Rearward stance

[jamesrbrown]

I would say, test it out in an actual game for yourself and see how you like it.

Remember, the Loremaster's Guide also states on page 44: A particular situation, like fighting on a narrow ledge, a mountain path or another condition enabling fighters to make ranged attacks at greater ease might lead the Loremaster to allow more characters to assume a rearward position.

Here are my notes summarizing Combat for anyone who would like to have them for quick reference:

Combat summary

1. Resolve Ambushes (see LG 42-44)
A successful ambush allows the attackers to hold initiative and denies the defenders opening volleys. Which side gets to attempt an ambush is up to the Loremaster according to the narrative.

2. Resolve Opening Volleys
The Loremaster determines the number of opening volleys to allow before close combat is reached. This depends highly on the narrative. Surprised companions do not get to make opening volleys.

3. Check for Combat Advantages
Every player-hero who was not surprised makes a Battle roll to determine if he will get bonus Success dice: 1 bonus die with a success; 2 with a great success; and 3 with an extraordinary success. The TN for the test depends on the circumstances: TN 12 if the company successfully ambushed their opponents; TN 14 if the company is defending or failed an ambush attempt; TN 18 if the company was ambushed or is attacking without an ambush attempt.

4. Begin Close Combat Rounds
Each close combat round includes the following three steps. Complete as many rounds as needed to resolve each combat.

a. Player-heroes choose stances
All player-heroes must choose a stance. Normally, for every two player-heroes in a close combat stance, one player-hero can assume a rearward stance, unless the total number of enemies is more than twice the number of characters in the company, in which case rearward cannot be chosen. The Loremaster should adjust these guidelines according to the situation.

b. Engagements are determined
If there are more enemies, the Loremaster chooses and must pair at least one adversary with every player-hero in a close combat stance - leftovers can either join an existing engagement or stand back and make a ranged attack; if there are more companions or an equal number on both sides, the player-heroes choose, pairing with all eligible targets - leftovers join other engagements.

c. Attacks are resolved
Start with the side holding initiative.

Note About Engagements
Engagements are normally unbroken round after round until no opponents remain in the engagement due to death, a special ability, or the Escape combat task. When all opponents in an engagement are eliminated, the remaining characters should be reassigned to a new engagement following the regular rules for choosing engagements. At that point, if there are more enemies than companions, the Loremaster will choose; otherwise the player-heroes choose.

[Halbarad]

opening Volley represents the companions getting missile attacks before the enemy gets up close and personal. The Rearward stance simply allows for a bowman, with enough defensive coverage from his companions to block opponents, to continue to use his bow in a melee situation.
I believe you can get off up to 3 opening volley shots if the circumstances and the LM allow it.

Ninja'ed by JRB.

[DavetheLost]

According to RAW the LoreMaster decides which foes engage which characters. If both Orcs decide to engage the warrior in Forward Stance then I personally would have no problem allowing the archer to drop back and take a Rearward Stance. If the Or a decided to each engage one party member, then no rear stance.

Bear in mind that melee combats are very fluid things, much more so than grid games seem to indicate. Most TOR battlemats put Forward Stance in the front row and so on back to Rearward Stance in the last row. The fact is that a fighter using Forward Stance and a fighter using Defensive Stance could be fighting shoulder to shoulder or back to back. Stance is as much an attitude as it is a physical location.

[trystero]

In the example of two orcs and two players, if both orcs go on the first player...

According to RAW the LoreMaster decides which foes engage which characters.

A minor quibble (which Rich H already pointed out in this thread, but which I'll repeat): if there are two heroes and two orcs, then heroes in close combat stances choose which foe(s) to engage, per the More Enemies Than Heroes (or sides equally matched) section on p. 45 of the Loremaster's Guide. So the Loremaster doesn't decide (or at least not until all heroes in close combat have chosen first). Not a huge difference, but I thought it was worth stressing.

[PaulButler]

I may be showing my age here, but you don't need rules to allow for TotM play.

Heh.
Yeah, see, I flat out to refuse to play with any RPG with gridmaps. That is so antithetical to what I have come to know as a RPG experience.
I am of the opinion that the rearward stance rules are spot on. Think about it logically for half a second. Even in the two-on-two scenario, what kind of intelligent beings would gang up on the guy with the sword and let the guy with the bow shoot at them unimpeded?

In the real world, let's say we get into a rumble. Two of us against two of you. We'd pair off naturally. And even if two guys from side A ganged up on one guy from side B, if that leftover guy just hung back and started shooting at us, or even hell, throwing rocks, you can be damn sure one of us would move to take that guy out.

But what do I know? I solve everything with narrative verisimilitude, not hard and fast, nonnegotiable combat rules.

[Curulon]

In the example of two orcs and two players, if both orcs go on the first player...

According to RAW the LoreMaster decides which foes engage which characters.

A minor quibble (which Rich H already pointed out in this thread, but which I'll repeat): if there are two heroes and two orcs, then heroes in close combat stances choose which foe(s) to engage, per the More Enemies Than Heroes (or sides equally matched) section on p. 45 of the Loremaster's Guide. So the Loremaster doesn't decide (or at least not until all heroes in close combat have chosen first). Not a huge difference, but I thought it was worth stressing.

I believe they are referring to the Loremaster choosing who the enemies attack, not who the players attack. Players never decide who the enemy attacks.

[jamesrbrown]

I believe the intention is this...

Whichever side chooses engagements is determining eligible targets for each character in close combat. Characters making ranged attacks always choose their own targets.

So, if the Loremaster chooses the engagements because there are more enemies than companions, then, the Loremaster is determining the eligible targets for each companion. Characters are limited to attacking targets they are engaged with, unless there is a special ability in play, etc. That's my understanding.

I've never played where each character chooses whatever target they want without regard to the engagement rules. But, maybe I've been missing something about the engagement rules from the beginning. I am certainly not the final authority.

[Glorelendil]

If Rearward Stance depends on who the enemies are targeting, instead of a ratio rule, I could see endless player/LM arguments: "But he can't attack me because I said I'm standing behind the such-and-such!"

All of the sudden a grid and miniatures become necessary. Bleh.

[Halbarad]

I don't see where the problem lies. My reading is that the characters still get to choose their stances before combat commences and the LM cannot choose to place an Orc (for example) in combat with a character in Rearward stance, unless the Orcs outnumber the fellowship by more than a two to one ratio.

Six Orcs attack four characters.

Three characters choose Forward, Open and Defensive. Because the Orc attackers do not outnumber the characters in these stances by more than two to one, the fourth character can choose to be in Rearward stance.
Because they outnumber the characters, the LM now gets to choose who the Orcs attack. He could place them as he wishes as long as each character has at least one opponent. He cannot place any in combat with the player in Rearward. If there were a seventh Orc, the fourth character could not choose Rearward.

[Glorelendil]

I don't see where the problem lies. My reading is that the characters still get to choose their stances before combat commences and the LM cannot choose to place an Orc (for example) in combat with a character in Rearward stance, unless the Orcs outnumber the fellowship by more than a two to one ratio.

Six Orcs attack four characters.

Three characters choose Forward, Open and Defensive. Because the Orc attackers do not outnumber the characters in these stances by more than two to one, the fourth character can choose to be in Rearward stance.
Because they outnumber the characters, the LM now gets to choose who the Orcs attack. He could place them as he wishes as long as each character has at least one opponent. He cannot place any in combat with the player in Rearward. If there were a seventh Orc, the fourth character could not choose Rearward.

I think you're numbers are off....the player could still choose Rearward if there were a 7th orc.

But I don't think the OP was asking how the rule works, he was saying the rule was limiting (or even dumb). E.g., what if 10 orcs were attacking three heroes, but all 10 of the orcs went for the dwarf because they recognize him? Why can't the other characters choose Rearward if they aren't being attacked?

Again, my answer is that too many exceptions to the rule is a slippery slope to miniatures and a grid. The rules already give the LM some leeway for terrain situations; opening it up even more would (in my opinion) beg for the players to start rules lawyering.