I've just joined the forum and would first of all like to say, what a great game! I haven't read all of the core material yet but from what I've read so far, the game seems to be very cleverly designed to be both simple enough for fast play and deep enough to portray events similar to those in the works of Tolkien.

I am trying to get my head around the combat system first of all, and it seems very intelligently designed to mimic the scenes of combat in the books. For instance, the fact that a skilled archer can kill an Orc with one shot (by obtaining a "Piercing" result which successfully bypasses the target's armour) is so like the combat scenes in the books, and a refreshing change from the "attrition" kills of other games.

Has anyone done a summary of combat? If not, here's my own attempt, to help me solidify the rules in my mind.

[EDIT]

Rest of post removed. See my signature line for the TOR Summary of Combat which used to be here. Thanks due to JamesRBrown for the original idea of using the sig line for help docs and for suggestions on which fonts to use. Cheers James!

I just ran a quick example combat using the pre-gens at the back of the Adventure's Book, and to cut a long story short, it was a massacre! The company successfully ambushed a patrol consisting of 4 orc soldiers and 2 goblin archers, and in the Opening Volley phase, Trotter shot a goblin archer down with a single arrow whilst Beran and The Bride reduced two orcs to less than half endurance with spear hits. Everyone but Trotter then charged in (Forward Stance) and started swinging axes, mattocks and swords. In the first Player Turn, 3 orcs and a goblin archer were knocked senseless, and the remaining two orcs were left with 1 and 2 Endurance respectively. I called it a day there, assuming that the adventurers would easily finish off the remaining orcs.

The high starting Endurance and Hope scores of the pre-gens would suggest that combat is pretty one-sided versus common cannon-fodder such as goblins and orcs, which is as it should be given the heroic nature of Tolkien's works. From this play-through I get the impression of a nice and simple system with lots of "ooh" and "ah" moments due to the special dice symbols and use of Hope to turn failure into success. I'm now looking forward to my first true game session!

geekdad, your summary of the Rules as Written (RAW) looks great!

In general, Loremasters should understand three things that really determine the flow of combat: Initiative, Rules of Engagement, and Combat stances.

1. Initiative determines which side will act first in a combat round.
2. Rules of Engagement decide which enemies are engaged with which heroes (which is determined by the number of soldiers on each side) in a combat round.
3. Combat stances determine the order of player turns in a combat round.

Therefore...

A) If the heroes hold the initiative and outnumber their opponents, they will attack first and choose their engagements. Heroes in Forward stance will act first, then Open, then Defensive, then Rearward.
B) If the heroes hold the initiative but are outnumbered by their opponents, they will attack first but their enemies will choose the engagements. Heroes in Forward stance will act first, then Open, then Defensive, then Rearward.
C) If the enemy holds the initiative and outnumbers the heroes, they will attack first and choose their engagements. Heroes won't act until after their enemies, but when they do, heroes in Forward stance will act first, then Open, then Defensive, then Rearward.
D) If the enemy holds the initiative but is outnumbered by the heroes, they will attack first but the heroes will choose the engagements. Heroes won't act until after their enemies, but when they do, heroes in Forward stance will act first, then Open, then Defensive, then Rearward.

Good synopsis all.

The one part that gets clunky, is: when the side with greater numbers loses initiative. They "choose" engagements - but to clarify - do they choose engagements on THEIR turn (meaning after the winning initiative side acts)?

The reason this gets clunky is:

PCs win Initiative.
Goblins outnumber.
PCs go first - do they get to move and attack whom they want?
Or do they somehow get relegated to attacking who the goblins want them to attack (by way of engagements decided by greater number goblins).

So even though the PCs win initiative, they cannot go and move to the targets they want to attack?


OR

PCs win initiative (are outnumbered) they move to where they want to attack.
Goblins turn (if still outnumber) now they get to decided to engage where.


I can't buy into the former. It makes no sense to me that the losing initiative side should be able to dictate where the attackers move to. At least not in it's current iteration/explanation.

The side that has more soldiers gets to choose engagements at the top of every combat round (right after the players choose Combat stances). When there is a tie in numbers, the heroes get to choose (LB 45).

Initiative in TOR is simply a mechanic that lets you know which side will make their attack rolls first this combat round.

Engagement rules tell you which side will choose the engagements this combat round.

Combat stances tell you what order the player-heroes will act when it is their side's turn to do so.

What is not spelled out clearly in the rulebooks is if and when initiative can shift sides after the onset of combat in close quarters. I don't know if this would ever be appropriate. Following the RAW, initiative is established at the onset of combat in close quarters (or before) and never changes. In other words, the side holding the initiative at the beginning of combat will maintain it throughout. This keeps one side from attacking twice in a row (once at the bottom of a round and then again at the top).

Also not explicitly told in the rulebooks is how to handle re-assignment of engagements in the middle of a round when player-heroes or enemies fall in battle. For example, if hero A and B are engaged with enemy 1 and hero A slays enemy 1 before hero B can act, who is hero B now engaged with? Can hero B simply choose a new engagement when his turn comes up? I would say so, but the rulebooks do not cover this.

Being the Attacker puts you at a disadvantage in TOR, and I think that's right. This is all that Initiative really does in the game. Over the short time-frame of a TOR battle - which is really just a skirmish - I don't think either side would have the time to take the initiative from the other side. And like you say, it would have the unfortunate effect of allowing one side a "double-turn" when it flipped.

If you really want to consider Initiative switching over from one side to the other, I would treat it as a new combat. For example, The heroes stand firm against the onslaught of a band of orcs, holding the Initiative. Part way through the battle, their leader is mortally wounded, and the LM rules that this is such a blow to the heroes morale that the orcs now have the Initiative. I would roleplay this as a brief lull in the combat - the heroes falling back to their dying leader whilst the orcs lick their wounds and gloat over their success. Eventually the heroes hurl themselves at their foe in their lust for revenge, becoming the Attacker in a new combat. The orcs have the Initiative now, and an opening volley can be played out as the heroes charge the orcs to avenge their fallen leader.

In the case of two heroes being engaged with one opponent, and the opponent is killed by hero A before hero B has a chance to attack, I would say that's just hard cheese on hero B. I would not allow him to engage another opponent until the next round. He may not be able to attack but he may still be able to Intimidate or Rally, depending on his Stance.

By the way, I hope you don't mind me copying your approach of putting professional looking help documents in your sig line? It was too good an idea to ignore!

I am in total agreement with the way you suggest handling a "flip" in initiative. A break in the battle is the way to go and can be facilitated by the Loremaster easily enough.

About player B suffering "hard cheese" as you put it, because his assigned engagement for the round is out, I'm not so sure. I would be more apt as the Loremaster to allow him to choose another engagement on the spot for the following reason: If the heroes outnumber their opponents, they choose their engagements at the top of the round anyway. This is just a matter of providing order to the game but should not interfere with the enjoyment of it (in my opinion). So, if two heroes choose to engage one goblin and that goblin dies, then there should be no problem for hero B to quickly choose another target when his turn comes up. In all practicality, it would be as if he chose a different target in the first place. Easy. Everyone is happy and the game continues to flow.

Of course not! I stole the idea from someone else myself :)

I completely agree. This is a case where the RAW don't provide a clear answer (i.e., they don't say that the player can choose a new engagement, but they also don't say that the player loses a turn). As such, we must infer what the "spirit of the rules" is, and with such an abstract combat system to begin with I can't imagine that losing a turn was intended. Indeed, I've always assumed that it was implied that a player engaged with no viable targets has the freedom to attack anyone on the field. After all, from a conceptual standpoint what's holding them back?

The way i see it is this (an this has been a very well discussed back and forther flip-flopping opinions on this matter for a while).

If (in the above example) hero A and B are in same stance and attacking same target, their "attacks" happen simultaneously. I'm of the opinion that B cannot change target. I have both players roll simultaneously too.

This is especially true for Rearward stances for persons target same target with bows. If you choose to aim at same target your arrows don't have smart targeting and quickly redirect to new target. Simply the orc gets hit in BOTH eyes!

If Heros were different stances:

If hero A was forward and hero B was Open, he can choose to fight different target or use a different combat action. If hero B was in Defensive stance - then he can choose another target or do nothing.

Thats the way I see things.


Aside from that - i still find it hard to abstract and picture a winning side of initiative still be relegated to the targets put upon them by the initiative losers (via discrepancy in # of combatants).

In all other RPGs that I've played - whoever wins init goes first - and "moves and attacks" whom they want to (barring battlefield barriers to their target).

I know TOR is far more abstract - but until I can truly rationalize how that plays out and looks IN GAME - it's hard to come to terms with it.

Yup, I'm still on board with that SirKicley. I am ignoring the rules regarding numbers of opponents and targets and going with a traditional 'initiative' based method of assigning opponents.

The current rationale seems strange and I'm just not 'feeling' it. In fact, there is no current rationale. Francesco hasn't actually detailed his thinking behind it.

I understand what you guys are saying. It does seem a bit funny that the side that gets to attack first, does not also get to choose its own targets (sometimes). Although, with the RAW, the side that chooses engagements at the top of a combat round can flip as the numbers of soldiers changes each round.

If you used initiative to determine who chooses engagements, one side would ALWAYS choose the targets throughout the combat, which doesn't seem right either. You would need to change the initiative rules and the engagement rules to fix this, which has been debated.

Personally, I've been able to overcome the traditional initiative issue and embrace the RAW, but I am sure that improvements can be made. The way I have made myself understand it (without hearing from Francesco) is that more soldiers on a side gives them a tactical advantage and allows them to move and choose engagements.

What I'm not sure you understand my meaning completely. This is how it's being thrown down in my games:

#Heroes < Creatures but wins intiative. (assuming no volleys first or post-opening volleys are completed):

Heroes select Stance.
Heroes Act in order of stance adjudication - those w/ same stance act simultaneous.
When each turn comes up (Fwd first for instance), players describe their actions, selecting their targets as they describe their characters actions.
Roll attacks/adjudicate.
Next Stance adjudicated as above - etc repeat until all stances completed.

Next Bad guys go. IF they still outnumber the heroes they can direct their attacks at anyone (with exceptions to rearward provided they don't outnumber heroes more than 2 to 1.

Because the baddies outnumber the goodies, bad guys can attack same hero that attacked it, or another hero because the adiditional baddies plays intereference - like a pick and roll drill in basketball.

Round 2:
IF baddies still greater than heroes, heroes now must fight the creatures that attacked them. They cannot do the pick and roll. They are relegated to attacking whatever creature presented itself to them last time.

Stances chosen - like stances adjudicated simultaneously with players describing their actions, attack rolls done at same time, and then moving on to next stance type - then those players describe their actions etc.



If the baddies outnumber heroes AND have the intitiave they pick engagements, and heroes cannot alter that development until they've killed enough to even the odds.

If the Heroes outnumber the Baddies and win intitiave the reverse of the previous sentece applies.

If the Heroes outnumber the baddies and the baddies win initiative, resolve in the same manner as above but with turning the tables in the opposite but mirrored way.

Ok. Let me make sure I understand your proposal. I will summarize it in a step-by-step fashion.

1. Resolve Opening Volleys & Surprise Attacks
2. Determine Combat Advantages
3. Determine Initiative

BEGIN CLOSE COMBAT ROUNDS
4. Heroes choose Combat Stances
5. Side A (holding Initiative) acts first (choosing targets and making attacks)
6. Side B (without Initiative) acts second:
a. If Side B outnumbers Side A, then Side B may choose and attack new targets if they wish.
b. If Side A outnumbers Side B, then Side B must remain engaged with their attackers until they outnumber Side A.

ROUND 2
7. Heroes choose Combat stances
8. Side A acts first
a. If Side A outnumbers Side B, then Side A may choose and attack new targets if they wish.
b. If Side B outnumbers Side A, then Side A must remain engaged with their attackers from the previous round until they outnumber Side B.
9. Side B acts second
a. If Side B outnumbers Side A, then Side B may choose and attack new targets if they wish.
b. If Side A outnumbers Side B, then Side B must remain engaged with their attackers from the previous round until they outnumber Side A.

REPEAT Steps 7-9 until the end of combat.

Precisely!. Its primarily doing as the rules suggest in regards to engagements except for the opening round if/when initiative winners are smaller numbers. It merely allows for a more pragmatic approach in allowing those who go first to actually act first in regards to positioning

The rest is just following status quo.

I personally don't have a problem with the RAW, for the following reasons:

• The defending side gets a slight advantage over the attacking side, as they strike first each combat round. This simulates the defenders being on their guard to receive the attack, and the inherent danger of charging into contact with the enemy. Defenders who are successfully ambushed attack second, so it makes it important to initiate a surprise attack.
• If the player characters are outnumbered but defending, it stops them being able to pick off enemy archers and the like who would normally hang back behind the sword and shield guys to use their ranged weapons. The player characters don't suffer from this problem as they can choose stances before combat, but the loremaster characters don't have this luxury and have to rely on having more soldiers. Defending player characters should not be able to force the other side into using missile troops in close quarters combat.

Hi JRB,
this is how I visualize / rationalize it.

The side that attack first is defending (meeting the charge and such): it makes sense they cannot choose who to engage.
After all, they are not engaging the enemy, but being engaged by the opponents.

On the other hand, if the attackers are outnumbered, it makes sense that defenders can move in (countercharge?) and dictate engagement as they wish.

This. A lot. Thank you Geekdad.

A famous miniature wargame spread the spurious notion that “he who charges strikes first”, and too many players have internalized this idea verbatim. Any fencer, boxer, brawler knows it's far from being the case.

Excuse me, personal pet peeve

Agree.

Nice to see that all my years practicing Aikido have not been wasted...

Francesco

Corvo, I had to chew on this for a bit, but finally the lightbulb came on this morning!

I think the terms have caused some confusion for me. When it is said that the defenders attack first, I automatically think they should be called the attackers then, instead of defenders. If the rules had said, the defenders gain the initiative and get "first strike," instead of the word 'attack,' I may have caught on sooner.

So, the rationale for the side with the majority being able to choose targets now makes perfect sense also.

1. The defenders (if they are outnumbered) will be engaged by the enemy, but get to strike first.

2. The defenders (if they outnumber the attackers) will engage the attackers and get to strike first.

3. The attackers (if they outnumber the defenders) will engage their enemies, but they will strike second.

4. The attackers (if they are outnumbered by the defenders) will be engaged by their enemies and will strike second.

Francesco, what do you think of giving attackers who are successful at Ambushing their opponents, not only initiative, but the ability to engage as well (even if they are in the minority)?

Sorry, not native speaker: sometimes I have trouble coming up with the right words

Now that I understand the rationale behind the engagement rules better (the majority chooses targets), I actually don't see any reason for situation #4:

4. The attackers (if they are outnumbered by the defenders) will be engaged by their enemies and will strike second.

It would be better for the side in the minority NOT to attack their enemies, unless they were setting an Ambush. Then, at least they would gain initiative.

That is why I repeat the question for Francesco especially: What do you think of giving attackers who are successful at Ambushing their opponents, not only initiative, but the ability to engage as well (even if they are in the minority)?

To me, it makes sense because it is a surprise. This would also make Ambushing even more attractive and worth the risk.

Three situations come to mind, 2 of them readily:

1) superior skill vs weak but numerous foes.
2) pursuits of story MacGuffins requiring a desperate attack
3) heroic delaying action, possibly quite pyrrhic in outcome.

Case 1: a starting party with weapon skills in the 3 range could conceivably handle a larger number of foes than the party size if those foes are weak, like, say, Goblins.... AL2, Skill 2, 8 end... even a skill 3 hobbit should be able to put one down every other turn. Whether or not he penetrates. (Skill 3 is a 42% chance of getting a higher success level - at which point, even with a short sword, 8 damage is obtained with a mere 3 body) (And one of my players has an End 24 hobbit with 2, soon to be 3 dice in short sword...)

Case 2: the damsel in distress situation, or the captured essential item.

Case 3 is a staple of literature, but not so much of RPGing...