I remember AoR was supposed to have rules on Capital Ship combat.

Is this the case or is the Spaceship combat section exactly the same as in EotE? If it's just mostly repeated rules, new classes and vehicles then it should more of a splat book than a new core book.

The Duty/Alliance contribution mechanic, and it's a core rulebook for people who don't have EotE and only/mainly want to do the Galactic Civil War.

so it is a sourcebook with no real expansion to the game rules?

If that is true, the base rules should have been a small generic book and EotE AoR and F&D should have been small sourcebooks.

so it is a sourcebook with no real expansion to the game rules?

If that is true, the base rules should have been a small generic book and EotE AoR and F&D should have been small sourcebooks.

It's not a sourcebook. It's a stand-alone game for those who want to play Rebels vs. Imperials. Each of the three core books are based on different parts of the setting, with different focus for each one.

Edge of the Empire is commonly called "The Han Solo RPG" or "The Firefly RPG." It's about smugglers, bandits, bounty hunters, and bad-asses on the fringe of society. Age of Rebellion is for those, like I said above, who want to do the Rebel vs Imperial angle of the Galactic Civil War. Force and Destiny covers the Force, and other stuff that we don't know since it's not out yet

As for having rules for capital ship combat, that was never said by any dev or person in the know at FFG. It was a hope by many in the community, but never more than a hope/rumour.

-EF

If the Core Mechanics were different I could understand that. But the rules are the same. The scale is the same. One new mechanic doesn't make a new game. You can say AoR is for those who want to play Rebellion until you are blue in the face but it really just boils down making those of us who want to play STAR WARS as opposed to Firefly or Galactic War will have to pay for 3 books with mostly redundant material.

Not really. EoE is probably the most fun and tweakable RPG I've gotten my hands on in some time. With the exception of Jedi (and man, there's no shortage of homebrew ideas there) you can have a lovely Star Wars game with just EoE, no muss no fuss. I imagine it will be the same for all three "core" books. Just pick one, or if your group is like mine, have different people pick different core books.

You will in no way shape or form be required to buy three books, my friend.

If the Core Mechanics were different I could understand that. But the rules are the same. The scale is the same. One new mechanic doesn't make a new game. You can say AoR is for those who want to play Rebellion until you are blue in the face but it really just boils down making those of us who want to play STAR WARS as opposed to Firefly or Galactic War will have to pay for 3 books with mostly redundant material.

That's like, just your opinion, man

Fact is, FFG has said from Day One that they were going to do three core rulebooks, each one capable of being run independently of the other (much like the WH40K line or even the original World of Darkness product line by White Wolf) but can also be used collectively if the GM so chooses. And unlike WH40K or oWoD, this game line has been designed from the ground up to be fully compatible.

Right now, the Beta is light on the newer material (mostly consisting of crunch-based stuff like new talents, new careers, new specializations, new species, new starships, new NPCs, and new Force power), but odds are the final version will have a lot more fluff material, much like the EotE Beta was pretty bare-bones (fluff section was close to non-existent) but the final version has a wealth of background material.

If you don't like the fact that FFG is doing an AoR Beta, then simply don't buy it or any other book. On the flip side, I know a few gamers that had no interest in EotE due to much of the promotional material being centered on making the PCs out to be criminal scum rather than the heroes that the other Star Wars RPGs encouraged, and are far more interested in AoR than they ever were in EotE.

There's also the element to consider that FFG is a business first and foremost, and as a company one of their primary goals is to generate a profit, so that they can continue to operate and thus produce more games and generate more revenue to cover their operating costs. And lest anyone think that FFG is making money hand-over-fist, remember the old gaming industry joke of "how do you make a small fortune in the gaming industry? First, you start with a large fortune..."

If the Core Mechanics were different I could understand that. But the rules are the same. The scale is the same. One new mechanic doesn't make a new game. You can say AoR is for those who want to play Rebellion until you are blue in the face but it really just boils down making those of us who want to play STAR WARS as opposed to Firefly or Galactic War will have to pay for 3 books with mostly redundant material.

That's like, just your opinion, man

Fact is, FFG has said from Day One that they were going to do three core rulebooks, each one capable of being run independently of the other (much like the WH40K line or even the original World of Darkness product line by White Wolf) but can also be used collectively if the GM so chooses. And unlike WH40K or oWoD, this game line has been designed from the ground up to be fully compatible.

Right now, the Beta is light on the newer material (mostly consisting of crunch-based stuff like new talents, new careers, new specializations, new species, new starships, new NPCs, and new Force power), but odds are the final version will have a lot more fluff material, much like the EotE Beta was pretty bare-bones (fluff section was close to non-existent) but the final version has a wealth of background material.

If you don't like the fact that FFG is doing an AoR Beta, then simply don't buy it or any other book. On the flip side, I know a few gamers that had no interest in EotE due to much of the promotional material being centered on making the PCs out to be criminal scum rather than the heroes that the other Star Wars RPGs encouraged, and are far more interested in AoR than they ever were in EotE.

There's also the element to consider that FFG is a business first and foremost, and as a company one of their primary goals is to generate a profit, so that they can continue to operate and thus produce more games and generate more revenue to cover their operating costs. And lest anyone think that FFG is making money hand-over-fist, remember the old gaming industry joke of "how do you make a small fortune in the gaming industry? First, you start with a large fortune..."

They arent making three core rulebooks, they are making one core rulebook with three different colors and slightly different fluff. You mention the 40K line, but the thing with the 40K line is that they arent the same game. All of the games are not really compatable and you dont go from Acolyte to Rogue Trader to Deathwatch.

Star Wars is supposed to be fully compatable. Unlike the 40K games, where only the most basic rules are the same, Star Wars is going to be three identical games. In that case there is no reason to make a massive rulebook to get people to buy redundant material. A core book of half the size and sourcebooks would have been a much lass massive undertaking from their part much less easier on the players. Even then, I do not think they are going to make any more money with massive and massively redundant books than they would have with smaller books. Especially if new players are going to say 'I have to shell out $180 and buy the rules three times just to do what is in the movies?' Redundancy is not a virtue in game books.

Please dont trot out the 'three seperate games' bit again either. The biggest complaint we have all been subjected to in the last year is the fact that the game was broken up too far. Namely, the 'where's the Jedi' complaint. That by itself shows that the 'three seperate games' is somewhat a fiction from the start. One that I dont have a problem with, having had to GM for jedi in a game that wasnt designed for it more than once, but if all that is new in AoR is duty, then what is the point for someone who has EotE. Also, if AoR is just reskinned EotE, what the heck is F&D going to be? Still no Jedi, just more reprinted trees and rules? If there is space to do Jedi in the last book, then there is space to do war in the second.

About FFG being a business, and them trying to make money. If so, they are doing it badly. Why the heck isnt X-wing fully compatable with the RPG? I sure as heck would have bought it and a bunch of minis and I hardly think I am alone in that thought. Add on top of that that there are quite a few people who have been begging them to give them money for a month now, when they should full well have known that the demand was there. Pissing off people who want to give you money is not a good thing.

I have nearly the whole WEG Star Wars line and most of SAGA. I even have nearly all of the Rogue Trader line, the core books for Dark Heresy and Deathwatch. So, I am a pretty hard core Star Wars fan, and I definitely dont have a problem with FFGs products. In what world is it a good thing to annoy me so badly that I wont give you a few hundred dollars a year for Star Wars books?

(by the way, I mean FFG, not you, Donovan.)

I could have sworn that when Jay Little made his presentation he said that this book would feature capital ship combat. The way it was talked about people were worried that the three actually wouldn't be compatible.

Nevertheless, I feel there needs to be more to large ship combat. They have too many cannons to feasibly use with the rules as written. And at this point it's not our job to make those rules up. The same goes with mass combat. Both these items jump to mind as soon as i think about the Galactic War. I honestly can't believe that it wasn't put in the book. What's the point of beta testing rules that are already vetted? It's no wonder why it seems like FF is unprepared to sell the beta books. They probably feel like the Beta is unneeded.

korjik,
The "three separate yet compatible" games is what FFG has been saying since Day One. Only an utter boob who's too lazy to do any research on the matter would fail to realize that this also means that things (such as core portions of the rules) are going to wind up getting reprinted. Each book is being written so that if a GM only wants one of the three, then they can purchase whichever one best suits their fancy and just that one, without being forced to buy additional books.

Quite frankly, FFG is in a no-win situation here. Going with the current model, they've got folks like you and Zar complaining about having to buy three books for the "full experience." Had they gone with one corebook (the exact model that WotC used for each iteration of it's Star Wars RPG), then they'd have had to trim stuff to avoid having a really expensive and heavy core rulebook. I'd wager less than a third of EotE is rules material that'd get reprinted in each separate core rulebook, so they'd have people complaining either about how much material isn't in the one core rulebook (which people are doing anyway) or have them complaining about how the one book is too expensive or too cumbersome (dredging up the whole "no PDFs issue" for the umpteenth time). Had they followed the New World of Darkness model (one book with the core rules, separate splats for various campaign types), they are yet again getting hit with people complaining of having to buy at least two books to play the Star Wars campaign they want, possibly more if they want to mix different elements.

So pick your method, and somebody will be blasting FFG for following it. Given that they can't please everybody and would be foolish to try, FFG choose the method they felt would provide a satisfying experience while allowing for some amount of "pick & choose" while also ensuring a decent revenue stream. Don't like how they do things? Then don't buy the product, simple as that.

Zar,

Given there's actual capital ships in the book, that would qualify as "including capital ship combat." Maybe it's not to the extent that people were expecting or speculating on, but it is included by virtue of having capital scale ships/

At this point, I'm ducking out of this thread, as it's clear neither of you are interested in doing anything more than whining about how you feel you're being cheated out of your money rather than have any sort of intelligent discussion on the matter.

They arent making three core rulebooks, they are making one core rulebook with three different colors and slightly different fluff.

I think that's the best encapsulation of this "three different games" nonsense I've seen yet. Well said.

Star Wars is going to be three identical games. In that case there is no reason to make a massive rulebook to get people to buy redundant material.

You answered your own objection there -- "to get people to buy redundant material" is the "reason to make a massive rulebook.

Redundancy is not a virtue in game books.

Maybe not for the customer.

I could have sworn that when Jay Little made his presentation he said that this book would feature capital ship combat. The way it was talked about people were worried that the three actually wouldn't be compatible.

Nevertheless, I feel there needs to be more to large ship combat. They have too many cannons to feasibly use with the rules as written. And at this point it's not our job to make those rules up. The same goes with mass combat. Both these items jump to mind as soon as i think about the Galactic War. I honestly can't believe that it wasn't put in the book. What's the point of beta testing rules that are already vetted? It's no wonder why it seems like FF is unprepared to sell the beta books. They probably feel like the Beta is unneeded.

I think that large ships would work just fine if you make various weapon banks into minion groups.

If you want to see some un-official mass combat rules try mine... http://fanggrip.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/quick-dirty-mass-combat/

You can tailor them to suit if you want or simply use them right from the page. I included a system for using capitol ships easily and a method to scale quickly between personal, platoon, and fleet combat.

I could have sworn that when Jay Little made his presentation he said that this book would feature capital ship combat. The way it was talked about people were worried that the three actually wouldn't be compatible.

Nevertheless, I feel there needs to be more to large ship combat. They have too many cannons to feasibly use with the rules as written. And at this point it's not our job to make those rules up. The same goes with mass combat. Both these items jump to mind as soon as i think about the Galactic War. I honestly can't believe that it wasn't put in the book. What's the point of beta testing rules that are already vetted? It's no wonder why it seems like FF is unprepared to sell the beta books. They probably feel like the Beta is unneeded.

I think that large ships would work just fine if you make various weapon banks into minion groups.

If you want to see some un-official mass combat rules try mine... http://fanggrip.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/quick-dirty-mass-combat/

You can tailor them to suit if you want or simply use them right from the page. I included a system for using capitol ships easily and a method to scale quickly between personal, platoon, and fleet combat.

Yes, I have seen your article. It's good stuff. It doesn't change the fact that its something that SHOULD be in a game based on the Warfare between the Rebellion and the Empire.

Thank you very much.

I think the developers never intended mass combat to be a part of their narrative based system, or are intending to include it as a system in a splat book. It would make a lot of sense to include it later just like a crafting system, world / system generation systems, or any of the other less needed systems.

I vaguely remember hearing someone discussing the use of minion group weapons on a podcast or some such, and everything that I hear about Jay Little leads me to think he is a very off the cuff GM. They may very well not see a need for such a system. Many people on this forum seem to disagree which is why I wrote them up.

The thing is that, well... what's the reason that capital ships are supposed to "need" special rules beyond what's already in EotE ? I'm basing this off of there being no other capital ship-specific rules in EotE; there's already a nod to "point defense" in the sense of capital ships getting a de facto Silhouette-reduction-by-1 on attack rolls with auto-blasters, blaster cannons, laser cannons and quad laser cannons, maybe something else too, and page 238 has the bit that FangGrip mentioned about minion group weapons. If the AoR beta book is essentially identical to the EotE book insofar as capital ship combat, the theme seems to be "abstract away", and in particular " GM and players should not track all of their initiative slots and actions during combat. Instead, only focus on those individuals who are actually doing things pertinent to the ongoing encounter, and feel free to ignore the rest ." (EotE CRB p. 231)

Mass combat rules are a different story, but then again, as FangGrip said, " they may very well not see a need for such a system ", and the EotE CRB on page 238 seems to suggest a theme of using minion groups; small starship or vehicle combat can have them be minions outright (two to four of the same single-pilot starship or vehicle, operating as a single entity, attacking once as a group with a skill check upgrade if they have the appropriate skill in their group skills, and taking damage as a group). In contrast, for capital ships you can treat their weapons the same way (with minion gunners) but the vehicle itself is still what takes damage, not the minion group:

" A GM can group multiple weapons of the same type and with the same firing arc on the same vehicle or ship and have them fire as one at the same target. This means all the weapons fire as one on the same target, upgrading their check if the minion gunners have Gunnery as a group skill. This speeds up the turn of capital ships (since they generally have a great deal of guns to fire), and represents the ability of capital ships to hit other vessels through sheer volume of fire ." (EotE CRB p. 238)

What if the PCs are put in charge of a capital ship? What if the PCs are put in charge a unit of soldiers? I'm all for Narrative rules to determine what happens. But to me, that's something that should be part of core rules and not needing to same day as release house rules.

Age of the Rebellion should have been a whole system of rules (Narrative rules are fine , use those funky dice!) that deals with tactical scale combat that could plugged into system we already had. If the character scale rules were also included that's fine with me. Force and Destiny would have been everything Jedi (I imagined rules for skill based defense so Jedi and Sith can have their laser sword duels.) Each of these games would work alone or could be combined together like Jay Little had said. Each system would represent parts of Star Wars. EotE for the Han Solo types that are just trying to survive, AoR for the "Wars" part, and FoD for Jedi part.

I know I'm not the only one who thought this was the way it was going to be, because one of the biggest questions out there was if the three games would be compatible (I suspect everyone was getting a Warhammer 40k RPG vibe). Well, apparently they aren't 3 games at all. They are just the same one with different colored books and that disappoints me.

What if the PCs are put in charge of a capital ship? What if the PCs are put in charge a unit of soldiers? I'm all for Narrative rules to determine what happens. But to me, that's something that should be part of core rules and not needing to same day as release house rules.

Age of the Rebellion should have been a whole system of rules (Narrative rules are fine , use those funky dice!) that deals with tactical scale combat that could plugged into system we already had. If the character scale rules were also included that's fine with me. Force and Destiny would have been everything Jedi (I imagined rules for skill based defense so Jedi and Sith can have their laser sword duels.) Each of these games would work alone or could be combined together like Jay Little had said. Each system would represent parts of Star Wars. EotE for the Han Solo types that are just trying to survive, AoR for the "Wars" part, and FoD for Jedi part.

I know I'm not the only one who thought this was the way it was going to be, because one of the biggest questions out there was if the three games would be compatible (I suspect everyone was getting a Warhammer 40k RPG vibe). Well, apparently they aren't 3 games at all. They are just the same one with different colored books and that disappoints me.

Minions.

Unless your PC group is a LOT larger than any I have played with, most capitol ships will have more crew slots than PCs. So lump them as minions, assign basic gunner stats and voila! If you want to hire better and more experienced crew that could be an adventure all by itself. I am thinking about the Vorkosigan series here.

Same with a unit of soldiers. Group them as minions. If you have a bunch of them, give them to various players to control. This just seems to be a outgrowth of the basic narrative rules.

While I understand that people want them printed out in B&W, I don't really understand how it could fill an entire chapter. Heck, my rules on my blog seem pretty comprehensive and take only a few pages to cover. I don't think any of the three core rule books will be all that different in the end. A few new races, ships, obligation/duty/(destiny?), and careers ...but everything else will be pretty darn close.

My biggest concern is how they handle splat books. Buying a splat book about pilots and ships once for EotE is great, but having to buy one for EotE and AoR with small but important differences will be maddening.

I'd add that FangGrip's Q&D is pretty much for those who want more fine "control" over it, whereas if you're thinking in " we know what is happening in too much detail and therefore the GM no longer has the ability to craft or shape the narative " terms, then for the conception of "mass combat" described there, the minion rules and the existing EotE core rules specifically accommodate that (the "mass combat" mainly being narrative with the players affecting but a part thereof).

@ FangGrip, I think that we'll have to wait until Enter the Unknown is out in more detail to see what exactly the FFG idea of splatbooks looks like...

I'd add that FangGrip's Q&D is pretty much for those who want more fine "control" over it, whereas if you're thinking in " we know what is happening in too much detail and therefore the GM no longer has the ability to craft or shape the narative " terms, then for the conception of "mass combat" described there, the minion rules and the existing EotE core rules specifically accommodate that (the "mass combat" mainly being narrative with the players affecting but a part thereof).

@ FangGrip, I think that we'll have to wait until Enter the Unknown is out in more detail to see what exactly the FFG idea of splatbooks looks like...

Although I did create a less direct version called Cinematic Warfare on my blog to help out with the narrative style as well.

Yeah, I can't wait to see their ideas for the splat books. The true reveal will be when they release a few of them for EotE and then some for AoR. I mainly worry about the amount of repeated information between them. If they do it just right, it could work beautifully but I worry about Smuggler & Ace being really similar if they do it by careers.

Hi all,

I'm a bit worried about Force and Jedi actually. It seems like I have to get all books to have a full treatment of the Force since EotE and AoR contain different set of powers and F&D will probably contain more.

Is this true? To me this seems a bit excessive and in case I'll have to buy three times the same rules just to get a couple of powers more... I played WEG, I played SAGA and even d20, but I'm holding my hand with this until I see how F&D is going to handle this.

I want to play a Force user, not a smuggler, not a rebel, but I want to be able to do it fully, not with missing options.

To me the corebooks are not different enough to require being corebooks, sorry, just my cents.

Samiel

Frankly speaking, the lack of Jedi until F&D is by explicitly-declared-long-ago intentional design.

It is not lack of Jedi, it is Force being spread across the corebooks, EotE and AoR containing different bits, so if you want to play someone searching for lost Force secrets you have to get all corebooks, which to me makes almost nonsense; I really hope at least F&D will have ALL Force powers, talents and specialization available in the game under a single cover.

Samiel

Force & Destiny will focus on the Force. I imagine that, being a Core book itself, it will contain all the Force powers to date, as well as any others they are going to add. The AoR included one reprint with two new ones. I imagine the Force chapter in F&D will be fairly comprehensive. The point of the system is that you can purchase the one book you want or two or all three and have them work and integrate together. So if you want Jedi and comprehensive Force powers, you will want to wait for F&D Core, or at least the beta. The beta may be a good idea if only you will have an early chance to check out the book.

Since Force and Deatiny is meant to be the only book you need to Force users, I believe all the current powers will be reprinted. Heck, there are a few repeat specs in AoR that we also saw in EotE, so there is nothing saying that both Force Sensative Exile and FS Emergant will not be reprinted, too.

They are meant to be stand-alone books. This, to me, says if you want to play Jedi, you only need F&D. Everything you need for Force users will be in that book.

-EF

Yeah, I'll be highly surprised if F&D doesn't have reprints of the five Force Powers we already have, along with maybe a couple of new ones (figuring a Healing power and an Injure-type direct damage power are pretty good bets).

FFG has already shown that they're going to re-invent the wheel for each core rulebook, as AoR and EotE both share a broad number of talents and even a few specializations, and are likely to be sharing even more talents and specializations as the product line continues to expand. After all, the WH40K proved that it's a viable marketing strategy with breaking the different campaign types out into separate core rulebooks, so it's not surprising that FFG is going to follow a model that works, just as WotC has followed the D&D model of "Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual" that's worked since the days of TSR.