So I've made the mistakes of trying to make sense out of this. Now my brain hurts.

Do any of you actually use these, or are they just another example of FFG weirdness which makes no sense?

Travelling from Footfall to Rain takes 60 days, and the return trip takes twice as long: 120 days. I guess the warp flows towards Trailing here, eh?

But travelling to Grace, which is quite close to Rain, takes 90 days, but only 60 going back.

And then you can travel from Rain to Grace in 5 days (and back in 8), meaning you can cut the travel time from Rain to Footfall from 120 to just 65 by making a detour to Grace on the way home.

Which kinda makes no sense.

Maybe it's not supposed to.

The travel times in Navis Primer are all sorts of random, and are all very slow. They don't match at all well with the old Warp Travel times from White Dwarf.

What system (if any) do you use to handle warp-travel? I feel the RAW are quite clunky, and the ones in the Navis Primer are worse.

The travel times from Navis Primer are cool yet stupid. I like the varying times and wild differentiations between the regions, I do. But, some are just downright stupid. Take Damaris. Here you have this Imperial system complete with a shipyard mere days from Iniquity but months from Footfall. Sources put at least 10 capital ships fighting for the pirates of Iniquity and I fail to see why they'd allow such a colony to exist without paying shiploads of tribute. Either the colony is misplaced or the travel times are wrong. I've changed the travel times.

I like the whole "travel to Grace on your way to Rain from Footfall to save time" route. The Warp should be like that, but it should change, too, not be constant. And mind you, the time that passes in the real world while you're busy making these detours runs crazy. The 150-day run from Footfall to Damaris means that an average of over 5 years passes while in Warp-flight. Then again, maybe that voyage includes a transit where you have to drop out of Warp to avoid some stellar anomoly by flying around it in voidspace before re-entering the Warp and not so much time passes. Weird, huh?

I've House Ruled navigation. The core rules left the burden on me to come up with encounters and it was too easy to handwave it all away. Navis Primer has catastrophes all too often and often for the wrong reasons. I like common small setbacks while traveling the Warp, a few lost hull integrity, crew gone missing or gone crazy, that kind of stuff. I don't care so much for Swiss Family Robinson or Lost in Space adventures popping up. It often destroys the plot I have going on. Hey, if you're going into Rak'Gol space where there are no known Warp routes, you can expect to get lost, but when you have crazy Warp adventures in the middle of Lure of the Expanse and still land on the target planets at the time as other RTs, it stretches all credulity.

I have my home brew rules here

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/112608-navigation-home-brew/

I've rewritten them since, to simplify a couple things and make it easier to read, if you'd like the file.

I would say that travel along any warp route the Navigator has already has in his charts would use the Corebook rules. If you are plotting a course for the first time than I might consider using the rules for the Navis primer. Once the Navigator has charted this new route (Where possible) it becomes much less risky!

The rules I've made do just that. Once a route is charted it's much safer, but the first few times are dangerous, and more so where the Warp is surly or haunted and/or the Astronomicon is shrouded.

I'll take a look at those house rules. At first glance, it seems to be more dice-rolling in there than I'd like. My beef with extended tests like these are that there are a whole lot of rolls to simply determine how long time something takes. I feel this could be streamlined into a simple test somehow.

My goal would be to have a simple table (perhaps a little like FATEs ladder), and then let the successes or failures of the (modified) Navigation test-roll let you move up or down steps on this table. Equipment could modify it similarly.

I've seen some other takes on house-rules for Warp-travels, using the rather fine map made by SketchesOfPayne. While these rules are simple, they also require you to roll for each square travelled. I subscribe to the design strategy that a diceroll should always have an interesting outcome, and that you shouldn't have to make many rolls to determine just one thing.

Someone once mentioned the amount of dice-rolling. If you look at my charts and modifiers carefully, you'll see that most of it is encounter details, and most of those never get used. There's a whole lot less dice-rolling than there is in Navis Primer and it only gets onerous when you try to forge your own new route to a zone where the warp is Surly or Haunted from another zone that's a couple sub-sectors away.

And, that's an easy fix for your own campaign by changing the Condition modifiers under chart #1b. Try 1/2/3/6 or even 1/2/3/4. You can also change the table in #1a to (for example) 1d5-1/1d10-1/1d10, or something such. Here's the reasoning. Your PC Navigator (hey, none of this stuff is needed if you have an npc navigator, but those ships shouldn't be plying new warp routes, either) will have the skill to get multiple DoS for most checks and my system keeps track of cumulative successes as an extended test instead of having a bunch of tests. Most Warp jumps will take only 1-2 Navigation (Warp) tests, in my experience.

Most of the encounters result in a time delay or loss of hull integrity. The encounters are based on Degrees of Failure in a Navigation (Warp) test instead of random rolling. We changed the tables in Navis Primer where this in concerned after my players took a regular route, barely failed a roll, then rolled badly on Navis' random table of encounters. They barely made it to port with 25% of their original crew. It was catastrophic and we determined that it would happen all too often using Navis' tables.

I'm an old geezer, and I'm new to google docs and sharing, so this is my first attempt at such. Please let me know if I've done this correctly.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-MtWrnHF5DK8DwQ2pT9S1LMBlEK7N5FywZT3DarpwPI/edit?usp=sharing

I checked out those house rules you linked and I don't care for them. They are merely modifiers for navigation rolls and have no encounters attached to the checks, leaving me where I originally stood. Plus, a mere -10 for entering the Rifts of Hecaton don't exactly make that a challenging endeavor where fleets of Explorator vessels and Inquisitorial squadrons have been lost.

I've had a copy of Sketches of Payne for quite some time. I like it, and I appreciate the work done, but I find that with my navigation system I don't need it, as my warp travel goes within sub-sectors, from one sub-sector to another, or across sub-sectors, rendering distance of a map an unnecessary detail.

BTW, I'm also a fan of FATE, and have considered converting RT to that system. I've converted it to Savage Worlds...loved it.

I hadn't read that file in awhile and went back over it. I've decided you are right about the number of rolls. If an encounter is normally only rolled once per 5 days and an Imperial sector can be crossed in 60 days, then there shouldn't be more than 12 rolls maximum, unless one considers that the map is 2-dimensional, most ships cross a space in the fastest time possible, and each map is actually representing a 200-ly cube, in which case the maximum number of rolls should be 16.5.

So I've gone back and changed a couple things and come up with an even shorter version. I removed Step 2 and made it part of the enounters, and I lessened the number of travel rolls generated. The whole system is now less than 2 pages, and the encounters take up another 3.