Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Adventure in the world of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Learn more at our website: http://www.cubicle7.co.uk/our-games/the-one-ring/
Joaoperru
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:37 am

Re: Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Post by Joaoperru » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:22 am

Ok.. so now it opens to a new question:

What about monsters? as long as they are more than the heroes, can they move from close combat to rearward at wish? (as long as one melee foe stays in melee for each player).

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Post by Falenthal » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:13 am

If they choose engagements, then yes.

Joaoperru
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:37 am

Re: Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Post by Joaoperru » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:21 am

Roger

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Post by Falenthal » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:53 am

For example, see the Extended Example of Combat, p.182:
Engagement
Since there are more enemies than heroes, the Loremaster
proceeds to engage the company as he sees fit:
Beran, the Bride and Lifstan are first paired with one Attercop each [...]
...and the other is left unengaged (the Loremaster intends to send it to attack
Trotter using the creature’s Great Leap ability...).

User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 4156
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 8:19 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Post by Rich H » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:28 pm

Indur Dawndeath wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:18 pm
I was sure that I had my interpretation backed by C7, just had to look a little while. Here it goes:
Andrew wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:56 pm
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
That's nice to know; my literal interpretation of the RAW was correct, as per Andrew's statement, but I suspected the real way of it working wasn't and was more in keeping with the style of the TOR rules as a whole. :)

I'll still be 'locking' engagements though as it works best for my group.
TOR resources thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=62
TOR miniatures thread: viewtopic.php?t=885

Fellowship of the Free Tale of Years: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8318

Stormcrow
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 2:56 pm
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Contact:

Re: Passing to Rearward stance in the middle of a fight

Post by Stormcrow » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Look at it from a non-rules point of view. You and your comrades in close combat with a bunch of enemies, but you outnumber them. You're still engaged with an enemy, but you want to back out of close combat. To back off, you need your comrades to keep the enemy from following you. Since you've got allies who can do this, you back off and they close ranks in front of you. Being "engaged" is not a physical bond.

From the rules point of view, you need at least two allies in close combat to close ranks in front of you so you can move to Rearward stance. Whether or not you were previously engaged in close combat with an enemy is irrelevant; the enemy cannot physically follow you through your allies.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests