And this is why this multiple CRB thing is such a good idea!

Is it? It's a good idea for this set of gamers. I question whether it's a good idea from a business standpoint.

How many people will buy this book because it's all they need (and no others)?

How many people won't buy it because they can't afford the 60$ cost?

How many of those would have bought it if it were $40, but left out redundant rules?

I actually see this as regressive gaming. Remember the colored boxes for D&D? They aren't made anymore for a reason. We discovered AD&D and that with a few books could play our characters all the way to the end. If we wanted more we bought splat books.

Maybe I'm wrong. It depends on what the numbers say. I think that they are thinking that this is a repeat of the 40K stuff, when it's not.

Making three games is definitely a risk, but I think its a calculated risk - and while its reasonable to assume that one of the games will outsell the others, I think this approach makes a lot more sense that staying in the past, with a game that will need revisions every now and then to create income.

This approach eliminates the need to revise the game every 3-4 years...

The multiple core has done well enough for LUG, Palladium, and White Wolf. (White wolf sales went down with the monolithic core and supplements in nWoD, or so I've read.) Well enough for LUG that they were ready to pay the license fees cash up front when Decipher zipyanked it out from under them. And well enough that a member of the staff was able to peculate half a million dollars. Palladium likewise did well enough that a staffer peculated almost a million dollars.

It's the default model for FATE, and for current generation "Open 20" games (since the D20 STL has been officially terminated, it's not correct to call them d20 system games anymore).

And, it's done well enough for FFG that they have 5 (and working on a 6th if the rumor mill is to be believed) in the 40K line.

The impact is more important at the distributor and store ordering clerk levels, tho'. Mutiple core book lines means more shelf space at stores, as a general rule.

And FFG has the potential to get multiple cores into big-boxes that won't carry supplements, but will carry core books, like B&N and Waldenbooks. Locally, both keep cores in stock, but don't keep supplements stocked - they may get one or two or 5 copies of a supplement, but they don't reorder it except on special orders. But as long as (1) they sell a unit or two of the core book each quarter, and (2) they have a supplement for that line, they tend to keep the core book on the shelf. At least, that's how they do it around here.

ABOUT FLUFF : The Star wars original trilogy's is about character from EOTE, AOR and FOD living adventures TOGETHER. Their mixed party is one of the key element that is against splitting in different books. In wh40k it is ok because they really live adventure in fully différent setting of the same universe.

ABOUT GAME MECHANIC, it would be ok to do so if they splitting detailled and dedicated mechanics in the 3 series. Sadly EOTE core book missed that opportunity to me and is fairly a generic rule where the author intentionnaly forgot specialization for military and jedis. Will these missing specializations be the only reason to buy the other 2 series ? I hope not.

- EOTE theme needed and has no detailled rules for recreating the whole han and lando's universe : smuggling and commerce, for transport ship construction and modifications (modified transponder how to ? How much to build a new linkedblasterturret?), and for outlaw tech work on droids and stuffs.

-AOR would need such rules for recreating endor or naboo battles : managing large ground battles, playing starfighter wings, and putting capital ships as real or envirronmental element (when being near, x effect).

-FOD will surely success to recreate the whole jedi temple, siths, massassis and dathomir witches universe that became first front canon fluff through the years (ie in clone wars animation).

I'm blinded by the franchise and will buy everything as usual but these points should be considered. Except for no fluff and too much stat, saga quite succeeded to give nice, original and detailled rules in specific areas.

I really enjoy and prefer the fast and storytelling EOTE rules and dice mechanics, compared to old fashionned d20

Good gaming

ABOUT FLUFF : The Star wars original trilogy's is about character from EOTE, AOR and FOD living adventures TOGETHER. Their mixed party is one of the key element that is against splitting in different books. In wh40k it is ok because they really live adventure in fully différent setting of the same universe.

ABOUT GAME MECHANIC, it would be ok to do so if they splitting detailled and dedicated mechanics in the 3 series. Sadly EOTE core book missed that opportunity to me and is fairly a generic rule where the author intentionnaly forgot specialization for military and jedis. Will these missing specializations be the only reason to buy the other 2 series ? I hope not.

- EOTE theme needed and has no detailled rules for recreating the whole han and lando's universe : smuggling and commerce, for transport ship construction and modifications (modified transponder how to ? How much to build a new linkedblasterturret?), and for outlaw tech work on droids and stuffs.

-AOR would need such rules for recreating endor or naboo battles : managing large ground battles, playing starfighter wings, and putting capital ships as real or envirronmental element (when being near, x effect).

-FOD will surely success to recreate the whole jedi temple, siths, massassis and dathomir witches universe that became first front canon fluff through the years (ie in clone wars animation).

I'm blinded by the franchise and will buy everything as usual but these points should be considered. Except for no fluff and too much stat, saga quite succeeded to give nice, original and detailled rules in specific areas.

I really enjoy and prefer the fast and storytelling EOTE rules and dice mechanics, compared to old fashionned d20

Good gaming

This pretty much sums up what I was expecting from the core books as well. I'm hoping that we at least get splat books that cover smuggling and droid modification.

And FFG has the potential to get multiple cores into big-boxes that won't carry supplements, but will carry core books, like B&N and Waldenbooks. Locally, both keep cores in stock, but don't keep supplements stocked - they may get one or two or 5 copies of a supplement, but they don't reorder it except on special orders. But as long as (1) they sell a unit or two of the core book each quarter, and (2) they have a supplement for that line, they tend to keep the core book on the shelf. At least, that's how they do it around here.

See this is a good reason for them to split the game system. But...

"Always in motion the future is."

Amazon carries everything. Granted their release dates on stuff are off for RPGs. Still, buying on-line is rapidly eclipsing buying at a store (which may or may not have what you wanted). There are a lot of on-line retailers for buying gaming supplies.

You're local gaming specialty store will also cater to your needs and they are already setup to deal with whatever release schedule the developers invent. People may have reasons for wanting their local Barns & Noble or Borders to remain, but the ruthless force of economics isn't gonna give them what they want.

The future is one of big on-line retailers and small boutique gaming specialty stores.

And FFG has the potential to get multiple cores into big-boxes that won't carry supplements, but will carry core books, like B&N and Waldenbooks. Locally, both keep cores in stock, but don't keep supplements stocked - they may get one or two or 5 copies of a supplement, but they don't reorder it except on special orders. But as long as (1) they sell a unit or two of the core book each quarter, and (2) they have a supplement for that line, they tend to keep the core book on the shelf. At least, that's how they do it around here.

See this is a good reason for them to split the game system. But...

"Always in motion the future is."

Amazon carries everything. Granted their release dates on stuff are off for RPGs. Still, buying on-line is rapidly eclipsing buying at a store (which may or may not have what you wanted). There are a lot of on-line retailers for buying gaming supplies.

You're local gaming specialty store will also cater to your needs and they are already setup to deal with whatever release schedule the developers invent. People may have reasons for wanting their local Barns & Noble or Borders to remain, but the ruthless force of economics isn't gonna give them what they want.

The future is one of big on-line retailers and small boutique gaming specialty stores.

That actually depends a lot more on the government. I know there are movements to put internet sales to consumers under a steep impost (tax). I don't generally buy games online except in PDF. I know the teens at the local high school don't, as a general rule, either.

I usually buy stuff at my FLGS, but I know more than a few people who buy online for the discount. It's all purely anecdotal anyway.

Here in the US there are numerous state initiatives to apply state sales tax to online sales, but the states are probably SOL. Only Congress has the power to regulate inter-state commerce and I don't see them delegating that authority to a state to help them meet budget shortfalls.

The evidence is that the big book stores are struggling. Borders is already gone.

In my own life I rarely go to B&N anymore after they failed to get the last several novels I wanted on release day. Amazon Prime ships them to my door saving me fuel and time. Many of the books I've been reading only exist for Kindle. I see that as the wave of the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but Government efforts to intervene or halt progress might make some voters happy, but it would be bad for the nation as a whole.

I guess my problem with AoR echoes some earlier criticisms that there are no mass ship or personnel combat rules worth noting. Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem except there are three Specializations that SPECIFICALLY look as though they speak directly to mass combat. The Commodore, Squad Leader and Tactician. Including Specializations like that are tricky because by definition they almost take the level and complexity of game play half a step up. A Commodore has NO business merely commanding a single ship, and if she is, it have better be at least a Nebulon Frigate, otherwise somebody's made a big mistake. A Squad Leader who commands anything less than a Squadron is misnamed. Now the Tactician gets a bit of a thematic break because legend is full of leaders who lead from the front and ask their soldiers if they want to live forever. But certainly it's a little tough to have a Tactician when you have no large scale tactics. Not impossible, but hard.

IMO FFG really fell down with this. This was supposed to be the book of WAR. Instead it was the book of re-skinnings, tweakings, including the stuff people were shocked didn't get printed in EoE and so forth.

And folks, yes, I know, there are house rules and various people like FangGrip have work-arounds and tweaks and so forth, but when *I* spend my money on a game, I expect the WRITERS to do the work, not the community, and certainly not me myself. Hell if I was into that I'd save my 100 some odd bucks (factor in cost of Beta, cost of Final AoR Edition and of course, those wonderful dice) and just write the game myself.

I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for this. A War book should be about war, writ large and writ small. And I am gonna say a number of words not found in the King James Bible if they release a supplement that contains the rules they should have put in AoR in the first fierfekking place.

An earlier comment stated that FFG was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they had one core they'd be criticized, if they reprinted the core rules in all books they'd be criticized - and that comment's writer is PRECISELY correct...which is why one comes into the 21st century.

Step 1. You create generic rules - rules that can be applied to ANY game system. Change the dice symbols accordingly so they don't look tooo Star Wars.

Step 2. Put those rules - JUST those rules - online for free. Yes, you're giving away your product, but in retail this is known as a loss leader. A percentage of the people who see these rules will yoink them, head for the hills and you'll never see their money. So be it. The rest will keep following the steps.

Step 3. Make games that refer to those rules. You can do that. The rules are only attached to the game, they're not part of them from a legal standpoint. Everything you write for a Star Wars RPG can now refer to them because they are a part of the company, not something cooked up specifically for the Star Wars RPG's.

Problem solved.

Of course, the resulting space left behind in the corebooks will actually have to be filled with new content...but that sounds like a "not me" problem...

@ Corradus: Mind you, your proposed solution may well not be how the license works...

@ Corradus: Mind you, your proposed solution may well not be how the license works...

At this point, the game mechanics are largely part and parcel of the license, so FFG can't really tweak them to a generic "non-Star Wars version". WotC had the same issue with wanting to import the Condition Track mechanic from Saga Edition to D&D 4e, but couldn't because said mechanic was part of the SWSE game engine and thus belonged to Lucasfilm. Things like hit points, class levels, saving throw/defenses, and the concept of feats and talents were exempt because they were both already part of the various SRDs for d20/d20 Modern/4th Edition, and so were WotC's property.

I guess my problem with AoR echoes some earlier criticisms that there are no mass ship or personnel combat rules worth noting. Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem except there are three Specializations that SPECIFICALLY look as though they speak directly to mass combat. The Commodore, Squad Leader and Tactician. Including Specializations like that are tricky because by definition they almost take the level and complexity of game play half a step up. A Commodore has NO business merely commanding a single ship, and if she is, it have better be at least a Nebulon Frigate, otherwise somebody's made a big mistake. A Squad Leader who commands anything less than a Squadron is misnamed. Now the Tactician gets a bit of a thematic break because legend is full of leaders who lead from the front and ask their soldiers if they want to live forever. But certainly it's a little tough to have a Tactician when you have no large scale tactics. Not impossible, but hard.

IMO FFG really fell down with this. This was supposed to be the book of WAR. Instead it was the book of re-skinnings, tweakings, including the stuff people were shocked didn't get printed in EoE and so forth.

And folks, yes, I know, there are house rules and various people like FangGrip have work-arounds and tweaks and so forth, but when *I* spend my money on a game, I expect the WRITERS to do the work, not the community, and certainly not me myself. Hell if I was into that I'd save my 100 some odd bucks (factor in cost of Beta, cost of Final AoR Edition and of course, those wonderful dice) and just write the game myself.

I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for this. A War book should be about war, writ large and writ small. And I am gonna say a number of words not found in the King James Bible if they release a supplement that contains the rules they should have put in AoR in the first fierfekking place.

An earlier comment stated that FFG was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they had one core they'd be criticized, if they reprinted the core rules in all books they'd be criticized - and that comment's writer is PRECISELY correct...which is why one comes into the 21st century.

Step 1. You create generic rules - rules that can be applied to ANY game system. Change the dice symbols accordingly so they don't look tooo Star Wars.

Step 2. Put those rules - JUST those rules - online for free. Yes, you're giving away your product, but in retail this is known as a loss leader. A percentage of the people who see these rules will yoink them, head for the hills and you'll never see their money. So be it. The rest will keep following the steps.

Step 3. Make games that refer to those rules. You can do that. The rules are only attached to the game, they're not part of them from a legal standpoint. Everything you write for a Star Wars RPG can now refer to them because they are a part of the company, not something cooked up specifically for the Star Wars RPG's.

Problem solved.

Of course, the resulting space left behind in the corebooks will actually have to be filled with new content...but that sounds like a "not me" problem...

Thank you for the referral.

I suspect that Mass Combat will still be a part of AoR eventually. It is still just the Beta. There are too many references that keep popping up here and there as they work on it for them to completely ignore it. In fact, I believe that the devs have stated this previously. Or I may be mis-remembering.

Be patient, and complain if they don't release it with the AoR core rules. I think your voice will join a multitude.

As to the pdfs and multiple core books. This ship has sailed. While I have my own preferences, I know they are not going to change direction at this late date. Just try and enjoy the cruise.

AM I the only one that finds complaining that the game is unfinished and that the writers should do all of the work somewhat silly in a thread about a Beta?

Nope...

Well HappyDaze, if they don't include Mass Combat rules in the Beta, how in Sam Hill are we supposed to TEST them?

AM I the only one that finds complaining that the game is unfinished and that the writers should do all of the work somewhat silly in a thread about a Beta?

You Would be reasonable if it were an Alpha - a beta should be, generally, fine tuning, not gross adjustment.

AM I the only one that finds complaining that the game is unfinished and that the writers should do all of the work somewhat silly in a thread about a Beta?

You Would be reasonable if it were an Alpha - a beta should be, generally, fine tuning, not gross adjustment.

Here's a couple definitions of Beta Test:

: a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release

and

1. a trial of machinery, software, or other products, in the final stages of its development, carried out by a party unconnected with its development.

The idea of a Beta is a bit more ambiguous & open to interpretation than is suggested by your post, Aramis. And I'd say FFG is working with a more open interpretation of "Beta" as well, since there have been some pretty big changes over the last few updates. The malleable nature of a product in Beta stages necessitates this ambiguity.

In any case, this seems to be FFG's strategy: releasing their info in manageable chunks and asking us to test a few specific things at any given time. I do hope this methodical strategy reflects well on the final product.

But you can count me among the hopeful that we get some kind of Mass Combat rules (or at least a suggestion of how to run mass combat with the given rules!) during the Beta period.

AM I the only one that finds complaining that the game is unfinished and that the writers should do all of the work somewhat silly in a thread about a Beta?

You Would be reasonable if it were an Alpha - a beta should be, generally, fine tuning, not gross adjustment.

Here's a couple definitions of Beta Test:

: a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release

and

1. a trial of machinery, software, or other products, in the final stages of its development, carried out by a party unconnected with its development.

The idea of a Beta is a bit more ambiguous & open to interpretation than is suggested by your post, Aramis. And I'd say FFG is working with a more open interpretation of "Beta" as well, since there have been some pretty big changes over the last few updates. The malleable nature of a product in Beta stages necessitates this ambiguity.

In any case, this seems to be FFG's strategy: releasing their info in manageable chunks and asking us to test a few specific things at any given time. I do hope this methodical strategy reflects well on the final product.

But you can count me among the hopeful that we get some kind of Mass Combat rules (or at least a suggestion of how to run mass combat with the given rules!) during the Beta period.

I'm not at all upset by the manageable chunks approach. If I were, I wouldn't have bought the AoR beta after the Edge one.

It is, however, not unreasonable of people to be upset that the beta is more of a "late alpha"...

Being a wanker about people feeling upset about it being a pretty loose use of the term "Beta" won't fix anything at this point, and their upset is justifiable, so it's pretty much unreasonable to snark at those who are upset, even if they are whinging on about it.

Time to focus on what's broken so it can get fixed.

And what works, but works poorly.

And on what looks like it should have been included, but isn't there. And that's the point where the FFG process is frustrating. We know there are chunks they held back, because they said so. Now starts the wagering on if they have another "big reveal" like the Week 4 release scehduled in week 5+.

The AoR Beta is much more of a true Beta than the Dark Heresy 2.0, and more so than even the Edge of the Empire Beta, so I disagree that it's as unfinished as you suggest.

AM I the only one that finds complaining that the game is unfinished and that the writers should do all of the work somewhat silly in a thread about a Beta?

You Would be reasonable if it were an Alpha - a beta should be, generally, fine tuning, not gross adjustment.

Here's a couple definitions of Beta Test:

: a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release

and

1. a trial of machinery, software, or other products, in the final stages of its development, carried out by a party unconnected with its development.

The idea of a Beta is a bit more ambiguous & open to interpretation than is suggested by your post, Aramis. And I'd say FFG is working with a more open interpretation of "Beta" as well, since there have been some pretty big changes over the last few updates. The malleable nature of a product in Beta stages necessitates this ambiguity.

In any case, this seems to be FFG's strategy: releasing their info in manageable chunks and asking us to test a few specific things at any given time. I do hope this methodical strategy reflects well on the final product.

But you can count me among the hopeful that we get some kind of Mass Combat rules (or at least a suggestion of how to run mass combat with the given rules!) during the Beta period.

I'm not at all upset by the manageable chunks approach. If I were, I wouldn't have bought the AoR beta after the Edge one.

It is, however, not unreasonable of people to be upset that the beta is more of a "late alpha"...

Being a wanker about people feeling upset about it being a pretty loose use of the term "Beta" won't fix anything at this point, and their upset is justifiable, so it's pretty much unreasonable to snark at those who are upset, even if they are whinging on about it.

Time to focus on what's broken so it can get fixed.

And what works, but works poorly.

And on what looks like it should have been included, but isn't there. And that's the point where the FFG process is frustrating. We know there are chunks they held back, because they said so. Now starts the wagering on if they have another "big reveal" like the Week 4 release scehduled in week 5+.

To me it feels like they had no idea what to do with AoR so they gave us a copy of EotE and watched to see what we complained was missing. It's nice that we have a say in what the final book will be like but it would be nice if the Developers had more ideas than Duty.

That being said, I do like the capital ship rules. I DO NOT like the recruit spec. I feel like that's what buying into other careers is supposed to do and if that doesn't work in AoR then the careers need to be looked at instead of creating a Band-Aid spec. I also believe that there needs to be more rules on the PCs leading forces and to be honest I think many of the specializations need to be retooled.

All I can say is at least they are making changes. I just wish they came before I spent 30 dollars on a beta book that didn't have a lot of new ideas.

I also believe that there needs to be more rules on the PCs leading forces and to be honest I think many of the specializations need to be retooled.

Now is the time to add your input. What are the problems you are seeing? If you see issues and they aren't shared, it's likely that they will not get resolved.

Please don't drop a wargame into my rpg. I am fine with abilities which boost a player group, but I have no interest in playing armies. Mass combat rules to sesolve something quickly I might be okay with if it is treated like a complex check, but I have no interest in playing out big battles with starfighter groups and capital ships. That will be nothing more than backdrop to the stories of the player characters.

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.

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.

No Mass combat rules in AoR would be like 5 PCs in a light freighter fighting a bunch of tie fighters. Each one will do their to find something to do to help in the combat. But in mass combat instead of a light freighter it's a force of troops. Each player still could find things to do to help out their side whether it's doing medical aid, manning a portable cannon or leading a bayonet charge. And in so doing lead their troops through a battle. There is no need for a battlemap. It's just a way for the players to be involved in the battles that would take place in a game called Star Wars. It would still be single rolls by each individual player or GM determining the results. The whole idea of wanting Mass Combat rules is so we wouldn't have to track 75 different chits.

The way I handled the squadron battles is similar to how Zar describes.

Each Player had their character, plus each Player had control over an NPC fighter.

I, as the GM, had 2/3 as many. 2 ace ties - rival level, and 5 "minion" pairs, plus the capital ship, makes 8, vs 6 PC's and 6 NPC crews.

Treating a fighter crew as a single unit of minions makes it playable. Two ties as a minion means that extra damage may take out a second ship immediately, as might a crit, but most of the time, it means that the PC's kill one, and the other survives long enough to shoot, provided I've got as many elements as there are players. I learned that lesson running Edge.

I'm really thinking Minion groups should be getting the linked trait, simply to retain the multiple shot threat.