Contradiction in the rules?

[Indur Dawndeath]

CORE RULES p. 172 "STANCES"

Players choose their stance before a combat round sequence starts - they change stance simply by choosing a different one before the following combat sequence.

CORE RULES p. 173 "REARWARD"

A character is allowed to assume this stance only if at least two other characters protect him by fighting in a close combat stance, AND if the total number of enemies facing the company isn't more than twice the number of characters in the company.

CORE RULES p. 174 "ENGAGEMENT"

A character is engaged when paired in close combat with at least one opponent. A combatant remains engaged until he defeats all opposition.

I would like an official ruling on this. If possible
Ex. 3 companions are engaged with 3 Orcs, one companion is close to death and decides to remove himself from close combat, so at the beginning of the next round, he selects Rearward stance. Now his two friends will face the 3 orcs in close combat with the 3rd companion supporting from Rearward, out of harm way.

The rules say you can do it, and also that you cannot do it unless you have defeated your opposition.

Which is it?

I am really hoping for an official ruling

[Glorelendil]

I don't think it's a contradiction at all. It's a case of specific overriding the general. They are simply omitting "...unless another rule says you can't" from all 4,873 locations in the rules it would need to appear.

That said, I never realized that tactic wasn't allowed.

[Indur Dawndeath]

The problem is that the sentence about Engagement was not written in the first edition of the Core Rules. It is only found in the Revised Core Rules.

[Glorelendil]

The problem is that the sentence about Engagement was not written in the first edition of the Core Rules. It is only found in the Revised Core Rules.

Maybe to prevent this tactic. It's exploitive, imo.

[Angelalex242]

Is it? If Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas face off with 3 orcs, there's no reason in the world why Legolas wouldn't drop to rearward as a matter of course and let the other two tank for him.

[Indur Dawndeath]

The problem is that the sentence about Engagement was not written in the first edition of the Core Rules. It is only found in the Revised Core Rules.

Maybe to prevent this tactic. It's exploitive, imo.

You should at least be able to disengage to Rearward Stance as per the normal escape combat rule. Athletic TN 10+highest attribute, if the enemy - hero ratio qualify for a hero in Rearward.

[Rue]

From the three quotes given, how is it no longer being "engaged" to be in Rearward stance? Presumably the injured companion is still fighting with a bow or other ranged weapon even if he/she stinks at it and probably won't hit?

Edited: I know it says "close combat" in part three of your examples, but have people been playing it that if the numbers work, and it's between rounds someone couldn't drop into Rearward if they hadn't defeated an orc they were fighting? What's the alternative for someone gravely injured? Other PCs have to interfere (Protect Companion and the like)?

[Indur Dawndeath]

From the three quotes given, how is it no longer being "engaged" to be in Rearward stance? Presumably the injured companion is still fighting with a bow or other ranged weapon even if he/she stinks at it and probably won't hit?

You are not engaged, because the Orc you were engaged with will now engage another Hero or remove himself to Rearward, as per the rules.

[Glorelendil]

I don't think the rules prevent using Escape Combat to achieve this, you just can't go straight from close combat to rearward. You have to make a roll and lose a turn.

[doctheweasel]

Just reread the section, and while I can see why there would be a rule against moving to Rearward when previously engaged in Close Combat, I don't think that is what the text is saying.

There are multiple instances of listing the requirements for selecting a Rearward Stance, and previously being engaged is not one of them. It seems odd to have such an important rule buried in a vague note in a sidebar. From my read, the RAI is that Rearward can be selected even if previously engaged.

That said, I like the idea of the archer having to fight off their foe to resume ranged combat, so I may adopt it.

EDIT: as a side note, that makes Great Leap much more powerful, as it allows an enemy to effectively break and someone out of Rearward Stance and subsequently keep them out of it.