Here is a draft of my rules for handling minor and epic battles in a similar way to character combat but with a more abstract feel.

Ashley,

Thanks for another very good stab at mass combat rules(JRB has had an equally good attempt previously).

I still maintain that a TOR mass combat system needs to, somehow, integrate the Hate and Hope mechanics. These are probably the most important elements of the entire TOR system(IMHO) and really need to be included.

I couldn't convince JRB of the need for it's addition into his rules. What do you think?

I would set out my own rules for it, but I can't 'pretty it up' in a colourful PDF like you guys.

I'm still working on it Halbarad! I haven't forgotten. I was just looking for some inspiration about the process of assigning armies statistics (and I think Ashley has now done that).

Ashley I like what you have done with breaking down armies into types and assigning them static scores. I'm thinking of doing something similar. I have thought of that from the beginning, but I wanted to make things as flexible for the Loremaster as possible in assigning their own scores. I also see how giving Loremasters pre-determined stats to work with would be helpful and they can tweak them as they wish.

After playtesting my rules more and more, I am also going to be changing my Mass Combat round to equal 30 minutes instead of an hour. I'm doing this for two reasons: A) To be more realistic with the casualty counts (less time needs to go by); and B) I want to come in line with the Close Quarters Combat round of about 30 seconds.

Agreed. I'm working on a revision to do just that along with allowing players to spend their hope to benefit the unit they're attached to. At this stage I'm looking at assigning Hope and Hate at the 'army level' and letting it create interesting battlefield effects (e.g. Saruman's devilry at Helm's Deep).

Thanks, I like to think that 'units' are in fact just meta-characters. Whilst in general I liked your original system, and borrowed several ideas from it, the notion of an army as a single meta-character was just a bit too abstract for my tastes.

What I wanted to avoid in my system was creating a mini-game complete with hexes and miniatures that detracted from the story (i.e. battle rules need to help tell a story, not become a competitive tabletop game in their own right). I think we have both achieved this at least!

Yeah, I considered this to but an hour is a very useful increment from a story-telling POV and battles did (both in the books and real life) often last a long time.

Nice! Here are a few comments from me.

Page 1, "How a Battle is Structured", paragraph 1: "effect" should be "affect". I know I'm nitpicking here but I see these two words mixed up all the time, even in published materials, and it really bugs me.

Page 2, "Defender Engages": I would prefer the larger force to get to pick its engagements, as in the RAW for normal combat.

Page 2, "Defender Acts": As Hope and Hate aren't included in the system, all "Battle Tasks" of attached heroes act on Endurance. I would like Hope and Hate to be added to the system. That way "Awe" could reduce enemy Hate and "Inspire" could increase friendly Hope.

Page 2, last paragraph: "The defending unit then makes an attack ... [by] rolling its combat score". I think what is intended is that the unit rolls the Feat die plus a number of Success die equal to its combat score but this is not clear, nor is it clear what the TN is for such an attack. I presume this is like normal combat, i.e. TN = Stance base TN plus target Parry, but again, it is not clear.

General comments:

The system is nice and simple but doesn't feel very much like a battle to me as there are no rules for fortifications, formations, cavalry or morale. I would also love to see heavier units such as elephants and catapults, at least in epic battles.

I realise the aim was to avoid creating a tabletop wargame system but maybe a few abstractions need to be included to represent things like the following:

• Sieges
• Cavalry Charges
• Flanking
• Morale Status (e.g. Wavering, Broken, Routing)
• Formations (e.g. Skirmish, Line, Column)

To make a battle "feel" like a battle, I think the rules need to make every battle unique. This could be done by defining the main objective and the approaches to that objective:

Example: Battle of Hagolar's Farm

1. The Battlefield:

1.1. Attacker Main Objective: Hagolar's Farm

A small farmhouse with a windmill on high ground. If the attackers capture this and hold it for 1 hour, they win.

1.2. Approaches:

These consist of the left, centre and right parts of the battlefield leading up to the main objective, from the point of view of the attacker. Each approach consists of an equal number of "Positions", normally 3 or 4, which must be fought over to get to the main objective.

1.2.1. Left-flank Approach:

Orchard -> Open -> Bolders

1.2.2. Centre Approach:

Open -> Stone Wall -> Open

1.2.3. Right-flank Approach:

Woods -> Woods -> Open

2. Setup:

Defender deploys forces. These can be placed in any position of any approach, and also at the main objective, with the exception of the first position of each approach. This must be left clear for the Attacker's forces to move into on the first combat round.

3. Combat Round:

3.1. Sequence of Play

3.1.1 Attacker moves
3.1.2. Defender moves
3.1.3. Resolve combat in contested Positions

3.2. Movement:

Forces may move from one Position to an adjacent Position, including sideways (e.g. from the middle Position of the Left-Flank Approach to the middle position of the Centre Approach). The attacker's forces can enter the battlefield on any of the first positions of each approach. On the first round of combat, the attacker does not have to deploy all his forces, and does not have to move onto all approaches.

3.3. Combat:

Figure odds based on number of units, and apply "force multipliers" for defensive terrain, superior unit quality, leadership, presence of heroes, being flanked, etc. This should result in an odds ratio like 2-1 or 3-2.

Resolve combat with a die roll, most likely using a CRT (Combat Results Table) of some sort. The combat results should include casualties for both sides, plus morale effects such as retreat and rout.

Notes:

Something like the above would still be fairly easy to run (you could just draw a grid on paper for the approaches, positions and main objective) but would really feel like a battle in my opinion. For instance, the defender might have to draw forces away from one approach to defend another, only for the attacker to then send his main force up the vacated approach. It would have a more tactical feel than would be the case otherwise. Battles are about manoeuvre as much as combat, which requires some abstraction of the battlefield itself in my opinion.

Updated rules to incorporate many of the above suggestions. Changes of note are:

• Initial Battle roll determines how many Hope points each unit starts with
• Added Hope and Hate points
• Refactored unit ratings to standardise on 20 endurance with weary cutting in at different levels (5, 10 or 15)
• Increased combat and damage ratings so hero actions scale better
• Added Heavily armoured, Unarmoured and Mounted abilities
• Changed how heroes suffer endurance loss/wounds to provide players with more choices

Note that this is still a 'Work In Progress', especially with regards to Hate abilities.