FUBAR – one page SF/Modern rules

87 Responses

Craig, on April 28, 2020 at 07:12 said:

Hi Bruce, back in the day most people made their own.There is an active Facebook page if you would like to ask there: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1972111873002373
Cheers,
Craig
Bruce, on April 28, 2020 at 02:55 said:

Do unit cards already exist somewhere for FUBAR?
Sebastian Hermann, on February 2, 2018 at 17:52 said:

Good evening,

thanks a lot lot for the Fubar 4 rules. I play them with my brother and the game run very nice. But he field the A-Team, a 4 man elite group.
Is it possible to shoot such a group out of game, or is a charge (close combat) the only opportunity? And second : Is there a german version of this rules?

Thanks again,

Sebastian Hermann
Gabriele, on January 16, 2018 at 16:46 said:

When one miniature is suppressed instead of dead if take a hit?
Wargame Roadmap | dicehaven.com, on October 4, 2017 at 16:55 said:

[…] — Rules here, with reviews […]
Craig, on December 9, 2016 at 12:23 said:

There is always a possibility 🙂
Micah Cantrell, on December 8, 2016 at 22:59 said:

Hey, Not sure if this might interest you. I have played with your Fubar Rules and like them a lot. In playing them I noticed that your last name is Cartmell, My mothers maiden name is Cartmell. Was wondering if there is a possiblity that we are related.
Black Gate » Articles » Two Months Until Xmas! Alternatives to Halo Mega Bloks you need to test right now DONE, on October 6, 2016 at 16:46 said:

[…] can buy the classic tabletop rule sets such as Laserburn, or go for the simple but effective free FUBAR SciFi rules… actually, these last should be a good place to start for just trying out the concept. You […]
negronik, on June 2, 2015 at 02:05 said:

Reblogged this on pinceles y bolters.
Erik, on May 21, 2015 at 02:25 said:

Roby-
Grenades are just another firing option for your models. You indicate your target and you attack them just like if you were shooting with an assault rifle, just at a shorter range.

Love the game guys! Would love to see some TLC on the site though.
Roby, on January 8, 2015 at 21:10 said:

Hi, i can’t understand how granades work in Fubar.
Roby
Johnk944, on July 23, 2014 at 15:21 said:

Its really a great and useful piece of information. Im glad that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thanks for sharing. ggdgekebckaa
“He looks like the character on a jar of Camp coffee.” | The Collect Call of the Cthulhu, on May 12, 2014 at 07:05 said:

[…] It’s a wonderful game, and I ripped it apart and took what I wanted. The other inspiration is FUBAR, in terms of brevity and getting a game down in the smallest possible space, whilst not cheating […]
Aspatega El Sonsu, on April 19, 2014 at 09:46 said:

Hi, yes, it’s the 4th edition.
Craig, on April 18, 2014 at 08:05 said:

Thank you for your hard work 🙂
We do have a translation of FUBAR into Spanish:

Click to access fubar-in-spanish.pdf

Is your translation for the latest edition of the rules?
Aspatega El Sonsu, on April 17, 2014 at 12:49 said:

Hi, great work with this rules!
I translate it, because i’m spanish XD…
in this link …
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DiLr7lkI3mrEr28BhWnFDO46CpmvrNx5lIFblj_nTR0/edit

Cheers.
Joaquim.
Craig, on March 28, 2014 at 19:24 said:

Hi Ivan,
You are welcome to put FUBAR on your page 🙂
Cheers,
Craig
ivan velilla, on March 28, 2014 at 07:21 said:

Good morning, my name is Ivan Velilla, from Vepafigures.com, we were making a game for our miniatures, but I finded FUBAR¡¡¡¡¡¡ its incredible, I like a lot, and we will like to add a post to download it in our webpage, making reference to your webpage.
Also we will like some troop cards like clone wars i see
best regards
Craig, on December 16, 2013 at 20:30 said:

Hi Liam,

We had to disable registration for a while after a spam-tsunami. We’ll try and get it back up later this week.

Cheers,
Craig.
Liam, on December 16, 2013 at 03:15 said:

I’d like to get on the FoW forum but can figure out how to sign up.
Craig, on September 28, 2013 at 12:27 said:

I am glad you enjoyed using the rules. They were written some time ago and no-one added any scenario or campaign rules, sorry.
roby, on September 28, 2013 at 11:34 said:

Hi, we had our first try at FUBAR WWII and we had a loto of fun!!!
This is the link:

http://manipolodieroi.blogspot.it/2013/09/si-riparte-con-fubar.html

Where coulkd I find some scenarios and/or campaigns?
Thanks

Roby
Aliens vs. Scourge AAR « Sigue jugando, on December 11, 2012 at 10:39 said:

[…] location for the base is very weak in case of an assault, but my friend Tas and I were testing the FUBAR rules and my recently painted minis, so it looked perfect for the […]
Craig, on September 30, 2012 at 06:23 said:

Hi Tony,
Thanks for pointing out that glitch :). The link is now working.
Cheers,
Craig
Tony, on September 30, 2012 at 04:54 said:

Looks like there’s no link for the SWTWC Unit Cards.pdf…
Burning Jedis – a Star Wars game | NDC Wargames, on September 1, 2012 at 01:06 said:

[…] night we played another Star Wars game, but this time using the FUBAR rules that had been recommended to me by John Leahy on TMP. A scenario was written up, and I just […]
Craig, on August 24, 2012 at 14:53 said:

@ Gryffen,

We don’t really have a satisfactory points system for FUBAR yet. This will be one of the goals of Ultra-FUBAR.

Cheers,
Craig.
Bill s., on August 18, 2012 at 06:27 said:

Not able to find what I am looking for and would love some help. I was looking at the points calculator and was wondering if there is a file that shows what a green recruit points would be? How many points is the assault rifle? That sort of thing. I’m not looking for these SPECIFIC points but the points in general.
Thanks all,
Gryffen (aka Bill S.)
A rambling about rules | Blambi's Little Workshop, on July 31, 2012 at 03:15 said:

[…] sci-fi I tested both FUBAR and USE ME Sci-fi, and read/skimmed trough some […]
Adrian, on July 31, 2012 at 03:04 said:

Hello!

Three questions:

1. In the rules it states – ‘A figure cannot be made both suppressed and a casualty from the same bout of received fire’.

What does ‘same bout’ mean? Fire from a single activated unit?

If so, am I reading this right that an elite 4 man section cannot obtain casualties from single activated attack no matter how much firepower is pumped into it?

2. I am planning to run a game that involves capturing (specific) figures as objectives, how do you work this within the mechanics of the game?

3. The above questions relate to running a future SG1 game. As with the example scenarios above, there will be characters.
How should I run these, as individual units, in single unit (SG-1), or attach them to other units? In each case, how have you worked the use of characters in FUBAR games?
(I’d like the capturing of characters as part of the scenario, but it doesn’t explain how this was represented in the system, hence question #2.)

Thank you!!
Craig, on July 23, 2012 at 21:06 said:

Hi Mostro,
Sorry for the delay in replying. I am hurtling towards a deadline with my publisher (that does sound grand doesn’t it?) and am not on here half as often as I’d like.
With all those ideas have you thought of joining the Forge of War Forum (link on homepage)? There’s a really great bunch of gamers on there, some of whom wrote what you are commenting on.
Cheers,
Craig.
Mostro Joe, on July 10, 2012 at 10:38 said:

When the basic rules talk about splitting fire, it is not clear if the split is done after the total dices are counted, or if the splitting is made on a miniature-per-miniature basis. To be clearer: a unit with 4 miniatures, 3 armed with infantry rifles (1FP each) and one armed with a submachine gun (3FP) wants to split its fire. The total dice count is 1+1+1+3=6. They can split the fire making, say, 2 dices on three different targets or the rules intend to specify that every miniature can fire to a single target of its choice? If the answer “yes” is for the latter statement it means that (suppose) 2 miniatures with rifles could fire to a target for a total of 2FP, the last miniature with rifle to a second target (for 1FP) and the submachine gunner could fire his 3 FP to another target again. So the splitting fire is done taking in consideration the single miniatures (and their relative targets) or we make the sum of the total FP dices and then we assign them as we see fit?
Do you think that a +1 splitting fire penalty would be nice if the targets chosen are too much (say more than two)?
Mostro Joe, on July 10, 2012 at 10:27 said:

Some other thoughs (today I am too prolific, sorry). In the 6mm rules expansion I would get rid of references to grenades, they are too little to be cared of in a game of such a scale, if not when it’s time to assault and close combat enemies. Also, it would be interesting to give some weapons/equipment chart to give a “brewing” system for creating units instead than making exemples with WH40K type units that can seem arbitrary and confusing. For an exemple it can be told that assault rifles can give units the following FP dices: 4/3/2/0 meaning 4FP to short ranges, 3 to medium, 2 to long and 0 to very long.
I would even better clarify what is a unit and what is an elent that makes a unit. A unit is a set of 1-4 vehicle models (ok that seems fairly clear) but what about the infantry bases? They are squads? platoons? Judging by the way rules are written it seems they are squads, but it would be useful to specify it. Also, it is not clear if these squads/bases are all equally equipped. It is not very realistic to think about 4 squads/bases of the same platoon/uit equally equipped so it can be told what degree of flexibility these bases have. One command base and the other assault bases for an xemple. Or 2 assault bases and 2 support bases (try to think about a USMC squad organization for an exemple).
Mostro Joe, on July 10, 2012 at 10:08 said:

Imperial Commander has some really good ideas. It would be interesting to see some advancement ruleset for FUBAR. Like FUBAR – The campaign system or something like that. Just a little one page ruleset to permit players link in a campaign their FUBAR plays. They could add skills to their units (or to their squad leaders) that survived the last encounter and check to see if removed casualties are really dead or were just heavily wounded. In a sci-fi scenario this could even open ground to some sort of bonu thanks to cyber-limbs that replaced the too heavily wounded ones and such 🙂
Mostro Joe, on July 10, 2012 at 10:02 said:

The problem for cover can be easily solved making the cover bonus not a difficulty for the firer but an increasingly good bonus for the defender. For an exemple, an elite unit firing to a modern carapace-wearing target behind a stone wall will still hit with 4+, but the defender is going to save its potential casualties with 3+ and not with 5+ as it would if on open ground. This solution would mesh nicely with the existing rules for the actions “duck & wave” and “gone to ground”.
“I felt so Australian I almost became venomous.” | The Collect Call of the Cthulhu, on June 2, 2012 at 08:31 said:

[…] when trawling 15mm sci-fi sites, I found one interesting offering, entirely for free. It’s called FUBAR, and the most fascinating part of it for me is that the entire games fits comfortably on a single […]
Craig, on May 31, 2012 at 19:42 said:

Hi Adrian,

You’re welcome 🙂

The second scenario had to be quickly written after we ended up leaving Daniel behind in the first scenario. It’s also when the ‘immortal SG-1’ rule came into play.

In the end we had a blast with the Lucian Alliance leader getting away with Daniel at the last second whilst under fire from Ti’elc.

It was very cinematic, which was the effect I was going for. Luckily one of my mates (Trenton) had made a stargate and had several ja’far figures. Not that we’re fanboys or anything….

If there is any other help you need in preparing for the con please let us know. The guys on the forum will bend over backwards to help people.

Cheers,
Craig.
Adrian, on May 31, 2012 at 18:28 said:

Thank you sir! That is exactly what I needed. Can’t wait to try these out with my 15mm not-stargate figures. 🙂
Craig, on May 31, 2012 at 06:35 said:

Hi Adrian,

The two scenarios have been uploaded and I’ve noticed that the first includes Medieval Humans 🙂

let us know how it goes, and please ask more questions if you need to.

Cheers,
Craig.
Craig, on May 31, 2012 at 06:28 said:

Hi Adrian,

Righty-ho, let’s get you some answers:
1. There is no reason you couldn’t take units from FUBAR Medieval and mix them into your Stargate game. They’re based on the same core rules.
2. SG-1 are detailed in some scenarios I ran a while back. I’ll upload the scenario sheets above in the Stargate section of the FUBAR page.
3. In our games using the classic SG-1 we rules that if an SG-1 member was ‘killed’ they were actually wounded or knocked-out. This allowed them to be captured, which led to new games to rescue them.
4. If an Elite unit has taken 4 suppressions instead of casualties they’re all down. However, any subsequent hit will kill one. Elites are tough but not invulnerable. Why do you think the System Lords learnt that they needed to send hundreds of men to kill or capture SG-1?
5. Our main forum is at; http://www.forgeofwar.uk.com/forum/
There is also a Yahoo group: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/forgeofwar/
6. The Dead Simple RPG rules, especially Blaster or SG1895 may have ideas you can use for roleplaing elements.

Cheers,
Craig.
Adrian, on May 30, 2012 at 23:37 said:

FUBAR Stargate: mixing modern/sci-fi units with ancient/medieval units also on the table?

Any suggestions?
Adrian, on May 30, 2012 at 23:35 said:

Hello, I am looking at running a FUBAR Stargate game at a con, but I’d like for there to be ‘hero’ characters, i.e. SG1.

Do you think it’s feasible to run them in such a way that they can never be killed, just suppressed, or would that make for an unfair, and not so fun game for the Jaffar players?

I intend to add some roleplaying elements using the expertise roll… or do you or anyone else here have suggestions for scenarios with role playing elements using your system?

Also, a related question, if I am running elite units of only four men, it states elites may take up to 4 suppression hits, does that mean they can never be killed? I suppose the same question can be applied to units reduced to the number of suppression hits they are allowed to take?

Lastly, is there a forum for your rules somewhere?

Thanks!
Roby, on May 27, 2012 at 12:16 said:

Ah!!! Ok!!!
Now it’s clear!!! Thanks!!!
Roby

http://manipolodieroi.blogspot.it/
Craig, on May 27, 2012 at 12:10 said:

Hi Roby,
This is tactical decision that is up to you. You can remove figures instead of suppressing them or a mix of the two.
Often if you are defending a position having a couple of suppressed guys is no great problem. But if you’re trying to quickly advance to contact or an objective, it can be better to just lose the guys altogether and not get stuck in the open.
If you already have the maximum number of suppressions allowed for your unit then every new unsaved hit will be a casualty.
As you can see this game faces you you command and control issues with every action 🙂

Cheers,
Craig.
Roby, on May 27, 2012 at 11:55 said:

Thanks,
does it mean that in Firing, if my Unit is Seasoned, after 2 Suppressions I must eliminate 1 figure?
Roby
Craig, on May 27, 2012 at 10:43 said:

Hi Roby,

The key words you are looking for is ‘casualty’ or ‘casualties’. A casualty being a dead or eliminated figure. These rules allow you to temporarily disable a figure through suppression, or lose it altogether through casualties.

Once you have the hang of that the games run really smoothly.

Firing:
Unsaved hits against a Unit must be taken as casualties, suppressed figures, or a combination of both to the allowable limits the Unit can support.

Close Combat:
All hits not saved by personal armour result in casualties. Cover has no effect.
Units may only take casualties, not Suppression.

Let me know if you have other questions.

Cheers,
Craig
Roby, on May 26, 2012 at 21:27 said:

Hi,
I have just read the rules.
I didn’t understand when a figure is eliminated.
Thanks
Roby
John, on April 17, 2012 at 20:43 said:

Just wanted to throw in my two cents and say that this is a fun set of rules and I was able to modify one rule that wasn’t working for me (suppression) without breaking the rest of them.

My modification is for playing very small skirmishes (1-5 figures per side), where a Unit is just one character figure each. I found that suppression as written doesn’t really work for this scenario.

My solution for characters/single figure units in FUBAR:

If hit, roll a “save” against the suppress value : <= Suppress value and the figure is suppressed. Otherwise, figure is a casualty. Add penalties or subtract bonuses to the roll as required by armor, cover, special skills, etc.

To handle the unit penalty on activation, I suggest that, rather than automatically coming out of suppression, the individual character has to roll for activation with the -1 penalty in order to no longer be suppressed. Thus a Green character may never be able to rejoin the fight unless you roll a 6. Or, for a different effect, any Unit (solo, squad or vehicle) within 3" of the figure takes the -1 activation roll penalty as if they were in the same Unit (in game terms).

-John
World war 2 on a budget « Solo un mondo di carta, on April 8, 2012 at 21:22 said:

[…] Il primo sistema che ho sperimentato è stato Fubar. […]
Trevor Dow, on March 21, 2012 at 01:21 said:

Sorry but I recently introduced these rules to my group and it wasn’t long before the arguments started regarding interpretation .

We cannot at all fathom how fire combat determines who are casualties and who is suppressed.

Regards TD
Craig, on January 19, 2012 at 09:17 said:

Thanks for the feedback Joe. I’ll take it into the development group for more discussion.

What would you suggest instead? If we use what you suggest you will get a credit in the next edition.
Mostro Joe, on January 13, 2012 at 21:20 said:

I’m absolutely with PaskudnyOrk, the cover as managed in FUBAR is a true bug of the rules.

I think that the bonus of the cover should just be added to the armor save. So a unit in a bunker will get casualties with a lot of difficulty but a veteran unit is still better than a green one to shoot at.

ALso, I would clarify in the rules if target can be a single figure or simply an enemy unit. Sometimes the wording can be confusing.

The cover management is anyway the worst problem of the game until now.
Battletech Fubar | Miniaturas y Wargames, on January 6, 2012 at 01:49 said:

[…] de Palma de Mallorca nos ha dejado una de sus ultimas creaciones, una adaptación del reglamento FUBAR para jugar con mech. Este mod lo ha llamado Battletech FUBAR, y nos lo ofrece para su descarga […]
lex, on December 26, 2011 at 16:30 said:

Fine rules… but suppression?
A suppressed figure can not fire, but no figure of the attacked (passive player) side can fire (except if on guard) and at the start of the turn of the passive player he losses the suppression.
So what is the effect of suppression? deduction for testing activation: ok; no firing only effects on guard units – is this a correct “interpretation”? thanks
Craig, on December 19, 2011 at 08:48 said:

Hi Chris,
The Afghanistan supplement was written by one of our Forge of War Development Group guys Rich.
I believe that the term ‘casualty chart’ is a mechanism left over from a very early version of the FUBAR main rules. It no longer exists.
If I remember correctly it was a way of determining which casualties become KIA or recover after the battle sing a simple dice roll based on the activation attribute. But I may be wrong :), it was a long time ago.
Cheers,
Craig.
Chris, on December 18, 2011 at 23:09 said:

In your Afghan rules you refer to “the casualty chart” but I can’t find one. Can you help?
Thanks.
Craig, on October 1, 2011 at 16:21 said:

Hi Steve,

You are welcome 🙂

Cheers,
Craig.
Steve Mynes, on September 29, 2011 at 14:54 said:

Hi Craig,

Thank you and the group for your consideration! I downloaded the new PDF and also copied the author/blog info to print on the other side of the page in a larger font along with a thank you note.

Best Regards,

Steve
Age of Glory
Craig, on September 10, 2011 at 07:56 said:

Hi Steve,

OK the guys think its a great idea, so have at it. One thing though, I have added this blog’s address to the footer on the pdf version of the rules above, so if you could download and print that version please.

Cheers,
Craig.
Craig, on September 9, 2011 at 08:12 said:

Hi Steve,

I have no basic objection, but I’m putting it to the other members of the development team first and I’ll get back to you in the next few days.

Cheers,
Craig.
Steve Mynes, on September 8, 2011 at 21:17 said:

Hi Craig,

I just downloaded FUBAR for some Sci-Fi figures I purchased (a new thing for me). Looks like just the sort of fun game I’m after.

I also happen to be the US distributor for Empress and was wondering if you and the FOW group would mind if I printed out copies and tossed them in with orders for Modern figures, to help folks get started. Happy to credit as desired and include any links you would like.

Does this sound OK?

Thanks,

Steve
Age of Glory
Craig Cartmell, on August 14, 2011 at 11:00 said:

Hi Evan,

OK for the scenario proposed I think that FUBAR could serve you well. Just marching into the HMG’s across No-man’s land is, of course, suicidal, but trench raiding could be great fun.

FUBAR has proved able to cope with a dozen units a side reasonably well once people are familiar with the mechanics.

You will need to consider the weaponry you will use for the raiders. These would include a startling array of home-made trench combat weapons, not just the rifle-bayonet. Raiders would have a high proportion of guns such as pistols, sawn-off shotguns and even a few early SMG’s.

Consider carefully how you will use grenades, mines, wire, dugouts, gas, bunkers and figures that are suppressed by close range fire and then overrun in close combat…

Movement will be restricted by mud, wire entanglements, mud, broken duckboards, bodies, mud, narrow trenches, collapsed sections, mud, mines and mud.

One last thing will be visibility. Even on the surface above the trenches this could be a problem with mist rising from waterfilled shellholes, smoke from fires and artillery, gas, the night, starshells, winding trench sections with lots of corners, fogged up gasmask lenses etc.

Please let us know how this goes for you and feel free to come back here to ask more questions, or join the Forge of War Yahoo Group.

Cheers,
Craig.
Evan Moore, on August 12, 2011 at 21:57 said:

Thanks for the reply!

I was thinking more along the lines of trench raiding, or playing a mid/latewar trench assault with the more advanced tactics that were used (troops setting up at night to get really close before the attack). Also, I was planning on using them for a generic over the top scenario(s). Actually, the overall plan is to wargame Harry Turtledove’s Great War trilogy which provides a lot of different scenarios opportunities.

I think FUBAR with a few adjustments for WW1 would work really well. Do you think it can manage a large amount of figures, or should it stay to only a platoon per side?

Thanks!

Evan
Craig, on August 9, 2011 at 08:07 said:

Hi Evan,

There is no WWI supplement at the moment. However, some of the stat’s in the WW2 supplement would apply.
For example the the basic German and British Platoon organization and many of the weapons such as Infantry Rifles and Heavy Machine Guns are very similar in FUBAR terms.
Are you looking to do trench-raiding or one of the more open areas of the Great War such as 1914 Mons, Russia or even Mesopotamia?
Cheers,
Craig.
Evan, on August 9, 2011 at 07:06 said:

Can’t wait to try FUBAR out, but I was wondering if there is any sort of World War 1 supplement in the works?

Thanks!
6mm sci-fi, on June 16, 2011 at 13:44 said:

[…] https://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/fubar-one-page-sfmodern-rules/ […]
Craig, on March 5, 2011 at 18:00 said:

Hi Math,

As these are one-page rules there is a certain expectation on the players to create their own victory conditions, such as objectives etc. FUBAR really lends itself to games with a narrative or ongoing storyline and these often produce the objectives you require for a specific game.

A quick note of clarification. Remember that Suppression only lasts until the Unit’s next activation attempt – it is a temporary effect.

I hope that helped. I am always happy to answer questions here or in the Forge of War Yahoo group where these rules were devised.

Cheers,
Craig.
Math, on March 4, 2011 at 20:34 said:

Hi Craig, firstly, this is really excellent stuff. I’d just like to check about morale – it looks to me as if you keep playing until one side is supressed / shot to bits and / or objectives taken. Am I missing something? cheers
Math
Episode 41 Shownotes | Chance of Gaming Podcast, on February 6, 2011 at 16:15 said:

[…] FUBAR – one page SF/Modern rules […]
Craig, on January 20, 2011 at 22:59 said:

Over on the Forge of War Yahoo Group you will find a couple of points systems developed by the team. Along with plenty of Force Supplements, some of which have had their points worked out.
That said I think balance is highly overrated and can lead to stale and uninteresting games. As FUBAR plays very quickly it is often more fun to try out different strength forces and see what results.
atom, on January 20, 2011 at 21:35 said:

The rules really look cool, I’m a sucker for sci-fi skirmish rules. I have a question, though: How do you build armies? It mentions in the rules, “A player has one or more Units, as defined by the relevant Force Supplement.” That doesn’t seem to be further defined anywhere. Just wondering if there’s a system to build two equally matched forces or not.
Tuesday 11th January 2011 | AberdeenWargamesClub.com, on January 12, 2011 at 00:12 said:

[…] 28mm FUBAR rules: US vs Viet Cong (rules link). […]
Miniatures Projects for 2011 « Captain Apathy's Secret Lab, on January 4, 2011 at 23:08 said:

[…] (new) – Gawd ‘elp us Games – Fallout and Stargate […]
paskudnyork, on September 10, 2010 at 22:16 said:

Lets continue! A few last doubts and ideas for minor additional rules for greater variety…

‘TO HIT’ ROLLS
Modify probability of getting ‘hit’, whether in shooting or close-combat, becomes slightly confusing – we have both die roll modifiers (like +1 for ‘aimed fire’, or -1 for suppression in hand-to-hand combat) and changing units ‘expertise’ (in case of cover). Isn’t it better to use only one system?

Modify of ‘expertise’ have one good side, in my opinion; ‘expertise’ can’t get too much variety of values: 6+, 5+ 4+, that’s all! But in such way we can include in concrete setting two (or more) types of soldiers with the same ‘expertise’, and still have difference between their fighting abilities. For example, ‘veteran’ and ‘elite’ soldier both have ‘expertise’ of 4+; but when ‘veteran’ fire at target in light cover, he gets hit on 5+, while ‘elite’ still hit on 4+ (he fire like ‘veteran’ for purposes of this procedure)…

…The bad side of modify ‘expertise’ is that all FUBAR settings need to include ‘hierarchy’ of all new soldiers types, in relation to ‘generic’ soldier types (green, seasoned, veteran and elite) – we can’t just add 10 (or more) new soldiers types, they all need to became hierarchized first, from worst to the bests!

The better way seems to be throwing away ‘expertise modifiers’, leaving ‘roll modifiers’ only. Then ‘Cover’ will also function in such way (‘-1’ to ROLL instead of ‘1 up’ for soft cover, and so on). In fact, we have easier, more inuitive modifiers cumulating; at last, total of +1 for ‘aiming’ and -1 for soft cover is faster to calculate than +1 for ‘aiming’ compared with ‘1 up’ due to soft cover (now we don’t summarize two different systems of modifiers).

I strongly suggest to include to all ‘to hit expertise rolls’, both in firing and close-combat, previously described rule of upgrading target’s armour in case of ‘hit on 7+’ – ‘if you roll ‘6’ but total modifiers bring final result below ‘expertise’ value, then you still get ‘hit’, but target’s ‘armour save’ level is increased by these modifiers total (to maximum of 2+)’. Finally, in close combat we (will) have difference between ‘green’ soldier (hits on 6) and ‘suppressed green’ soldier (also hits on 6, but now his enemy get 1 level better ‘armour save’).

Thanks such way of ‘to hit modifiers’ we loose difference between ‘veteran’ and ‘elite’ soldier (‘expertise’ 4+ is modified here exactly in the same way), but we can also freely invent a lot of new soldiers types, without thinking about any ‘hierarchy’. For example, we can make lethal but fierce killer with ‘expertise’ of 4+ but pitiful ‘activation’ value of 5+ only.

SUPPRESSION
Current way of limiting number of suppressed models seems to be the fastest, but it is not ‘scalable’, and work rather with only one, concrete units abundance – unit of three ‘green’ soldiers can suppress only one soldier… But unit of thirteen ‘greens’ also can suppress only one soldier! I have three ideas to make these limits in different way…

I> maximum number of suppressed models depends of unit’s ‘activation’ value: for every FULL ‘activation’ amount of models in unit, ONE model can be suppressed. Already suppressed models are also counted, but they include in limit of suppressed models. Total number of models before removing any of them as casualties. If number of previously suppressed models exceed the limit, you can’t suppress any more models, but leave those already suppressed models in suppression state.

For example: unit of five ‘elite’ soldiers with ‘activation’ value of ‘2+’ can suppress one model per every ‘2’ models in unit – two models in these case. Unit of five ‘greens’ with ‘activation’ of ‘5+’ can suppress only one model (1 per every 5) – if one model is already suppressed, then no more models can get suppression to save their lives!

II> small modification of above idea – you don’t count already suppressed models, neither toward total number of models in unit nor toward limit of possible ‘suppressions’, just forget about them! In that way unit can have more suppressed models, if it is attacked several times a row… And all seems to be slighly easier (and faster) to calculate then previously. Try it, I find this variant the best! 🙂

For example, ‘greens’ can suppress one model per five (thanks ‘activation’ of 5+). If unit of 10 ‘green’ soldiers gets 2 hits, than it can suppress both models. Then, if the same unit gets next 2 hits before its activation, it can suppress only one model – 2 models are already suppressed, so they don’t count to number of models in unit; 8 unsuppressed models is enought for ‘greens’ to suppress maximum 1 model (note, that 2 suppressed models don’t limit suppression of next models – just don’t count them!). Finally, unit has 3 suppressed models, and 6 still unsuppressed – last model is destroyed as casualty, unable to dodge bulets (due to tiny experience!)

III> “forget abut counting models, only ‘expertise’ counts” – roll one die per every suffered, unsaved hit – every roll equal to or higher than units ‘expertise’ allows one model to become suppressed. Defects of that way – requires more series of rolls, is much randomly and it make ‘expertise’ even more important parameter in FUBAR battle (of course, we can also test ‘activation’, but then chance of success is much greater)… But it is still fastest than counting models!

Randomization can be slightly limited – alredy suppressed models also count toward number of possible suppressions; if you get total of ‘success’ dice equal to or less than actual number of already suppressed models, then you can’t suppress any more models (so, the more suppressions in unit the harder to suppress next models, and avoid death…).

NOTE!!! Regardless of used variant, you can’t suppress model and immediatelly (during the same attack) remove it as casualty! If you have choice, you can’t kill suppressed model [so be carefull – if you suppress all regular soldiers and leave the sergeant and weapon specialist, then they will be the first destroyed models in unit!].

WEAPON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Actually, most weapons vary only in aspects of range and ‘fire points’. I understand, that ‘fire points’ summarize weapon’s destruction force and rate of fire. So, light, but rapid fire has ‘fire points’ equal to powerful, but single-shot RPG. In game mechanics, number of rolled dice is number of maximum ‘hits’ (and, probably, deaths) the weapon can inflict. In such system we can’t make deadly, but really ‘single-bullet’ weapon – to make weapon stronger we need more ‘fire points’, but more fire points mean, that weapon can also kill more models! Adding key-words to weapons, we can characterized them in more details – here are examples…

‘cover penetration’ [e.g. light cannon, grenade] – treat enemy cover modifier as one level worse (up to 0)

‘cover crush’ [e.g. flamethrower, heavy cannon, sniper rifle (?)] – ignore enemy cover

‘panzer crack’ [e.g. RPG, light anti-tank gun, flamethrower] – able to harm vehicle

‘armour penetration’ [e.g. sniper rifle, RPG] – target must re-roll successfully ‘armor save’ rolls (only against hits from this weapon)

‘assault’ [e.g. grenade, sub-machine gun] – during first round of combat, unsuppressed user get one additional close combat die

‘combat’ [e.g. pistol, mace or other blade] – ‘+1’ to close combat roll in all combat rounds after first one (assault)

‘complex’ [e.g. light mortar, HMG] – need two models to move and operate them; operating models can’t use their ‘personal’ weapon

‘cumbersome’ [e.g. LMG, light mortar, HMG – again 🙂 ] – cannot fire if unit activated to ‘walk’ (even if user stationary)

‘hull mounted’ [e.g. light cannon, heavy cannon] – cannot be carried by infantry

‘indirect fire’ [e.g. granade, light mortar] – don’t need a line of sight to target to be able to shoot at it

and so on… List is not perfect, maybe to much complicated, not original [many of above is hidden in rulles] but treat it as inspiration only.
paskudnyork, on September 10, 2010 at 09:29 said:

Thanks, I’m very honored!

And last questions, before FUBAR 2.5 will be ready; it’s time for…

…CLOSE COMBAT!
With ‘assault’ action can I attack more than one enemy unit? All models MUST engage the enemy (even if the only reachable model is from another enemy unit) if they are able to do so (and attack so many models as possible), or is it voluntarily?

Can suppressed but successfully activated models perform ‘assault’? If yes, then do they get ‘-1’ to attack roll for being suppressed ‘before the attack begins’?

‘ANY unengaged figures’ within 3″ can move up… Are suppressed models ALSO able to make such contr-assault?

‘Both sides simultaneously roll one dice per FIGURE and…’ – I understand, that per figure that is ‘in base contact with enemy figure (locked in ‘close combat’)’, not per every model in unit, right?

How to alocate casualties – only to models in contact with the enemy models can be destroyed (what with redundant casualties), or any models from fighting unit (even those standing farther away)? Who must select all his casualties first – player ‘with turn’ or the enemy?

And multiple combat… If my second unit make assault into existing combat, then how to resolve those combat – ALL engaged models from ALL engaged in that combat units roll again, or only those models that are LOCKED in combat with the unit that make last assault (so assaulting unit and its target, nobody else), or only the ASSAULTING models (because other models made their combat-rolls earlier, and can’t do it again this turn)? And who can make 3″ contr-move – only engaged enemy, or all units locked in the combat?

And example: my models ‘M1’ and ‘M2’ (from the same unit) fight with enemy unit’s models, accordingly ‘E1’ and ‘E2’; in the near lurk my second model, ‘S’ (different unit than M1 and M2). If I activate my model ‘S’ and make ‘assault’ on model E1 (locked in combat with M1) than who make close-combat rolls? ‘S’ and ‘E1’ only, or ‘S’, ‘E1’ and ‘M1’ also (because he fights with model that has right to make close combat roll), or all models (M2 and E2 also, because some models in their unit make close-combat roll)?

‘The combat continues at the beginning of each subsequent turn’ – so units engaged at very begining of the turn, are unable to make normal activation or is this round of combat only additional series of rolls? If unit CAN make activation while locked in combat at begining of their round, than what it is able to do? Only ‘assault’ actions to bring more models into combat, or any other actions, even firing with unengaged models (who is possible target for assaults/shoots – anyone, or only enemy unit in combat with activated unit)? Is it possible to make ‘fall back’ from close combat? What with engaged models – do they make close-combat rolls at the end of that activation? And what if unit fails its activation while locked in combat – do unengaged models get ‘on guard’ and engaged models do their close-combat rolls? Ufff…

ON GUARD
What if ‘on guard’ model is assaulted – he loose its ‘guard mode’ if he don’t shoot just before combat, or he can still use it later, if he destroy his opponent?

FIRING
Can I fire at units engeged in close combat? How to split inflicted HITS before armour save rolls (engaged units can have different armour values)?

3″ COHESION
When is it possible to break units cohesion? Due to casualties only, or also in case of special moves, or can I do it volontarily (but I get -1 to activation roll per outdistanced model, so It is not worth in most cases)?

I suggest to throw away ‘-1 to activation’ rule, and construct cohesion rules so as to don’t allow to break units coherency at all! So…
‘All models in unit must ALWAYS remain within 3″ of each other; at the and of ANY unit’s activation, no unit can have models breaking away from cohesion – due to movements, or contr-assaults, and if unit take casualties, it must remove models in such way that noone stay outside coherency after applying casualties.’

Some complications can appear due to ‘on guard fire’ – during movement temporarily (!) unit break its cohesion. If enemy shoots in such a time, than it can be difficult to decide, which models to remove and still be able to maintain cohesion after whole unit finish its move… Be carefull!

COVER
Typical situation – some models are ‘in cover’ some are not; do units gets ‘cover’? ‘If half or more enemy models are ‘in cover’ for half or more shooting models, than target unit gets ‘cover’ benefits’? Because ‘cover’ affects ‘to hit’ rolls, it must be determined collectively, for all shooters firing at that unit. Or maybe it will be better, to make it slighltly more complicated and allow some better positioned models in single unit to fire without ‘cover modifier’ while others must still apply it?

Now break, to catch breath…
Craig, on September 9, 2010 at 07:50 said:

Hi Pas,

I had a few minutes so looked over your feedback:

ACTIVATION
1. All members of a Unit must follow the same activation type. However, if you want one or more figures to do nothing then that’s fine
2. You can shoot before, during or after movement with a Walk activation. Wording has been changed in 2.5.

ON GUARD
1. When On Guard, the whole unit must use its shooting option at the same time.
2. Only enemy movement draws fire from an On Guard unit.
3. If an On Guard unit should take hits and chooses to suppress models, then those models cannot fire if the Unit subsequently shoots at an enemy moving across its field of fire.
4. Two or more units that are On Guard can all choose to react to the same target. You can choose to have them fire at the same time of one after the other.

FIRING and AIMED FIRE activation
1. The reason for allowing a Unit to split its fire was to represent either:
a) a Unit faces with multiple threats, or
b) a Unit using its small arms against enemy infantry and its heavier weapons against more heavily armoured targets.
I think I like your wording of ‘all models in aimed fire mode get +1 to firing’. Congratulations you just got on the credit list for 2.5 🙂

Cheers,
Craig.
Craig, on September 9, 2010 at 07:15 said:

Hi Pas,

That’s fine, I’m happy to talk to you here. If you don’t mind though I will relay your feedback to the development group (credited to you of course).

Such detailed feedback and questions deserve detailed answers, so I’m going to chew these over and get back to you no later than tomorrow.

Cheers,
Craig.
PaskudnyOrk, on September 8, 2010 at 21:02 said:

Hello again!

I don’t like ‘Yahoo Group’ as form of internet social activity – many times when I wanted to look inside such forums, I couldn’t do it due to registraion barricade… Here is the best place to write some commentary words after new FUBAR edition appears! 🙂

And few last questions, before FUBAR 2.5 appear, I hope helpfull to make this version even more clear…

ACTIVATION
Whole unit must perform a single choice of activity – indyvidual model can’t perform another actions as rest of models in that unit, but he can always choice to do nothing, right? And in what order activation should be performed – one model at time (‘you must end current model’s activation before going to next model’)?

In ‘walk’ action, when it is time to shoot? Before, after or at any part of movement? All models shoot collectively (it is impossible if models act only one at once), or CAN/MUST do it individually?

All of this seems to be very important to answer the next question…

…GO ON GUARD
Must whole unit use its ‘guard’ mode at once, or every model in unit can do it independently to others? So, if enemy move first model of his activated unit outside cover do I need to shoot with ALL my guarding models at this time, or can I make just one (or two, or three…) shoot, wait for next activated model, then shoot again with rest of my unit? If yes, then is it possible to split reactions of single ‘guarding unit’ between activations of two (or more) different enemy units or whole ‘guard’ mode can be used up only during single enemy unit activation?

In ‘on guard’ rules state, that only ‘movement’ give a chance to react – and what with shooting attacks? If enemy shoot only (without any movement) at my ‘guarding’ unit (or any other unit), have I no right to shoot back? And if I have right, WHEN is those shoot-back performed – before, at the same time or after (so after causing casualties) my enemy shoot?

Note, that if it is possible to react at enemy fire, then ‘on guard’ rule became complicated – one unit want to shoot, next ‘guarding’ unit want to react, next ‘on guard’ unit want to react on these previously reacting… Ufff!

What if model ‘on guard’ becomes suppressed? Whole unit looses its ‘guard’ status, or only suppressed models (in suppressing rules state, that ‘he cannot return fire’ – this sentence apply to ‘on guard’ mode, I understand)?

And last ‘guard’ question – can two different ‘on guard’ units use their guard mode at the same time agains the same target? And, if yes, then should I nominate all reacting units/models before any shooting procedure, or can I shoot with one unit, and then, after seeing the results, decide whether to use my next ‘guard’ unit or not?

FIRING and AIMED FIRE activation
In ‘firing’ rules state that ‘a unit can split its fire…’ and in ‘aimed fire’ activation get +1 to all shoots at ‘selected enemy unit’. So, how to combine both these rules – if my unit performs ‘aimed fire’ activation then I choose ONLY ONE enemy unit, and only models shooting at THIS targeted unit get +1, not those who splits their fire? Or, to make it simpler, ‘all models in aimed fire mode get +1 to firing, regardless of splitting fire’ or ‘unit that perform aimed fire CAN’T split its fire’…

Thats all today… Of course, I don’t wait for answers – just include them in rules of next, perfect and blameless FUBAR edition! Give me no reason for next questions! 🙂
Craig, on September 4, 2010 at 21:35 said:

Hi PaskudnyOrk,

Man you should really join the Forge of War Yahoo Group. Critiquing like that will be highly valued I can tell you.

I’m going to do a little reading on WWI Trench Raiding as you’re the second guy to ask for this supplement. So it will be a fews days before I can put a draft together – even rules as simple as these benefit from a little research. Note that draft rules are published on the Yahoo Group first for the team to bend, fold, mangle and mutilate.

I’ll pass your other comments onto the guys tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Craig.
PaskudnyOrk, on September 4, 2010 at 18:52 said:

Hurrrraaa! WW1 supplement for FUBAR seems to be approaching!
Since I have seen FUBAR rules I have idea of making bloody trench warfare setting for these inspiring one-page rules… Now, fortunatelly, I don’t have to do it (I never play my self-constructed rules…)!

These suppression rules still make me slightly… suppressed 🙂 ! So, lets continue – wheter my suppressed model pass following activation roll or not, he is no longer suppressed, right? And here is point of question – model that activates successfully can move, but can’t shoot “until it’s next activation”. These seems to be unjust! Model that FAIL activation roll automatically stay ‘on guard’. Rules say nothing, that suppressed model loosing his activation CAN’T go ‘on guard’ like the rest of his unit. So it looks, that sometimes it will be better to loose activation… Or maybe it will be better to add sentence saying that “unit (single model?) can go on guard even if the unit (model) was suppressed before activation roll”?

Another one idea for ‘cover’…

If unit fire at covered target, and due to cover modification its ‘expertise’ must became worse than ‘6+’ by ‘x’ levels, then those unit still hit on ‘6+’, but target’s ‘armour save’ is increased by ‘x’ (even if basicaly he has nothing), maximum to ‘2+’. For example:

Green soldier (expertise 6+) fire at anemies hidden in bunker (cover ‘3 up’). Due to cover he must modify his ‘expertise’ by 3 – but he already has the smallest possible chance of hitting (6+), so cover modifier in those case exceed ‘6+ chance’ by 3 points. Finally, soldier hit on ‘6+’ but all his enemies get ‘armour save’ equal ‘4+’ (providing, that they normally have no armor save).

And slightly more complicated example:
Veteran soldier (expertise 4+) fire at enemy hidden in bunker, wearing ceramite combat armour (armour save ‘6+’). So, soldier hit on ‘6+’ but cover still exceed worse possible training (‘green’ with ‘6+ expertise’) by 1 point, so ‘armour save’ of his target is increased by those one point, ‘5+’ in total.

So, only ‘elite’ soldier can shoot at bunker without ‘upgrading’ enemy’s ‘armour save’ (but even such lethal soldier still get hit only on 6+).

These rule make difference between ‘green’ and ‘veteran’ shooting at hard covered target, now ‘green’ soldiers want to get some flamethrowers when they assault enemy bunker, and we include no additional series of rolls. I hope that additional cover-calculations don’t slow down the game to much!
Craig, on September 4, 2010 at 14:28 said:

Hi PaskudnyOrk,

Thanks for the proofreading 🙂 I’ll address your queries in order:

From the Suppression rules:
“After the next activation roll for that Unit stand the figure up. It is no longer Suppressed. If the Unit makes the activation roll the figure can move but cannot fire until its next activation.”

As I can see from the rules you are correct in the wording of Close Combat:
“There are no cover saves and you cannot make figures Suppressed.”
In the nex edition I’ll make that read:
“Cover has no effect and you cannot make figures Suppressed.”
Thanks 🙂

You are in good company. Pete Jones of freewargamesrules(dot)co(dot)uk noticed the same thing. His suggestion was if you roll a six when shooting at say a bunker, then you should re-roll the die and if you are Green you need another six, if seasoned – a five or six, and if Veteran/Elite a four, five or six.

Me and the guys in the development team are discussing how to word that cleanly. When we do we’ll roll out a 2.5 edition to include these ideas and others we’ve been getting elsewhere.

Thanks again,
Craig.
PaskudnyOrk, on September 3, 2010 at 17:05 said:

Hello!

One question…

“Units that fail to activate are On Guard.” So, if my unit included ‘suppressed’ soldiers, and (not surprisingly) fail activation roll (but ‘suppression’ go to end), then are my (no longer) ‘suppressed’ soldiers able to use ‘guard fire’ like rest of their unit?

…one small omission in new rules…

In combat rules state that “there are no cover saves” – there are no cover SAVES in FUBAR II edition at all 🙂

…end last observation…

Luckless ‘cover’ rule, in combination with ‘automatic success 6 rule’ mean, that there are no distinction between ‘green’ and ‘veteran/elite’ soldier firing at bunker. Green always hit on 6+ and cannot do worse than that (thanks ‘lucky 6’ rule). Veteran has 4+ chance to hit, but due to bunker’s ‘3 up’ cover, he fall to 6+, like ‘greenhorn’… The similar problem make now flamethrower and tank cannon – bothe those weapons ignore cover… But for ‘green’ soldier there are no difference between open target and bunker hidding (he always hit on 6+)!

Isn’t it better to come back with ‘cover save’ rule? Yes, new rules are much faster, but D6 die has only six results, hitting value of very best soldiers cannot exceed 4+, so there are really no place for additional modifiers – additional series of rolls, cover rolls, seems to be the only way to save variety of combat apects and abbilities.

Cheers,
PaskudnyOrk
Craig, on July 16, 2010 at 07:20 said:

The problem with the cover save is that you generally target a unit not an individual, so say you have two men suppressed in a squad of eight, the other six are not going to get the improved cover save just because two of their buddies are kissing dirt.

By the way I’ve just posted FUBAR – Medieval on the Yahoo Group, and the Force Supplement for The Clone Wars.

Cheers,
Craig.
Jason, on July 15, 2010 at 13:13 said:

Just a quicky whilst at lunch, when a man/unit is suppressed it stays so until a succesful activation for that unit is roled in cluding the modifiers for being suppressed, does the +1 cover safe count for suppressed troops?
Jason, on July 15, 2010 at 11:35 said:

Cheers for the reply Craig looks like I’ll have to pop over to the yahoo grp and see whats what.
This one page set of rules is an absolutely fantastic idea, it will really help in the running of demo/display games that I do at local shows.
Thanks again

Jason
Craig, on July 14, 2010 at 07:46 said:

Hi Jason,

You are indeed correct. However, the guys on the Forge of War Yahoo Group [anybody is welcome to join – plug], who helped me develop the Forge of War set, are also pitching in on this and we’ll have a number of one-page Force Supplements up and running soon.

The first will be Hammers Slammers and Generic SciFi. Clone Wars will follow shortly after.

The discipline of getting everything on one page does focus the mind on what is really important.

If there is a genre/type of army you’d like to see you’re welcome to design it yourself. We’ll help you tune it and then publish it here and you will get full author’s credit.

Cheers,
Craig.
Jason, on July 13, 2010 at 20:43 said:

Awsome set of rules just looked at the first set. I take it that army lists are whatever you want to make them?