There and back again?

[Butterfingers]

Ok, would the former method been in use with the original (slipcase) edition, and the latter is now used in the revised edition?

[Rich H]

Ok, would the former method been in use with the original (slipcase) edition, and the latter is now used in the revised edition?

I don't think so, I've played it the latter in both editions.

[Stormcrow]

applies the fatigue raises at the end of journey?

That isn't the intent of the rules, so no.

This has changed between editions. In the original, slipcase edition, the time you applied Fatigue tests wasn't made clear, and "The Marsh-bell" gives an example in which a number of Fatigue tests are rolled for a journey but the effects not applied until a particular stage of the adventure comes.

When the Loremaster considers it appropriate, he asks his players to resolve the Fatigue tests required by the Journey rules and records their outcome, to later apply any penalties, or any Hazard sequence triggered by badly failed rolls. If the gameplay follows the adventure as it is presented here, the Loremaster should probably apply the effects of failed Fatigue rolls right before the third part of the adventure starts.

--Loremaster's Guide, p. 129.

Notice "to later apply any penalties." I think the idea was that the moment that penalties are applied isn't set, but isn't necessarily as they are rolled, and there's no reason to spread them out, either.

The hardcover edition added language that made it clear that the Fatigue tests themselves are to be spread out: "In the case of a journey requiring multiple tests, the Loremaster should intersperse the required rolls (and their consequences) across the length of his narrative" (p. 290). The text of "Marsh-bell," quoted above, has not been changed, however (except to substitute an Eye of Sauron for "badly failed rolls).

[Butterfingers]

Thanks for clearing that up, folks! I am happy to tell our party completed Marsh Bell tonight. They had much tougher time now with the Marsh-dwellers than with the troll before it, and had the good sense to depart with Balin & Oin while the going was good.

My players enjoyed the game, and want to play more, so it was a success after all. So I guess I am off to get more adventures, and the campaign set.

[Majestic]

Great job, Butterfingers! I'm sure you'll enjoy the various campaign materials, as they're really well done.

Let us know any questions you have, and also feel free to let us know how your games go as well.

[Butterfingers]

We're half-way trough Don't Leave the Path, and on or two things came up about combat which I want to ask about... firstly, the heroes choose their stances at the start of each round, and if there are more heroes than opponents, then the heroes may decide who to engage, right? Whereas if there are more opponents than heroes, then the LM gets to choose which enemies enagage which heroes? Then combat takes place according to the initiative order, either enemies or heroes first. So far it seems pretty straight-forward, but I realise it can have a huge tactical difference whether the heroes get to choose their opponent(s), or whether the LM gets to do it. Because that way either side may pick already wounded opponents, or try to keep them more safe, and so on. So I want to get this right.

Another thing is about enemy called shots. Apparently whenever a hero rolls ToS, the next attack by the enemy is a called shot. So is the called shot aimed specifically at the hero who triggrered it? And is it any enemy who happens to engage the hero next enemy turn, or does it have to be the same one that the hero tried to hit? I assume not, as the stances are always selected each round, and because the hero might not engage the same enemy at all the next round? So it seems easiest to keep track of simply placing a 'cross-hair' over that hero? Or have I understood it incorrectly? Again this could have some tactical importance, since the LM could 'prepare' the hero for the called shot previous round, and then assign an enemy with a great called shot to the hero next round?

And still about called shots by enemies, some of their weapons have no called shot effect at all, so this rule does not apply to them?

[Falenthal]

I have to admit that there are some situations where, even after years of LMing TOR, I still struggle with the rules for engagements and triggered Called Shots. I think there are some vague points, but I've also found that using the logic from the current situation helps move on the game without any unbalance.

But I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.

Regarding the engagements, you have it right. And yes, the LM will usually engage as many enemies as possible with the most wounded hero, or those in Forward that are easier to hit.
Sometimes, when the fellowship is fighting one or two big enemies, flanked by many smaller ones, it is a good idea to dispose of the small ones first, so that the fellowship manages to outnumber the adversaries and can engage at will.

The Stances and Engagements rules are, in my opinion, something that adds a very nice tactical thinking touch to combat.

As for the triggered Called Shots, I'd recommend to keep it simple: the enemy that was attacked with an EoS will try to attack his attacker with a Called Shot in his next action if possible.

For example: the enemies have the initiative, but are outnumbered by the heroes (who choose Engagements). An Uruk-hai attacks a hero first, and then the hero attacks him, rolling an EoS. Turn ends.
At the start of the next turn, the heroes know about the triggered Called Shot, and therefore decide to change Engagements: another hero will engage the Uruk-hai, and the hero that rolled the EoS will engage a Snaga Tracker.

In this situation, I'd ignore the Uruk-hai's Called Shot entirely, and neither would the Snaga Tracker try a Called Shot on the hero.

And last... no, weapons (like the Jagged Knife) that don't have Called Shot effects can't do Called Shots at all. Just make an ordinary attack.

[Falenthal]

...if there are more heroes than opponents, then the heroes may decide who to engage, right?

There might arise a very special situation, where the heroes match or surpass the number of enemies, but still there are less heroes in a close combat stance than enemies. In this situation, the unengaged enemies choose whom to attack.

For example, we have Caranthir and the Bride (with the Hound Virtue that counts as a companion when choosing Rearward stance). Both heroes find two Forest Goblins and come a combat.
During the Stances choosing, thanks to his Hound, the Bride chooses Rearward stance, and Caranthir remains in Open stance.
At the Engagement phase, as both sides are equally matched, the heroes in close combat stance [only Caranthir] choose whom to Engage.

So Caranthir engages Goblin Forest 1, but Goblin Forest 2 remains unengaged. It is then the LM who chooses if GF2 engages Caranthir, or stands back and attacks with a missile weapon either Caranthir or the Bride.

[aramis]

Oh yeah, one more question about journeys: based on a certain cheat sheet I found linked on this forum, it seems that you're supposed to roll all the fatigue checks for the entire journey (or a leg) at once, and only then the GM describes the journey and any hazards rolled, and applies the fatigue raises at the end of journey? Is that right?

My understanding is that rolls are made in groups. the fatigue from failures is applied before the next roll, but after resolving the events.

Also, some legs (especially in fall and winter) can require multiple rolls.

So... lets say a journey has 3 legs...
1st leg is 1 roll.
2nd is 3 rolls (long, difficult, but not overly dangerous)
3rd is 2 rolls..

So, 1st leg - whole party rolls. Resolve the encounters, then apply the fatigue
then second leg, roll 1, resolve the encounters, then apply the fatigue,
roll second check each; resolve those encounters, add the fatigue.
roll third check of the 2nd leg; resolve encounters, add fatigue.
On to third leg. Resolve encounters, add fatigue.

[Butterfingers]

As for the triggered Called Shots, I'd recommend to keep it simple: the enemy that was attacked with an EoS will try to attack his attacker with a Called Shot in his next action if possible.

For example: the enemies have the initiative, but are outnumbered by the heroes (who choose Engagements). An Uruk-hai attacks a hero first, and then the hero attacks him, rolling an EoS. Turn ends.
At the start of the next turn, the heroes know about the triggered Called Shot, and therefore decide to change Engagements: another hero will engage the Uruk-hai, and the hero that rolled the EoS will engage a Snaga Tracker.

In this situation, I'd ignore the Uruk-hai's Called Shot entirely, and neither would the Snaga Tracker try a Called Shot on the hero.

I read the section in the LM guide again (Slipcase edition if that's significant, altough I didn't find any amendments in the TOR clarifications & Amendments file), and it does say clearly that it is the specific enemy who is being targeted by the hero when rolling ToS who does the called shot. But it doesn't say, in so many words, that the target of the CS has to be the same hero who triggered it? I guess you might expect that to be the same hero, logically speaking and depending on what you consider ToS to be about, is it a just mechanism for activating called shots randomly, or is it a direct consequence or 'punishment' for rolling the eye, some form of fumble in effect?

If it works like you explained Falenthal, then it seems to add some more tactical considerations and book-keeping into combat, and it makes numbers of combatants even more important. And in certain situations it might nerf the threat of certain called shots like poison. Although I don't have enough LM experiece to say how significant this is. Even if you have more heroes than enemies, the heroes would have to engage the enemies if they want to contribute to the combat in close combat anyways. But the choice of not engaging the enemy who has a bead on you is there in these cases?