Using Armada for fleet battles when it first comes out probably won't work too well IMO. It would only work if you limit yourself to the capital ship classes that have appeared in Armada. That means no ISDs or MC80s until they come out and some of the ship models scheduled to appear in Armada haven't appeared in the RPG yet.

Plus there's the C90 issue. Namely Armada has stats for 2 models of CR90, the CR90A and CR90B, but AFAIK nothing has specified which, if either, of these CR90 variants is the one that appears in the RPG.

Yes, you only make one roll which represents the outcome of a conflict between two opposing forces.

That specific mass combat check can represent a small skirmish, a mid-size conflict or a huge battle, depending on what you need.

Spitballing here, but doesn't the repeated use of the term "Active Force" refer to whichever force has taken the initiative (not using the RPG sense of the term) and is attacking in a given round?

At least, the way I interpreted it, the "Active Force" is whichever force is attacking at a given time. In Arda I, I understand that even though the Imperials are the attacking force, only the players are making the mass combat checks as the Rebellion for the duration of the battle. That being acknowledged, I think the rules are flexible enough to provide for rolls on the part of both the GM and the PCs.

Or rather, the GM makes an attack roll against forces that the PCs are either in control of or a part of. (I understand that this could easily be handled narratively.) This sets the stage for the players to take actions and possibly make a counterattack by making a mass combat check of their own. At that point, I would either make mass combat checks as the GM, or have the players make mass combat checks whenever the it was appropriate for the situation, and depending on the tide and scope of the battle.

The (potential) problem I see with mass combat checks between two players is that the dice are slightly weighted to success on the part of whomever is taking the action. As with opposed skill checks, rolling it as an opposed check will favor whichever player is initiating the action.

The impression I got from the sidebar in Arda I was that the general intent was for the GM to be rolling these Mass Combat checks as a way to narrate to the players what was happening in the bigger battle waging around them.

The PCs themselves would be doing their own things, and then at the end of the round the GM would roll and say "There's a crash as the Imperials push through a line of Rebels to the north, taking some ground toward their objective." Then back to the top of the round and the PCs would act.

That works too. Honestly, I think you could probably run it a number of ways and still have it work pretty well, depending on what you wanted to do.

That said, I was under the impression that it was supposed to be the players making mass combat checks in Arda I, because of the way the sidebar differentiated between "player" and "GM."

Oh, and I did misread a portion of the rules. They clearly state:

These rules assume that the acting force is allied with the Player Characters and that the enemy forces are those opposing them.

So, I was wrong about that. Apparently the assumption is that the "Active Force" is always the force allied with the PCs, and a PC makes a mass combat check at the end of a round, as required by the GM.

The only official example, battle at Arda1, has four phases ... so no, its not always just one dice event. but I agree it is a narrative device, not a set of 'wargaming' rules, of course.

Hmmm. A look over table 1.3 on page 18 of the AoR core book shows you're right.
Blue boost dice (+ve context) are slightly stronger than Black setback dice (-ve context), Green ability dice (+ve attribute) have one more success and one less 'advantage' than Purple difficulty dice (-ve attribute), and Yellow proficiency (+ve skill) have one extra success over Red challenge dice (-ve 'skill').

FF's dice are indeed skewed towards player (green) success over GM (purple) and are thus unsuited to fair direct competitive checks (if used as Green vs Purple 'sides'). The skew seems designed to produce a default result of "you succeed but something goes a bit wrong" (which is very 'classic' Star Wars). This is enhanced by the slight Force dice skew toward the dark side (8 of each, but more instances of black over white).

Even FF's own rules (AoR core pp32) suggest that if two PCs compete (at, say, a drinking game), then they each roll 'green' dice against some arbitrary 'purple' difficulty set by the GM. Higher win 'wins' and mutual loss = draw.

What a shame.

I had half imagined drawing up some tables to present here as a suggested house rule: perhaps Table 1.1a in which two opposed 'armies' (each with a base dice pool based on troop type and leader skill) are modified according to relative army sizes (using standard upgrade process, where attribute die (green or purple) can become skill die (yellow or red)) ...

About same size, no change

Larger side, add one attribute dice

Double size, add two attribute die

Overwhelming, add three attribute die

Then Table 1.2a in which all the effects from Table 1.2 are joined (such that, for example, a Triumph or a Despair each may be spend on any of the options currently available to either, etc.

And drawing on the Arda1 example, perhaps a suggested Table (1.3?), which could offer some guideline 'Ebb and Flow of Battle' result interpretations ... such as ... 10% loss of heavy weapons, or demoralisation (strain) at unit level (making it easier for them to 'break' later) etc.

I did not intend turning mass combat into a tabletop war game, but if we could have just a little less abstraction (sometimes, if the scenario and play-game-GM style calls for it), then we could resolve a large 'competitive' battle over a small number of rounds (say, 6 or less) and perhaps in more than one 'zone' (say, an arbitrary Left Flank, Right Flank, Middle) with some extra context dice (blue, black) awarded for other factors such as 'successful ambush' (based on PC action, leadership checks etc)

I guess one could STILL do so, rolling two sets of 'green' dice (separated by a few seconds of course) and allowing success cancellation etc as is usual with green-vs-purple. Sadly that would probably produce dice-flinging rule-lawyering munchkin play of exactly the type FF is trying to avoid in their RPG philosophy.

May yet give it a try in the privacy of my own game.

Just really seemed that after much anticipation and hoopla, the long awaited squad rules and mass combat rules were so brief and restricted in scope (quite aside from being just 2 pages each, hidden inside not-cheap optional extras - a topic already discussed-to-death here. No need to revisit as result is already settled: "true fans will spend the money").

That works too. Honestly, I think you could probably run it a number of ways and still have it work pretty well, depending on what you wanted to do.

That said, I was under the impression that it was supposed to be the players making mass combat checks in Arda I, because of the way the sidebar differentiated between "player" and "GM."

Oh, and I did misread a portion of the rules. They clearly state:

These rules assume that the acting force is allied with the Player Characters and that the enemy forces are those opposing them.

So, I was wrong about that. Apparently the assumption is that the "Active Force" is always the force allied with the PCs, and a PC makes a mass combat check at the end of a round, as required by the GM.

I still believe the rules intend for the GM to make the Mass Combat check at the end of the round, in order to take care of "everything else" in the ongoing battle, while the PCs themselves make their own combat checks and maneuvers, taking care of their specific part in the ongoing battle.

Of course anyone could roll the actual dice, and the GM could certainly allow the players to determine what to spend Advantage and Triumph on. In my game, though, the way I'd run it would be to handle the Mass Combat checks and narration myself as the GM and let the PCs focus on their own part of the battle.

Just got the book today and it looks great. Is there anywhere stated number of people that operate in the base on Arda?

Just got the book today and it looks great. Is there anywhere stated number of people that operate in the base on Arda?

I think they state that the only population on the planet is the base. When you look at the planet page, it lists population around 400 or so, if I'm remembering correctly. So, I made the assumption that the planet population is the number of people that operate at the base.

great, thanks

Just got it yesterday myself and only read the first few pages...but both of my EotE campaigns still have some Edge material to get through...one is just starting Act 2 of Beyond the Rim, and the other is just about to start Act 3 of Enemy of my Enemy (by Chris Witt). Both groups have expressed interest in transitioning into Age of Rebellion when we run low on published material.

When they finally get recruited by the Rebellion, I definitely plan to have them get stationed (base of ops) at Arda1 right off the bat (as is suggested in the book). Have the players run their first 2 or 3 missions from there and then have the Imps invade. I predict that they will be much more invested in the base and the NPCs when the attack finally comes, and that it will make the whole event much more real and tragic...

Thought I'd share over here that I've been posting my week by week results of running the Arda I adventure over on the EotE GM forum. We just finished up Act 1 last night.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/114084-gming-onslaught-at-arda-i/

My group just finished the Arda adventure and the last of my notes about it are posted over in the EotE GM forum. All in all, Arda was a lot of fun. Some tweaking could've made it even better, or at least more suitable for the group I was running it for. As a novice GM, I was able to muddle my way through and had learned a lot on how to run a game. If you want a heads up on what to watch out for when you run Arda, take a look at my rambling thread to see the stumbling blocks I ran up against.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/114084-gming-onslaught-at-arda-i/

Jamwes, what power level were your PCs at? Fresh characters, if experienced-how much xp? And if the latter is true, did you have to tweak any difficulty numbers/challenges?

Jamwes, what power level were your PCs at? Fresh characters, if experienced-how much xp? And if the latter is true, did you have to tweak any difficulty numbers/challenges?

The PCs were somewhere between 250 and 300 earned XP before starting Arda 1. This was my first time GMing in years (I wanted to run a book adventure and let our "forever GM" actually play the game for a bit) so I didn't really know what I was doing at first. For the first handful of adventures the skill roll difficulties were one difficulty higher across the board. This was more than sufficient to challenge my players, almost too much so. By the end I was picking and choosing which to boost. I had realized that the players had spent more XP on talents over skills, so hard checks were still hard for them even though they had a bunch of related talents.

As for the badguys, I usually sent more at the PCs than what the book called for. I never bumped up the bad guy's stats, just sent more, usually in an extra wave after the PCs mopped up the first wave. The PCs are good at combat, so they needed extra baddies to chew through. I'd recommend being careful about upping bad guy stats, since this game can be fairly deadly quickly.

I hope this helps.

Thanks! Unless we start a new party, by the time we get to this scenario the PCs will have reached 700-800xp (estimated). So I'll definitely have to scale skill levels and get wild with the Adversary talent... Or just dismantle the scenario and reassemble it with added parts suitable for such a high xp level.

Rant: I usually dislike running high xp level games since at this stage they usually stop working as well as they should. I believe RPGs are optimized (while in design) for starting to mid-level characters. But players! they want to keep playing their PCs! They just don't know when to leave the stage!

Once again, thanks for the advice!