The best inspiration for mass combat is still saga edition : starfighter wing rules, area effect cruisers, massive troopers combat. I think i'll re open these books to find out how to do it

I generally believe that you could adapt the "one roll encounter resolution" rule for "massive troopers combat", but " area effect cruisers "' basic idea -- a capital ship can, instead of directly targeting or damaging the enemy, cause certain enemy starships to gain setback dice or certain allied starships to gain boost dice -- and it's mainly figuring out how that " certain " works (since in Saga this was AoE based on a square grid, i.e. " within a one-square radius " or " within adjacent squares ") in the context of Range Bands and the lack of a 2D geo-spatial "encounter starmap" that'll be an issue.

I don't recall Saga's starfighter "wing" rules enough to comment on translating them over.

So as a Player/GM you want something like this:

1. 5 player character chits are handed out.

2. 30 Good Guy chits are placed on a hex grid

3. 45 Bad guy chits are put on the opposite side of the grid

4. The players put their chits on the grid

5. During the first turn, each player moves 1 chit, the GM moves 75

6. Each player shoots with their 1 chit the GM shoots with 75

7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 until:

• you kill a player who then goes and plays the x-box
• the remaining players get bored and join the player on the x-box
• your star wars Friday night game is now play the x-box and the campaign screen wipe to CoD44

I mean, OK, I may be overly dramatic about the whole thing. I may have created a completely silly example. However, when you say "I want mass combat rules" this is what comes to my mind. I also feel player mortality changes as boardgames tend to just treat each counter equally within the rules, RPG's tend to make the characters heroes and FFG:SW has quite a few rules to that effect.

I am happy with the idea that the play centres the narration on the PC's, makes mention of the bigger picture and references but for the most part the camera of your movie stays largely on the PC's. Think of the Battle of Yavin, Luke is the main character and the camera is pretty much on him all the time, flashing to brief moments with Leia, Han and building tension with Darth Vader.

I think we have the tools to build that type of experience for our players, and it attracts me far more than a boardgame. As a player I don't want to die more often, loose the rules that make me seem heroic and fade into the background noise of a boardgame. As a GM I want to make sure my players have a better experience too.

I Believe we don't need a boardgame, I think we have what we need. Though a good 3-5 pages in the GM section on bring a massed combat to life for the players would be two thumbs up from me.

Well that's prime and all, except you created three COMMANDER type Specializations. So, if you never intended for them to actually TAKE COMMAND on the scale their fluff suggests (and some of their crunch too) why did you create them? I understand that the minute you go strategic-move-counters-on-the-map you change the focus of the game, but there are ways around that. A number of them have been suggested here. I know of a few strategies, the idea of "you wear your troops like a suit of powered armor" pioneered in Exalted 2nd Ed (needed some work but still, the system had promise) is another idea, where the components under the PC's command have a number of abstracted traits that essentially build a meta-character that the PC then takes into battle. There are ways to do this and frankly they should have been better explored - it isn't as though you had any basic rules to write...

A lot of what you are suggesting is covered in the covenant between a GM and his players.

If you are given a command position then your GM may require skill tests to correctly communicate your orders and then have the subordinate execute those orders. This game has at the heart of it the dice pool and it quite nicely will create a narrative around your desire to take command of people.

Removing this narrative and replacing it with rules, counters and maps may do little to make the game better.

I tend to be quite passionate on this topic, as this game hits every button for me to want to explore Star Wars with my friends, the narrative approach and the dice system works so ellequently together. Making rules for mass combat steers the game away from that path and into a more hit/miss system as say d20 or 40k. All that crazy stuff that the players and the GM can do with a pool of dice are lost.

And I think the GM has the tools as is, to do all the crazy, fun and exciting stuff with his players in a combat with huge numbers of participants. You just have to understand that the 4-5 players only care about what they see and experience, if you narrow the narrative to talk to your players the rest is just extra detail, you dont have to roll to hit, wound and kill that squad mate over there, maybe just a despair rolled up in a players check can lead you to describe that.

Think about the attack on the death star, I don't know how many ships are on each side. The basic narrative is Luke is running down the trench and Darth Vader is in pursuit behind him. Their wingmen are there, but we are not given any great detail of what they are up to. Luke is the PC, Darth Vader the Nemisis, everything else is just incidental to their storey.

Remember: it's far easier to move from a grid mode to narrative mode play than from narrative mode rules to grid mode play.

A lot of what you are suggesting is covered in the covenant between a GM and his players.

If you are given a command position then your GM may require skill tests to correctly communicate your orders and then have the subordinate execute those orders. This game has at the heart of it the dice pool and it quite nicely will create a narrative around your desire to take command of people.

Removing this narrative and replacing it with rules, counters and maps may do little to make the game better.

I tend to be quite passionate on this topic, as this game hits every button for me to want to explore Star Wars with my friends, the narrative approach and the dice system works so ellequently together. Making rules for mass combat steers the game away from that path and into a more hit/miss system as say d20 or 40k. All that crazy stuff that the players and the GM can do with a pool of dice are lost.

And I think the GM has the tools as is, to do all the crazy, fun and exciting stuff with his players in a combat with huge numbers of participants. You just have to understand that the 4-5 players only care about what they see and experience, if you narrow the narrative to talk to your players the rest is just extra detail, you dont have to roll to hit, wound and kill that squad mate over there, maybe just a despair rolled up in a players check can lead you to describe that.

Think about the attack on the death star, I don't know how many ships are on each side. The basic narrative is Luke is running down the trench and Darth Vader is in pursuit behind him. Their wingmen are there, but we are not given any great detail of what they are up to. Luke is the PC, Darth Vader the Nemisis, everything else is just incidental to their storey.

30 rebels, 1 YT-1300. (Count of rebels is from the sensor operator on the death star.)

At least 4 groups of 4 TIES, plus a group of 2 TIEs and a TIE/Adv, And one honking big station.

30 rebels, 1 YT-1300. (Count of rebels is from the sensor operator on the death star.)

At least 4 groups of 4 TIES, plus a group of 2 TIEs and a TIE/Adv, And one honking big station.

One honking big station with over 7000 tie fighters only managed to field about 20? No wonder they lost.

One honking big station with over 7000 tie fighters only managed to field about 20? No wonder they lost.

That's the kind of military incompetence you get when you purge everyone out of your armed forces who knows how to fight and replace them with people politically dedicated to your New Order, ruthlessly drill any kind of personal initiative out of your soldiers and stock your officer corps with men whose main skills lie in avoiding being seen to take responsibility for anything lest they be summarily executed for failure.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life. Beat a man up, steal his fishing pole and give it to someone who can't fish and you are Robert Mugabe. Or Emperor Palpatine.

This was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Alliance to Restore the Republic.

Remember: it's far easier to move from a grid mode to narrative mode play than from narrative mode rules to grid mode play.

About the only example I can think of is DnD-4e and I am not so sure that many people made the transition from gridded play to narrative play. You have to create rules that cover movement and actions on a grid, and I think you lose some of the free form ad-lib you get off the players.

I really enjoy my players playing into the situation and because the situation isn't understood with such mechanical precisions as a gridded game, they can create great solutions to the tactical problems you give them. How many cool stories do you have from playing this game that wouldn't exist if you played on a grid?

I'd like to see some Mass combat rules.

Remember this is a narrative system, so mass combat rules shouldn't involve 45-75 bad guys. For one thing absolute numbers are irrelevant to most mass combats. Only relative numbers matter. Even in a war-game like 40K do people really field 4000 imperial guard? I've never seen it.

We need some guidelines, however.

What can I do with a Leadership check?

What can I do with a Knowledge: Warfare check?

Can I influence the battle by utilizing my best unit (aka the other PCs)?

They need a sort of mini combat system for this. Where rounds are in hours and damage is done to your minion units. Winning an engagement means you hurt your opponent and get blue dice from advantage on the next round (I took the high ground, or occupied the asteroid field, etc.).

The GM needs some advice on how to handle this stuff. How does a GM transition from mass battle to PC adventure? I think decision trees are the way to go. If the PCs win the engagement then they need to take the radio tower to cut off all hope of imperial reinforcements. Or if they lose then they need to infiltrate the enemy camp and kill the commander so that their forces can regroup.

While a GM could handle all that in a railroad-y kind of, "Your forces are defeated and you must kill General Buttnard to distract the Imperials while you regroup." It's much more interesting if the PCs and the dice can influence the story.

Remember: it's far easier to move from a grid mode to narrative mode play than from narrative mode rules to grid mode play.

About the only example I can think of is DnD-4e and I am not so sure that many people made the transition from gridded play to narrative play. You have to create rules that cover movement and actions on a grid, and I think you lose some of the free form ad-lib you get off the players.

I really enjoy my players playing into the situation and because the situation isn't understood with such mechanical precisions as a gridded game, they can create great solutions to the tactical problems you give them. How many cool stories do you have from playing this game that wouldn't exist if you played on a grid?

You're assuming a fallacious point of view, and further, showing you have no F*ING CLUE what I'm talking about.

I'm suggesting a simple, 2-paragraph, OPTION that istead of the logarithmic type bands for movement, replaces them with a non-logarithmic track, and counts on those for a range to convert back to the existing weapons rules.

NO F*ING D&D4 bull of complex grid-based powers. Just a linear strip, like having two fencers per side on a fencing strip allows you to know when you've gone past one of your opponents, and whether you can stab him in the back if you dispatch your engaged foe.

Some comparisons of other games...

Traveller's "grid" was a linear 25m per band system, using 0*/0/1/4/9/16+ bands for the range categories of C/S/M/L/VL/D. Enough structure to play out complex firefights (especially alley fights), while readily answering "If ABCD are at X, and GHIJ are at Y, and A closes on J, while G closes on B, what's the range between A and G in a far less arbitrary manner. For really big battles, one might actually use a 2d grid, but there was little need to do so. And for when battles were being played out aboard ship, 1.5m grids were presented on the plans, so people knew where things were... and sometimes, we'd break out counters or 15mm minis and put them on half-inch grid maps. And know that a combat round was up to 17 squares movement; double that at a jog.

Note also: The non-grid capable Traveller Bk 5: High Guard had no less than 3 optional grid add-ons. One in Mayday (a boardgame add-on for Traveller, by GDW, the publishers of Traveller), one in an issue of JTAS (the official Traveller magazine), one in Dragon magazine, and IIRC, there was one published in White Dwarf as well.

WFRP 1E had a grid based combat system - it simply detailed facing, arcs, and movement. I've only a couple of sessions where I used it, and hundreds where I didn't, instead tracking range as positions on a linear "ruler". (For the really big battles, we broke out WFB3. There were stat conversion rules for WFRP to WFB in WFRP 1.) No one I knew routinely used the grid as a tactical tool, but most loved having it because it's easier to drop the second dimension and treat it as a linear strip... which was how most of the people I know played it most of the time. But when the situation warranted, it could be played gridded (or gridless, since it gave all units in character units, not in hexes nor squares.

Hell, even Old School D&D had minis-movement rules. But many, if not most, groups didn't actually use minis-on-map/table for most combats. They informed their narrative by having much more concrete ideas of what could be done.

the problem with the current rules is twofold -

1) there's no easy way to convert it to a linear strip even, as the movement rules for ships are... funky. (And the bands not even widths)

2) It won't answer the question "If A & B face C &D, and A closes on C, D retreats, and B closes on D, what is C's range to B" in a non-arbitrary manner.

2 makes it a bad design for a military game. It's merely problematic for non-military games, but it's actively bad for when playing characters who focus on tactical combat... be it ground or space.

The other big problem is the weakness of the guidance on how many slots and actions to give to big ships. Sure, most people won't use big ships, but those who do are likely to look in AoR for the guidance on them. And if they're statted in the book, they need to be given rules that make using them practical.

... Just a linear strip, like having two fencers per side on a fencing strip allows you to know when you've gone past one of your opponents, and whether you can stab him in the back if you dispatch your engaged foe ...

So you want a tool to assist in understanding where the relative positions of each side are relative to each other to assist with the naration? I would probably go with a peg board and hexes and just have it as a tool the GM uses to assist for when it gets complicated. I think whatever you use it has to be simple enough to get in the way of a good yarn but offer enough assistance to the GM as to keep the narration logical.

I can be onboard with that. The question is do we need FFG to build up and rule up this or can the community do so where it feels there is a need?

Now, fencing, why did it have to be fencing?

In your fencing example, A & B advance, C Stays on his en guard line and D retires. The distance from C to B is 4m less the distance B moved forward plus the distance C was behind his en guard llne. In Sabre both A & B have priority so unless C parries moving forwards isn't a good choice. In foil or epee the fencers are probably not engaged and we'll have to play another turn of movement.

I have learned foil for years, and have receintly taken up sabre. So you picked a concept I understand very well.

... Just a linear strip, like having two fencers per side on a fencing strip allows you to know when you've gone past one of your opponents, and whether you can stab him in the back if you dispatch your engaged foe ...

So you want a tool to assist in understanding where the relative positions of each side are relative to each other to assist with the naration? I would probably go with a peg board and hexes and just have it as a tool the GM uses to assist for when it gets complicated. I think whatever you use it has to be simple enough to get in the way of a good yarn but offer enough assistance to the GM as to keep the narration logical.

I can be onboard with that. The question is do we need FFG to build up and rule up this or can the community do so where it feels there is a need?

Now, fencing, why did it have to be fencing?

In your fencing example, A & B advance, C Stays on his en guard line and D retires. The distance from C to B is 4m less the distance B moved forward plus the distance C was behind his en guard llne. In Sabre both A & B have priority so unless C parries moving forwards isn't a good choice. In foil or epee the fencers are probably not engaged and we'll have to play another turn of movement.

I have learned foil for years, and have receintly taken up sabre. So you picked a concept I understand very well.

I fence Rapier. No right of way, no priority, no stupid rules about who may engage. Just rules about what you may target and how hard you may hit.

In other words, you're overthinking it and misapplying specifics not included in an attempt to over-complicate it.

Hey all,

Just a lurker who was savaged by fan boys for asking a simple question a few months ago and hadn’t planned on returning.

But I really like the concept of a good SciFi RPG so here I am.

After reading thru this and some of the other threads I thought I’d inject a couple comments.

1) Rulebook content issue.

Do the rulebooks contain redundant information and could the game have been issues using the core + setting format instead of integrating the core rules into all three settings?

Yes they could have.

Is it bad they didn’t?

Not at all.

While there are many game systems out there that use a single core book and then issue supplements for settings such as Gurps, Savage Worlds and Hero. There are also many systems that include the core rules integrated with the settings.

A few current examples:

Hollow Earth Expeditions, Desolation, All For One: Regime Diabolique, and Leagues of Adventure all using the Ubiquity System. Each rulebook contains the full rules with small adjustments.

Pelgrane Press’s GUMSHOE systems is used in Fear Itself, Trail of Cthulhu, Nights Black Agents, Esoterrorists, Ashen Stars and Mutant City Blues and they all include the complete rules.

But I have never considered the redundant sections a waste, because of the presentation. For Ubiquity the settings span from a D&D’ish sword swinger to three musketeers to Victorian to 35ish Pulp. GUMSHOE spread the changes more by who then when. In Fear Itself the PC’s are just average people in really bad situations (think of horror movies) to Night Black Agents with Jason Bourne fighting Vampires to the grim scifi universe of Ashen Stars. While all the games share the same game mechanics, application of the rules use slightly different methods in the different settings.

In the end, the focus and intent of the three settings is wide enough that having three books is certainly understandable.

Is it good or bad? Neither. It just is.

If I was disappointed by anything it was the decision to make the adventure book Beyond the Rim a hardback for $30. It’s a limited use adventure. Soft back for $15 to $20 would be more sensible IMO but YMMV.

2) Capitol Ship combat. Or the lack of it is disappointing. But then I have always been disappointed in the treatment of (or lack of) capitol ships in the Star Wars universe. While I fully understand that Star Wars is a freewheeling space opera with it focus firmly fixed on individual characters with anything larger just a back drop. The capabilities and design and tactics of the large capitol ships never made any real sense. But then most scifi movies and TV shows never seemed to be able to make sense with their massive battle wagons sideling up right next to each other close enough to dock. And still missing….. Anyway, that said, there still should be rules to integrate major starship combat into the game in a meaningful and distinct way. But not in any of the core books. In all three settings there will be a need to reflect capitol ship combat. I would suggest a later standalone rule supplement for “advanced starship combat” that would not only address the capitol ships, but also expand on small ship ship/fighter operations as well. The reason that I say a later supplement is because I would not write it until after all three of the core books are out. Force powers will impact starship combat and I think any supplement should wait until they have completely finalized how the force works within the standard system.

For now I am going to lift the starship combat system from the old Last Unicorn Games Star Trek RPG. It was a fantastic cinematic narrative game back in 98 that used the same publishing format that FFG is using now (each setting has all the rules). The core books had a great and simple method to integrate the PC’s into the capitol ship combat, and that was expanded in the detailed Spacedock supplement by Steve Long.

Even though the fluff/foo foo technology of the two universes are different, in an RPG the PC tasks will pretty much boil down to the same things (Captain, Pilot/Navigator, Engineer, etc).

3) Mass Combat. I pretty much agree that it really needs to be addressed and while I do think it should be a later supplement with treatment like I suggested for a Starship combat supplement. I don’t have any other suggestions that are worth mentioning at this time.

All in all I am really looking forward to AoR. EotE is a good setting using a nifty game system, but the trope of bad guys doing good/outcasts screwing the ‘man’ is a bit old for me. Don’t get me wrong, I had a LOT of fun playing characters and running games it that kind of setting. But it has been going on around 20 years and it is really really old. I am looking forward to something a little less ‘bandit’ and more ‘white hat heroic’

If I was to pick anything that disappointed me in EotE and the upcoming AoR, it would be the inclusion of the Force at all. I would rather they waited until the last book and presented the Force as a single unified system, EotE was supposed to be about the non-force types at the edge and including sensatives has given life to the 'trying to make a Jedi that isn;t a Jedi' gamers. Not really a threat, just annoying...

But that is just me. All in all, I really enjoyed the demo games I played in EotE and am just waiting for AoR to see about putting together a campaign…

The main split I see on the topic of whether or not three full books are warranted is this...

People who have actually bought the first book and followed progress on the second seem pretty consistantly in favor

Fence sitters who aren't sure whether to shell out for the product seem pretty consistanly opposed...

Those divisions seem to answer the debate pretty definitively to me.

BTW...bought the beta, basic AND final version of the first...watching Beta on the second...and zero complaints about the format despite ACTUALLY buying repeat products. It was my call after all and I have seen nothing to suggest that the new book will be primarily regurgitated stuff from the first.

As for the folks who like to pull the old D6 stuff out to defend their complaints about this line...how many products reposted the exact same droid/ship/weapon/npc/race/etc?

Answer...lots!

And how many reprintings of the core book did we see (and most of you happily rebought each time)?

Three that I remember...and any differances between those were way more minor than these.

So yea...I know its the internet and whining is the cool thing to do but lets put a cork in it shall we?

The main split I see on the topic of whether or not three full books are warranted is this...

People who have actually bought the first book and followed progress on the second seem pretty consistantly in favor

Fence sitters who aren't sure whether to shell out for the product seem pretty consistanly opposed...

Those divisions seem to answer the debate pretty definitively to me.

BTW...bought the beta, basic AND final version of the first...watching Beta on the second...and zero complaints about the format despite ACTUALLY buying repeat products. It was my call after all and I have seen nothing to suggest that the new book will be primarily regurgitated stuff from the first.

As for the folks who like to pull the old D6 stuff out to defend their complaints about this line...how many products reposted the exact same droid/ship/weapon/npc/race/etc?

Answer...lots!

And how many reprintings of the core book did we see (and most of you happily rebought each time)?

Three that I remember...and any differances between those were way more minor than these.

So yea...I know its the internet and whining is the cool thing to do but lets put a cork in it shall we?

What you are saying is fine except I was disappointed that what I felt would be a reason to have 2 books was excluded from the Beta. They did give us capital ship actions which are nice but I feel like they were tacked on after we complained. And really these rules don't really address the fact that Player characters might be doing these actions nor do they address how player characters can lead a force in war. Because Age of Rebellion is about war it should be how to do war from a PCs perspective and that's not always going to be in a small group of 5 individuals. The fact that we are complaining that the books is full of repeated material is because it doesn't seem like that saved time has been used to add to the system.

Another thing is even the new stuff seems to be subpar. Certain new spec trees lack class skills that are important to the spec which lead to that universal band aid spec. Other spec trees don't seem to have talents that actually relate to the theme of the spec. The biggest culprit is the Infiltrator, who doesn't get Stealth as a class skill and have Marauder-lite talents for a spec that should be about sneaking into places and stealing or exploding things (or killing things silently which the spec tries to do but, in my opinion, poorly).

So far I am very disappointed with how they have handled Age of the Rebellion and I hoping they have been so quiet because they are drastically reworking quite a bit of it. Something that gives me a bit of hope for this is the fact that Dangerous Covenants is coming out with a Demolitionist spec. Wow, that sounds a lot like the Saboteur spec! But they have different names so they must be two different but similar specs. Perhaps they will do this for others that have been repeated. You can tell me all day long that an Ace - Pilot spec is just fine as it is but I beg to differ. The pilot spec is built for using Freighters. Star Fighter pilots need a lot more defense very quickly in the spec. They also do not need talents that remove handling modifiers. I think there is enough difference between the needs of the two careers to warrant different spec trees.

You guys can berate us for complaining if you want but seeing as this is a Beta, we are entitled to speak our opinion about the state of the beta as we see it.

What bothers me about this book is the apparent lack of any content related to playing as Imperials. That would be an easy way to add a tremendous amount of content and potential, while remaining within the scope of the book (the war) and differentiating this book from EoE (which was fairly faction neutral).

I'm also a bit dubious about what this book offers to those who have purchased EoE, but I'm not one of them. I specifically held out for this one knowing that it would focus on what I wanted to play, basically an expanded world of Endor battles. That there is some talk of mass combat rules and capital ship structure is good, but a feature comparison between the two books so far doesn't show a great contrast, which I feel is a shame.

Whether this was telegraphed, advertised, presented, indicated, appropriate, or inappropriate doesn't factor into my judgement. If I had bought Edge of The Empire, and the primary differences between that book and this one are Duties, 4 careers, weapons, and ships, I wouldn't spend the $60 on the new book. Now if it also included rules frameworks for playing as Imperial troopers and agents, that would be a lot more palatable.

As a side edit, I like the idea of complete rulebooks that are compatible more than incomplete rulebooks (a la DND 3rd edition). But I still want each rulebook to be it's own full animal, and so far it doesn't sound like Age is as separate from Edge as it could have been.