Hey guys,

GM here. Yesterday I had a big battle going on with my group that included three capital ships, six starfighters, various NPCs and the group, which was separated between a boarding operation for some, flying a fighter for another player and using a turret for the last.

The resulting game was epic, but there were a bit too many dice throws which resulted in the game dragging a bit.

I though about using the mass combat rules but since the players interacted with pretty much everything, rolling for every attack felt like my only solution. The initiative order had about fifteen turns and sometimes the players had to wait while I rolled and described NPC actions for three turns in a row.

How do you usually deal with that? I regrouped capital ship weapons in minion groups, and had dice ready for each attack, but any other tip is welcome.

GM section has a part that talks about one roll combat resolution.

EoE p. 323

It's a fine line here between rolling too much and not enough. I'm wary of one-roll resolution being too little of the battle is important to the story and the players are directly involved. I wonder if there might be ways to combine minion groups and pre-rolling some of those dice pools might help speed things up?

I'd basically use the mass combat rules. For each phase have each PC make a skill check based on what they are doing and narrate and resolve from there.

The PC in a figher would likely roll Pilot. The turret gunner Gunnery, the boarding party could roll a combat skill (or computers or stealth or whatever fits what they are doing). Each player check can encompass a lot of action that pushes the story forward. Succeed on a Pilot check? Ok, your squadron defeated the enemy squadron. Succeeded on a Computers check during the boarding action? Ok, you hacked the ships systems and can do something that pushes things forward. Once each player roll has been resolved and narrated build the mass combat check accordingly and do the standard mass combat check thing.

Maybe each phase is meant to highlight one PC or a group of PCs at a particular location. In this case maybe the focus is on the star fighters and so you play out a space combat encounter (with the non-present PCs taking over for allied NPCs). So, each PC has a full encounter their PC gets to participate in but other locations actions during that particular phase are resolved quickly with a single check.

Definitely the Mass Combat rules. I typically prefer resolving the entire Mass Combat in 3 phases. Each player gets a turn in each Phase to describe their part of the battle, make a skill check for what they intend to do which could either aid or worsen the Mass Combat roll at the end of the phase to determine the overall course of the battle. Basically, best 2/3 for the Phases, adjusted for benefit/detriment based on the rolls made on the player's various turns to see which side wins the battle.

It's good to focus on the contributions the PCs are making in combat, and I like the above suggestions as to how to better use the Mass Combat rules.

But it's also important to focus on the goal of the encounter. What was the reason for entering the fight, and what are the PCs trying to do? Interpret the actions and dice rolls in light of that. Otherwise, if it's just an all-out slugfest, then yeah combat is gonna trend long, boring, and anticlimactic.

If you use the Mass Combat rules, make sure you don't make phases that have preordained outcomes. Friends Like These suffered for that because each phase only allowed for two possibilities "X happens" or "X happens but takes a little longer" with no "X doesn't happen" or even "Y happens" options. If it's just dice rolling to run down a clock, it's not worth rolling the dice.

The Mass Combat checks in part 1 of Onslaught at Arda I have the same problem.

I'm not a huge fan of using Mass Combat to determine PCs course of action because it's too linear and doesn't impose consequences on them individually.

The one roll combat alternate rule is better I think. You let them choose what skill they use and describe how they use it. I make the Difficulty whatever the combat dice pool of the base opposition was, 6 Stromtroopers would be RRRPP, and then add Challenges or Setbacks as appropriate for additional leaders or environment, then roll. If they succeed, super, they came through unscathed, they got a Triumph, super, give em an upgrade or some Boost for Advantages. They fail, simple, failures equal Wounds, Threat equal Strain, Despair equal crits or lost/damaged gear.

It's a good way to put stress on their healing capabilities during a single session. Serialized campaign style can as well stretched out between sessions within that narrative 24 hour period, but the one roll option lets you pile it on within a single session's actual time frame.

Mass Combat is better left to the 'big picture' I think, and it definitely requires a GM to plan ahead and make that result options flowchart to be worth using I think.

12 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

I'm not a huge fan of using Mass Combat to determine PCs course of action because it's too linear and doesn't impose consequences on them individually.

This is very true --I've had players tell me that they feel like an audience in Mass Combat scenes rather than participants. Come to think of it, I've felt that way GMing them too.

Conceptually I like the idea. For their part in what is RAW they're fine. They just need like a page or two more of rules.

PCs and their presence should matter more in some fashion. One of my guys suggested taking a critical hit and using that as some sort of inspiration to allied forces.

Failures of rolls having consequences for the PCs themselves.

A page with an example of some kind of battle/campaign flowchart progression with examples of if/then's laid out and how it might progress.

Then suggestions for adjudicating the conclusion, a rewards phase or whatever.

So what there is works, it's just incomplete I think.

5 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

This is very true --I've had players tell me that they feel like an audience in Mass Combat scenes rather than participants. Come to think of it, I've felt that way GMing them too.

More spoilers for Onslaught at Arda I:

It might be worth noting, as others have said, that rolling dice might not be necessary in a battle of this scale. If the PCs or their Macguffins aren't directly targeted or under attack, is it truly important to the scene or is it just a fancy setpiece? If so, maybe the GM could just narrate without rolling unless it really matters to the PCs or their mission.

Mass Combat rules help a lot. Though to be fair, even without them … our last fight with 48 starfighters, a understaffed MC80 and a victory star destroyer took exactly three rounds with just normal rules and using squadrons in squadron size for the alliance and two squadron sized TIE. About 16 rolls or so per turn as the turbolasers and ions canons were grouped into appropriate sizes to have enough success to actually penetrate those extremely high armor values, so those cap ship weapon roles were just a staccato of hits, meanwhile the fighter combat was a little more dynamic, but in the end dealt with 6 to 8 rolls, most of them involving GtA. For anything bigger I definitely recommend to use the mass combat rules at use something in that size for the highlight scenes.

Capturing the victory afterwards was dealt in one roll of mass combat and one scene for the players to capture the bridge. No point in stretching things like these out, especially when the whole star destroyer was a booby trap meant to be captured and explode in the alliance dock.

What I definitely would try to avoid is railroading the mass combat, which you can easily achieve by allowing players to have a little scene for each phase of the mass combat. If the PCs do in that scene something crazy, it can dramatically shift the whole rest of the fight. This gives the players choice and agenda in a battle without dragging everything out. The squadron and minion rules are especially useful during those scenes to keep the PCs alive while still allowing for a good amount of firepower at the PCs disposal to change the next mass combat phase in significant ways, like taking out that star destroyer with Ion Bombs, a Y-Wing squadron and a light freighter or preventing escape routes by dropping gravity mines or destroying hyperdrive systems of enemy ships. Furthermore, when pc are in command, the setting of goals itself can change the meaning of those mass combat rolls anyway significantly.

Here is where I would get away from the rules as written in LbE and instead let the PCs determine what events the PCs aim for at least if they are in a position to do so without ignoring orders. Pre-planned events limit the space for the PCs to act far too much and as GM you should allow the PCs the freedom to make their own decisions. And I mean decisions with consequences, not just once for theme which all end up with the same end result. Anyway, the answer is still mass combat rules, just make sure that the PCs don't feel railroaded, if they are creative they will find was the create turning points and/or change the battlefield in significant ways, if they have a bad day you should still present them options to do it and help them with an path ahead to take.

Lastly, as others have said: If the whole mass battle is just background for the real pc's objectives, feel free to ignore it and just describe it as it wents. Example: If none of the players in the battle of endor part of the space battle, but fighting instead vader and palpatine on the deathstar and the stormtroopers on the ground than there is little reason to roll for the space battle, if the players are in a battle with the sith, there is little reason to roll for either mass combat and if they are rogue squadron attacking the death star then you can ignore … you get the drift.

Friends like these actually does this very good in my opinion. THe Mass Combat at the end of the adventure IS somewhat of a railroad, but you know that from the beginning as a PC. It's the nature of the situation. But it shows perfectly how to integrate the players in a mass combat situation and chipping away at the mass combat dice of the enemy by doing meaningful scenes during a combat phase.

Design your battle like you would design an X-Wing campaign, for those that know. Make like three phases, but with branching outcomes, so ina. whole you make 6 different phases.

Like this:

Space Battle MC80 vs ISD with according fighter squadrons. PCs are fighter squadron members

Combat Phase A has two outcomes. Mass Combat check is changed by a PC scene. If they manage to shoot down all the TIE Bombers and keeding their bombers alive for an initial torpedo attack.

We now have two outcomes, let's call them B and C

B is if the Mass Combat check is a success for the Rebs and C is for the Imps. Those also have branching outcomes, with both of them ending in the third option of F like failure for both of them, which is the final combat phase, where both forces are retreating or something.

A lot of comments here about how Mass Combat isn't represented well. When you read it, it does an excellent job. Most battles in real life are "predetermined" as to who will win. Commanders plan it that way on purpose. Only the "accidental" battles don't have a specific outcome.

Looking at Friends Like These, the mass combat was very well laid out. The enemy forces dramatically outnumber and outclass the defenders, even with reinforcements. They need to hold out for X time for the Rebel fleet to arrive. The mass combat is all about how to delay the enemy. Much like the Battle of Hoth. The mass combat was all about delaying the enemy long enough to evacuate the base.

In other genre, you find this commonly done. Saving Private Ryan. The beach assault was determined that the Allies would break through. The player's goal is to minimize casualties. The end battle had a goal to delay long enough for the Allies to arrive, or else destroy the bridge.

The mass combat rules were clear, the goal needs to be made, but victory does not mean defeating all enemies.

3 minutes ago, Edgookin said:

Most battles in real life are "predetermined" as to who will win. Commanders plan it that way on purpose. Only the "accidental" battles don't have a specific outcome.

You need to read more history books. Ever hear the expression "battle plans never survive contact with the enemy"? Look up the "Battle of the Bulge" from World War 2. Or the German invasion of Russia in the same war. Or go back to World War I and see why the Germans failed to win in 1914, despite their pretty good plans.

In regards to Friends Like These (SPOILERS ahead) I don't think people have an issue with the PCs being outnumbered and "victory" being holding off the Imperial assault long enough for a Rebel fleet to arrive it's that the Imperial fleet just runs away when the Rebel fleet arrives and the planet has to be abandoned because the Imperials will return with superior forces, etc. If there really is a foregone conclusion with then the players shouldn't be given the phantom option of affecting it. Friends Like These should provide a way for the PCs to actually provide for a Rebel victory (maybe if the Empire is slowed down enough the Rebel fleet does wipe them out, maybe the PCs can board the "flagship" and disable it's hyperdrive while getting the spy, etc) or just make it the backdrop to a goal they can actually achieve like evacuating everyone.

Onslaught at Arda I isn't too bad because the module doesn't really set up the expectation of victory against the Empire. It's a matter of how much of your own can you save and can you get out safely. It's a Hoth scenario.

15 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Onslaught at Arda I isn't too bad because the module doesn't really set up the expectation of victory against the Empire. It's a matter of how much of your own can you save and can you get out safely. It's a Hoth scenario.

That is a very good point. No one expects to be able to 'win' against the Empire in this time period (before Endor). One has to have a different idea of what 'winning' is, which {spoilers ahead...} in the case of the Arda rebels is minimizing how many people they lose. As you say, it's all about escaping to fight another day. Winning every phase of the Mass Combat never stops the Imperial advance, it just buys time and reduces the number of enemy forces you have to face before you escape.

2 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

In regards to Friends Like These (SPOILERS ahead) I don't think people have an issue with the PCs being outnumbered and "victory" being holding off the Imperial assault long enough for a Rebel fleet to arrive it's that the Imperial fleet just runs away when the Rebel fleet arrives and the planet has to be abandoned because the Imperials will return with superior forces, etc. If there really is a foregone conclusion with then the players shouldn't be given the phantom option of affecting it. Friends Like These should provide a way for the PCs to actually provide for a Rebel victory (maybe if the Empire is slowed down enough the Rebel fleet does wipe them out, maybe the PCs can board the "flagship" and disable it's hyperdrive while getting the spy, etc) or just make it the backdrop to a goal they can actually achieve like evacuating everyone.

Onslaught at Arda I isn't too bad because the module doesn't really set up the expectation of victory against the Empire. It's a matter of how much of your own can you save and can you get out safely. It's a Hoth scenario.

Friends Like These has a scene at the beginning of the battle where the PCs race their ship up to the enemy flagship and rescue a spy. The idiotic scenario guidelines in the module more or less allow the PCs' ship to get to the Gladiator with only minimal resistance. The expectation is that the PCs do a quick $natch-and-grab of the spy, but my players instead loaded their ship with the Mandalorian commandos and as many explosives as possible and more or less won the battle without it ever reaching the surface.

8 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

The idiotic scenario guidelines in the module more or less allow the PCs' ship to get to the Gladiator with only minimal resistance. The expectation is that the PCs do a quick $natch-and-grab of the spy, but my players instead loaded their ship with the Mandalorian commandos and as many explosives as possible and more or less won the battle without it ever reaching the surface.

Ingenious players taking advantage of a poorly written scenario to completely rip up the script. Kudos to the players.

My solution is to always play NPCs (such as the command crew on the Gladiator) as not being total incompetents and idiots, no matter what guidelines say. Provides much more of a challenge to players. Makes games more interesting and gives players a greater degree of satisfaction when they win. If they win.

A lot of the FFG adventures seem to be written by people who either watch too much Star Wars Rebels or may actually write for that silly show. You know, where the Imperials are grossly inept, no matter their rank or position. Of course, if the Imperials were even somewhat competent, the Rebellion would be short-lived, given the vast disparity in numbers and power.

I would say the adventures would be up for rebels either, because the rebels are at least imaginative in their problem solution while FFG adventures lack any hints about creative problem solutions. So maybe the authors of the advantages are former DnD dungeon designers or and here is the catch assume that only inexperienced groups would bother with pre-written adventures.

I still lol when Dead on the Water is brought up on the table, which btw makes the rebels look even more inept than the imperials. Our GM was so happy when our droid just said she would dismantle every everything before delivering it to the alliance.