I have the beta, but is it worth getting I assume for all the Rebellion themed characters and ships and weapons and the whole 9 yards? I have all the books from Edge of the Empire....I know im prob going to pick it up but just wanted to get some pros and cons...

It has the completed Talent trees with the adjustments. There are a couple of mistakes, nothing glaring, and the fluff you'd expect. If you have beta and the errata you're fine rules wise but it is a nice book.

Its amazing, life changing, it was better than Cats.

Its amazing, life changing, it was better than Cats.

Well hell looks like I need to get it!!!

Its amazing, life changing, it was better than Cats.

I will read it again and again.

I really like Age, but once the newness wore off, I realized that I still like Edge better for the games I'm playing and likely to be playing in the future. It still makes for a great supplement for my Edge games though.

Still waiting for mine (**** you amazon uk), but I anticipate it being more of an EotE sourcebook for at least a year until my new Edge party have run through all the published adventures.

I'm actually pretty disappointed with the book.

I feel like the spec trees for EotE are better designed. I do not see the need for a Universal Recruit spec tree for military training if they had made the military minded spec trees have the correct class skills. That way if a smuggler wanted to become a soldier they could pick one of those trees and have the skills they needed to be just that. But if the Smuggler wanted to become a Commando they still wouldn't have access to Ranged (Heavy) and that is just wrong.

Then there are spec trees that don't quite fit the name. I do not feel like the Infiltrator talents do what I would expect for someone that slips into some place to do spy work. I also think that Spec trees are repeated when they should have been different. The Pilot seems to fit more larger ships than starfighters. If you wanted to pilot a starfighter and survive you should probably pick Squadron Leader. I'm actually very annoyed that they decided to use already made trees instead of making new trees that would fit the setting more. Especially when we have seen that they don't mind producing similar trees like the Demolitionist and Saboteur.

I also think that Spec trees are repeated when they should have been different. The Pilot seems to fit more larger ships than starfighters. If you wanted to pilot a starfighter and survive you should probably pick Squadron Leader. I'm actually very annoyed that they decided to use already made trees instead of making new trees that would fit the setting more. Especially when we have seen that they don't mind producing similar trees like the Demolitionist and Saboteur.

Looking at the larger range I actually think this is Just As Planned.

For the Pilot vs. Squadron Leader, I don't see a problem. If my group is a team of Alliance Shipjackers, Pilot is what I want. If my group is trying to make their own Starfighter Squadron, I want Squadron Leader. Don't see a problem...

For Demolitionist vs. Saboteur, as well as Pilot:Pilot and so forth, remember that EotE and AoR are not technically the same game, just compatible games. So there's going to be a certain amount of double dipping simply because they all need to meet the same goals.

Honestly, I've been tempted to replace the first or second rank Galaxy Mapper in the Pilot tree with Defensive Driving as a house rule for my table in AoR, so that a Pilot has just as many defensive talent pickups (which are REALLY important in starfighter combat) as a squadron leader. Every single starfighter pilot build shouldn't be a squadron leader. You just end up with too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

This is, of course, for my personal game, and anyone else's opinion is just as valid for their table.

Honestly, I've been tempted to replace the first or second rank Galaxy Mapper in the Pilot tree with Defensive Driving as a house rule for my table in AoR, so that a Pilot has just as many defensive talent pickups (which are REALLY important in starfighter combat) as a squadron leader. Every single starfighter pilot build shouldn't be a squadron leader. You just end up with too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

This is, of course, for my personal game, and anyone else's opinion is just as valid for their table.

Don't jump to conclusions, look at those talent trees and skill lists, the Squadron commander is a good buffer, and can really make a fighter group pretty sweet, but the Pilot will fly better up front (pilot and gunnery as both Spec and Career skills allowing a start of 2 ranks in each), and has faster access to really good talents (tricky target) a lot sooner then the commander does.

A Commander's got some nice buffs (Improved field commander? yes please), but he pays in XP for everything else.

The thing is though, defense is the one thing you really need to bring to the table whe piloting a starfighter. And the only way to really improve it is with feats (either tricky target or defensive driving and Brilliant Evasion after you get to last row). To get one rank of each in the straightest line possible costs 5 less on the Squadron Leader than it does the Pilot, and he can pretty much start with a rank in Defensive Driving. Not only that, he will be setting right next to his Dedication talent and another Defensive driving talent.

Now, if you want to be a total badass pilot, I would suggest taking both, but honestly, as it is right now, I would go squadron leader first. You get a larger list of career skills, (Ace: Pilot, Squadron Leader will have only the Ace's career skill list, since the specialization skills on both completely overlap with it), slightly worse starting skills, but more survivability right from the offset with defensive driving.

Of course, this could all change after we get the Ace splat book. We might get a more dedicated Starfighter Pilot specialization, considering that they have to come up with SOMETHING for 3 more specializations, and the uh, whatever they are called my brain is dying on me, the things that append to the end of a talent tree, for the Ace will probably change my mind on which to start with.

(Though actually the cheapest for one rank of Defensive Driving, one rank of Tricky Target is the Driver Talent tree), but it lacks Brilliant Evasion)

Signature ability.

Well I guess this also gets into staging though. If the GM isn't putting the space combat into terrain and leaving you guys in open vacuum with your alluvial dampers hanging in the solar wind, then yeah, you might want defensive driving.

Personally though I've found that Space combat works better overall if you're in terrain of some kind (be it actual asteroids, the super structure of a massive orbital repair station, or just the chaos of a larger battle) the encounters work better. Dropping a couple of setback dice on all piloting and gunnery checks means other cheap talents like Skilled Jockey come into play (talents that most NPCs don't have). So you can get the advantage a smidge better and hold it, allowing your shields to work in concert with the "terrain" as well, and generating the same results as your defensive driving. This is also why the Pilot's higher starting skills would matter.

Maybe after you've put a few hundred or so XP into your piloting I'd start doing open space engagements...

The best defense in space combat is firing first since its so very hard to actually make a shot miss.

The best defense in space combat is firing first since its so very hard to actually make a shot miss.

A good active sensor sweep followed by a pair of missiles is a tactic I'll only advise against in VERY specific situations.

The best defense in space combat is firing first since its so very hard to actually make a shot miss.

A good active sensor sweep followed by a pair of missiles is a tactic I'll only advise against in VERY specific situations.

Or the VERY general situation of not being a in a ship that has missiles...

But seriously, mount missiles on your ship ASAP. They matter more than Speed 4 for GtA (which I'm not impressed with), they matter more than ion cannons (damaging a different track from what every other gun on your ship hits is only useful occasionally), they matter more than armor and shield upgrades. In fact, mount multiple pairs of launchers--it's the only way to be sure!

The best defense in space combat is firing first since its so very hard to actually make a shot miss.

A good active sensor sweep followed by a pair of missiles is a tactic I'll only advise against in VERY specific situations.

Or the VERY general situation of not being a in a ship that has missiles...

But seriously, mount missiles on your ship ASAP. They matter more than Speed 4 for GtA (which I'm not impressed with), they matter more than ion cannons (damaging a different track from what every other gun on your ship hits is only useful occasionally), they matter more than armor and shield upgrades. In fact, mount multiple pairs of launchers--it's the only way to be sure!

Different schools of thought on this, but I will agree the missile launcher is easier to use and less situational, at least when you're looking at up gunning a freighter.

The effectiveness of missile launchers is well reflected in the EU as well as uh, actual real-world aerial combat.

So much so that dogfighting is pretty much a thing of the past. I don't think the Top Gun graduates have had anything to do since Vietnam.

I was also unimpressed with the Squad and Squadron rules. While they do great in making it so the leader doesn't get killed, it greatly reduces the effect of the individual units. There is no scaling up of ability in forming a squadron so 11 x-wings has about the same ability as one x-wing+ 1 boost.

I feel like these rules were added after we reminded them that they should be there and the effect was a few pages tacked on to the GM screen book.

I might seem like I'm just drekking all over AoR for no reason but I was expecting a game that focused on larger scale mechanics that would combine with EotE. What I got was, in my opinion, a game that has lesser value than it's predecessor because of the lackluster spec trees and lack of new ideas.

The effectiveness of missile launchers is well reflected in the EU as well as uh, actual real-world aerial combat.

So much so that dogfighting is pretty much a thing of the past. I don't think the Top Gun graduates have had anything to do since Vietnam.

Yet we see in all the movies that dogfighting is presented as the primary way fighters engage in combat in Star Wars.

I was also unimpressed with the Squad and Squadron rules. While they do great in making it so the leader doesn't get killed, it greatly reduces the effect of the individual units. There is no scaling up of ability in forming a squadron so 11 x-wings has about the same ability as one x-wing+ 1 boost.

I feel like these rules were added after we reminded them that they should be there and the effect was a few pages tacked on to the GM screen book.

I might seem like I'm just drekking all over AoR for no reason but I was expecting a game that focused on larger scale mechanics that would combine with EotE. What I got was, in my opinion, a game that has lesser value than it's predecessor because of the lackluster spec trees and lack of new ideas.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4921

Yeah, I need to read the GM screen stuff further, but what I got from my glossing over of it earlier is that the idea is the GM screen allows a player to join up with a small unit like a fire team, or flight group of 3-5 minions to get boosts and ablative armor. Actually pretty valuable as it will allow things like a low level fighter pilot character to have better odds of coming home after their first mission. Biggs and Porkins, not so much, but the PC is gonna be ok...

Arida on the other hand looks like it goes one level higher, with the player part of a Company, Squadron, Capital ship sized unit.

We'll see though, I've got to hand it to them though, at least it looks like they really are trying hard to take this to the next level while maintaining sanity.

I was having this same discussion on my play by post board. I expected Age of Rebellion to focus on soldiers and war. They did a good job with individual soldiers but really didn't cover a lot that I expected. I expected narrative ways to quickly run skirmishes, battles, prolonged combat campaigns. How to handle squads, division, battalions of combatants. How to make large scale cinematic space combat include players but show the big picture. Clone Wars showed many weapons, tanks, heavy artillery , and weapons of war that are certainly still around 20 years later. It is disappointing how narrow the scope of the game was and I do consider it the weaker little brother of Edge of the Empire.

I'm not sure if Alliance/Empire military conflicts ever reached the levels seen in the Clone Wars. Even Endor wasn't as big of a battle as the Coruscant battle in the opening of E3.

Agreed. Everything in the movies points to guerilla war and hit and run skirmishes. The Alliance did not have the resources for pitched extended battles.