shoot at an enemy unit that moves in the "On Guard" unit's field of fire. That's how I read it anyway. If that's the case then I really don't see the impact.

Don't like the idea of a "Go to Pool" at all. One of FUBAR's key characteristics is the "Activation System". So by adding a surefire way to activate a unit you are pretty much reverting to a bland I-GO U-GO.

Might as well play another set of rules, with a different way to inject uncertainty into the mix say for example based on card draw, if you are unhappy about Lady Luck's influence on dice rolls ..

Might as well play another set of rules, with a different way to inject uncertainty into the mix say for example based on card draw, if you are unhappy about Lady Luck's influence on dice rolls ..

Each to their own. I like the overall game but sometimes the activation rule is a bit too abitrary. Activation points allow the players to influence activations and its a limited ability too.

I like it with one exception. I don't like modifying the die rolls after they've been thrown. I like it better as an upfront gamble- I really need this unit to activate, so I'm burning 2 pool points to hedge the bet before the toss.

I like that Jeff. I'm going to try that out too.

The "upfront" AP spending is an excellent idea.
And instead of giving each player X number of AP's, have them roll 2D6 to find out how many they get. And if you have a referee handy, they can keep their results hidden from each other…. ;-)

Pool of die roll modifiers to be spent before rolling – sounds like this could be used for lots of games.

Use in tandem with "1 is always a failure" or something similar, so no one ever has a complete lock on a roll.

Good idea!

I've never enjoyed completely random activation systems.

As others have mentioned, completely random activation can cripple one side thus handing the game to the other side. What's the point in playing a game if chance, rather than player decisions, can drive the result to such a large degree?

This appears to be a nice balance between chance and risk management which is how gaming should be imo: you don't have complete certainty and take calculated risks to achieve your objectives. Some decisions are risky, others conservative. In either case the player decides how much risk to take.

There isn't one, is there? "On Guard" isn't really overwatch. It's just an alternate "stance" that a unit takes if it can't activate. Instead it gets to shoot at an enemy unit that moves in the "On Guard" unit's field of fire. That's how I read it anyway. If that's the case then I really don't see the impact.

You introduced the terms overwatch and stance into this thread. The rules only state a unit goes "On Guard." The impact is different with each player's interpretation of such terms as "field of fire", "line of sight" and even "movement." Designers of the game have used the term overwatch in explaining "On Guard" on their Yahoo forum. Also I understand that individual figures do not have facing.

I imagine that some play that a "field of fire" is 360 degrees around the unit. Some likely have an arbitrary 180 degree or 45 degree direction most of the figures seem to be oriented towards for a "field of fire."

Collectively, a liberal interpretation of the "On Guard" rules mixed with the activation point house rule would likely break the game. Introducing the house rules into a stricter interpretation of "On Guard" would likely not unbalance the game. I like the house rule, but I have never gotten a sense of how people play "On Guard," a core mechanic in FUBAR.

I seem to recall some question around "On Guard" as to when it really ends. The rules don't really state that it goes away at the end of a turn. They just say you are limited to one shot per turn.

Personally I like randomness in turn sequences but I prefer good tactics to win out over gamey ones. Waiting until you win the initiative to assault a defenseless unit falls into the second category.

I think opportunity fire should always be a POSSIBILITY with modern weapons.

Does the 'Duck & Weave' order 'go away' at the end of a turn or are all units considered as acting according to their last action until it is activated again?

I had another thought about this last night. It came to me in a dream… 8D

How about this: Activation points are spent BEFORE you activate a unit. Before you roll any dice you decide how many points you want to spend. Then you pick up one basic die for the unit and one additional die for each point you spent. If any of the dice suceed then the unit activates otherwise the unit goes into "On Guard" mode as usual.

That allows the points to help you activate units BUT it keeps the regular activaction process more intact AND keeps the die roll WYSIWYG.

I had another thought about this last night. It came to me in a dream… 8D

How about this: Activation points are spent BEFORE you activate a unit. Before you roll any dice you decide how many points you want to spend. Then you pick up one basic die for the unit and one additional die for each point you spent. If any of the dice suceed then the unit activates otherwise the unit goes into "On Guard" mode as usual.

You mean like this?

I like it with one exception. I don't like modifying the die rolls after they've been thrown. I like it better as an upfront gamble- I really need this unit to activate, so I'm burning 2 pool points to hedge the bet before the toss.

:P

Does the 'Duck & Weave' order 'go away' at the end of a turn or are all units considered as acting according to their last action until it is activated again?

Ah this has caused debate on the FUBAR forum.
I play it so that ALL orders cease to have effect at the end of the turn.

The main reason is that 'on guard' if allowed to continue into the next turn can result in a unit that is on guard reacting to an enemy that wins the initiative by shooting first.
Then when the unit that reacted, as it was still on guard from the previous turn does actually activate, it can do aimed fire and ends up firing twice per turn and one of those fires is at +1.
This seems a tad too powerful in a small game, having a unit firing twice in one turn, one bout of fire being before the player that won the initiatve and the second bout being at +1.

Things like 'assault' orders make no sense if the order carries over.
Turn one it does the assault order and begins melee, then the next turn it does the assault order again?

These examples and a few others make me feel the rules are meant to be played so that orders 'go away' at the end of the turn.

Plus having each unit keeping its orders means a lot more book keeping.

You mean like this?

Sort of except these are't points that you add to a die roll. Each point is a die that you roll in addition the one you would normally roll. Say I activate a team and normally I roll a single die to activate it. But I REALLY need this unit to move so I spend two points from my pool. So now I roll THREE dice to activate the unit. If any of the three dice suceed then the unit activates. If all three fail… well, them's the breaks.

Some interesting thoughts. For the record, I'm the one who posted up the Traveller version on the FoW forum :o)

The differing Tech levels of units in Traveller allows us to incorporate players gaining 'Superior Advantages' or SAs for short. These are 'consumable-expendables' generated each turn, which at the moment, are played out as Dice Re-Rolls. That works because its speedy, but I could see an SA being 'cashed-in' to provide a bonus D6 as well. Then, as we do with Leaders and Player Characters, if they are attached with the unit they add an additional D6 to the Activation attempt – so it's two chances rather than one to score the necessary number. An SA could be used exactly the same way. You could even commit both the Leader/PC and spend an SA to add the bonus D6s to the inherent single D6 attempt. It increases the chances of success but at a cost, and only for that one crucial unit.

As an aside – regarding 'On Guard' – we only allow Veteran units or better to do that, if they fail their Activiation. Seasoned and green troops 'Go To Ground' instead.

So now I roll THREE dice to activate the unit. If any of the three dice suceed then the unit activates. If all three fail… well, them's the breaks.

aaaaaaah I see.
I failed to read what you said and read what I thought you said.
My bad.

"The main reason is that 'on guard' if allowed to continue into the next turn can result in a unit that is on guard reacting to an enemy that wins the initiative by shooting first. Then when the unit that reacted, as it was still on guard from the previous turn does actually activate, it can do aimed fire and ends up firing twice per turn and one of those fires is at +1".

I can see it both ways, e.g. all orders ending at the end of a turn, but I'd be fine with "On Guard" units carrying over into the next turn as well, if desired. If it does though, it forfeits any other actions.

Once it fires, it is done for the turn, e.g. can't shoot twice per turn.

I don't recall a +1 either, for being "On Guard", but maybe someone floated that idea, somewhere along the line.

I think the +1 would be better only offered for a unit that goes on a dedicated "Overwatch" order, instead of just failing an activation roll, so thereby going "On Guard" by default.

Another possibility to consider with "On Guard" is to have the unit again roll their "skill check/activation" while "On Guard" if wanting to fire at an enemy unit that has moved into sight, and only permitting it to do so, if it passes the die roll. Presumably, it could be caught flat-footed, and not be ready to fire, or be otherwise distracted in some manner.

The +1 is from the aimed fire order for that turn.
The firing first is because their on guard from last turn carries over and they react.

I can see it both ways, e.g. all orders ending at the end of a turn, but I'd be fine with "On Guard" units carrying over into the next turn as well, if desired. If it does though, it forfeits any other actions

Another possibility to consider with "On Guard" is to have the unit again roll their "skill check/activation" while "On Guard" if wanting to fire at an enemy unit that has moved into sight, and only permitting it to do so, if it passes the die roll. Presumably, it could be caught flat-footed, and not be ready to fire, or be otherwise distracted in some manner.

I would be much happier with either of those.

I think I might try Tgunners last variant suggestion of the points buying extra activation dice if I can talk my son into a game this weekend. I think the tricky part will be working out how many point are available to each side for that purpose. I have a gut feeling that the original proposal of 10 is too high.

I almost think this needs to be rolled into a Unit Attribute, something like "Commander".

Commander (#): The commander may assign up to (#) bonus activation dice to any unit(s) that activate after him.

I think that makes for some interesting resource management issues. Do you activate the commander first on your initiative or let the turn develop a bit first?

It complicates things a little, you would maybe need to place the extra dice next to the units they are assigned to in order to remember where those bonus dice were spent. Or the commander's bonus dice could just go into a pool to be spent ad hoc.

Me too Jeff. I'm leaning toward 5 now myself. That seem's like enough.

Some really interesting points here. I may have to give FUBAR another outing. Has anyone come up with a more WWII orientated version of these rules? The original 1 page version is a little vague especially on AFV's.

Getting back to unit orders ending at the end of a turn, what about the 'Gone to Ground' order. Surely that order at least should carry over? It would be strange to have a unit stand up to be shot at just because the turn is over?

I've just assumed these orders carry over until the unit's NEXT ACTIVATION. That way, with Gone to Ground as an example, you retain the benefit unit you roll to activate them again, so you could just "Go to Ground" again.

I guess that does still present the weird possibility that unit fails its activation and then suddenly pops up "On Guard".

I've argued the "on guard carryover forfeits action for this turn" before because I think it provides a good way of eliminating the turn sequence gamey tricks but also forces the commander to make a tough choice about what to do with that unit. But the difference is I like them to decide to remove it or keep it on at the beginning of the turn. That's because movement from a defensive position requires more time/effort/planning than when you are already moving and/or acting aggressively. So you get the benefit but you also have to accept that you won't do anything else this turn with that unit.

But that allows the defender to put everyone on guard and just sit there waiting for me???

Sure it does and unless your only exposure to tactics is the charge straight ahead and hope to roll well, you should be in a good spot to exploit that. Pin in some areas with weak forces and create a breakthrough in a single area that you can exploit knowing your opponent can't really do much with all those on guard forces until they get new orders.

That feels realistic to me from an attack planning standpoint. It also provides some incentive to defenders to hold units back as a reserve and not put everyone in the front lines and on guard. Again, more like the thought process of a real life commander.

Or you could play it where on guard goes away at the end of the turn and hope you roll higher so you can move into assault before he gets a chance to fire at you.

I think that's a fair way of doing things Cincinnatus and seems to make more sense!

I'm going to have to set a table up later tonight and run thru some turns. There's some good ideas here to consider and playtest, and I'm always after extra enhancements and potential improvements to these rules, as they are fun to use. If I want to get into a game more complex/accurate/distinctive on equipment variation, then I either ue TW or SG2. But FUBAR is great for stringing seveeral skirmishes together in a long game session for a mini campaign.

No reason to limit FUBAR to skirmish-ish games. We play with a lot more forces on the table than the normal FUBAR game and just treat all suppression/kill as a kill. It removes some of the details but when you are playing with more forces, you don't want that level of detail. You want to concentrate more on the big picture. I'm guessing we typically have 10-20 units/vehicles per side on the table (15mm).

Yeah, Cincinnatus has it right. One of our last games had 10-12 vehicles per side and 100-150 figs per side.

I like the Tech levels Knockman introduced although have yet to try it out.

There are some interesting thoughts both here and at the Yahoo group which I'd love to try. However, I have been reediting and cleaning up my own rules which are designed for large Company level scifi games.

Thanks,

John

I play solo so the question of applying suppression / kills is done randomly dependent upon the units Suppress score.. So a Seasoned unit (Suppress score 2) for example would convert a 'hit' to a suppression with a further roll of 1 or 2. A Veteran unit (Suppress score 3) would convert hits to suppressions with rolls of 1,2,3 etc.. These are applied up to the units maximum suppression limit and any further hits are applied as 'kills'.