Is there a significant difference in story flow if the the traitor is discovered, or is it ultimately a minor detail relative to the final confrontation?

I'm considering running this for my group, which just transitioned from EotE to AoR. However, we're in 2 ABY and I saw that this base was destroyed just a few weeks after the Battle of Yavin. I don't mind tweaking canon. However, does anyone know of any important Rebel bases that were destroyed in 2 ABY that this adventured could be reskinned with? I suppose I could also just wait for 3 ABY and the Battle of Hoth.

I can't help you with the second question, beyond suggesting you just retcon the thing since the environment is pretty specific to that base. However, regarding the first....it seems like the reveal of the traitor is a bit of an inevitability. Unless the PCs really screw up the investigation, which they can only do by fingering 2-3 innocent people (which pretty much sabotages the Rebels' trust in the group). That being said, the story doesn't seem to be able to fathom the third act without the traitor being revealed in the second (unless there's a detail I missed, it's been a while since I gave the book a thorough read-through).

Agreed on the timeline point - changing the year of this adventure to 2 years later affects nothing but a line of two of dialogue in boxed text, so it's far easier to change than swapping the entire planet Episode 1 happens on.

Regarding the other point, yes, as written, Episode 3 depends on the PCs finding the traitor (and also on the traitor escaping with a particular hostage) in Episode 2. That said, Episode 2 is structured loosely enough that by triggering the right events and dropping the right hints via NPCs you can nudge the players in the right direction if they're in danger of failing completely. The traitor, incidentally, knows that there's a mole-hunt going on for them, so if the players completely fail you could have the traitor panic and flee anyway. In that case you would want to have some consequences (like maybe having the players' favourite NPC on the base get murdered in the process and make the time limit in Episode 3 tighter). Otherwise I can't see any alternative result to PC failure here other than the traitor leaking the base's location sooner or later, resulting in an Imperial attack on Resolute Base which the Rebels have no hope of winning.

Having read the module, but neither played nor ran it, I can say that it isn't the best. The fact that it goes directly into a combat scenario with little to know time on the base means that players are left with little to no attachment to the base outside of GM intervention (expanding the campaign is recommended).

In addition, Onslaught at Arda I is a bit of a misnomer, considering the focus of the later episodes of the module. Had the module been named differently, I believe it would have a better impression. As is, it's too much of a pull on groups and GMs.

The rapid change in focus from combat (and mass combat) to investigation and support means that a group on either extreme of support or combat might be left for a loop. In addition, there seems to be no middle ground between the two.

I disagree with that it is better than Beyond the Rim, on quite a few areas. Unlike Arda, Rim has the advantage of being tied to the underworld, not Alliance Command. The "You owe me and I owe this guy" can be quite effective, depending on the crew. In addition, the module is good for both a beginning group and veteran crews. Finally, the ramifications are more broad and possibly impactful, where as Arda was more dry.

I took a look at Arda. In addition to the things Sarone mentioned above, it had a few story conventions that I'm not the biggest fan of.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I found the whole "Imperial Intelligence masterminded the death of a Rebel officer's family and pinned it on Rebel collateral damage to get him to become a traitor" aspect lacking. It doesn't really add much to the story except for giving the players and the Alliance the absolute moral high ground, instead of acknowledging the sad fact that civilians can be caught in the crossfire even when you're trying your utmost to be careful.

I also dislike how the results of the investigation are pretty much predetermined: whether the players find him out or not, the traitor ends up making a break for it.

Mechanically, the mass combat rules are of a good format, but they're missing a CRITICAL element: the quality of the opposing troops. As per RAW, the system accounts for the quality of your troopers, both sides commanders, and both sides numbers, but going up against 50 AT-ATs and 50 stormtrooper cadets with stun pistols is the same level of difficulty, which can lead to some nonsensical results that break the narrative if you're dealing with situations where the quality of the two forces is not close to equal.

I took a look at Arda. In addition to the things Sarone mentioned above, it had a few story conventions that I'm not the biggest fan of.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I found the whole "Imperial Intelligence masterminded the death of a Rebel officer's family and pinned it on Rebel collateral damage to get him to become a traitor" aspect lacking. It doesn't really add much to the story except for giving the players and the Alliance the absolute moral high ground, instead of acknowledging the sad fact that civilians can be caught in the crossfire even when you're trying your utmost to be careful.

I also dislike how the results of the investigation are pretty much predetermined: whether the players find him out or not, the traitor ends up making a break for it.

Mechanically, the mass combat rules are of a good format, but they're missing a CRITICAL element: the quality of the opposing troops. As per RAW, the system accounts for the quality of your troopers, both sides commanders, and both sides numbers, but going up against 50 AT-ATs and 50 stormtrooper cadets with stun pistols is the same level of difficulty, which can lead to some nonsensical results that break the narrative if you're dealing with situations where the quality of the two forces is not close to equal.

I thought that the quality of the enemy was considered in the difficulty of the mass combat check (before the commander upgrades it). Sure, if I remember correctly, the example rules phrased it somewhat with the skill of the enemy over their actual quality (imperial milita-1 difficulty while elite commandos are like 4 or 5). However, I think that can easily be equated with the odds of the fight.

For example, your scenario comes off like base 1 abiliy die against 4 or 5 difficulty (again, before accounting for the commanders).

The fact that it goes directly into a combat scenario with little to know time on the base means that players are left with little to no attachment to the base outside of GM intervention (expanding the campaign is recommended).

Just on this point, I don't think that's a big deal, in fact I'm glad it starts that way. Every GM is going to bring their players to the adventure differently, and I was glad to be spared some kind of "getting to know your character and allies" pre-phase that probably would be irrelevant to my own campaign. The module also feels more "advanced" than others, so the characters would likely have a history already in place.

I took a look at Arda. In addition to the things Sarone mentioned above, it had a few story conventions that I'm not the biggest fan of.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I found the whole "Imperial Intelligence masterminded the death of a Rebel officer's family and pinned it on Rebel collateral damage to get him to become a traitor" aspect lacking. It doesn't really add much to the story except for giving the players and the Alliance the absolute moral high ground, instead of acknowledging the sad fact that civilians can be caught in the crossfire even when you're trying your utmost to be careful.

I also dislike how the results of the investigation are pretty much predetermined: whether the players find him out or not, the traitor ends up making a break for it.

Mechanically, the mass combat rules are of a good format, but they're missing a CRITICAL element: the quality of the opposing troops. As per RAW, the system accounts for the quality of your troopers, both sides commanders, and both sides numbers, but going up against 50 AT-ATs and 50 stormtrooper cadets with stun pistols is the same level of difficulty, which can lead to some nonsensical results that break the narrative if you're dealing with situations where the quality of the two forces is not close to equal.

I thought that the quality of the enemy was considered in the difficulty of the mass combat check (before the commander upgrades it). Sure, if I remember correctly, the example rules phrased it somewhat with the skill of the enemy over their actual quality (imperial milita-1 difficulty while elite commandos are like 4 or 5). However, I think that can easily be equated with the odds of the fight.

For example, your scenario comes off like base 1 abiliy die against 4 or 5 difficulty (again, before accounting for the commanders).

Sadly not. The amount of Ability dice you get is determined by the quality of your troops, and the amount of Difficulty dice are determined by the ratio of your troops to theirs, then both sides are upgraded according to Commander ability.

So, if you have 100 rebel troopers going up against 100 Imperial citizens with sticks that's 2 ability dice for trooper quality level, and 2 difficulty dice for the forces being equal in size. The dice pool plays out the same way if you were taking those 100 rebel troops and throwing them at 100 Dark Troopers. Or 100 Inquisitors, for that matter.

Yikes.

Hmmm....what about setback die? I just can't help but shake they feeling that the quality of the enemy wasn't ignored.

Add Boost or Setback to the Mass Combat dice

pool as usual and to reflect positioning

and environmental conditions on

the battlefield (such as fog, darkness,

mountains, etc.) going for or against the

acting force.

I think I saw a proposed solution be taking the quality of the enemy force in difficulty dice (using the same guide provided for friendlies) and averaging it with the difficulty dice for the outnumbering, rounding down.

That would make it so those rebel troopers (2 Ability) facing off against the stick wielding civilians in equal numbers ((1 difficulty +2 difficulty)/2 = 1.5, or 1 difficulty die total) is a different roll than those same troopers against Dark troopers ((2 difficulty+ 5 difficulty)/2=3.5 or 3 difficulty die).

It's far from perfect, since it means you can do up or down a quality level/outnumbering level and still get the same result. You could probably say that the GM could round up or down depending on what they felt makes the most sense.

Add Boost or Setback to the Mass Combat dice

pool as usual and to reflect positioning

and environmental conditions on

the battlefield (such as fog, darkness,

mountains, etc.) going for or against the

acting force.

I think I saw a proposed solution be taking the quality of the enemy force in difficulty dice (using the same guide provided for friendlies) and averaging it with the difficulty dice for the outnumbering, rounding down.

That would make it so those rebel troopers (2 Ability) facing off against the stick wielding civilians in equal numbers ((1 difficulty +2 difficulty)/2 = 1.5, or 1 difficulty die total) is a different roll than those same troopers against Dark troopers ((2 difficulty+ 5 difficulty)/2=3.5 or 3 difficulty die).

It's far from perfect, since it means you can do up or down a quality level/outnumbering level and still get the same result. You could probably say that the GM could round up or down depending on what they felt makes the most sense.

And that's before accounting for PC intervention. A group of four AT-ATs are pretty scary until one of them turn into a fireball.

Add Boost or Setback to the Mass Combat dice

pool as usual and to reflect positioning

and environmental conditions on

the battlefield (such as fog, darkness,

mountains, etc.) going for or against the

acting force.

I think I saw a proposed solution be taking the quality of the enemy force in difficulty dice (using the same guide provided for friendlies) and averaging it with the difficulty dice for the outnumbering, rounding down.

That would make it so those rebel troopers (2 Ability) facing off against the stick wielding civilians in equal numbers ((1 difficulty +2 difficulty)/2 = 1.5, or 1 difficulty die total) is a different roll than those same troopers against Dark troopers ((2 difficulty+ 5 difficulty)/2=3.5 or 3 difficulty die).

It's far from perfect, since it means you can do up or down a quality level/outnumbering level and still get the same result. You could probably say that the GM could round up or down depending on what they felt makes the most sense.

And that's before accounting for PC intervention. A group of four AT-ATs are pretty scary until one of them turn into a fireball.

I'm assuming preset traps or star fighters?

And is there any particular reason for the trench run? The base is in a canyon for crying out loud.

I have divided it to several different modules, but overall its a good fleshed out story... however I don't like the planet skip in the middle, from Onderon or Ord Mantell.

Thus is a part of my problem with this base assault. The ISD should have close to 10,000 infantry, 20 AT-ATs, etc. The Imperials are led by a General.

And they send one company of stormtroopers? Really?!?

It seems like they're really holding back.

Not from within the confines of the adventure. The sheer logistics of getting 10,000 troops groundside and ready for assault is mind-boggling. For example, it takes 45 days to get 10,000 airborne troops from the US to the middle east and into combat actions. Having a Star Destroyer in orbit doesn't mitigate the fact that you need to physically get your troops on the ground, within striking distance of the enemy, with communications systems capable of directing a multi-faceted assault. While you eliminate the need for satellite communications uplinks and a secure location for the communications array, you still need to establish a forward base to act as a place where you can care for wounded and hold detainees. You can't utilize the Star Destroyer for this, because you can't use your shuttles to ferry up the wounded or detainees (you're busy using those shuttles to bring troops planetside). You can't use the AT-ATs as mobile headquarters because they're assault vehicles - meaning they can carry a platoon in cramped conditions and have no space for a bacta tank or medical bay.

This means many of the first troops on the ground won't be combat troops at all, but mechanics and engineers - specifically tasked with establishing the beach head from which you'll launch the attack. To make sure this is successful, you need to keep the enemy away from it. You can't surprise them (because you have a giant Star Destroyer in orbit - they know you're coming for them) so you need to commit the enemy to action away from your HQ so that you can fortify and continue to build up your forces for a sustained campaign and occupation. To accomplish this, you need to land a force strong enough to occupy the enemy in your first landing, then utilize the remainder of your resources to establishing your forward operations base. In the Arda adventure, what the PCs are actually fighting is this initial landing force.

A Star Destroyer has a fighter escort compliment of 72, and 2 Imperial shuttles for command personnel. Add to that 20 AT-AT's and 30 AT-STs, and a prefabricated base designed specifically for this purpose, one could assume the priority of deployment would be;

1) Small Beach head force and PFab-FOB (20% of forces)

2) Main Assault Force (Another 30% of forces)

3) Occupation Force (Final 50% of forces)

If we assume that a Star Destroyer has 10,000 troops and 50 pieces of heavy equipment, the goal for the initial landing would be 2,000 troops and 10 pieces of heavy equipment. The current tooth to tail ratio of operational troops in the US is 5:1, meaning that for every combat soldier on the ground, there are 5 support troops (medics, weapons officers, communications officers, radar operators, etc) at the FOB assisting them. If we assume that 4 of these 5 are on the Star Destroyer above, then we still have the harsh reality that of the 2,000 troops landing on the planet, 1,000 of them aren't going into combat (either they are there for repairs on the heavy equipment, or at the FOB).

The "Enemy Ground Forces" section of Arda are spot on when we talk about the heavy equipment (6 AT-AT's with 4 AT-ST escorts) but the statement about Talon Company leads me to believe that either the Imperial Military is less efficient in its tail to tooth ratio (which is possible, but unlikely) or the stat block is only covering the section of forces that come into play in the scenario. The latter is far more likely, as each AT-AT only carries a platoon inside it, so the remainder of troops would be either foot-slogging it from the FOB or shuttling in (which isn't an effective tactic until either air superiority is achieved). That means at a factor of 32 troops per AT-AT the most we would have is 192 stormtroopers - right in the 100-250 area of a company.

It can thus be assumed that General Vorrel's plan of action was to drop his initial 20% beach head as an armored strike force of AT-ATs, a company of offensive ground troops aboard them, and the remaining 1500 or so troops at the prefab FOB to serve as a full planet-side base of operations. This means that all the initial force would need to do is occupy the Rebel forces long enough for the transports to bring in the next wave (assume an equal force about every 6 hours).

Not from within the confines of the adventure. The sheer logistics of getting 10,000 troops groundside and ready for assault is mind-boggling. For example, it takes 45 days to get 10,000 airborne troops from the US to the middle east and into combat actions. Having a Star Destroyer in orbit doesn't mitigate the fact that you need to physically get your troops on the ground, within striking distance of the enemy, with communications systems capable of directing a multi-faceted assault. While you eliminate the need for satellite communications uplinks and a secure location for the communications array, you still need to establish a forward base to act as a place where you can care for wounded and hold detainees. You can't utilize the Star Destroyer for this, because you can't use your shuttles to ferry up the wounded or detainees (you're busy using those shuttles to bring troops planetside). You can't use the AT-ATs as mobile headquarters because they're assault vehicles - meaning they can carry a platoon in cramped conditions and have no space for a bacta tank or medical bay.

This means many of the first troops on the ground won't be combat troops at all, but mechanics and engineers - specifically tasked with establishing the beach head from which you'll launch the attack. To make sure this is successful, you need to keep the enemy away from it. You can't surprise them (because you have a giant Star Destroyer in orbit - they know you're coming for them) so you need to commit the enemy to action away from your HQ so that you can fortify and continue to build up your forces for a sustained campaign and occupation. To accomplish this, you need to land a force strong enough to occupy the enemy in your first landing, then utilize the remainder of your resources to establishing your forward operations base. In the Arda adventure, what the PCs are actually fighting is this initial landing force.

A Star Destroyer has a fighter escort compliment of 72, and 2 Imperial shuttles for command personnel. Add to that 20 AT-AT's and 30 AT-STs, and a prefabricated base designed specifically for this purpose, one could assume the priority of deployment would be;

1) Small Beach head force and PFab-FOB (20% of forces)

2) Main Assault Force (Another 30% of forces)

3) Occupation Force (Final 50% of forces)

If we assume that a Star Destroyer has 10,000 troops and 50 pieces of heavy equipment, the goal for the initial landing would be 2,000 troops and 10 pieces of heavy equipment. The current tooth to tail ratio of operational troops in the US is 5:1, meaning that for every combat soldier on the ground, there are 5 support troops (medics, weapons officers, communications officers, radar operators, etc) at the FOB assisting them. If we assume that 4 of these 5 are on the Star Destroyer above, then we still have the harsh reality that of the 2,000 troops landing on the planet, 1,000 of them aren't going into combat (either they are there for repairs on the heavy equipment, or at the FOB).

The "Enemy Ground Forces" section of Arda are spot on when we talk about the heavy equipment (6 AT-AT's with 4 AT-ST escorts) but the statement about Talon Company leads me to believe that either the Imperial Military is less efficient in its tail to tooth ratio (which is possible, but unlikely) or the stat block is only covering the section of forces that come into play in the scenario. The latter is far more likely, as each AT-AT only carries a platoon inside it, so the remainder of troops would be either foot-slogging it from the FOB or shuttling in (which isn't an effective tactic until either air superiority is achieved). That means at a factor of 32 troops per AT-AT the most we would have is 192 stormtroopers - right in the 100-250 area of a company.

It can thus be assumed that General Vorrel's plan of action was to drop his initial 20% beach head as an armored strike force of AT-ATs, a company of offensive ground troops aboard them, and the remaining 1500 or so troops at the prefab FOB to serve as a full planet-side base of operations. This means that all the initial force would need to do is occupy the Rebel forces long enough for the transports to bring in the next wave (assume an equal force about every 6 hours).

While the numbers look good, I do believe there is a significant difference in the way that the Us military and the Empire run things.

The first, due to the SW universe, is the use of droids and drones. The Empire has a wider use and number of drones than the US military does. Unless the droids/drones were considered in the tail end, then that means the "human number" can be a lot lower with little to no degradation in the unit..

The second is the deployment. The biggest reason the US military takes around 45 to deploy 10,000 troops is due to moving support, maintenance, and care. Unfortunately, due to the Empire, they don't care as much about Stormtroopers. Especially since they are nearly brainwashed and indoctrinated to die for the Empire on Command. This also reflects in the command climate, where punishments are often severe and fatal.

That, and the same Command structure often times lack imagination and subtle actions. It can be a literal "keep throwing troops until the enemy runs out of munitions".

Sarone's comment about Imperial command structure, at least where Legends is concerned, is pretty much on the mark. The Imperial brass is concerned with results, and not with how those results were achieved. Classic example is Base Delta Zero, which pacifies an unruly planet by pretty much turning the surface into a sheet of glass and rendering it uninhabitable.

The whole Imperial military mindset is to win through sheer overwhelming numbers. In the WEG material pertaining to the Rebel Alliance (in particular the Rebel Alliance sourcebook), it's often said that what the Alliance lacks in numbers, they make up for in the quality of their troops and ships. Classic case in point is the Alliance X-Wing vs. the Imperial TIE Fighter.

Granted, the Alliance is often so short-handed on everything that even they've got superior troops, superior equipment, and superior ships, the difference in numbers is staggering to the point where the Alliance High Command acknowledges that if the Galactic Civil War every comes down to a war of attrition, then they've long since lost the fight. It's part of why the Emperor's trap at Endor worked as well as it did; the Alliance knew they needed a big strike to shake the Empire, and taking out two of it's top leaders (Emperor and Vader) as well as an unfinished super-weapon was simply too good of an opportunity.

Heck, maybe Ackbar's line about "it's a trap!" was less of him stating the obvious in surprise but more him expressing to the other higher ups that concerns about this opportunity being too good to be true (concerns he might have even raised himself during the planning sessions) were right all along; kind of like an abbreviated version of "I told you guys this was too good to true, but noooooo, Ackbar's just being paranoid... guess what b***hes, I was RIGHT to be paranoid!" Mind you, that's my own personal head-canon, but I think it adds to Ackbar's character and gives a cheesy line a little more weight.

Mechanically, the mass combat rules are of a good format, but they're missing a CRITICAL element: the quality of the opposing troops. As per RAW, the system accounts for the quality of your troopers, both sides commanders, and both sides numbers, but going up against 50 AT-ATs and 50 stormtrooper cadets with stun pistols is the same level of difficulty, which can lead to some nonsensical results that break the narrative if you're dealing with situations where the quality of the two forces is not close to equal.

Well, to be fair the rules do have to cater for a tribe of Ewoks defeating an entire legion of the Emperor's finest troops. If opposing troop quality was taken into account, that would be unlikely to happen...

Mechanically, the mass combat rules are of a good format, but they're missing a CRITICAL element: the quality of the opposing troops. As per RAW, the system accounts for the quality of your troopers, both sides commanders, and both sides numbers, but going up against 50 AT-ATs and 50 stormtrooper cadets with stun pistols is the same level of difficulty, which can lead to some nonsensical results that break the narrative if you're dealing with situations where the quality of the two forces is not close to equal.

Well, to be fair the rules do have to cater for a tribe of Ewoks defeating an entire legion of the Emperor's finest troops. If opposing troop quality was taken into account, that would be unlikely to happen...

Maybe the Imperial side was plagued with lousy dice rolls while the Rebel side kept scoring Triumphs like there was no tomorrow (which in a matter of speaking, there kinda wasn't for the Alliance at that point).

Mechanically, the mass combat rules are of a good format, but they're missing a CRITICAL element: the quality of the opposing troops. As per RAW, the system accounts for the quality of your troopers, both sides commanders, and both sides numbers, but going up against 50 AT-ATs and 50 stormtrooper cadets with stun pistols is the same level of difficulty, which can lead to some nonsensical results that break the narrative if you're dealing with situations where the quality of the two forces is not close to equal.

Well, to be fair the rules do have to cater for a tribe of Ewoks defeating an entire legion of the Emperor's finest troops. If opposing troop quality was taken into account, that would be unlikely to happen...

Maybe the Imperial side was plagued with lousy dice rolls while the Rebel side kept scoring Triumphs like there was no tomorrow (which in a matter of speaking, there kinda wasn't for the Alliance at that point).

Also a possibility, but with these mass combat rules they don't need to rely on luck - just numbers and superior commanders. Which models the movies perfectly.

Well having now had a chance to read it .... overall I find it to be a nice adventure. But it's definitely one that you kinda have to break up and run over the course of many adventures so you can establish a sense of belonging to that base before it gets attacked. Otherwise there is little investment for the PCs. I do like the mass combat rules though.

I find myself wondering what happens if the PCs actually defeat the ground forces sent against the base. With the starfighters available, proton torpedoes and concussion missiles can make short work of walkers.

The Star Destroyers drop more walkers, land more troops, launch the fighters that weren't ready during the initial attack, etc. In the AoR core book, the ISD is listed as being able to carry thousands of troops. Even if they only have a fraction of their troop complement on board, each Star Destroyer can land many times the initial assault group that goes down.

Why didn't the Imperials land everything to start with? Speed seems a likely factor. The desire to hit the rebels fast enough that they don't get the chance to pack everything up and try to escape makes sense. Acquiring intact intelligence from the base computers, getting prisoners to interrogate, etc. would make the assault that much more successful. It also answers why the star destroyers didn't just glass that part of the planet with their turbolasers.

Thus is a part of my problem with this base assault. The ISD should have close to 10,000 infantry, 20 AT-ATs, etc. The Imperials are led by a General.

And they send one company of stormtroopers? Really?!?

It seems like they're really holding back.

Aside from the Metagame reasons (don't want the PC's to get slaughtered) there can be several in game reasons. The General got his rank because his daddy is a big time contractor and he called in a favor or three to get his son through the Academy and promoted on the pod racer like fast track. This is his first serious engagement and he totally underestimates the Alliance. Maybe they are holding back because their operative is too valuable and they don't want to risk killing him accidentally. Perhaps the Empire misread the reports from their operative and thinks this base is a quarter the size. Perhaps there was a very nasty strain of Corellian Influenza that ran through the fleet and most of the Stormtoopers were in bed with their hands swollen up to the size of basketballs. The General is on the Emperors Poo List already and figured better to attack with what he can scrape up instead of calling for help.

All you need is a gift for BS.....

I find myself wondering what happens if the PCs actually defeat the ground forces sent against the base. With the starfighters available, proton torpedoes and concussion missiles can make short work of walkers.

The Star Destroyers drop more walkers, land more troops, launch the fighters that weren't ready during the initial attack, etc. In the AoR core book, the ISD is listed as being able to carry thousands of troops. Even if they only have a fraction of their troop complement on board, each Star Destroyer can land many times the initial assault group that goes down.

Why didn't the Imperials land everything to start with? Speed seems a likely factor. The desire to hit the rebels fast enough that they don't get the chance to pack everything up and try to escape makes sense. Acquiring intact intelligence from the base computers, getting prisoners to interrogate, etc. would make the assault that much more successful. It also answers why the star destroyers didn't just glass that part of the planet with their turbolasers.

Thus is a part of my problem with this base assault. The ISD should have close to 10,000 infantry, 20 AT-ATs, etc. The Imperials are led by a General.

And they send one company of stormtroopers? Really?!?

It seems like they're really holding back.

Aside from the Metagame reasons (don't want the PC's to get slaughtered) there can be several in game reasons. The General got his rank because his daddy is a big time contractor and he called in a favor or three to get his son through the Academy and promoted on the pod racer like fast track. This is his first serious engagement and he totally underestimates the Alliance. Maybe they are holding back because their operative is too valuable and they don't want to risk killing him accidentally. Perhaps the Empire misread the reports from their operative and thinks this base is a quarter the size. Perhaps there was a very nasty strain of Corellian Influenza that ran through the fleet and most of the Stormtoopers were in bed with their hands swollen up to the size of basketballs. The General is on the Emperors Poo List already and figured better to attack with what he can scrape up instead of calling for help.

All you need is a gift for BS.....

Doesn't it say in the book that the forces you go up against are just the quick spearhead? That due to the SD suddenly appearing, and terrain limiting the approch (remember that canyon the base is in?), that this is all that's out there right now... for now. That there will be more coming soon if the Rebels don't get out of there.

As for what happens if the good guys win. Well, the base is compromised now that the Empire knows where it's at. They need to get out there, even if they kill every trooper on that boat, there will be more SDs right around the corner. The way I ran it was, "this is the backdrop for what's just behind. Since this is a game we can't fight through the entire battle against all of the badguys. I'm only going to throw so many troopers against you at a time, but just beyond those troopers are countless numbers more. You can stick around, but they'll keep coming."

Can I just make two points about this adventure (which I haven't yet run, but looks fantastic)

1. The map of Arda base is completely different to the one described in the text. Apart from anything else, the main hangar bay is described a couple of times in the text as being around 2km across, yet the one in the map can barely fit a dozen fighter-sized vehicles in it. Does anyone know of a more accurate map that's available?

EDIT TO ADD: In hindsight, I think I'll actually alter the size of the main hangar to 200 metres, rather than 2000 metres. It makes more sense anyway (a 2km wide cavern inside a mesa???), and it fits better with the idea of three or so squadrons. It's also easier to handwave the strangely-scaled map.

2. This is something I often see from American writers unused to the metric system. In the description of a couple of characters, it refers to them as being around two metres tall, including one who is explicitly described as being "completely average". For the record, two metres is NOT the same as "six feet" or "two yards". Darth Vader is two metres tall. Two metres tall is about 6' 7". Plain vanilla six feet is 1.83 metres.

On 2/11/2017 at 11:32 PM, Daronil said:

2. This is something I often see from American writers unused to the metric system. In the description of a couple of characters, it refers to them as being around two metres tall, including one who is explicitly described as being "completely average". For the record, two metres is NOT the same as "six feet" or "two yards". Darth Vader is two metres tall. Two metres tall is about 6' 7". Plain vanilla six feet is 1.83 metres.

Yep, those Americans , they just cant adapt to the standard metric rules, nor learn that the 1st floor is after the ground floor!