Dorjcal
Topic Author
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun 11 Jul 2021, 10:22

Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Thu 05 Aug 2021, 22:10

RAW:
You are allowed to assume a Rearward stance only if there are at least two other adventurers protecting you by fighting in a Close Combat stance, AND if the total number of enemies isn’t more than twice the number of adventurers in the Company.

Does it mean that you need a total of 2 players in close combat? Or that for each player in rearward you need to have 2 adventures in close combat stance?
 
Asgo
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:18

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Thu 05 Aug 2021, 22:21

RAW:
You are allowed to assume a Rearward stance only if there are at least two other adventurers protecting you by fighting in a Close Combat stance, AND if the total number of enemies isn’t more than twice the number of adventurers in the Company.

Does it mean that you need a total of 2 players in close combat? Or that for each player in rearward you need to have 2 adventures in close combat stance?
I took that as two in total for close combat, but then an arbitrary number in reward stance.
Given that otherwise you would need 6 players for 2 ranged or 9 for 3 three ranged, that restriction would basically come down to only ever being one in the ranged stance (for a large number of game groups) and that could have been formulated easier.
But technically the "protecting you" actually would imply per ranged char.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Fri 06 Aug 2021, 10:25

Why not model out a few numbers? Use four numbers: Total in Company, Fighters, Archers, Enemies.

Clearly, using RAW exactly as described: 3, 2, 1 mean that the fight can be from 1 enemy to 6 enemy. All are permissible (and that 6 could all be trolls by RAW).
But 3,2,1 and 7 goblins is not sustainable. How does that sit with you?

However: Try setting up a party of 4, with 2 in close combat.
4,2,2 means that 8 Trolls can be held back by the same two fighters with two archers standing back. (But, again, 9 goblins cannot.)

How about a party of 6?
2 in front, 4 archers, and up to 12 adversaries. Because 6 × 2 = 12? Really? Is that how RAW should be interpreted?

You can see where I am going with this, and I could extend the numbers... indefinitely?

So each archer needs protection. As the LM will know the size of the party before combat, it is prudent to clarify what they find acceptable for this way of fighting. e.g. A troll has Might = 2, does that count as TWO adversaries? e.g. how does fighting in a tunnel or hallway amend this rule? Or across a bridge with clear fields of fire?
Rather than me say what I read into this rule, it reveals how preparation and agreement in advance is handy. Since the RAW is not clear (your original question certainly illustrates some ambiguity), it serves as a reminder just how difficult it is to be CONCISE when composing a rule.
 
User avatar
HunterGreen
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri 12 Jun 2020, 14:59

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Fri 06 Aug 2021, 13:04

I take it as two per person in rearward stance: you can be in rearward if two people in close combat are protecting you. Some other person can be in rearward if two people in close combat are protecting them.
TOR/AiME Discord: https://discord.me/theonering
Narvi, the TOR bot for Discord: https://bitbucket.org/HawthornThistleberry/narvi/
 
baldrick0712
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri 28 May 2021, 12:29

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Fri 06 Aug 2021, 14:28

I take it as two per person in rearward stance: you can be in rearward if two people in close combat are protecting you. Some other person can be in rearward if two people in close combat are protecting them.
I have the same gut feeling that it's effectively a third of the company that can be in Rearward. I tried to confirm this with 1e rules but they are similarly unclear.
 
User avatar
Carcharoth
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu 09 Jul 2020, 22:21
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Fri 06 Aug 2021, 15:34

It's 2 close combat fighters PER rearward player, which means you need a minimum of 3 players total in order to have 1 of them in rearward stance (under "normal" circumstances). There are virtues that can change this ratio I believe.
"Of all the terrors that came ever into Beleriand ere Angband’s fall the madness of Carcharoth was the most dreadful; for the power of the Silmaril was hidden within him."
- The Silmarillion
 
Sebastian
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu 01 Oct 2020, 04:58

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Fri 06 Aug 2021, 21:14

If you look at the fight not from a rules perspective, but just how it looks like, it‘s pretty clear. Usually you don’t want to have an archer there that shoots you in the face, so what do you do?

There are 3 heroes in a close stance and two bowmen in rearward. They are attacked by 8 orcs. The heroes can only cover one archer, because let’s face it, they are just overrun by the orcs.

As I read it: two heroes in close combat per archer in rearward. That just makes sense in the story.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Fri 06 Aug 2021, 21:49

Reflecting on the idea of this rule, I would probably say that each of the close combat fighters can screen up to two adversaries in an open fight, with their aim being to free up the archers to shoot. So 2 fighters can hold up 4 adversaries (but only two troll sized or mounted enemies).
I might even stipulate that in order to achieve this, the close combat fighters can only use Open or Defensive stances to realise this protective posture. But this is rapidly becoming my house rule, and so does not answer the OP.

If there are more than twice as many adversaries as close combat PC s, then archers must stand in the line to soak up the excess. E.g. 5 goblins would need a minimum of 3 fighters and then a 4th or 5th PC could shoot from behind/ rearward.

If the terrain permits, this interpretation of the rule can be further amended. After all, there is only room for one character on that Bridge in Khazad dum! And plenty of opportunity for archers on both sides to let rip!
 
User avatar
Carcharoth
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu 09 Jul 2020, 22:21
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Sat 07 Aug 2021, 00:39

There are 3 heroes in a close stance and two bowmen in rearward. They are attacked by 8 orcs. The heroes can only cover one archer, because let’s face it, they are just overrun by the orcs.
Just to be clear, in a five-member party, you can only have 1 archer without something like the "Small Folk" virtue, or some kind of circumstantial reason why those numbers would change in a fight.
"Of all the terrors that came ever into Beleriand ere Angband’s fall the madness of Carcharoth was the most dreadful; for the power of the Silmaril was hidden within him."
- The Silmarillion
 
Asgo
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:18

Re: Clarity requested on REARWARD STANCE

Sat 07 Aug 2021, 03:05

Ironically the "Small Folk" virtue doesn't necessarily makes it clearer
Additionally, you can assume a Rearward stance
in combat even if there is only one other Company
member fighting in a Close Combat stance.
this suggests from the way it is formulated that when talking about needed people in close combat a total is meant.
Unless of course it is really only meant for the 2 char scenario of 1 close and 1 ranged char and not usable for a scenario of 3 close and 2 ranged - ie exactly one in close not a minimum of one.

Of course if the writers generally assumed to not get enough chars in a group for multiple archers, that may essentially be the same message.
(But you might want to mention that to your players before char creation ;) )
Last edited by Asgo on Sat 07 Aug 2021, 04:44, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests