Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

[Falenthal]

I think there's definitely a grey area here as to what to do when you're midway through a battle and you've killed enough enemies to allow someone to enter Rearward stance but that person is still toe-to-toe with an opponent and therefore engaged.

I agree completely that, up to my knowledge, this is a grey area in the rules. And I can fully understand and accept Rich's way of resolving the situation.
My own interpretation allows for more freedom to the heroes, and considers that the tides and movements of the fight allow other companions to close around the archer, or form a sort of man-wall, or whatever, and those in melee are able to engage the archer's enemy, thus freeing him to change stances without further maneuvers or skill tests.

But, as said, I think this is open to interpretations in the RAW, and each LM or table could decide for themselves how to solve it.

[Rich H]

My own interpretation allows for more freedom to the heroes, and considers that the tides and movements of the fight allow other companions to close around the archer, or form a sort of man-wall, or whatever, and those in melee are able to engage the archer's enemy, thus freeing him to change stances

And that's fine too. Neither break the game as far as I can tell. It's just what feels right for each group.

But, as said, I think this is open to interpretations in the RAW, and each LM or table could decide for themselves how to solve it.

Yep.

[Joaoperru]

Changing stances is definetely an aspect of the game. It's written everywhere that YES, you can change stances every round. However cant change foe till you're engaged.
Rearward is a particular one. And that's why i asked my initial question.
BUT: imagine the case in which he has to disengage to go to rearward if he cannot choose it at the beginning. As i explained on my 2 point in the initial post:

2) he has to stick to melee cause he is already engaged. So to "free" him he has to wait till the foes are less than characters, so one player goes and kills the foe on him, freeing him from the engagement (oh gosh...that could take ages).

Quite nasty.... i hope it's not like that

I'm with Falenthal with this one. i think the movement of the heroes can close the gaps and can help the archer to get to the desired position.

[Falenthal]

Regarding Stances, it is also said:

During the first round of combat, all players select a
stance for their heroes, choosing one of the four available
options from the table below. Characters may change
their stance at the beginning of each round. There are
no restrictions on a hero’s stance unless a hero wishes
to assume a Rearward stance (see opposite).
...
Players choose their stance before a combat round
sequence starts — they change stance simply by choosing
a different one before the following combat sequence.

The restriction to Rearward stance mentioned are only the ones we already know: 2 companions in melee and not doubled by adversaries.

The sentence Rich quoted points in the direction of yet another restriction (not being engaged in close combat in the previous round) that is not explicitly indicated in any table or the description of the Rearward stance.

It makes sense, but also the opposite option does. Go with your guts.

[Butterfingers]

No no, it's not a problem. I am just struggling to understand because I don't have the revised edition rules, and because the old rules do not mention this (I think?) I am sure it is like you say, and it does make sense.

With the old rules, I tend to think the rearward stance is more or less equal to the others, it's just limited when you can use it. So I thought you could freely move between *all* stances, as the old rules don't seem to say otherwise.

In the end, it's not huge difference, provided the rules for choosing stances and opponents otherwise remain the same... you just cannot move to rearward unless unengaged?

[Otaku-sempai]

2) he has to stick to melee cause he is already engaged. So to "free" him he has to wait till the foes are less than characters, so one player goes and kills the foe on him, freeing him from the engagement (oh gosh...that could take ages).

Well, the Hero might also defeat any foe with which he is directly engaged. If he is not beset again before he can act then the Hero can assume a rearward stance if numbers allow.

My, this has become quite the lively discussion!

[Joaoperru]

Yep, but i didnt take sheer luck into consideration... i mean, he really sucks in melee

[jamesrbrown]

Rich, you are spot on concerning engagements and stances. The revised edition solidly clarifies what the first edition intended in regards to engagements. Various interpretations have always been an issue in this area and have caused slight confusion.

Once an engagement is established (and by definition, an engagement is a position in close combat and only a close combat stance can be chosen when engaged), that engagement remains unless another effect changes it, such as death, a special ability, escape combat, or whatever test the Loremaster allows as an exception. I suppose that a Loremaster may allow a hero to withdraw to Rearward as long as another hero takes his place in the engagement, but this can only happen if the heroes equal or outnumber their opponents, otherwise the Loremaster is choosing engagements.

Stances are chosen at the beginning of every round, but Rearward can only be chosen if the hero is not already in a close engagement and two other heroes are (unless you are a Woodman with a dog, then you only need one other hero to be engaged to choose Rearward).

Heroes in Rearward stance are not in engagements, they choose targets.

Heroes in a close combat stance are limited to targets they are engaged with.

[Joaoperru]

It makes sense, but also the opposite option does. Go with your guts.

I have to ask to Francesco Nepitiello, that's the only way

[Joaoperru]

Heroes in Rearward stance are not in engagements, they choose targets.

Heroes in a close combat stance are limited to targets they are engaged with.

Thanks James, i think you've got the experience to be on the right spot. I'll talk about it with my LM.