Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

[Rich H]

For me, it really boils down to how fluid you think the Engagement status is and how much weight you put on the statement "A combatant remains engaged until he defeats all opposition". I read that as you continue with the current engagement until your opposition is defeated which, for me, means that you can't change the opposition you're facing; although you could face more opponents if you're outnumbered and they choose to engage you, and in that case you'd then be engaged with them too so would need to defeat them aswell (which is supported by the statement "A character is engaged when paired in close combat with at least one opponent).

I'd be okay playing in a group that ran it either way though, which is a decent test of both interpretations, I guess.

[Rich H]

Rich, you are spot on concerning engagements and stances.

Cheers James. I'm not 100% sure as can see both ways are viable but its they way I've worked it since playing so will stick that way as it doesn't appear to break anything; although it does mean PCs are 'locked' into their engagements.

[Dunkelbrink]

I am sure we had this discussion on the forum not too long ago, but I can't find it now. I agree that the RAW isn't very clear in this particular area - will the engagements change every round (swirling combat) or are the heroes and adversaries locked in engagement once engaged, including archers locked in melee? As Rich said there's no concern about heroes being able to switch close combat stance every round - they most certainly are.

Stances are chosen before the combat sequence of each round, including rearward (pg 172 revised rules). The only criteria for choosing Rearward is that you need two other heroes in close combat stances and that the number of adversaries is equal or less than the number of heroes times two. There is nothing about not being able to choose Rearward due to being engaged in the last round.

So, the sentence "a combatant remains engaged until he defeats all opposition" (pg 174 of the Revised rule Book) is the only thing that is confusing here. The raw clearly states that stances can be chosen each round and that the engagement step comes after this. The raw don't actually say that a hero has to be engaged with the same adversaries every round, only that they remain engaged (in close combat)

My interpretation of the raw is that an archer can assume Rearward stance at the beginnning of a round when the criteria are filled; that is when the number of enemies no longer is larger than the number of heroes times two, representing the whirling combat and the other heroes "locking" enemies and letting the archer slip away. That solution is more dynamic and allows for reassigning opponents, giving an advantage to the side with the larger number and letting an archer hero use his bow.

That also works well with the Special abilities Great leap and Fell speed' the creature can attack anyone on their turn, including an archer in Rearward, but that doesn't mean that they engage the archer. During the Engagement step in the next round they fall back on normal engagement rules, not being able to attack the archer without using the ability once more.

But here is a contradiction in the raw right now and every loremaster has to make a choice until further clarification from Cubicle 7. The conclusion that the archer is locked in the engagement until he slays his opponents, suggested by others above, isn't unreasonable either.

[Rich H]

For what it's worth, I actually think that Dunkelbrink, and others stating the same, is the most correct interpretation of the RAW as I think that fits in with the style of TOR.

Oh, for an example of combat that actually highlighted and clarified these rarer circumstances within a game! I'm not singling out TOR here, lots of RPGs seem to not go with complex examples but they really should as this is where clarity and guidance is most often needed.

[Falenthal]

Oh, for an example of combat that actually highlighted and clarified these rarer circumstances within a game!

I've wished many times that the Extended Combat Example would include the second round!
It would clarify the Engagements AND the way Attercops use their Special Abilities!

[Rich H]

Oh, for an example of combat that actually highlighted and clarified these rarer circumstances within a game!

I've wished many times that the Extended Combat Example would include the second round!
It would clarify the Engagements AND the way Attercops use their Special Abilities!

Oh, yes!

[Falenthal]

Btw, if that second round is done, the already existing text should amend a mistake from the Onset:
Combat Advantages are rolled before the Opening Volleys (see p.167 of the Revised Book). In the example, they are done the other way round.

[Indur Dawndeath]

I was sure that I had my interpretation backed by C7, just had to look a little while. Here it goes:

It wasn't our intention to 'lock' players in a close combat stance and prevent them from moving to Rearward when engaged.

That is what the rules currently imply, however, so I'll clarify further, soon.

He never clearified further, but it stands that you are not locked in engagements if you want to withdraw to rearward and there is enough companions in close combat.

Cheers

[Joaoperru]

Thanks a lot!

[Falenthal]

Thank, Indur, for having that memory and taking the time to look for the official clarification.

For being one of the Nine, you're not a bad bloke!