I played a practice combat session with my prospective players last night in prep for our campaign kickoff in about a week.

We know the rules pretty well (we are a pretty salty old group of gaming veterans) and jumped right in, enjoying the system tremendously! The dice were especially useful in taking the combat into all sorts of interesting directions and we all agreed the action was more varied and detailed than in typical gaming engagements.

The only issue I had as GM was the time it took to run the encounter. We moved pretty quickly, rarely having to look up rules or stats for more than a few seconds and stayed on task but it still took almost 3 hours to run the fight.

The encounter involved the 4 PCs and a group of 5 NPCs running into 3 groups of 5 troopers. After a few rounds of exchanged fire they are interrupted by a big monster type, awakened by the all the fuss going on near its lair. We had one vehicle nearby (a shuttle) that came into play when the hand blasters and such just wouldn't put the big baddy down. Essentially the two sides joined forces for a bit to remove the rampaging menace then resumed their feud.

It wasn't that complicated and as stated was a lot of fun but those same dice that made it so interesting and action packed also slowed things down tremendously. In most games you get a lot of "roll, he missed" type stuff but here, even when using the minion group rule every round took quite a while. Pondering over how to spend those two advantages or implement something cool with that threat was a fun diversion but in the end... wow.. 3 hours for a single combat?

Our typical sessions only last about that long. I gotta speed that up or we aren't going to get anywhere.

Thoughts?

EoE p. 323. One roll combat resolution.

You don't always have to be creative with the dice rolls, thinking up clever uses for your four advantages or your triumph. If there's no situation that warrants it, or if your players just don't feel like doing it, you can always just fall back to the "standard" uses, such as adding a boost or setback, auto-critting, or whatever. Having the option to do cool stuff is a narrative device, but if it helps the narrative to just get the combat over with in a timely manner , don't feel obligated to think up something grandiose for every roll you make.

One thing you can do when there are a lot of (friendly) NPCs is to not roll for some of them and just involve them narratively. For example, have some of the NPCs fight one of the stormtrooper minion groups and exclude them from the rolls. Then, every other round or so, have a stormtrooper go down, or have the NPCs suffer wounds, whatever is more fitting.

Another thing I sometimes do is to assign each player one of the friendly NPCs to roll for them. This helps when you spend a lot of time forming the NPCs dice pools, or when you get the feeling that you just play with yourself. Also, from what I've seen, the players care more about the NPCs when it is "their" NPC, maybe even becoming a permanent companion.

Also, one roll combat resolution, as said above, though that might be too much for a complex encounter as the one you described.

EoE p. 323. One roll combat resolution.

Yes, Im familiar with that section and looks like an option if "the combat result is a foregone conclusion" as it reads. We never reached anything close to that until the last round or so. I would hate to short cut the action like that unless, as described, the encounter had just sort of bogged down.

One thing you can do when there are a lot of (friendly) NPCs is to not roll for some of them and just involve them narratively. For example, have some of the NPCs fight one of the stormtrooper minion groups and exclude them from the rolls. Then, every other round or so, have a stormtrooper go down, or have the NPCs suffer wounds, whatever is more fitting.

Another thing I sometimes do is to assign each player one of the friendly NPCs to roll for them. This helps when you spend a lot of time forming the NPCs dice pools, or when you get the feeling that you just play with yourself. Also, from what I've seen, the players care more about the NPCs when it is "their" NPC, maybe even becoming a permanent companion.

Also, one roll combat resolution, as said above, though that might be too much for a complex encounter as the one you described.

Hmm, now that is an interesting concept, and something I actually thought about. When not directly involved with the PCs, simply GMing the action elsewhere instead of actually playing it out. Obviously if there is an encounter going on somewhere else (A friendly NPC squad is supposed to take out the guards at the gate while the PCs hit the power generator) typically the GM resolves that encounter narratively. (Ive done this in other systems for years) but it is a different matter when the action is close to the Player Characters. (The NPC with the Player Group lags behind to take out the pursuing guards while they assault the command center) Technically the NPC is still part of their group just not immediately involved in the same encounter. I suppose its the same thing, just feels different automatically ruling what happens to the guy that you were rolling for a minute ago.

As far as assigning NPCs to players, yes.. I learned that playing Savage Worlds long ago and have used it ever sense. You are absolutely right that it gives the players a sense of ownership and helps build a bond with an otherwise run-o-the-mill NPC.

EoE p. 323. One roll combat resolution.

Yes, Im familiar with that section and looks like an option if "the combat result is a foregone conclusion" as it reads. We never reached anything close to that until the last round or so. I would hate to short cut the action like that unless, as described, the encounter had just sort of bogged down.

3 hours for one combat is bogged down.

Were you treating the 5 NPC's as one (minion) group and the 3 sets of 5 as a second minion group?

Rolling 9 initative slots is much quicker then rolling 25 slots.

Even still 9 is unwieldy. When it comes to minion groups I perfer allowing enough damage to kill 2 minions to kill 2 minions even if the gun doesn't have the ability to target a second person, by spending 2 advantage (the blaster bolt goes through one guy and kills another). If you have a legitimate auto fire guy, minions is his time to shine, and he can probably kill 5 or so in 1 round if he is super optimized.

When 1/2 or more of the enemey forces are dead you can always have the rest retreat.

Using 3 advantage or a triumph to make a minion flee (if a leader is not present or dead)

If your players don't have enough damage to harm the big bad, you could either make it so his soak was low enough that on a good roll the players could eventually crit kill him even if they were only doing 1 damage at a time stacking crits stack, or end the combat without killing him and letting the players escape and he goes back to his lair.

Ships weapons do insane damage to person sized objects so if a PC ship is involved its legitimate to say an entire squad of minnions gets taken out by 1 concussion missle or 1 shot from a heavy laser.

The other thing you can do is plan ahead exactly what the enemies are going to do (who they are going to try and take out first, what tatics will they use and minimize the time it takes you to run the combat)

Regarding advantage if a player can't decide its ok to say it defaults to a boost die for the next player or a boost die for a specific player depending on how much adv he has left. It's your job to keep things moving, they are shooting at minions not every shot needs to go through a guy and hit the power pack on the heavy repeating blaster, disabling it.

EoE p. 323. One roll combat resolution.

Yes, Im familiar with that section and looks like an option if "the combat result is a foregone conclusion" as it reads. We never reached anything close to that until the last round or so. I would hate to short cut the action like that unless, as described, the encounter had just sort of bogged down.

3 hours for one combat is bogged down.

I can see how you might think so and if I were to report that we ran 15 rounds wherein opposing groups shot at each other from behind cover like paint ballers that would be true, but it wasn't like that at all. There was plenty of ebb and flow, give and take, dramatic action besides shooting. The fight moved through an abandoned facility, had various atmospheric elements, incorporated field medicine and some mechanical challenges and was actually very entertaining. Im not complaining at all, I was just wondering if others found the use of the narrative dice a bit cumbersome at times and how they sped things up around their use.

Sounds like part of the issue may have been just been the size of the encounter. 4 PCs, 5 NPCs (Rival or Nemesis I assume), and 3 groups of five minions. That's 12 initiative slots all held by characters with 12-25+ Wounds... Yeah, that's going to take a while to resolve.

You may want to look at ways to reduce the encounter or adjust the character breakdown to reducing rolling and tracking. I've noticed that things go best if the total umber of tracked characters is equal to or less than the player count.

Some things to consider:

Non combat characters not controlled directly by a player simply clear the area, hide, ect, until the fight is over. Don't even give them an initiative slot, just open with "The blasters come out and Jimmy dives behind a nearby dumpster."

Tweak and design minion groups to reduce management, don't be afraid to make those friendly soldier guys the players are hanging with just one minion group, or perhaps a minion group and a single rival if you want their leader to hang around a little while. So like did those 5 NPCs need to be 5? Could they have been one group, or a rival and a group of 4?

Squads and Squadrons are a great way to reduce management, compressing minon groups and rival/nemesis into a single tracked "character." You can even mix and match as you go, so when four troopers go down a new group comes in and just immediately join the squad. Boom, 4 more guys on the field, 0 new tracked characters in the system.

Were you treating the 5 NPC's as one (minion) group and the 3 sets of 5 as a second minion group?

YES, SEE ABOVE - THEY WERE GROUPED

Rolling 9 initative slots is much quicker then rolling 25 slots.

Even still 9 is unwieldy. When it comes to minion groups I perfer allowing enough damage to kill 2 minions to kill 2 minions even if the gun doesn't have the ability to target a second person, by spending 2 advantage (the blaster bolt goes through one guy and kills another). If you have a legitimate auto fire guy, minions is his time to shine, and he can probably kill 5 or so in 1 round if he is super optimized.

NO, DIDNT EVEN CONSIDER THIS BUT ITS AN INTERESTING IDEA

When 1/2 or more of the enemey forces are dead you can always have the rest retreat.

THATS ACTUALLY HOW IT ENDED, PCs RETREATED AFTER HEAVY CASUALTIES

Using 3 advantage or a triumph to make a minion flee (if a leader is not present or dead)

If your players don't have enough damage to harm the big bad, you could either make it so his soak was low enough that on a good roll the players could eventually crit kill him even if they were only doing 1 damage at a time stacking crits stack, or end the combat without killing him and letting the players escape and he goes back to his lair.

THEY UTILIZED THE SHUTTLE'S CANNON BY DRAWING HIM OUT.

Ships weapons do insane damage to person sized objects so if a PC ship is involved its legitimate to say an entire squad of minnions gets taken out by 1 concussion missle or 1 shot from a heavy laser.

YES, I READ SOMEWHERE SOMETHING ABOUT ALLOWING VEHICLE WEAPONS THE BLAST ABILITY AGAINST INDIVIDUALS

The other thing you can do is plan ahead exactly what the enemies are going to do (who they are going to try and take out first, what tatics will they use and minimize the time it takes you to run the combat)

Regarding advantage if a player can't decide its ok to say it defaults to a boost die for the next player or a boost die for a specific player depending on how much adv he has left. It's your job to keep things moving, they are shooting at minions not every every shot needs to go through a guy and hit the power pack on the heavy repeating blaster, disabling it.

THANKS VERY MUCH, GOOD STUFF ALL

Yes, it was a large encounter, but we did use Minion rules for everyone other than the PCs. It was purposefully large to facilitate a good practice. Ill grant you that sort of thing probably wont happen in most game. I hope not anyway!

Your description describes a fairly complicated encounter, honestly. I'm not surprised it took some time!

EoE p. 323. One roll combat resolution.

Yes, Im familiar with that section and looks like an option if "the combat result is a foregone conclusion" as it reads. We never reached anything close to that until the last round or so. I would hate to short cut the action like that unless, as described, the encounter had just sort of bogged down.

3 hours for one combat is bogged down.

I'd love to see a transcript or live play of their combat. We've had some epic, massive combats and none of them have taken nearly as long as that - even when we were learning the rules. So what are they doing that's out of the ordinary?

The only thing I could think of to help is: scale back the encounters. Keep them small until you get your feet under you.

Your encounter seems like it way longer than normal for this game. And it seems like you now have a ton of great advice on how to handle your encounters, so I can't really add any more to that.

I have found getting used to this myself, and bringing others used to this idea is a tricky one. Most players are very used to the quick combat resolution of D20 of Hit/Miss results. Then jumping into this game with its wonky special dice and symbols, trying to remember their stupid names, and what they mean, let alone figure out what to with them! Then they tell the story, what! And now it's up to the player to do this!!!!

It can really throw a lot of people off. I have read where some players pretty much refuse to do this, as they think it's the GMs job... Anyway, yeah, I have found that combat rounds can take a long to resolve. I really try hard to keep mine to only a few rounds.

It can be very hard to explain or understand this game system, not only are the Range Bands fluid and variable (to a point), but so are the rounds. But so to are the skill uses and the amount of time they are being used in a round. Social skills are rolled one time for the encounter usually, but what about melee or ranged combat? So I shoot at the baddies, and you mean to tell me I missed, but that was my Action, but not only was it my Action for the round, but pretty much the Encounter? So I just kept shooting and shooting and missing? Even though I rolled once? Or even if they hit, and did damage, an attack roll can be for more than just one attack. But I only get to roll damage once then!? A lot of people are used to that action being rolled signifying a slot of time equating to a few seconds maybe around 3-6 seconds where that character is doing something grand (or sometimes not). In this game, it can also be that way if you want it to, or it can be more. If I have a firefight going on, I usually have my rounds last for seconds of "game time". Even then, I only have firefights that last for a few rounds. Usually I have a 2-4 rounds where my PC have a huge effect on the scene either being the Heroes, of showing them they are in over their heads, then if the full outcome has not been decided, and combat is still active, I make it more narrative. If the PCs were already getting beat up, then the baddies get more reinforcements in, showing them it is time to go! And I let them retreat. But that really never happens. We don't even run combat very often. My last game, I wanted to a big combat scene, but our time was running over, so I made it all a narrative scene, and they got their butts kicked! The players were actually very happy with the story though! Kind of shocking I know, to have players hear about their characters getting beat up, and not being able to do anything about it, and still being happy with the story and outcome! Talk about trust in the GM!!!

So this is how I kind of make some of my longer combat sessions take a little less time. But I for one do love the fact that they do take more time. For me, it has become a better experience in gaming, and I enjoy more. I get hear my players interact in the game world more, as they help tell the story of the great things their characters are doing, and and how they get to affect the world around them and actually show those effects and turn those in to dice mechanics. So maybe we get fewer encounters per session, but the quality sure is better! Even when the Star Wars RPG was still being actively being published by other companies, I was already tired and burned out on the Hit/Miss combat rounds, and was wanting more from my games.

I've found that nitpicking to spend every last advantage is what really slows combat. Exactly how many times can one notice an important detail?

I've repeatedly said "You don't have to spend it all, especially if sussing out its effect stalls the game", and I've let one or two threat go unused to make a point, but players will be players and are literally wont to use every resource they get, so I've taken to counting to three in my head, and if I reach three and a player is still vacillating I move to the next initiative slot.

Tell players to be quick, to be thinking even before it is their turn about what they might spend those resources on. It's great they all get involved in the results of other players' pools, but I expect them to do more than that. Help narrate a pool's results, use that narration to segue into yours, remember the initiative order and don't namby pamby about when you know the last allied slot is coming up.

Bumps, logs, and all that.

Just my own observations, and if you don't care for them that's fine, just don't crap talk 'em.

Disclaimer: The word "you" is used in the general sense.

The hardest thing for me to understand, so far anyway, is the seeming disconnect between what in places are very strict and detailed rules and the accepted implication by many veterans of the game that you really don't have to follow them. I get that its a narrative approach and freeform in function but its strange how many posts advise players to just 'wing it' when the rules become a hindrance of any kind. That notion is indeed refreshing and liberating but difficult to grasp and impossible for some gamers I would think.

The post above mentions arbitrarily bringing in reinforcements to force the players to retreat. It also mentions just ignoring the structured rules for a fight and concluding it in narrative only. These kinds of GM actions would spell open rebellion in most games that I have played but the general consensus here seems to be that they are fine, as long as the story is dramatic and fun. Many of the answers to rules questions, other than the straight forward and obvious, are purposely vague and suggest to the GM he needn't worry about specifics but rather just get on with the story. The whole "speed of plot" explanations are a real eye opener!

I am either going to really love this system (as a story teller) or hate it (as a wargamer) - I guess I will find out in time. I sincerely hope it is the former.

I have been reading through the pages of threads when time allows and its an experience for sure.

First off, I'm really glad to hear you and your group are enjoying the game! It is a great system and I know it is the system I'm going to compare any future table top RPGs too that I try from here on out.

Now for the long combat stuff. You've already gotten a ton of great advice, but I'll add, scale down the encounters. This is best until your group is use to the system and can quickly decide how to spend advantage and triumphs. If you have the GM screen, pass it around so the players can see the list of suggested uses, until they start to memorize them.

If you are doing a large combat encounter, don't have the players explain every action/advantage and threat. I try to discourage this, but if there is huge battle going on, I'm not going to ask my player to explain how they are passing a boost dice to the next player action. It just gets in the way and slows things down when you know the encounter is going to last more than 3 rounds.

Don't be afraid to say, that a minion group gives up! If the players destroy 2 whole minion groups and the main nemesis in the encounter but there is one minion group left to go, have them run off.

its strange how many posts advise players to just 'wing it' when the rules become a hindrance of any kind. That notion is indeed refreshing and liberating but difficult to grasp and impossible for some gamers I would think.

Most games I've ever played have - ether implicitly implied or straight out said - a rule zero: the rules are subservient to the story. Don't spend time looking up minuuttia, rule with your gut or flat out ignore it and look it up after the session.

The FFG engine pretty much makes rule zero Rule Number One.

The hardest thing for me to understand, so far anyway, is the seeming disconnect between what in places are very strict and detailed rules and the accepted implication by many veterans of the game that you really don't have to follow them. I get that its a narrative approach and freeform in function but its strange how many posts advise players to just 'wing it' when the rules become a hindrance of any kind. That notion is indeed refreshing and liberating but difficult to grasp and impossible for some gamers I would think.

This concept isn't impossible to grasp, but some players simply aren't:

1. Familiar with a more narrative style of roleplaying, and thus it's a large learning curve.

2. Are simply the analytical/strategy minded players, and honestly, the FFG system just isn't that kind of game. They're coming expecting to play some elaborate game of chess, while the rest of us are here to do improvisational theater.

But yes, the rule of "Just wing it" is a very good one, and one that this system encourages. If you don't like a rule, don't use it. That's what I do with a rule or two from the RAW, and it's improved our game experience across the board.

The post above mentions arbitrarily bringing in reinforcements to force the players to retreat. It also mentions just ignoring the structured rules for a fight and concluding it in narrative only. These kinds of GM actions would spell open rebellion in most games that I have played but the general consensus here seems to be that they are fine, as long as the story is dramatic and fun. Many of the answers to rules questions, other than the straight forward and obvious, are purposely vague and suggest to the GM he needn't worry about specifics but rather just get on with the story. The whole "speed of plot" explanations are a real eye opener!

And that's the main thrust of this game system. It's not about figuring out who has the highest base modifier, and a flanking position for extra critical damage. It's about taking part in a "cinematic" experience in the Star Wars universe, where the Rule of Cool trumps paltry things like physics, and vacuum! Ask your players, and yourself, what parts of the movies/stories/etc that you love. Is it the detailed breakdown of how hyperspace works? Or is it stuff like Luke leaping off the plank, flipping in the air as R2 shoots his saber to him, then igniting it while John William's sweeping score of badassery kicks in, and suddenly all hell breaks loose? If it's option 2, then congrats! You've got a game system designed to help you replicate those cool things as much as possible! The mechanics are there to be a base guideline for how you should describe the events. If the PC's roll a lot of threat, but succeed at what they are trying to do, then it's a tense situation, it's Luke and Leia leaping across the pit in the Death Star, but blowing the lock so they can't keep the troopers from following, and then being in a gunfight on the other side. Sure, they made their athletics check to get across, but they rolled some threat "Crap! The doors locked! Cover me while I open it!"

If they fail, but with lots of advantage, then they are being pushed back by the troopers, but hey look! R2 shoots some smoke into the hallway, clouding their escape so they are less likely to be hit, while they chase after Boba Fett's ship!

They succeed, and with lots of advantage/triumph, hey look! It's Qui-Gan and Obi-Wan leaping down into a cluster of 20+ battle droids and laying waste to all of them in a matter of seconds, all with a sense of badassness to it, then turning around to the Queen and being all bosslike "Lady, we are here to protect you." Cool mode engaged!

So try and think of the various results as either currency to buy cool fluff for the scene, or simply a guide as to whether or not the scene is going well for the heroes, or poorly.

As to how to speed up the mass space combat, well, that I don't have much advice on. My personal thoughts on the "bigger battle" is to consider them as environmental modifiers. The enemy has a large number of cap ships in the fight, laying down anti-figther fire? Upgrade all piloting checks in the fight, or provide 2 baseline setback dice (the flak being hazardous terrain). The PC's have cap ships on their side, providing the same thing? Also give them some boost die, or upgrade their piloting checks for having significant support (lot easier to shoot down tie fighters when they are busy dealing with you and a volley of flak fire). If the PC's aren't directly attacking the cap ships? Then let the big ships fight each other, and make a roll yourself for them as a big group, and let the results color the events. Maybe the PC fleet (backup ships) manage to take out the anti-fighter platform, great! That's -2 setback die on all your piloting checks, as the skies clear of flak! Or maybe they take down one of the cap ships instead. Great! Now that permanent (2 red dice to all piloting checks) is now reduced down to just one, as your fleet now has a significant tactical/tonnage advantage in the engagement.

Make some basic rolls, translate the results into narrative stuff from the movies "While the 4 of your fight for your lives against the swarm of TIE's, the sky blossoms into a new sun to your right, as one of the Imperial cap ships erupts with a core detonation!" What really happened was you rolled the PC fleets dice pool in the "big battle", and they got a ton of success, so boom, you decide to remove a cap ship. But it sounds so much cooler that way.

And honestly, with big enough cap ships, they're basically environmental hazards anyway. So don't treat them the same way you treat PC's, and the smaller scale fights. Cluster them together like minion groups, and give them some baseline stats to play with (do this before the session of course ), and then take some time to consider what the results will translate to.

That will probably shave down tons of time off your big fights, and also make them seem a lot more awesome.

But that's how I would do it, following the "just wing it" rules the book suggests. I mean, the movies hardly spend any time on what the cap ships are doing, even in Return of the Jedi. We'd get a 3 second clip of one of the caps blowing up, or showing them changing positions to alter tactics, and then the focus goes right back to Lando and Wedge. So, following that rule, unless your players are piloting a cap ship, and directly fighting cap ships, I'd just leave that stuff to narrative description, to flavor the moment.

"The Imperial Star Destroyers loom closer in your field of view!" (They advance a range band) "And open fire, filling the sky with crimson bolts of death!" (Likely never going to hit a fighter, but it's a threat to deal with now, 2 setback die/upgrade check)

Heck, I've "wung it" to the point of just tossing a few Force die to see if things go well or poorly for the team, in narrative description. "Oh look, Light side pips, and Dark side pips, guess something ominous happens, but at the same time something cool happens." To break genre "Oh crap! The Nazghul are here on their flying things! But yay! The Eagles are here too!"

Eh, I'm kind of rambling at this point, but I hope you get my point. You're the GM, you are not constrained to any rules if they are reducing the fun at your table. Be broad, be descriptive, be dramatic, but don't bother with the dice unless you really need them for something. If the players are kicking butt and taking names left and right, then have that impact the big fleet fight directly. "The path of destruction you guys cut through the TIE's has opened up a path for the fleet to take out another cap ship!" etc etc.

Rolling 9 initative slots is much quicker then rolling 25 slots.

Even still 9 is unwieldy. When it comes to minion groups I perfer allowing enough damage to kill 2 minions to kill 2 minions even if the gun doesn't have the ability to target a second person, by spending 2 advantage (the blaster bolt goes through one guy and kills another). If you have a legitimate auto fire guy, minions is his time to shine, and he can probably kill 5 or so in 1 round if he is super optimized.

NO, DIDNT EVEN CONSIDER THIS BUT ITS AN INTERESTING IDEA

... Isn't this RAW? I dont have my books on me, but I thought If your damage does 10 and your minions have a WT of 5, you kill 2, if you deal 15 on the same minions you kill 3, if you deal 7 in one action (5 kills one and 2 Wound to #2) and 8 on the next action (the remaing 3 to #2 kills them, and the 5 remaining wounds kills #3) was HOW minion's worked.

Always remember one roll isn't ONE action. Even a blaster pistol roll usually involves a flurry of shots, a vibro-ax roll involves a couple swings. so its very easy to narrate extra damage killing extra minions.

Rolling 9 initative slots is much quicker then rolling 25 slots.

Even still 9 is unwieldy. When it comes to minion groups I perfer allowing enough damage to kill 2 minions to kill 2 minions even if the gun doesn't have the ability to target a second person, by spending 2 advantage (the blaster bolt goes through one guy and kills another). If you have a legitimate auto fire guy, minions is his time to shine, and he can probably kill 5 or so in 1 round if he is super optimized.

NO, DIDNT EVEN CONSIDER THIS BUT ITS AN INTERESTING IDEA

... Isn't this RAW? I dont have my books on me, but I thought If your damage does 10 and your minions have a WT of 5, you kill 2, if you deal 15 on the same minions you kill 3, if you deal 7 in one action (5 kills one and 2 Wound to #2) and 8 on the next action (the remaing 3 to #2 kills them, and the 5 remaining wounds kills #3) was HOW minion's worked.

Always remember one roll isn't ONE action. Even a blaster pistol roll usually involves a flurry of shots, a vibro-ax roll involves a couple swings. so its very easy to narrate extra damage killing extra minions.

It is, barring Soak of course.

At the risk of sounding pedantic if your minions have 5 wound threshold, then 6 damage kills one, 11 damage kills two, etc. You have to exceed wound threshold to take out a minion.

It may be this is how your doing combat with minions, but just in case it's not I'll put an example here to help with minions wound tracking. I usually draw a line of small circles each representing a wound of each minion in a group (one long chain) with marks showing the devision between individual minions. So the example:

1 group of 5 minions, soak 3 WT of 5.

oooooIoooooIoooooIoooooIoooooIo

If someone attacks them and deals 12 damage then we subtract 3 from that for soak, dealing 9 damage total to the group. Soak is only subtracted once per hit:

Our typical sessions only last about that long. I gotta speed that up or we aren't going to get anywhere.

Thoughts?

Are you currently House Ruling anything?