Hi folks,

I've just recently joined here on the forums, after a second read-through of the TOR rules. I haven't had a chance to play it yet, but I found the books extremely interesting to read and have been toying with ideas in my head.

I was in the process of creating a graphically spruced-up version of the stance map (by voidstate) available in the resources here, basically using a battle map as the background to give the idea of an actual site in Mirkwood (or so). I thought it would be nice to have a this on the table and use it with my selection of LotR miniatures.

Then I came across this thread and it got me thinking, especially this bit:

Now I'm debating myself whether my idea to show an actual map in the background isn't counter-productive. Wouldn't it rather confuse players about the nature of the stances - after all, it's NOT the position on the battle-field they are referring to.

What do you think? Should I still go ahead? It there interest in such a version of the stance map? Here is in-work preview of what I was creating: Stance Map

Nice map!

I really like to run minis-heavy games - I have a few thousand minis and loads of terrain, Dwarven Forge pieces, etc.

Having said that, given the somewhat abstract nature of stances and positions in a fight, the more "actual setting" detail you put into the visualization, the more confusion you will cause. For example, one might be fighting defensively, but actually be on the front line of the battle. It's pretty tricksy, Precious.

I've only run one test combat with some friends, so who knows how that perspective will change, but for the moment it seems like it's best to let people narrate where they are in the world not tied to the stances.

Absolutely, and that's my dilemma: The stance positions on the map are not meant to refer to the actual position of the characters in the area - but that's what one naturally assumes when looking at it. On the other hand, if I leave out all the interesting bits on the mapscape - why put it in the background at all?

I've not had the chance to play TOR yet either, but it seems to me that that stances do abstractly model positions 'a little'. The 3 close combat stances broadly represent a front line that protects characters in the Reward Stance. Other than this I agree that stances do not actually indicate positioning.

Personally I wouldn't use a map to represent stances as actual positions on the map. It seems contradictory to me.

If I were to run TOR using minis, a battle-mat and other props. I would probably use them in a loosely representational manner and not make many attempts to accurately measure anything.

This would allow you to have a map and interesting bits and preserve the fluidity of the system. I'm sure the vast majority of players would have no trouble understanding this.

Interestingly, there rules for different range brackets for ranged weapons, but I couldn't find rules for how it would affect the TN to hit a target. Nor could I find rules for movement in combat.

I've run only 1 session of TOR (The Marsh Bell), so take anything I say with a grain of salt. However, I used voidstate's stance mat and I can definitely see how trying to impose that onto a grid map would make things more confusing. My players didn't skip a beat during the fight with the stone troll, but were clamoring for a visual representation inside the ruins with the Marsh Dwellers. As I described the set-up again, one of the players quickly sketched out the map on some scratch paper and I simply indicated where groups of Marsh Dwellers were located. The map wasn't any bigger than 6 in x 6 in, and I didn't even draw in the positions of any combatants, but it worked really well in helping them visualize what was going on despite their minis being on the stance mat.

At one point the players all tried to dash across the room as fast as possible and only 1 succeeded his Athletics check so I just pointed to where he was on the map vs where the other players and Balin and Oin were. As the battle progressed I pointed out where Balin and Oin were cowering, always trying to get closer to the exit. None of it really had any mechanical impact aside from which players were engaging which enemies, but it was a tremendous aid in presenting what was going on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you want to make pretty maps I'd keep them separate from the stance mat, and you can easily refer to both in-game as needed. I'll certainly be pre-drawing maps for important set-piece battles in the future, leaving out the fine details so players can still get creative with extra dice from Battle rolls and such.

I have been playing TOR since August and I absolutely love the system of combat. It really is the kind of system I have been longing for. Simple. Fast. Enjoyable. Cinematic.

If I were creating a Battle mat, I would NOT use a map as the background. I would probably make it look like a parchment paper laid on top of artwork depicting a battle, so that the artwork shows around the edges.

In the center of the parchment I would put "Circles of Engagement" for character's and enemies in Close Quarters. On the top and bottom of the parchment I would have zones marked for characters in Rearward. The top zone would be reserved for heroes and the bottom zone would be reserved for enemies. The "Circles of Engagement" would not be labeled with Combat stances because stances can change every round at the will of the players. The circles are for when characters are assigned engagements. Heroes and enemies in the same circle are engaged, no matter what the heroes' Combat stances.

In my humble opinion, this would be the most useful purpose for a Battle mat. This would help Loremasters keep track of engagements easier. At least for me, it is easier to remember the chosen Combat stances of heroes than it is to remember engagements.

Thanks for the feedback, folks. I'll re-thinking the whole issue.

SUGGESTION: Use a "Stance Coaster"

Get some plastic overhead projector sheets and create a "stance coaster" which can be placed beneath the miniature to show it's current stance. Something like this should work fine:


To create the stance coaster, go into any capable word processor or art program, selecting the Art Text function. Choose Text Along a Circle, facing text outward, and enter the names of the stances repeatedly, to form a ring around the outer edge. Insert the sheets into your printer and print them out.

Sundry Tips:

• Make sure to face the text outward (this cannot be stressed enough). It makes reading the stance easier when everyone is positioned around a table. (Otherwise only the mini itself can easily read the stance. Everyone else will be tilting their heads!)
• You might need to add several spaces to control the word spacing to make sure it is legible and evenly distributed.
• Include a cut-out line (the circle in the image above) so you have an even edge that doesn't get caught on things.
• The cut-out line can be a circle, hex, oval, or whatever shape you need.
• Large miniatures will need a larger coaster. Remember to make them in multiple sizes.
• Keep the text along the outer edge of whatever shape or size of coaster you create - it does no good if the text is under the miniature.
• Careful mix & matching of shapes and sizes will allow you to use sheets most efficiently.
• Did you double-check to make sure the text is facing outward?
• No, really, did you double-check? It is very easy to goof the text direction.

I don't think adhering the coaster would be a good idea as, over time, the mini is likely to have adhesive build-up which would interfere with use on battlemats, dioramas, etc.

@Mono X,

I don't have my book with me but I'm fairly sure that the effects of range on missile weapons is on the Combat Complications chart in the LM book.

Mono X: In general, I agree with you. But, also consider the attitude is less "I'm physically behind a front line of combatants" and more, "I'm continually positioning myself so that I'm free to fire." Becasue of the chaos inherent in close combat, opposing lines are less common then individual engagments. I offer an example below. Just something to consider by the fire...

Uthoroc, using a stance mat can be great to assist new players and the LM "learn" the dynamics of TOR's combat. If it helps your gaming sessions, then use it. I would echo some of the other comments: Try and make it tied as little as possible to spatial references. This will help players not obsesss over positioning their player-heroes. Hopefully, this allows them to focus on the implications of choosing a stance/attitude in actual combat situations. In my opinion, one of the best compliments a LM can receive as a conveyor of the rules is when the players no longer want to use something like a stance mat (the "prop"), and take full control of narrating where they are in the melee along with unique environmental features that are the justification for their actions.

An example, I have an archer who has effectively narrated a "case" for staying "behind" comrades but actually being on the flank of the enemy using a combination of environmental features (trees in the forest of Mirkwood) and terrain features (slopes in the landscape) so that he made a compelling argument to get in close and use his bow; and, in the process, he changed the combat complication because of range. He actually made up the terrain feature and elaborated on my decription of the wooded area. As the LM, I cocked my head to one side, frowned and then had to admit it was inventive and suprising. I allowed it with sacrificing a ranged attack for an Athletics Task roll, and he made the roll. (Thankfully, it was a simple success. Had it been great or extraordinary, I would have had to search for something creative as the result of the success. Not that day, though, the Valar smiled upon this poor LM.... ) More power to him for taking control of the story where his player-hero fit in.

Regards,
E

PS, someone posted combat stance cards early on in the forum. They achieve something similar without the spatial bias...

That's a GREAT idea! And that would work perfect with a Battle mat that was made to keep track of engagements.

Step 1. Onset. Pre-determine Initiative, Surprise Attacks & Combat Advantage before opening volleys (see pp. 40-44 of the Loremaster's Book - LB).

Step 2. Setup & Opening Volleys. Place all enemies in the Rearward enemy zone. Place all heroes in the Rearward hero zone. If the Loremaster determined there would be opening volleys, they are carried out now (see the LB, p. 41 and the Adventurer's Book - AB, p. 159).

Step 3. Count Sides. The number of enemies are counted. If there are more enemies than heroes, the Loremaster will be assigning engagements. If there are more heroes than enemies, the heroes will be assigning engagements (see the LB, p. 45).

Step 4. Choose Stances. Each player chooses a Combat stance for his hero and places the appropriate Stance coaster under his mini. Heroes that will be remaining in Rearward won't need a coaster as the mini will remain in the Rearward hero zone (see the LB, pp. 44-45 and AB, pp. 157-158 for Combat stances).

Step 5. Assign Engagements. Engagements are made by placing minis in engagement circles. For example, a Barding hero wishes to engage an Orc. He places his Barding mini in an engagement circle with an Orc mini. The next hero, a Dwarf, chooses to engage a different Orc. He places his mini, along with a different Orc mini, into a new engagement circle. Once all engagements are made, there should be several engagement circles filled with minis. These show the various engagement assignments on the battlefield (rules for how many heroes can engage the same enemy or vice versa are found in the LB, pp. 45-46).

Step 6. Close Combat. Follow the rules for Combat rounds beginning on pp. 46 of the LB and p. 156 of the AB, changing Stance coasters each round as Combat stances are changed.

Hmm, granted I've only played once so far and the only "aid" I've used has been voidstate's stance map, but so far I'm finding the opposite to be true. My players changed stances quite a bit, usually with just 1 hero (in a group of 3) in forward stance at any given time, and as he took damage he fell back into open or defensive and another hero took his place in forward stance. So stances were always changing, and having a quick reference for what stance everyone was in was very helpful.

Engagements, OTOH, I had no problem with. As LM I'd already listed the initials for enemies onto a sheet of scrap paper (with numbers for multiples of the same creature, if applicable), and in another column I kept track of each creature's current endurance and hate. When it came time to figure out engagements, I just listed the hero's initial next to each enemy he was engaged with.

To each his own, of course; this is just what I've found most helpful so far.

That's a good point too. We do all experience games differently. I usually play with about 5-6 players. The one thing players have to remember each round is the Combat stance they have chosen. I think a coaster under a mini would be great for this. Right now, if I forget as the Loremaster, I just ask them and they always remember. I think it would be helpful to me (and the players) if I could visualize engagements, rather than keep track of them on scratch paper (especially since specific rules for engagement are given). Having them place minis in engagement circles, I thought, would be an easy way to do this. Combat stance coasters can be changed each round as needed.

I think both ideas are good: A battle mat based on Combat stances and a Battle mat based on Engagements (utilizing Combat stance coasters). Depending on the needs of the group, they can choose which works best.

Cool idea!

I created a quick Battle mat based on engagements, as I have described.

Battle Mat

That's really cool, man. I'm not sure if I'd actually ever need it; but I wont rule it out. And as far as it's creation - I see this as very useful to those who would use it and very well done.

Thanks for sharing.

We don't actually use minis, but round 1" wooden tokens that I purchased from a craft store. I also numbered the tokens. I'm thinking of making a set of 3 player-hero tokens for each player to represent the Combat stance they have chosen. I would use colored tokens to identify the stance that the hero has chosen like this:

• Red for Rearward or Forward stances
• White for Open stance
• Green for Defensive stance

So, players would start by placing their red token in the Rearward hero zone, depending on circumstances. Once they enter Close combat, they can engage an enemy by moving their token into an engagement circle, along with the token of the enemy they have engaged. They can choose whatever Combat stance they wish by switching their token to the appropriate color.

*I chose Green, White, and Red to honor Francesco, who is Italian.

Also, Loremasters can use multiple copies of the Battle mat if they need more engagement circles.

Uthoroc, I forget which thread it was (I think it was called 'Stance Cards'), but another fan has created stance cards for each stance - I prefer these as you can put your mini on them to indicate the 'state of mind' for the round. Unfortunately, no one has solved the problem of the searches not working on here yet....

Robin S.

One thing that can make a difference in this is how you view a multi-person melee as being structured. Is it essentially a number of paired off duels, each character fighting one opponent for the duration of the fight. Is it a shifting swirling chaos with each combatant striking as and when he can?

In my experience it tends to be a bit of both. Sometimes combatants will square off against each other, other times it will be a mob of swinging swords. The stances seem to simulate this quite well.

Battles are very fluid things. Watch the sword duel at the Cliffs of Insanity in the Princess Bride for an example. This continual movement is very hard to represent on a map with miniatures, simply because miniature do not move themselves. It is easier to leave paired up opponents paired up and static on the table top than to move them a little bit each exchange of blows.

I think the coaster, or counters with stances could work very well in combination with a positional battle mat if that is the way a group likes combat. Using a more abstract map that shows combat stances, but not exact positions will also work.

It will be intersting to see how use of the combat system evolves in play.

I play the game online using Google Plus Hangouts with extras.
We use a drawing document attached to the hangout to serve us as board, because we can easily draw rooms, s and enemies and drag the characters around.

For the movement we assume that moving about 5-10 meters per round is free, but for longer distances you have to roll Athletics. Based on that, and on the expected speed of monsters (their movement rating) we move PCs and NPCs during combats depending on what they want to do.

During one of our sessions, playing the Marsh Bell we got the situation below. As you see, we have Voidstate's stance mat in the same document, so that the players can drag their names to the different stances (and Wits scores). Also, at the beginning of every round they can move their character in the "map" to the left a certain distance, and I tell them if they must succeed at an Athletics roll or not.
It works really nice to depict some characters protecting others or trying to escape a certain room while engaged in combat.
In the picture Orotñogol has just pulled the bell's rope, being disengaged from combat; and Pelo is trying to shoot with his bow while his dog and a dwarf are engaged in close combat with three enemies. Meanwhile Abredul and Nileth were running to meet the others, fighting their way through a crowd of enemies.

This works really nice, I must say.

I love the beardy smiley faces.