Im not sure if i missed something, but for me it looks like it is kind of strange that the main purpose is that your Charackter gets a "meatshield" but you lose the "firepower" of you squad ... the only benefit of your squad is you can get 1 blue dice ... not matter how many guys you have in your squad ...

Am i wrong ?

Having a meatshield is a big benefit. Members of your squad being killed dramatically (or unceremoniously!) provides great narrative hooks for roleplaying.

And there i see the Problem ...

if i would play a Chrackter who is only trying to protect his squad and is doing defensive actions like "defense circle" is better of NOT useing this mechanic, because then the squad is able to do stuff while he is defending it.

I see useing this mechanic is punishing charackters who want to protect there squad and benefits only the one who dont care if the own man die ...

Just have one minion slice into the computer or whatever while the PC, supported by the rest of the minions, protects that person. Nothing in the rules forces you to assign all members of a minion group to a squad.

Here is the thing I think you miss understand the mechanic. When you character performs as action while having the squad attached and in an appropriate formation they give boosts on certain rolls.
Circle of shelter is an out of turn incidental which is better for use with squads as does Guardian of the Republic. they leave your action free for doing things that the squads enhance.
Defensive circle takes an action so does not work well with squads as you squad is protected but doesn't do anything. So I really think that is a poor use of the Talent as yes you are protecting your squad. But you are also not utilizing you squad in any manner to accomplish anything. And not accomplishing your mission will get them killed just as assuredly. So instead of using Defensive circle. Use Circle of Shelter and Guardian of the Republic instead. Defensive circle works better with independent PCs or Minion groups. who can take offensive actions while you defend them.

Also a tip dont be so literal. You can describe your self as protecting the squad while they attack the enemy. Roll your attack as normal with the squad boost die. if successful you describe how the squad took out such and such minion group while you defended them from incoming fire. The Mechanics and the Narrative do not have to be the same.

Hmmm first of all thank you for your input.

The main reasion i ask this question is, i like parts of this whole Squad mechanic and as the GM i see a lot of use in them for Storytelling purposes. But i know my players and they will tell me ... meh this is useless because the intentions of some action arnt reflected throug the rules.

I thought maybe i let them choose when creating the squad:

1: scrapping the whole, squad members can take you dmg part and let the "minions" keep there Action

2: use it as wirtten

I looking for ideas or more Input about this, im not sure if a overlook alternatives/ideas who to handle this OR who to explain my players the opportunitys this creats from a storytelling perspektive. I like to give my players the freedem to tell there story in the enviroment i create for them to do so and i see "rules" as tools to support that and in generel the FFG SW ruleset is great in this

and sry for my english, im german and not used to express myself or my thoughts in english ...

17 minutes ago, Flythos said:

Hmmm first of all thank you for your input.

The main reasion i ask this question is, i like parts of this whole Squad mechanic and as the GM i see a lot of use in them for Storytelling purposes. But i know my players and they will tell me ... meh this is useless because the intentions of some action arnt reflected throug the rules.

I thought maybe i let them choose when creating the squad:

1: scrapping the whole, squad members can take you dmg part and let the "minions" keep there Action

2: use it as wirtten

I looking for ideas or more Input about this, im not sure if a overlook alternatives/ideas who to handle this OR who to explain my players the opportunitys this creats from a storytelling perspektive. I like to give my players the freedem to tell there story in the enviroment i create for them to do so and i see "rules" as tools to support that and in generel the FFG SW ruleset is great in this

and sry for my english, im german and not used to express myself or my thoughts in english ...

I think it is all about what you want to do. So if you want to attack you go into support fire formation. If you are moving across an area and want to notice stuff use skirmish formation. Where the squad rules shine is mass combat. where things are dangerous enough that PCs will want the extra layer of protection. And name the squad members. When they die have them jump in front of the shot that was gonna hit the pcs and so on.

Also note the table. For example with a triumph will allow the minion group to make an attack immediately

Ist alles gut verständlich. 👍

I think the important thing to remember (as the guy who wrote those rules), that there is nothing narratively stopping you from staying separate from your minion group squad members, and letting them take their turn and you take yours. As far as the narrative is concerned, you are still a "squad". The time to use these rules are for situations when PCs need a bit of extra survivability, like the Death Star trench run, or when the GM wants to make sure certain enemy NPC's can't be taken out super easily by players.

Also remember the rules state it is up to the player if they want to take the hit themselves, or sacrifice a squad member. But being up to the player is not the same as it being up to the PC. Narratively speaking, the player might have been trying to protect their squad, but no one is perfect. Shots get through.

The mechanical balance here is sacrificing the minion attack for a major defensive benefit. There is nothing stopping a player from having their minion group of 5 or 6 minions split into two elements, one squadded up mechanically with them, while the other acts as a fire team and keeps their attack. There are a LOT of creative ways to use these rules, and it's not an "all minions in the squad or don't use the rules at all" choice. It's a tactical option.

There was a good discussion on the topic a little it ago here:

13 hours ago, KRKappel said:

I think the important thing to remember (as the guy who wrote those rules), that there is nothing narratively stopping you from staying separate from your minion group squad members, and letting them take their turn and you take yours. As far as the narrative is concerned, you are still a "squad". The time to use these rules are for situations when PCs need a bit of extra suitability, like the Death Star trench run, or when the GM wants to make sure certain enemy NPC's can't be taken out super easily by players.

Also remember the rules state it is up to the player if they want to take the hit themselves, or sacrifice a squad member. But being up to the player is not the same as it being up to the PC. Narratively speaking, the player might have been trying to protect their squad, but no one is perfect. Shots get through.

The mechanical balance here is sacrificing the minion attack for a major defensive benefit. There is nothing stopping a player from having their minion group of 5 or 6 minions split into two elements, one squadded up mechanically with them, while the other acts as a fire team and keeps their attack. There are a LOT of creative ways to use these rules, and it's not an "all minions in the squad or don't use the rules at all" choice. It's a tactical option.

I was tempted to tag you. Glad you popped in. Your advice is awesome as usual.

Squads and Squadrons really shine when you apply them to adversaries.

On 6/23/2019 at 6:32 AM, KRKappel said:

... as the guy who wrote those rules ...

Do you have any insight into why there are differences between the squad rules presented in the recent RotSep and those in the older AoR GM Kit?

For example, there are at least three differences in RotSep that I've spotted so far: the maximum number of minions is one less (10 instead of 11), there are two fewer formations (no Mission Specialist for squads, no Skilled Navigator for squadrons), and the consequences of re-directing damage from the leader to the rest of the squad is no longer described as automatically killing one minion (which seems to point towards the damage now being applied to a squad just like to a normal minion group).

Additionally, the wording for the effects of the Skirmish/Sensor Sweep formations has changed, the table(s) for spending advantages, threats, etc. are different, and a few other changes exist.

On a purely cosmetic level, the Close squad formation has been re-named as the Support Fire formation.

Do the squad rules in RotSep represent the updated version, meant to be used instead of the older version in the AoR GM Kit?

11 hours ago, Bellona said:

Do you have any insight into why there are differences between the squad rules presented in the recent RotSep and those in the older AoR GM Kit?

Do the squad rules in RotSep represent the updated version, meant to be used instead of the older version in the AoR GM Kit?

I think Keith addressed this on the Order 66 podcast discussing the book. Since he didn't work on that section, he doesn't have any particular insight as to why the changes got made.

If I had to guess, the rules got tweaked due to some combination of player feedback, in-house play experiences, and editorial decision.

Going by past dev answers on various rules questions, the official answer would probably be something akin to "the latest version is meant to be the official version, but use whichever version works best for your games."

Both versions are fine, but they'll lead to slightly different tactics. I think the key is to pick which works best for your table and stay consistent. I think the original rules emphasize minor heroics. If your squad is taking fire from blaster pistols, you'll probably want to take a lot of those hits yourself. However, when an Imperial commando starts shooting that disruptor rifle, well, so much for Johnny. Of course, if you weren't in that squad, that one shot could take out 2 or 3 of your buddies in one blast.

It can be a tough call, but I think I prefer the original rules. Losing sturdy Y-Wings to small hits from TIEs isn't fun, but if you can't eat that damage yourself, it may mean it's just time to break off from your squadron and let them try to complete the objective on their own.

On 11/25/2019 at 6:34 AM, Donovan Morningfire said:

I think Keith addressed this on the Order 66 podcast discussing the book. Since he didn't work on that section, he doesn't have any particular insight as to why the changes got made.

If I had to guess, the rules got tweaked due to some combination of player feedback, in-house play experiences, and editorial decision.

Going by past dev answers on various rules questions, the official answer would probably be something akin to "the latest version is meant to be the official version, but use whichever version works best for your games."

Yeah pretty much this. Another aspect that falls under editorial decision is space on the page/book. Some things missing might simply be a layout situation, and not in any way a comment on mechanics. As it stands, the rules fit perfect on a double page spread with a small piece of art. Tim Cox might have simply decided the art was worth more than the two other formations. Of course, he'd be the guy to ask on that, not me.

However, I'm sure a lot of the changes were made in reaction to having a lot more feedback and time with the rules. But at the end of the day, use whichever version of the rules provides more fun for your table. Or mix and match to house rule. But generally speaking, I assume the latest version of a reprinted set of rules (be it mass combat, squad and squadrons, or a reprinted talent) is the most correct.