I'm new to GMing and was curious if you guys could give me some insight how how combat work among the PC's and a group of NPC's. sorry if this is a dumb question.

Let's say I'm playing with 4 PC's and a group of 4 storm troopers are attacking. So, I have all the players perform a skill check. 3 succeed, 1 fails.

So I put the initiative order like this.

PC 1

PC 2

PC 3

NPC's

PC 4

Now, when it rolls around to the NPC's turn, do all of the troopers attack or just one?

Also, if I come in a situation of like 2 or 3 unique NPC's would I do the order similar above or would I be more like:

PC1

PC2

NPC1

PC3

NPC2

NPC3

If it is like my first example do all 3 attack during the NPC turn or does only one?

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: If you find it easier to point out a page in the core book, that would be great too.

If they are "minions" they attack as one. page 390.

A couple things: first, you can't fail the initiative skill check, as it's a "Simple" check (no purple dice), and you're just counting successes, advantages, and triumphs. It's Vigilance if you're being surprised, and Cool if you're doing the surprising.

Second, it's up to you whether the minions attack as one unit (in which case you'd attack only one target, with a skill rank of 3), or separately (in which case you'd roll for each attack, but with no skill upgrades). Minions acting as a unit are more deadly, but have to focus on one PC at a time.

Third, setting initiative just reserves "slots" for the PCs and the GM. The PCs (and NPCs, if you have unique individuals or your minions are not acting as a unit) can act in any initiative slot they like, and this can change from round to round. The slots in your first example are really: PCs, PCs, PCs, GM, PCs.

So in the first round they might act as in your first example, but the second round they could act in this order: PC4, PC1, PC3, NPCs, PC2. The NPCs are still fourth, because that's the "slot" they got.

Last, for your second example and question, unique NPCs (and minions not acting as a group) can only use a single initiative slot. It sounds like you're wondering if all three can attack in each of their slots, but that would be crazy powerful. Your slots in your second example are: PCs, PCs, GM, PCs, GM, GM. For any slot, the PCs can pick anyone who hasn't acted yet in the round, as can you when the GM slot comes up.

So in the first round they might act as in your first example, but the second round they could act in this order: PC4, PC1, PC3, NPCs, PC2. The NPCs are still fourth, because that's the "slot" they got.

I need to go over this with my group. We had been setting the order once per encounter, but on re-reading that section it's pretty clear that at the start of each round, you can re-fill the slots in whatever order, it's just that the "owner" of the slot (PCs or GM) stays the same each round.

A couple things: first, you can't fail the initiative skill check, as it's a "Simple" check (no purple dice), and you're just counting successes, advantages, and triumphs. It's Vigilance if you're being surprised, and Cool if you're doing the surprising.

Second, it's up to you whether the minions attack as one unit (in which case you'd attack only one target, with a skill rank of 3), or separately (in which case you'd roll for each attack, but with no skill upgrades). Minions acting as a unit are more deadly, but have to focus on one PC at a time.

Third, setting initiative just reserves "slots" for the PCs and the GM. The PCs (and NPCs, if you have unique individuals or your minions are not acting as a unit) can act in any initiative slot they like, and this can change from round to round. The slots in your first example are really: PCs, PCs, PCs, GM, PCs.

So in the first round they might act as in your first example, but the second round they could act in this order: PC4, PC1, PC3, NPCs, PC2. The NPCs are still fourth, because that's the "slot" they got.

Last, for your second example and question, unique NPCs (and minions not acting as a group) can only use a single initiative slot. It sounds like you're wondering if all three can attack in each of their slots, but that would be crazy powerful. Your slots in your second example are: PCs, PCs, GM, PCs, GM, GM. For any slot, the PCs can pick anyone who hasn't acted yet in the round, as can you when the GM slot comes up.

thanks so much, this clears up a ton. We have only played our first session so far, so I'm glad I've gotten this straight now. I knew my understanding of combat was off, I just wasn't how sure. Thanks!

Second, it's up to you whether the minions attack as one unit (in which case you'd attack only one target, with a skill rank of 3), or separately (in which case you'd roll for each attack, but with no skill upgrades). Minions acting as a unit are more deadly, but have to focus on one PC at a time.

Can I just ask, I tended to think you made this choice at the start of an encounter. So if you had 4 minions you could go 1x4 2x2 or 1x3+1x1. While this will change for casulalties can I change it round by round?

I also imagine that NPC initiative will be adjusted by the size of the minion group as they will get upgraded dice based on their size. So changing the group composition will impose on the order? A group of 6 Stormtroopers will at the start of a campaign go first almost without question, but to then break it into 2 groups of 3 would be a bit of a "cake and eat it too" sort of thing.

Mind you if you started with two groups of 5 and one group took 4 casulaties would it be terrible making two groups of 3?

In most of the canned adventures, the encounter describes the minion groups, and how they act. If you are doing your own, obviously you would decide. If a minion group is physically split up during an encounter, then certainly the composition of that group has changed, and their wound pool/dice pools should change accordingly.

Back to the OP.

First, do yourself a favour and check out "Stan's Combat Tracker" in the Compiled Resources thread. I printed out two of them and laminated them back to back. They are the cat's pyjamas for running any kind of structured encounter.

Second, if you have a big combat scene with a lot of NPC "players," I would advise breaking it up a little with multiple GM slots. Put your minion groups in one slot and your rivals in another. That way when it is your turn, it's not just you rolling dice for ten minutes. Also, if you have a really good set of rolls, the party doesn't feel like you're just grinding them down. AND just like them, they will never know who is going to take that slot. AND you can make use of team tactics, like a minion group laying down a suppressing fire to grant a boost die to a rival hucking a frag grenade on his next slot.

Seriously, though. Get a combat tracker. I like Stan's...

Can I just ask, I tended to think you made this choice at the start of an encounter. So if you had 4 minions you could go 1x4 2x2 or 1x3+1x1. While this will change for casulalties can I change it round by round?

You could do this, I'm just not sure I would...haven't yet anyway. I could see it for professional groups like storm troopers, who might have the competency to regroup on the fly. However, I wouldn't change the initial initiative order, that just bogs the game down. Just have them act in their initial slot.

My group got started back in October, and we've had about 6 game sessions in that time, with only a handful of combat encounters. (although one was pretty epic)

I normally give each Adversary its own initiative roll, whether its for a single adversary (Nemesis/Rival) or a minion group. If I have multiples of the same minion type, they might "form up" as their numbers drop; ie. having 2 groups of Aqualish Thugs with 4 in each, where one gets taken down to 2, and the other down to 3, as long as they are physically able to, they join up to form a single minion group of 5.

I've figured that it's easier to roll separately, and then drop NPC initiative slots as the groups form up or get knocked out of the fight.

Can I just ask, I tended to think you made this choice at the start of an encounter. So if you had 4 minions you could go 1x4 2x2 or 1x3+1x1. While this will change for casulalties can I change it round by round?

You could do this, I'm just not sure I would...haven't yet anyway. I could see it for professional groups like storm troopers, who might have the competency to regroup on the fly. However, I wouldn't change the initial initiative order, that just bogs the game down. Just have them act in their initial slot.

I can mostly see the minion groups joining up as a result of casualties. That would be a natural tendency if two allied groups each take losses and band together out of necessity. It could happen strategically, but as whafrog says, that would be the result of a more disciplined, professional group like Stormtroopers, than it would be for a group of "thugs." I think as a house rule, I would probably say that switching minion groups in this way would be a "Regroup Maneuver" and uses a maneuver just like any other. A band of thugs that was concentrating on one PC could split up to cover 2 PCs, but would use a maneuver to do so, which means they couldn't then use the maneuver to aim, interact, or anything else. Now, a group of Stormtroopers, with a Sergeant capable of giving them a free maneuver via Tactical Direction, they would be able to divide their fire from round to round, and still take aim, as long as the Sergeant spends his maneuver to Direct them.

Can I just ask, I tended to think you made this choice at the start of an encounter. So if you had 4 minions you could go 1x4 2x2 or 1x3+1x1. While this will change for casulalties can I change it round by round?

You could do this, I'm just not sure I would...haven't yet anyway. I could see it for professional groups like storm troopers, who might have the competency to regroup on the fly. However, I wouldn't change the initial initiative order, that just bogs the game down. Just have them act in their initial slot.

I can mostly see the minion groups joining up as a result of casualties. That would be a natural tendency if two allied groups each take losses and band together out of necessity. It could happen strategically, but as whafrog says, that would be the result of a more disciplined, professional group like Stormtroopers, than it would be for a group of "thugs." I think as a house rule, I would probably say that switching minion groups in this way would be a "Regroup Maneuver" and uses a maneuver just like any other. A band of thugs that was concentrating on one PC could split up to cover 2 PCs, but would use a maneuver to do so, which means they couldn't then use the maneuver to aim, interact, or anything else. Now, a group of Stormtroopers, with a Sergeant capable of giving them a free maneuver via Tactical Direction, they would be able to divide their fire from round to round, and still take aim, as long as the Sergeant spends his maneuver to Direct them.

I see minion groups disbanding as a result of casualties. Minions live longer when damage to their buddy no longer overflows onto them. As for minion groups reforming for better combat capacity, that what leaders (using Leadership) are there for.

I see minion groups disbanding as a result of casualties. Minions live longer when damage to their buddy no longer overflows onto them.

The minions wouldn't know this, it's simply a mechanical artifact. Isn't that a bit of powergaming?

I see minion groups disbanding as a result of casualties. Minions live longer when damage to their buddy no longer overflows onto them.

The minions wouldn't know this, it's simply a mechanical artifact. Isn't that a bit of powergaming?

Scattering when you buddies are getting blown away is powergaming?

It is metagaming, but the characters live in a world where they see that grouping up makes them more effective in combat at the expense of getting cut down faster. Using the benefit of the group is as much metagaming as abandoning those bonuses in the interests of surviving.

I see minion groups disbanding as a result of casualties. Minions live longer when damage to their buddy no longer overflows onto them.

The minions wouldn't know this, it's simply a mechanical artifact. Isn't that a bit of powergaming?

Scattering when you buddies are getting blown away is powergaming?

It is metagaming, but the characters live in a world where they see that grouping up makes them more effective in combat at the expense of getting cut down faster. Using the benefit of the group is as much metagaming as abandoning those bonuses in the interests of surviving.

I don't know if I'd have minion groups splitting up and rejoining in a single encounter* it just seems to go against the design concept. Minion behavior is up to the GM though, and the stat blocks do suggest that some are far more likely to cut and run then others (Aqualish thugs vs Stormtroopers, just look at the skills).

*Typical encounters. I could see a situation where the PCs are pushing a group of minions back where say three minions groups of four each start, get reduced by several members, then fall back to secondary position and reconstitute into two minion groups of four each. But if this is one encounter in two parts or two encounters is debatable.

Minions live longer when damage to their buddy no longer overflows onto them.

As this is not the case regardless, I see no problem here. It has been clarified that damage does not overflow across multiple minions within a minion group. One shot, one kill.

Minions live longer when damage to their buddy no longer overflows onto them.

As this is not the case regardless, I see no problem here. It has been clarified that damage does not overflow across multiple minions within a minion group. One shot, one kill.

This simply isn't true. "One shot" could potentially kill multiple minions.

For example, Stormtroopers have a Soak of 5, a Wound Threshold of 5 (and no Strain Threshold because they are minions). Let's say you have a group of 3 Stormtroopers. This group now acts as a single unit with a Soak of 5 and Wound Threshold of 15 (5*3). Now let's say you are using a Blaster Rifle that does 9 damage. For the sake of simplicity, let's say your combat roll nets you 7 Successes. The 7 Successes are added to your base damage (9) so your total damage is 16. You subtract Soak once, so you are left with 11 damage. You must exceed (not meet) the threshold to kill one of the Stormtroopers. So with 11 damage you kill the first one (at 6 as you have exceeded his threshold) and you kill a second one at 11 (because you have exceeded his threshold of 10). This leaves you with a single Stomtrooper left in the group. Once his wounds get to 16 (exceeding his threshold of 15) he will be dead as well.

This is covered at length in their FAQ:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/StarWarsRPG/edge-of-the-empire/support/SWE02_FAQ_LowRes.pdf

As this is not the case regardless, I see no problem here. It has been clarified that damage does not overflow across multiple minions within a minion group. One shot, one kill.

This simply isn't true. One shot could potentially kill multiple minions.

And in any case, it's not "one shot". Each turn represents a flurry of blaster bolts or swing-parry-swing-hit, the net effect of which is resolved by a single die roll.

This is a common misconception for some players. They see their attack action as a single attack ie. Every time I push the 'A' button, my PC fires a shot.

I have always tried to narrate/RP this to encourage a broader interpretation. "You fire a few shots, and manage to hit the mark on the final pull of the trigger." This can also add to the boost die mechanic. "Your destructive volley acts as a suppressing fire. Whoever decides to attack this fellow next is going to have an easier time of it."

Still, the mentality remains. The other night, I had a PC fire at a minion group and do enough damage to take out two/three. He immediately assumed that his ONE shot had taken out TWO minions. I could have allowed that as an epic narrative to add to to the PCs BGH persona, but I wanted to choose that opportunity to re-iterate the idea that each attack action is a series of movements, parries, attacks, etc. that culminate in either damage or none. So I politely said that "as your first shot dropped the droid to a heap of scrap, the void created exposes the droid behind it, and you waste no time in using the opportunity to eliminate the second threat."

Later in the same combat, a jetpack despair roll threw our BH:A into another minion group, forcing her prone and causing her some strain damage. She had spent her maneuver getting herself there, so she took strain to buy another maneuver to pick herself up, and then took the increased difficulty to fire while engaged, and essentially exploded the 'dog pile.' The opposite of the BGH's assumption, the whole table made reference to a stream of blaster shots exploding the heap outwards with our Chiss Assassin the only one left as the smoke and sparks cleared.

It was cool. Food for thought.

Natemus,

That's an interesting take. I recall when our group read through the FAQ originally, we had a different interpretation. To us, the fact that only one trooper was ever dropped in any of the examples, we had the impression that meant something. Having re-read it, I can see where you are coming from. Had they bothered to show just one example of double-tapping with one attack, this wouldn't be an issue. But they chose not to.

However, it then leads to other questions. Let's say someone does 13 point of damage to the trooper minion group. Taking the 5 soak off the top, that means 8 got through. Now what? 5 doesn't drop one, so 6 drops him? So does that mean there are 2 point of damage left "floating" on the rest of them? Which in turn means if the next shot does 9 (4 after soak) it drops another? Or does leftover damage disappear/is wasted, and every attack is compared to soak/threshold separately in a vacuum? And if that is the case, an infinite number of consecutive 10-point (or less) results never drops a single member of the minion group. Ever.

---

Oh, and whatfrog/polyhedronman... No. You may be assuming too much. I never said we play an "attack" in SW:EotE as a single shot. Just because we read/interpret something differently than you doesn't mean we are playing badwrongfun (or without the same level of "cool narrativism").

Oh, and whatfrog/polyhedronman... No. You may be assuming too much. I never said we play an "attack" in SW:EotE as a single shot. Just because we read/interpret something differently than you doesn't mean we are playing badwrongfun (or without the same level of "cool narrativism").

You said "One shot, one kill". How else is that supposed to be understood?

As for assuming too much, you went directly to defensive mode with "badwrongfun". All I was disagreeing with was "One shot, one kill"...but it sounds like you can't be disagreed with.

You said "One shot, one kill". How else is that supposed to be understood?

As for assuming too much, you went directly to defensive mode with "badwrongfun". All I was disagreeing with was "One shot, one kill"...but it sounds like you can't be disagreed with.

So from one throw-away reference, you assumed everything about our play style?

I suppose I have to be hyper-specific around here. Guess I should have, rather than use the colloquial adage verbatim, paraphrased it to "One attack roll, one disabled NPC". But hmmm, just doesn't have the same ring for some reason...

I apologize for any misunderstanding. My post was not meant to be a judgement or condemnation of anybody's play style. It's true, I did take your one shot-one kill phrase literally, but it would seem I am not the only one. Therefore, I believe your wording is easy to interpret as such, and perhaps things have been misunderstood on both sides.

As far as cool narrativism goes, I was not trying to show off or condescend (which BTW, is how I am currently interpreting your wording, and is not a judgement or attack. Nor am I trying to incite further argument), nor was there any hint of my-group-is-better-than-yours...ism. That was just an example from our last session to illustrate my argument and strategy for dealing with it in a semi-subtle fashion.

As to the rest of the related post, I will explain how my group deals with it. The following paragraph is merely an interpretation of the RAW, as adapted to our understanding...

5 net Wound does drop a 5 WT minion, because it takes his WT to 0. If the minion is part of a group, this would drop one member of the group without affecting any other group member. 6 net wound damage would drop one minion and leave a second at 4 WT remaining.

As a matter of narrative, I interpret 'overflow damage' as minor wounds/lucky hits. ie. "Your first volley takes out one trooper, and a second is wounded as you duck behind cover."

I hope my posts are helpful to anyone confused about RAW/RAI, and one of the things I love about these forums is that for the most part everyone is very supportive, offering helpful advice and examples from their own games as illustrations. There are many of us who engage in heated debates about said rules and their interpretations, but it rarely devolves into trolling, etc. Sadly, once in a while things get misunderstood, and that is regrettable. To err is human, after all.

Have fun, and good gaming!

So from one throw-away reference, you assumed everything about our play style?

I assumed nothing about your "play style". Talk about projecting...unreal.

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

No apology necessary. It's all good. I'm not so thin-skinned as to bleat like some.

As to the rest of the related post, I will explain how my group deals with it. The following paragraph is merely an interpretation of the RAW, as adapted to our understanding...

5 net Wound does drop a 5 WT minion, because it takes his WT to 0. If the minion is part of a group, this would drop one member of the group without affecting any other group member. 6 net wound damage would drop one minion and leave a second at 4 WT remaining.

As a matter of narrative, I interpret 'overflow damage' as minor wounds/lucky hits. ie. "Your first volley takes out one trooper, and a second is wounded as you duck behind cover."

I get what you are doing at your table, and it definitely makes it easier, but even that does not appear to be RAW as the FAQ would have it. Which is where my questions from the last post came from.

The FAQ makes it clear that exactly 5 wounds past soak does not drop the minion. <Shrug> Having freshly reread both the core rule in the book and the FAQ, I think I have a handle on how it's supposed to be done.

Anyway, good gaming!

The way I read it, for a minion with 5 Wound Threshold, it would take a total of 6 wounds to drop one of the minions. 11 wounds would drop two minions, and 16 wounds (after soak) would drop three minions.

That's how we do it aynway.