Ok, so I've now introduced TOR to 2 different groups and this issue came up both times. In the middle of combat players would want to dis-engage from their current opponent(s) to attack an enemy that was engaged with another player. What I did was call for an Athletics check to represent the character dodging away and the dashing toward the other enemy (I'm afraid this might elevate the importance of Athletics, though).

How would you guys handle this? Is it just not allowed until enough enemies have been killed that the number of enemies equals the number of PCs?

What about when one player has killed his enemy, but another has like 3 guys on him? When the unengaged player attacks someone does he "steal" that opponent from his ally, in which case the ally can no longer attack him? It just seems to me like if there are 5 guys (2 heroes, 3 enemies) all within striking distance of each other they should be able to freely attack whoever they want. I visualize a "circle of engagement" that includes everyone in that cluster.

Essentially what's happening here is that players are trying to focus fire, and as long as they narrate that they're all relatively bunched up I don't see a good reason to disallow it, but I may be missing something. I like the abstract gridless system, but the rules don't really go over situations more complicated than 1-on-1, with extras "ganging up" or using ranged attacks. Some insight into how others are handling this would be most helpful.

Hi Alien, I would tell them that 'stances are a state of mind, not a state of play'.
Once you get past the opening volley and into melee, anyone can hit anyone unless they are protected in rearward stance.
Only the 'Escape Combat' option is actually disengaging. Explain to your player that it would normally be smarter to deal with his own opponent as just because they(the player) choose to move their attentions to another target, they are not actually disengaging and are still subject to attacks from their erstwhile opponent.

If the issue is the character's stance then Halbarad's answer sums up several discussions (over multiple topics) in the Forum. Unlike most other RPGs, stance in TOR is more about mental preparedness rather than exact positioning / terrain.

This implementation should allows things like the Troll scene in Moria from the LotR:FotR movie where there are lots of attacks of opportunity, concentrated attacks, and position related attacks. Without having to bust out floorplans, miniatures, rulers, etc. The players will need to describe what they're attempting, adding any whys and hows, of course. If it seems reasonable, go with it. If it is creative or dramatic - if a bit improbable - definitely go with it.

The story is more important than the rules.

Also don't forget as a GM to dived all the foes evenly before each new round.
So if 1 player kills his single foe in CC while another are still facing two foes when the round is over, you just move one of the foes over to the unengaged player.

You can still story wise explain it as characters moving around. You just don't have to fudge the rules to do it rulewise.

In short, your 'circle of engagement' idea is exactly how I envisage it as well. There is something in the LM book about maximum numbers of foes that can attack individuals. I believe that I is three.

It seems I was interpreting the engagement rules a bit too strictly. Essentially what you're saying, Halbarad, is that anyone in a close combat stance can attack any enemy in melee. I was reading it as you can only attack enemies that you're "engaged with," which would mean no switching to finish off someone that your friend just hit.

I get that stances are more state of mind than actual position on the field; my assumption was simply that engagement was an abstract representation of position, and taken literally it seemed really restrictive to me.

I think it would be helpful to nail down the likely definition of the term engagement as far as the rules are concerned. Based on the answers that you've all given, engagement would simply be intent on the part of the more numerous side, but is non-binding as far as the other side is concerned (whereas my original interpretation was that if someone engaged an opponent, that opponent was "locked into" fighting him, unless multiple allies engaged that opponent).

This leads into another issue, however, and one that I know my players will attempt if they're ever facing off against multiple opponents that they outnumber. That is, after the opening volleys what if everyone in a close-combat stance wants to engage a single opponent, leaving the other(s) unengaged? Based on a strict reading of the rules (LMB p 45 "When all heroes in a forward, open, or defensive stance have been paired with one opponent...") this isn't allowed, but from a strategic standpoint it makes a LOT of sense. If everyone focuses their attacks on one enemy they can possibly bring him down before he ever gets a chance to act, whereas if they spread out like the rules say then they'll likely have 2 enemies with endurance damage but still very much alive. It's a difference between the fellowship taking 1 attack vs 2 (or more).

I definitely agree that the rules shouldn't prevent a player from attempting such a rudimentary tactic, and it very much makes me wonder why the rule was written in this way. I think that the intent of the engagement rules is to determine which enemies are free to fight at range (since they don't have stances like players). In that sense, players can balance between focus-firing a specific target or trying to cover as many targets as possible to prevent them from using ranged options.

Another issue that I just thought of is the special ability "Fell Speed." A creature possessing this ability can "choose which heroes to engage at the beginning of every turn (even when in inferior numbers), [and] can attack heroes in any stance..."; aside from allowing them to attack a character in rearward, does choosing which heroes to engage actually do anything?

I just re-read the sections on making attacks in both books, and as far as I could find it doesn't actually specify that you have to be engaged with an opponent to make a close combat attack (which answers my original question, unless this is supposed to be implied). In that case, what does being engaged actually do?

Finally, if an adversary with Fell Speed attacks a hero in rearward, am I correct in assuming that it does NOT "force" the character out of rearward? On the one hand the necessary "2 allies per hero in rearward stance" and "no more than twice as many enemies as heroes" conditions are being met, but on the other those allies aren't really "protecting" him anymore since the enemy burst through their defensive line, and characters in a rearward stance "may be targeted only by attackers using ranged weapons."

The way I'm reading it Fell Speed is a specific rule that overrides the general description of rearward stance, but doesn't actually negate the stance. Does this sound about right?

Sorry about all of the complicated questions; I may be over-thinking this, but that's mostly because my players will do the same!

I would say fell speed is simply an ability to give a foe in the LM's hands the same freedom to act as a Hero in a fellowship already has.

As for players wanting to gang up on a injured foe instead of facing all foes equally my question is how?
If a character is fighting a foe that character can't logically or realistically just decide to walk off to wack some other ofe. If he does he's going to get wacked himself by the foe he's trying to leave.

Personally, I wouldn't allow it since it's smells of power gaming but if my players insisted I'd demand an incredibly well thought out and logical explanation to how their character would manage to walk around in combat without getting hit by every foe trying to kill them (and unless the explanation started with; "I'm slipping on the one ring so no one can see me..." I'm not likely to by it).

If they still insisted I'd allow it but I'd give the character an automatic piercing hit for every single foe the character moves past and I'm the one who's going decide which foes he moves past.

As for what engaged means here is my take on it.

A character is engaged whenever he's assigned a one or more foes (at the start of a round) while in a close combat stance (Note the key word is assigned, not fighting).

That means in my opinion that a character can only be unengaged in a combat in two situations. The first is when having faced and slain a single foe in a round (so even though the character is unengaged for the moment it have already made it's action for the round so it can't really do anything about it since the LM will just assign a new foe to the character at the start of the next round).
The second is when the above situation have happened and the fellowship outnumbers the foes so that the character can not be assigned a new foe at the start of the next round.

I'm not sure that it's always going to be about power gaming Chryckan. Situations may arise where a companion is a mortal danger if another character cannot intervene. I would just accept that the focus of the player has switched to another target. That doesn't mean that the focus of his opponent has changed though.

I think that Alien's problem is stemming from his players thinking that they can actually disengage from an opponent, still be part of the combat engagement and not suffer any consequences. I may be wrong but it sounds like a bit of a hangover from the days of 5 foot steps and attacks of opportunity.

That's the way I read it, too.

If your players, in the midst of a 1:1 combat situation want to gang up on a single opponent, ignoring all others, let them. Just stab them in the back - it's completely appropriate for most Evil opponents.


In answer to your request for a definition, this might suffice:

Engaged: When anyone seeks to imminently (Soon™-ish) impair the health and well-being of another - with or without the latter's knowledge, consent or participation (ie, ambush). Once any combative actions (things anyone could reasonably consider potentially dangerous) start, all parties are considered to be engaged on the personal (Frodo vs Bill Ferny) and unit (Frodo's party vs Bill Ferny and other NPCs) level.

Note this should cover anything from stealth, an outright attack, to large scale actions (building siege engines) and troop movements. Also, there is absolutely nothing about relative positioning of persons or parties affected.


But personally, I would just stab them in the back. Really.

I don't think it's quite that simple, though. Based on this logic a character engaged by 1 enemy would be unable to realistically attack a different enemy to help his friend out. Presumably because it's tougher to focus on defending against more than 1 enemy. However, what about when a player is engaged by 2 or 3 different enemies? It's expected to happen when the fellowship is outnumbered, and it's not penalized in any way, shape, or form (aside from it being more difficult to escape combat). Using Garn's rules every time a hero attacked an enemy while engaged by multiple enemies the others should get to "stab you in the back."

Either way the fellowship as a whole is subjected to N attacks, where N equals the number of enemies present. It should be assumed that everyone has to worry about everyone else on the field because you can't expect attacks to only come from an enemy that's engaged with you (consider ranged attack, for example). Regardless of whether or not a hero wants to fight 1-on-1, when the fellowship is outnumbered they're going to have to defend against more than 1 potential attacks in a given round, so why not do everything possible to reduce N?

There seems to be a double standard in this explanation. Say one hero is engaged with 1 enemy (which he kills) while another is engaged by 3 enemies. In order for the LM to assign one of those 3 enemies to the unengaged hero, that enemy has to do exactly what most of the responses are arguing that a hero should not be able to do (run away from your current opponent in order to attack a different one). Should the engaged hero get to "stab" that enemy "in the back" for leaving?

And then of course there's still the situation where all heroes engage a single enemy to finish him off at the start of combat before he even gets to act. Such heroes wouldn't be open to a "stab in the back" because they weren't fighting anyone specific yet.

Ultimately, I'm starting to think that the whole "engagement" system doesn't really work unless you blindly follow the predetermined assumptions set forth. In other words, I feel the rule artificially enforces a 1-on-1 scenario and doesn't (officially) leave any wiggle room for players to deviate from that.

Remember also that positioning is explicitly excluded from the rules. Going back to the "circle of engagement" idea, what if heroes in close combat are fighting back to back, such that an enemy engaged with his ally is within striking distance? How is attacking that enemy even if you have 2 different enemies engaged any different from attacking 1 of 3 enemies that you're engaged with? Either way you have to defend against the same number of incoming attacks.

That's certainly a factor, but why should such maneuvers be explicitly prevented? Thinking back to the movies, at Amon Hen, Helm's Deep, the Pelannor, etc. enemies are constantly moving around each other, attacking what needs to be attacked. IMO a gridless system should support flexibility and abstraction, and it seems like the engagement rules do the opposite in some cases.

Don't get me wrong, I love the combat system overall, it's just that when a player engaged with 1 orc asks if he can run over and finish off 1 of 3 orcs that his friend is fighting, I can't come up with any good reason to disallow it. If the guy with 3 orcs on him is keeping himself from getting shredded to pieces by overwhelming numbers, why should the guy with 1 orc have much trouble getting away? It doesn't even necessarily have to be that he turns his back on his opponent and makes a run for it; rather he would be intentionally "losing ground" to his opponent to make his way over to his friend.

Sorry for the overly long posts and multiple examples, but I just thought of something else. Basically, I get where some of the responses are coming from but it depends upon what's already been established by the narrative. If I say that there's 1 group of orcs 20 yards away from another, and heroes split up to engage the different groups, then yes disengaging in order to run over to the other group would be tough. I feel like that's what's being assumed by default (common sense based on positioning), and in such a case I'd probably say that the hero can't disengage without drawing some attacks. Perhaps if the hero then opts to intentionally lose ground I'd allow them to attack the other group on the next turn.

Ultimately I think I'm just going to have to be fine with "breaking" the engagement rules quite a bit based on LM discretion. After all, the point about keeping everything flowing and preventing the rules from being an impediment is a good one. We certainly didn't get into a lengthy discussion about this during play, but I think it's definitely worth reflecting on the best "use of the rules."

I agree whole heartedly Alien. The needs of the story should always outweigh the restrictions set by the rules. If the RAW don't meet your needs then adjust them to suit.

On the topic of Engagement though, it says that each combatant must engage one 'or more' other combatants. I think all that it is really saying is that each participant must have at least one opponent in each round. In other words. If you are in the fight, you are in the fight. The LM must assign at least one opponent to each combatant while that is numerically possible.

I still maintain that a character should still be able to intervene in another characters combat, even if he has opponents of his own. No problem as long as the player realises that he may still be attacked by the original opponent(s). As I said before,only the Escape Combat option allows for actual disengagement. The player may have changed his target but he is still in a close combat stance and,come the LM's turn, he can be attacked by any other foe in a close combat stance.

My view on combat is that it is a maelstrom of manoeuvring. Your 'circle of engagement' idea but without the need for a tight cluster.

I drafted this 24 hours ago. Less needed now, but still worth posting. (I hope!)

On Stance

Stance has too much of an effect on Combat TNs to be purely mental. As a mechanic, TOR's Stances are an elegantly simple approach to how a combatant divides their efforts between attacking their opponent and also defending against their attacks in turn (MERP/Rolemaster's offensive bonus, OB, and defensive bonus, DB, epsecitvely).

In a short combat round of toe-to-toe combat, like the 6-10 seconds of most games, this really does largely represent their physical "stance": on the front foot vs on the back foot / weapon presented in a defensive guard position or poised for an optimal attack / etc.
TOR's loose but longer combat rounds address a more fluid, dynamically changing mêlée -- in which people are jockeying for position, 'trying' to get around Close combatants to have a go at Rearward ones; Rearward ones are evading and trying to get a shot in and their potential targets are using anyone and anything as cover against same. The evidence of the Fell Speed ability does cast a lot of light here. Good find, alien270!
(Ironically in this context it's less accurate to call people's combat dispositions "stances". But it would give the wrong tone for the system to talk about Player-heroes' "combat dispositions" and I can't think of any better term to describe it. )

On 'Engagement'
The Loremaster's Book is clear about having the individual combatants on the opposing sides effectively pair off in engaging one another.
Even if 'engaged' doesn't mean fighting a one-on-one duel within the greater mêlée (see below), it does still mean a person is prevented from being able to just leave the fight at will. Leaving the area altogether requires an Athletics task.

On Ganging Up
As a summary of up to 30 seconds' worth of combat in an unrestricted space it is probably accurate to have combatants effectively pair off by default, mutually engaging one another. Combatants threatened for a couple of seconds with being ganged-up upon can back away, and anyone who isn't engaged because their enemies are seeking to gang up on someone else would soon fall upon their flanks. (Splitting combat up into a series of one-on-ones is what TRoS RPG does, which has the best approach to realistic combat I've come across. I say this based on the years I spent in steel weapon Anglo Saxon combat- and battle-reenactment.)

"Focussing fire" is tactical gold, but whatever the attackers want to do is exactly what their targets see coming and manoeuvre to avoid -- so it's hard to gain that advantage over someone who's (a.) sentient and (b.) not massively outclassed.

I'd happily allow ganging up when you have Surprise, or for someone's first round after downing their previous victim. But in a protracted fight, ganging up should not be sustainable.
Requiring the same Athletics task as fleeing combat isn't unreasonable, and has the advantage of keeping things simple.
Off the top of my head, I might be tempted to house-rule that someone could gang up instead of pairing off if they spend a die of Combat Advantage. Or maybe allow it, but with an attack at -3 (the gap between stances, which could be converted into -3 Parry instead by using a more agressive stance). Or even give away one or more Attacks of Opportunity.

And remember the golden rule: if the Player-Heroes think they can gang up on their opponents, they should expect their opponents to do the same to them on their turn...

Cheers!
--Os.

I REALLY like this way of putting it, especially the bold part. When I read that, something just clicked. I like thinking of it in the sense that pairing up with someone means that both you and they are in close combat. By not engaging with someone (specifically in the first round of combat) you're leaving them enough space (physical or tactical) to use a ranged weapon if they would like, or to engage whoever they want on their turn. By previously being engaged with someone it just means that you have to account for the fact that they're gunning for you (with a melee weapon), even if you decide to attack someone else.

Essentially, I was probably being too harsh by calling for an Athletics check to attack an ally's opponent.

I do think there's conceptual space for multiple "circles of engagement," which goes back to LM's discretion. This would be something like having everyone within each other's line of sight, but some of the heroes defending or attacking different portions of the battlefield (like when Aragorn, Eomer, and Gimli go off to defend the gate at Helm's Deep while most everyone else, including Legolas, holds their previous positions). While a circle of engagement wouldn't necessarily require all combatants to be tightly bunched, at some point two (or more) groups can become so far away that they're effectively in different fights.

Another good way of putting it. More evidence for "engagement" being more about intent than a positional or tactical restriction, at least within the close combat "circle of engagement."

Yes, I like this and it's very similar to my first quote from Halbarad. Another way of saying that if you're in the fight (engaged with someone, even if it doesn't matter who for the purposes of eligible targets), you're in the fight.



And to consider things from a different angle...

Another interesting way of phrasing the opposite the argument (that attacks are restricted to opponents you're engaged with).

I guess my biggest problem with handing out penalties for attacking someone you aren't engaged with has to do with the distinction between being ganged up on because of superior numbers vs being ganged up on because of who you decide to attack. The rules assume the first scenario will happen and don't penalize a combatant (other than the fact that you'll suffer more attacks if you're fighting against a force that has you outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1). For the second scenario, your argument about the defender "seeing it coming" and "maneuvering to avoid" doesn't make much sense to me; why should he have a greater ability to do that against an unengaged opponent compared with the guy he's already engaged with? Shouldn't it be tougher to defend against attacks when there are 2 guys coming after you vs 1? And if you're saying the enemy that the attacker is already engaged with is preventing him from making enough of a concerted effort toward attacking the defender (guy being ganged up on), then why can a hero attack 1 enemy when 3 are engaged with him? Wouldn't those other 2 make it too hard for the attacker to make a concerted effort against the defender using your argument?

Realistically everyone should have to worry about every single one of their enemies because you never know when they can pounce upon an opening and take you down. An individual's awareness being limited (especially when there's so much going on in a life-or-death situation) they're obviously not completely aware of everyone else 100% of the time. If you're engaged with an opponent then yes, you should be particularly aware of what you're doing, but if the rules assume that you can fight equally effectively while engaged with 3 opponents as you can 1, then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to divert some attention to an enemy you're not engaged with to sneak in an attack.

As you pointed out, a combat round is 30 seconds long, and a single attack roll can just as easily represent a single strike made when you saw an opening in an unengaged defender's defenses (while still paying due attention to whoever you're engaged with) as it can a series of strikes and parries exchanged with 1 or more enemies that you're in a 1-on-1 "duel" with in the middle of combat. You're still "in the fight" with the guy engaging you, it's just that there's a lot of opportunities in that fight.


To change the subject, I just wanted to state that this discussion has definitely been helpful in thinking about how engagement works. A lot of good ideas, and I can see myself employing each of the various takes depending on the situation being described. I think I'm pretty close to "getting it" at this point (or at least an interpretation of "it" that makes sense to me), but feel free to keep 'em coming!


EDIT: I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good idea for the game as a whole, but one way of making things a little more realistic would be to impose a cumulative penalty on being engaged by more than 1 opponent (in other words, fighting superior numbers would come with a disadvantage beyond simply being subject to more attacks). You could utilize the Complications table for this, with directly fighting 2 opponents at a time counting as "moderately hindered" and 3+ being "severely hindered." So by "ganging up" you'd be splitting attention between 2 foes, making yourself moderately hindered. You'd have to weigh that against the tactical advantage of focus-fire, and the penalty would be consistent with being engaged by multiple opponents (which would be an equally bad situation).

Hi Alien. I'm glad to be of service.The phrase sounded great in my head but I wasn't sure if it would put across the point when written down.

Ps, I knew that you understood the concept of stances. I thought that maybe your players were having a bit of trouble with it though. God knows, mine are.......

On the subject of the Complication table, I tend to use it for 'unusual' situations. Unfortunately, outnumbered (but never outgunned) is likely to be quite a common thing.
There s a perceived Asymnetry in the game that is skewed towards the players. I would worry that this might skew the balance in the other direction, unless Combat Encounters are scaled down.

OTOH, it's a nice idea and it might work fine. If you do try it, let us know how it goes.

Yes, this is what I'm worried about which is why I said I'm not sure if it would necessarily be a good idea for the game, even if it is a little more realistic. Certainly for groups that want a grittier feel it's a potential option, but it does make fights much tougher, especially for beginning characters who are already somewhat forced to favor the more aggressive stances in order to hit anything.

Perhaps relaxing the penalty a bit might be better? Being engaged with 2 enemies is fine, but 3+ makes you moderately hindered, and only under extremely rare conditions could you become severely hindered from sheer numbers alone.

Another concern that I have is that hindrance due to being outnumbered reduces the importance of hindrance due to environmental factors (unless you stack penalties such that fights become extremely difficult). I see the Complications table as a good way to emphasize interesting conditions, and to provide an incentive for players to try to "work around them." Using it for something so routine as being outnumbered can potentially "water down" its impact on the game.

In the end I think I prefer the "circle of engagement" scenario where everyone can target anyone else in a close-combat stance, and engagement is just a manifestation of intent, but more importantly defines who is in close combat. If you aren't engaged, you're shooting your bow or chucking spears.

Or running away....

I personally like a simpler definition of engagement, which is any opponent you are currently attacking. This means that if you are currently attacking Orc #1, you are engaged with Orc #1. If, on the next combat round, you want to attack Orc #2, you will be disengaged with Orc #1 and engaged to Orc #2.

The issue is found in the rules that say, When the opposition outnumbers the company, the Loremaster first assigns an opponent of his choice to every companion in a close combat stance (heroes in rearward cannot be engaged) and When all heroes in a forward, open or defensive stance have been paired with one opponent, there might still be companions in close combat left without an adversary.

As written, the rules require that all eligible targets in close combat need to be engaged, whether the player-heroes choose (if they outnumber their enemies) or vice versa. So, a player cannot decide to engage the same target as an ally, if other eligible enemies will be left "unengaged." (LB 45)

Since the rules do not penalize player-heroes for 'disengaging' and choosing new targets, it can be assumed at the top of every round, all heroes may choose new targets, as long as all eligible enemies are engaged. At that point, the rules for how many characters can engage any one enemy are followed.

For example, there are five heroes and two Orcs in combat. At the top of a round the companions decide on their Combat stances. All five players choose a Close combat stance. Since the companions outnumber their foes, they choose the engagements. BOTH Orcs need to be engaged. All five player-heroes cannot choose the same Orc to attack on any given round, leaving the other Orc unengaged. However, each individual hero may switch opponents if they wish. So, one round, four heroes can attack Orc #1 and one hero attack Orc #2. The next round, three heroes can attack Orc #1, and two heroes attack Orc #2, etc.

I think then that you are in agreement with my interpretation. As long as everyone in the combat has at least one opponent then it doesn't matter about switching opponents except from a common sense POV where an opponent is unlikely to oblige you by attacking someone else so that you can 'gang' up on his mate.

But I don't wanna be engaged to Orc #2!

So far we've had combats where most of the proposed narrations have occurred with no adverse effects.

I've had players choose to move to attack another foe that is currently been attacking another hero. I've had they gang up on one of multiple foes to down it quickly. I've had foes outnumber heroes to the point that there could be no rearward stance until they dropped a couple first.

All in all - the narration always seemed to be able to account for the changes in tactics. And the players have had no disillusions that if they choose to go help a fellowship member their original combatant will still be able to attack them on its turn - and there's been no lamentation about that.

I believe a lot of the issues crop up from players used to a minis-mentality based combat system like 5' steps and attacks of opportunity. My players have all been practitioners of said system for many years, and for a couple of them, the hardest part has been trying to unlearn how all that applies.

I have the following suggestion for Alien:

If it makes more sense to you and your players, and it makes you feel better about the concept (of moving from your own foe to help a fellow fight another), add a simple house rule that you can do this only by going Defensive Stance in that round (to account for the mentality/demeanor of protecting oneself from the foe he's now wishing to back away from tactically in order to reach his friend). Subsequent rounds he can go back to a more forward or open stance; but for that round that he's re-selecting a new foe from amidst the battle, it makes pragmatic sense that one would have to take a small added measure of caution.

I propose instead of this being default in all combats that outnumber the heroes to make it have more impact by making this added difficulty apply only in certain encounters.


Do this by designing a new Enemy Trait:

Pack Tactics: Creatures with this trait lower a targets Parry rating by 1 for each additional creature with this trait that is attacking the same target.


(Wolves in particular are notorious for confusing their prey by attacking in a pack drawing their prey's attention from one direction - while the other sneaks in for an attack. This was also displayed by the veloceraptors in Jurassic Park movie).

Question for SirKicley. Out of curiosity, when your players have decided to gang up on one enemy (by deciding to all choose engagements with one enemy while ignoring other available targets in close combat), how did you decide what the Combat TN for the unengaged enemies would be when they attacked your players?

Since enemies do NOT choose Combat stances, did you just give them a default Combat TN 6 for not having a defender? Or did you let them automatically hit the heroes, because the heroes were ignoring them? Or did you do something else?

Huh. Maybe you allowed the unengaged enemy to choose a target and you used that heroes Combat stance?

Yup. That's exactly what happened.

It was marsh dwellers that I remember the most this happening with. And they were cunning enough to see that certain heroes were less defensive and less concerned with their safety (open stance) and ganged up on that PC.

So suddenly that PC had 4 Marsh Dwellers attacking him in a Forward Stance (TN 6) and became an easy target. Was hit three times, including a Wound, and became Weary.

The next round they opted for different strategy and ensured ALL Marsh Dwellers were being "engaged" appropriately.


EDIT: For the sake of being complete: the reason the PCs chose the option to gang up on one is because the enemy outnumbered the heroes 2:1 and their Fellowship Focus is a archer type who is quite deadly with the bow - alot more so than w/ sword, and chose to free her up to go rearward stance because she could be more effective in the subsequent rounds if she could use her bow; so they focused on getting one of the dwellers off of her.

My issue with that definition is that you wouldn't necessarily be "disengaging" in order to attack someone else. After all, if you're being engaged by 3 orcs are you suddenly disengaged from 2 of them because you can only attack 1?

Ultimately, I think that the engagement rules are meant to limit the enemies more than the heroes.

I like this mentality. Keep it simple and let the players do what they need to do, as long as it's within reason.

Yes, this has been my assumption. The only time it's come up was when there were too many enemies for a character to go into rearward, but when enough had been slain that character goes into rearward and the enemies that he was engaged with are now "free." Those enemies then freely engaged whoever else was in a close combat stance.

I like this idea! It draws a distinction between efficiently cooperative enemies. For example, orcs may work together but they generally don't get along even on the best of days. They're much more worried about saving their own skin or gaining their own glory than helping out their friend. Wolves, on the other hand, have evolved a hunting style to do just that, and it makes sense that the same would apply to wargs. This trait is a very simple way to draw attention to that fighting style mechanically.

I've also had no qualms about having monsters gang up on the most vulnerable hero. I'm a big believer in playing enemies realistically, and if it makes sense for them to fight dirty and gain the best advantage possible, they're going for it. Perhaps that was partially why my players were so eager to reciprocate. Granted I still followed the general rule about pairing an enemy up with each hero, but the "overflow" enemies all tend to flock to one character (usually whoever is in forward stance). The guy in defensive would end up taking most of the hits anyways (didn't expect to see a Dwarf burn through that much Hope!).

Ok. So, complete my definition by adding the Shadow point of view, "You are also engaged to any opponent attacking you (in close combat)."

If I am understanding the rules correctly, players choose engagements at the top of the round, only if they are in the majority or even in number. Otherwise, the Loremaster chooses all the engagements. So, if you (the player) are being engaged by 3 Orcs, the Orcs must have been in the majority at the top of the round and the Loremaster chose them to engage you. As long as they remain in the majority, you do not get to choose your own engagements. Therefore, in that situation, you could not 'disengage' on your own accord (unless you try to escape combat altogether).

The 'house rule' SirKicley has entertained, is that when in the majority, the heroes can choose to gang up on one or two enemies, rather than assign at least one engagement to EVERY available target. If there were 5 heroes and only 3 enemies, for example, it is suggested that 3 heroes can gang up on 1 enemy, while the other 2 heroes can gang up on a second enemy, leaving 1 enemy unengaged.

I'm not sure I like that rule, but in the very least, if I were to use it, I would allow unassigned combatants to automatically hit any target they chose because they were ignored during assignments. Think about it, if the majority side chooses NOT to engage a character, they would not be defending against that character either. They would be spending all their time with the targets they are actually engaging.

That is my understanding of the rules as well. When I run a combat, "ganging up" is only allowed when there are more heroes than enemies, and even then, each enemy has to be accounted for.

I suppose I would allow them to ignore one or two enemies if they really wanted to, but that enemy would be able to attack anyone in Rearward stance or attack a hero in close combat at a huge advantage (maybe even an automatic hit). This hasn't come up, as my players seem to have realized the tactical importance of not leaving your enemies to do as they please...

Does it actually say that players can only 'choose their own engagements' when in a majority. I honestly don't recall seeing that and would like a reference or a clarification.

I think that this is a very good argument, and if this were the intent of the engagement rules I wouldn't be surprised. However, I still think that if interpreted this way, "engagement" seems like an artificial limitation. It's basically saying you can't attack someone else if you're already engaged with someone, and when you ask "why?" the logical explanation is because you can't take your attention off of the enemy that you're already engaged with, because they're actively trying to kill you. One enemy is trying to kill you, and you can't divert your attention enough to attack one other enemy. Ok, but what about when 3 or 4 enemies are trying to kill you (engaged with you)? The game assumes that you can effectively divert your attention between all of them, as evidenced by the fact that there's no penalty for fighting against superior numbers. And you're also paying attention to any ranged attackers well enough to not be auto-hit.

For this reason I don't like your proposed "auto-hit" rule for any enemy that was "ignored." Because that enemy wasn't ignored, it's just not the primary focus of any character's attacks (yet). Characters should be just as aware of this enemy and able to defend against it as they would be if the LM were assigning engagements in the first place.

There's admittedly a lot of room for interpretation here, because the RAW (rules as written) are not 100% clear. This is either due to an oversight by the authors, or an intentional feature to support flexibility and avoid restrictions that don't make sense except from a dry, rules point of view. I'd like to think it's the latter, but without any designer comment we just don't know.

The key point (to me) is that in the attack sections it doesn't specify that you can only attack enemies that you're engaged with, and in the engagement sections it doesn't say that being engaged limits your choice of target. Conversely, in D&D 4E (the other game I'm currently playing and running) every attack has a very well-defined target line that leaves no room for interpretation. That system needs such rules since it's designed to be very reliant on tactical, grid-based combat with lots of interacting pieces. That's not to say that 4E is "better written" than TOR; on the contrary, both are perfectly valid approaches and I really like taking a break from the more rigid structure to work with something more open-ended and flexible.

Ultimately, I think the rules do a good job of giving the LM the tools to do what makes sense without spelling things out too specifically. TOR combat is fast, rules-light, and easy to run so I'm really hesitant to add any restrictions without a good situational reason. I think that consistency is very important, and I can't get past the idea that a hero can fight 3 guys just fine if they're all engaging him, but he has trouble with 2 guys just because one of them has his attention elsewhere (indeed, that should make him easier to attack if anything. In short, the way I see it is that being outnumbered should either always come with a penalty, or it should never* come with a penalty.

*specific situations will sometimes warrant a penalty, though they should be the exception; restrictions are also no good if they prevent the LM from providing an exciting experience!

Page 45 of the LMB; the "Engagement" section is broken up into "More Enemies than Heroes" and "More Heroes than Enemies (or sides equally matched)."

I know the part you are referring to Alien but I don't recollect it saying anything about characters only being able to choose who they engage when they are in the majority?

I will check up tonight when I get home.

I'm sure Francesco and the team are taking notice to the conversation.

That being said, I have to disagree with your assessment of the clarity of the rules for combat. When I read the rulebooks, I clearly see the steps. Maybe a step-by-step, numbered explanation would help, just like with the Journey rules.

The books clearly say to me (concerning close combat)...

EVERY Combat Round:

1. First the players choose Combat stances.
2. Next, the Loremaster compares the number of heroes to enemies. If the heroes are in the majority or tied, they will choose engagements. Otherwise, the Loremaster will choose.
3. When choosing engagements, EVERY eligible target must be engaged. This is stated and logical because EVERY eligible target is in close combat, not rearward.
4. For the party in majority, the extra attackers can choose to engage targets that are already engaged with another character.

This process takes place at the top of EVERY Combat round. It is a mechanic that helps to keep combat smooth and flowing. There is no need to redefine the word 'engagement.' If you are not 'engaged' with another character in close combat, it does not mean you are not near them in battle, it just means you aren't attacking one another THAT Combat round. You aren't 'engaging' each other that round. Maybe you will next round. If the enemy chooses you as a target, the RAW does not allow you to attack someone else that Combat round. One side picks targets in any given round, depending on which side has majority.

Also, those in Rearward have a static Combat TN 12, independent of their target's close combat stance. That is why they must roll.

Anyway, I don't mean to shut down conversation on this. I just wanted to give my viewpoint on the clarity of the RAW. If it turns out that I am incorrect, I will eat humble pie. I also realize that if there are many players who don't see it clearly, then perhaps a different approach will be needed when printing the 2nd edition.

Hmmmm, JRB's interpretation of the RAW appears to be right.

This fact, however, makes me sad. I cannot understand why the number of opponents has such an effect on choice of opponent instead of Initiative. For a system that places narrative storytelling and abstraction on such a high pedestal, this seems remarkably out of synch in the way that it inhibits player choices.

I don't think that an explanation of the RAW is required, but I would be interested in what Francesco's thinking was in making numbers of opponents more important in determining who a character can engage than having, or not having, initiative.

I have to agree with this sentiment. While there may be some precedence set that each person must be engaged, forcing and auto-hit seems too punitive and senseless really for someone wishing to "dis-focus" on one enemy to fight another.

I can see many examples of a person on the defensive purposefully backing up - defending or parrying attacks allowing them to press the attack but specifically for the purpose of the defender wanting to get to a different .

This could be due to wanting to help another, find a more advantageous tactical , retrieve a disarmed weapon, etc.

Those familiar with Football (NFL - not soccer), I'll use two analogies.

The first is the Screen Pass. The Offensive linemen purposefully give up ground allowing the defense to press and push forward - but it's merely an illusion - the idea is that the defenders will too far upfield towards the quarterback and will then be out of position when the QB dumps the pass just a few feet to the hands of his running back. This is especially useful against blitzing defensive players (either on plays that would obviously be blitz call, or a defense notorious for their blitzing. Blitzers are definitely Forward Stance). The offensive linemen by this point have allowed the defenders and blitzers to believe that they have pushed past the shielding linemen and now out of position to make a tackle, and frees the offensive linemen to get down field in front of the running back to now find new opponents to block - the linebackers and defensive backs specifically.

I feel this analogy expresses how a defender (the offensive linemen) can disengage with one attacker (defensive lineman or blitzer) and find a new opponent to engage.

The second is the quarterback making a pass play - which speaks to why auto-hits may not be idea implementation. During a passing play, the QB has to back up, keeping his eye downfield for 3 or 4 receivers. He has to eye each of them, checking down to the next one if his primary, or secondary are well-covered or somehow become bumped out of position or out of place for his route. Meanwhile the QB has to "see" the defensive linemen coming at him, noticing when an attacker breaks through the shield-wall and can make a grab at the QB, while simultaneously keeping an eye on the blitzing linebacker or Conerback off the edge, knowing/hoping that his fullback that stayed in to block will successfully intercept that attack allowing him an extra second to deliver his pass. The QB is looking all around, moving up into the pocket created by the protecting linemen, stepping left to avoid a reaching arm of the defensive lineman that gets through and then throws the pass to an open receiver. Sometimes this doesn't work out so well. Sometimes the QB is sacked. But not always. He may get hit sometimes, but sacks don't happen more than not. So I'm reluctant to declare that if you "unfocus" on one attacker to focus on another, that your attention in a melee like that of a brutal and violent sport like football, that you'll automatically get hit/hurt/sacked every time. It's far more believable that someone can be trained to have awareness of all combatants and effectively focus where it is needed/wanted at the moment - dangerous yes - automatically failing - no.

I can settle or agree with perhaps forcing a re-focusing player (i like that term better than the confusion we're having over engaging) to only be in a defensive stance that round to make way for him carefully navigating the field until he finds another opponent (like the offensive lineman in a screen pass).

Furthermore - by allowing for this abstraction and room for this to develop as such, you're also allowing for more narrative freedom among the players instead of locking them into a restrictive phone-booth type arena where they can only affect whomever was attacking them at the moment; and I feel that I have enough logical sense of real-world examples to open the possibility for these tactics.

I had one player opt to re-focus his attention from from one attacker to kneel down behind one that the other player was fighting in a clever form of narration to try and get the guy to be knocked backwards over him. I made the spot ruling that he would "HAVE" to be considered FORWARD stance to explain himself giving up standing position to possibly get wacked for it, but it still allowed the freedom to try and the fun of the narration was rewarded for it. Both the combatants attacked the guy by the way on his forward stance - only one hit so the gamble paid off. I ruled that the other character did knock the guy backwards after he landed a successful hit; but now both the hero and the marsh dweller were on the ground. I don't think these kinds of scenarios could be as feasible without some leeway and wiggle room with the interpretation of who has to engage with whom.

i totally agree. At this point I'm not allowing to dictate it at all. Perhaps skew a bit in favor of one way or the other, but not relegate definitively.

Huh. I completely missed that choosing engagements happens at the top of every combat round, but there it is back on p. 44 (a page before the section on engagement). I'd interpreted the choosing engagements section to be pertinent at the beginning of the combat, and then after that it would vary from round to round as the flow of combat dictated. Taken on this smaller timescale, I can definitely see how the RAW would indicate that engaged=who you're attacking (or eligible to attack).

My sentiments exactly. I can understand why superior numbers would give one side an advantage, but that advantage is sufficiently expressed by that side getting to make more attacks.

In fact, because I value player choice so much I'd actually much rather re-visit my proposed house rule from several posts up, about using the Complications Table to assign penalties for fighting multiple opponents. If there's going to be a downside to fighting superior numbers, I'd rather have it be mathematical than by saying "you can't attack that guy." Again, the engagement restriction treats fighting 3 guys engaged by you as less of a big deal than trying to attack someone while engaged by 1 enemy, which just doesn't realistically make sense to me.

Good analogies, that's exactly what I was going for. The consequences of screwing up certainly aren't as bad in football, but it's a good application of those same skillsets in our modern life, where warfare with close combat weapons is virtually nonexistent.


So this is interesting. Thanks JamesRBrown, for clearing up the RAW. That said, this looks to be the first major houserule that I'll be enacting. It's clear that the rules are enforcing a restriction on target choice, but that rule is too artificial (IMO) to use in my games. I'll likely run combats with no penalties for target selection, but reserve the Combat Complications modifiers (or similar) for situations where numbers provide more of an advantage to the enemy than bodies alone (like with wolves, for example, who are notoriously efficient at working together such that the result is greater than the sum of the parts).

Finding only 1 rule I disagree with is still pretty good in my book!

Yeah, I'm in agreement with all of that. I reckon I'm going to stick with 'circles of engagement' and 'if you're in the fight, you are in the fight'.
I also like Kicley's 'Pack Tactics' for wolves and the like. Consider it snaffled.