forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

After so many years with this issue coming up once and again, it's the first time I read an official answer.

Ok, all is clarified now!

I now understand Falenthal's point. The problem is not Great Leap per se, which was clear but has been clarified now anyway, however, what happens when it is combined with a successful Seize Victim against a companion in rearward stance? Fortunately, I think the rules as written are still reasonably clear. The seized Companion cannot change their stance as per TOR p.234 and can attempt Athletics to escape. The Foe who has seized the Companion can only attack with its secondary attack (if any). The key thing to remember is that Special Abilities of foes on pp.232 and following are exceptions to the normal rules and generally ought to prevail in the event of a conflict. A more thorny question might arise as to whether another Companion could in the next round go into rearward stance (assuming that you have 4 other Companions in other combat stances) to attack the foe who has seized the first Companion. For my part I would permit it.

As both Attercops and Wild Wolves have both Great Leap and Seize Victim, and they are reasonably common foes in Mirkwood and environs, the above situation is not so rare as you might think.

cheers
Mark

Cawdorthane wrote:I now understand Falenthal's point. The problem is not Great Leap per se, which was clear but has been clarified now anyway, however, what happens when it is combined with a successful Seize Victim against a companion in rearward stance? Fortunately, I think the rules as written are still reasonably clear. The seized Companion cannot change their stance as per TOR p.234 and can attempt Athletics to escape. The Foe who has seized the Companion can only attack with its secondary attack (if any). The key thing to remember is that Special Abilities of foes on pp.232 and following are exceptions to the normal rules and generally ought to prevail in the event of a conflict. A more thorny question might arise as to whether another Companion could in the next round go into rearward stance (assuming that you have 4 other Companions in other combat stances) to attack the foe who has seized the first Companion. For my part I would permit it.

As both Attercops and Wild Wolves have both Great Leap and Seize Victim, and they are reasonably common foes in Mirkwood and environs, the above situation is not so rare as you might think.

cheers
Mark

This was discussed in the FAQ as noted above, and it makes no sense to remain in Rearward when seized.
When the seize victim succeeds it MUST draw the player into Close Combat, how else would your companions help without making other NON RAW adjustments to the rules.
I am happy for the clarification, that the attack itself does not change the stance of the player.

Indur Dawndeath wrote:This was discussed in the FAQ as noted above, and it makes no sense to remain in Rearward when seized.
When the seize victim succeeds it MUST draw the player into Close Combat, how else would your companions help without making other NON RAW adjustments to the rules.
I am happy for the clarification, that the attack itself does not change the stance of the player.

Francesco's comment quoted earlier does not appear to have addressed what happens when Great Leap is combined with Seize Victim. The RAW do not suggest that a companion sezied whilst in Rearward Stance is drawn into a different stance the following round. Indeed it expressly states that the companion cannot change their stance and it could not be clearer. If you do not like that, then of course you can house-rule it, just as I would be disposed to house-rule that another Companion could, numbers permitting, go into Rearward Stance to assist the seized companion.

cheers
Mark

It seems that some of you think that if someone is in rearward stance and is attacked by an enemy, that enemy cannot be attacked by companions in close combat stances. I don't see anything in the rules that forbids that.

My understanding of stances is that they are pretty abstract. Someone in forward isn't necessarily actually any further forward than someone in defensive, it's just a description of the way they're fighting. (So the two of them can be fighting the same enemy.) And an archer in Rearward isn't necessarily much further behind the others, just protected by them so enemies can't attack the archer with melee attacks.

If a warg has been engaged by someone in forward and uses Great Leap to attack an archer in rearward, I don't see any reason to say that the engagement is broken. The warg has jumped over/past the melee fighter to get at the archer, but the hero in forward stance can still attack the warg, and doesn't need to change stance to do so.

I completely agree with Earendil on this. The name of the stances has caused some confusion at my table as well, but you have to separate actual physical placement and the way you fight. So a Hero in rearward could be right behind the back of a Hero fighting in Forward, and a Hero fighting in Defensive stance could be in front of a Hero in Forward.

I use markers to show stance on the excellent stance mat in the forum resources, and miniatures to show Heroes' and Adversaries' physical positions (positions that don't actually matter in RAW).

And to answer the questions arising in the thread; a hero in rearward could be attacked by an Adversary with Great leap. His stance does not change. He could be seized by the same Adversary. He cannot change stance in this case, and would remain in Rearward. At the start of the next combat round The Archer can still only assume rearward stance if there are at least two companions fighting in a Close combat stance. If he's seized he stays in Rearward (he cannot assume a new stance). At the start of the round the LM allocates enemies again (Engagement pg 174). Engaged creatures stay engaged (like the seized Archer). If the Heroes now outnumber the Adversaries, or the are equally matched, the plyers choose engagement, ie Another Hero can attack the Adversary sezing the archer.

Of course, the RAW also allow other actions, like trying to free the seized hero, see non-combat actions on pg 180. My players often try to help each other by manouvering to attack/protect Another companion, instead of attacking the Adversary they're directly engaged with. (I normally allow this with a successfull Battle/Athletics, TN 10+ attr lvl, failure means lost attack).

I agree with Earendil and Dunkelbrink, though I usually simply allow PCs to attack who they want to, generally (not requiring a roll of any kind). I rarely concern myself with "engagements", though it often turns out that players end up attacking the adversary that's already matched up with them.

Yes on reflection, Earendil and Dunkelbrink are quite right that a foe seizing a companion in Rearward Stance can be attacked by another companion in some other stance. The problem is, however, the Engagements Rule on TOR p174. And if the foes outnumber the companions, then the Loremaster first "assigns an opponent of his choice to every companion in a close combat stance". The box on that page further states: "A character is engaged when paired in close combat with at least one opponent." So it is clear in RAW that it is the pairing when determining engagements that identifies which foe a companion can attack. In other words, a companion is only in close combat with the foes he or she is engaged (i.e. "paired") with.

Companions only get their choice of the foes they are actually enaged with in close combat, so unless the companions equal or outnumber their foes, the Loremaster can always determine the engagements first to prevent a different companion attacking a foe which has successfully used Seize Victim on another companion.

Majestic or other Loremasters can of course house-rule things to ignore engagements or pairing etc but that is not the RAW.

cheers
Mark

Per the official rules, though, has the Great Leap + Seize Victim actually caused the creature to leave Engagement with whoever it was engaged with before using those abilities?

I don't think so. Which means that character (but no others) could still attack it.

Cawdorthane wrote:Companions only get their choice of the foes they are actually enaged with in close combat, so unless the companions equal or outnumber their foes, the Loremaster can always determine the engagements first to prevent a different companion attacking a foe which has successfully used Seize Victim on another companion.

Yes, that's true and sort of what I wrote in my post as well. Nothing strange with this; as long as the companions have their hands full fighting enemies of their own its hard to assist someone else, regardless of stance. Although you don't need a house rule to let them, the RAW allows creativity (see for example the attack on the orc captain on pg 180.)

Deadmanwalking wrote:Per the official rules, though, has the Great Leap + Seize Victim actually caused the creature to leave Engagement with whoever it was engaged with before using those abilities?

I don't think so. Which means that character (but no others) could still attack it.

I agree. A great leap perhaps works best if used by unengaged enemies, but I agree that the leaping creature stays engaged with the same hero if it was engaged before leaping. If it leaps and seizes a hero in rearward I'd say the other hero "tags along" and at the start of the next round they are both engaged with the creature.