My second question tonight is : what happens when a Squad with one or more Soldiers NPC takes injury? Would the Soldiers NPC be killed just as Rookies NPC? This is Indeed what appears to be, according to RAW on page 226, which do not distinguish between Rookies and Soldiers. But maybe I have missed something.
Somehow related to this question. I have another one: I definitely can’t understand what the “Wounds” boxes in th various squad’s tables on the Marshal’s playbook are. If the Rookies (and Soldiers?) are not played, they are NPCs and they do not take wounds: either they are safe, or they die when the squad takes Harm. Or they have been played and have their own playbook where Harm is detailed, so what are those Wounds boxes used for? her, again, I fear I have missed a rule in the 450 pages.
EDIT : same question would go for the “Stress” box in those tables.
If they’re played, you can note if they’re wounded or no. The reason is quite simple, the marshal can have over 20 sheets to look through by the end of the campaign when the QM calls for liberties/R&R, and it’s easier to look at their sheet and know which 5-6 to pull to update, than to go through each sheet individually.
Having played the marshal a few times let me tell you, it’s a huge timesaver.
“NPC soldiers die just like rookies.”
I guess I will play it by having the Rookies die before the NPC Soldiers in the squad, IOT reflect the fiction of the Soldiers having fine armor (and of course if the squad is majority Soldiers, then improved Threat).
For the other answer: OK, I understand now the practicality of these Wounds boxes, but then one box would be enough for the purpose you describe, wouldn’t it? (not very important though).
It depends on the fiction. You can run it however you want, but if a soldier is on point, the crow’s arrow isn’t going to hit a rookie in the back. When a whole squad gets hit, I usually roll randomly for who takes the worst of it.
Also - read the marshal section, there’s a picture there. Might help you visualize stuff.
Sure, but the fiction also tells me that a Soldier with his fine armor provided by the quarter-master would probably not die from a Crow’s arrow, as a Rookie would…
Is it the picture on page 124? I see a guy, probably an Officer, marshalling rookies in defence of a fort or something…
That’s not the point ! Re my initial post, I have already rolled, and the result (and the GM) has told me that I have to kill a certain number of my squad’s members; and your first answer was “NPC Soldiers die just like Rookies”.
So here we have to find the right fictional way to tell how the Soldiers die just like Rookies while respecting the fiction that they are better protected… That requires a bit of intellectual gymnastics but I guess nothing an experienced GM (which I was, like 30 years ago) should be afraid of.
You asked if it changed the game balance. I’ve given my opinion that doubling the survivability of soldiers will change the game balance. I have no opinion on whether it will be more or less fun. Why don’t you try it out and then tell us about it?
Sorry, your answer was clear and correct to my question. It was I who had an unclear question, for which I beg forgiveness. Hence I reworded the question. I fully realize it will change game balance, I hoped others had tested it before me and could share their impression how much it changed game balance. Again I apologize, I know as slightly autistic scientist my many questions can appear blunt (and/or stupid), but they are asked out of enthusiasm and never out of spite.
I think it depends fictionally on who’s being attacked. If you’re suffering from random long range archery or are in the middle of a scrum, as a GM I think it would often make sense, fictionally, for the poorly equipped and less skilled rookies to go down first. If the soldier, fictionally, is leading the rookies, or dueling a crow, or otherwise in greater danger or more exposed, then I’ll totally kill a rookie and a soldier, and let my players squirm over which one they want to save with their resistance rolls.