Mass Battles in TOR

[Yepesnopes]

There was a Mass Battle fan made document that even Francesco praised its quality, I cannot recall who made it or where you can find it though.

Already mentioned here, it was James R Brown's mass battle rules, here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39184129/TOR/M ... mplete.pdf

I apologize, I read the post in diagonal

[Falenthal]

There was a Mass Battle fan made document that even Francesco praised its quality, I cannot recall who made it or where you can find it though.

Already mentioned here, it was James R Brown's mass battle rules, here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39184129/TOR/M ... mplete.pdf

I apologize, I read the post in diagonal

Don't worry, this thread has become a "What boargame would fit TOR?" even before it became "What do you think of this rules for Mass Battles I made?". At least now I know you read something of it.

[Rich H]

Don't worry, this thread has become a "What boargame would fit TOR?" even before it became "What do you think of this rules for Mass Battles I made?". At least now I know you read something of it.

You got hijacked!

[Falenthal]

Hey, two pages for NOT talking about the subject. That's impressive.
And also, I think we all expected non-house rules threads to evolve into house rules ones, and be moved to this subsection. But I never expected the opposite to be possible. This thread should be moved OUT of the House Rules subsection!

[Faire]

Well for one thing I would be really interested in contributing to the creation of the "TOR Battles Board Game" thing I hated Battlecry though...

Totally off-topic: my friend got himself a special edition of Francesco's War of the Ring. Massive box in form o wood-carven book!, over two hundreds of hand-painted figures, rules so thick that I believe FAQ was over 50 pages, games that go well over 5 hours

[Falenthal]

When I saw the little orange box next to the thread title, a slight feeling of happiness warmed my body. I thought maybe someone had decided to give an opinion on the rules of the first post, or even had tested them and wanted to share his experience...

But no, that's not it.
I'll go paint some gnomes and fairies with my daughters color pencils...

[zedturtle]

Alright, I'm trying to make useful comments. One thing that I'm not too fond of is the specific nature of the enemies. It might be better to have it related to the Attribute Level of the enemies. For example, Battle Status +2 is the average Attribute Level total of the enemies the heroes will face in their scene, that sort of thing.

Otherwise, I like it, especially the option for the heroes to do scenes in order to affect the outcome.

[Falenthal]

Thanks for reading and commenting, zed!

One thing that I'm not too fond of is the specific nature of the enemies. It might be better to have it related to the Attribute Level of the enemies. For example, Battle Status +2 is the average Attribute Level total of the enemies the heroes will face in their scene, that sort of thing.

Me neither.
That's the most difficult part to "mechanize", so as to say: for Battle Status X, you can choose Y foes.
In fact, I took a look at James' rule for Mass Combat and he also didn't come with any specifics about this (don't know if he wanted to, I must admit).
In the end, I'm just trying to give a hint of the kind of adversaries that can be used. From there on, the LM has to decide for every situation.

The average is Battle Status = Attribute Level of enemy per hero.

On the other hand, an Orc Soldier (Att.3) can be a tough enemy for a starting hero, but an easy one for an experienced companion. Maybe a character with a Famous Weapon, Valour 5, Weapon skill of 4, etc. could face 2 Orc Soldiers and say that he is still "overwhelmingly superior" (Battle Status 1).
The LM has to pick up the set of enemies he'll use before the battle, taking his company into consideration.

On our last session, for example, we played the Battle of Stonyford against Valter's Outlaws.
When the Battle Status was 3, each hero faced one Outlaw. When it changed to 4, I let them continue facing their wounded Outlaws, but added 1 Outlaw archer for each 2 heroes ("A group of Outlaws has gained a hill and is now able to rain arrows on the beorning army"). If the Status had worsened still more to 5, I could have added one more archer (1 per hero) on top of one fully healed Outlaw.
And so on.

In the end, what's important is that the heroes feel that the battle is going worse or better for them. And also, the combat rounds are just a way of representing the weariness of battles. What becomes really important are the Scenes, where they can be creative and get the sense of being important for the tide of the battle.

Battle Status
8- The Shadow wins
7- The Shadow is overwhelmingly superior (-2 to Allies in Battle roll)
6- The Shadow is moderately superior (-1 to Allies in Battle roll)
5- The Shadow is slightly superior
4- Bands on equal terms
3- The Free People is slightly superior
2- The Free People is moderately superior (+1 to Allies in Battle roll)
1- The Free People is overwhelmingly superior (+2 to Allies in Battle roll)
0- The Free People win

Recommended enemy ratio per Battle Status
1) 1 Goblin Archer each hero
2) 1 Snaga Tracker each hero
3) 1 Orc Soldier each hero
4) 1 Orc Guard / Lúgburz Messenger each hero
5) 1 Chief Orc / Black Uruk each hero
6) 1 Hill Troll each 2 heroes
7) 1 Great Orc each hero / 1 Hill Troll Chieftain each 2 heroes

[zedturtle]

Yep, I agree and understand, esp. regarding the challenges of balancing new heroes versus experienced ones.

I'll try these rules out sooner or later (maybe sooner :: evil GM laugh ::), and I'm sure I will have more useful info then.

[Rue]

Yep, I agree and understand, esp. regarding the challenges of balancing new heroes versus experienced ones.

I'll try these rules out sooner or later (maybe sooner :: evil GM laugh ::), and I'm sure I will have more useful info then.

Wait, what??