Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 6098920" data-attributes="member: 6685730">So the idea is that you don't have a &quot;rearward&quot; stance, if you're outnumbered (by 2x) or have only one person in your front line?Interesting.&nbsp; My first impression of the One Ring rule is that it requires too much math.&nbsp; Having two people forward is easy enough to count.&nbsp; But then combatants on each side are saying, &quot;really?&nbsp; We have five on our side, and they have three.&nbsp; You're telling me that One Guy can still hide from us?&quot;Now let's be generous, and assume that combatants on both sides are always maneuvering for best position.&nbsp; Which means the front rows are always maneuvering to be in direct attack position, and the rear rows are always maneuvering to stay out of direct contact.&nbsp; Can one guy in front protect three guys in the rear?&nbsp; Heck no.&nbsp; So I'm seeing a sort of Disengage action, heedless of numbers of combatants, which says, &quot;go ahead and flank any party you want.&nbsp; When you're in the back row, a successful Movement or Sneak skill allows you to leave the combat.&nbsp; You can then re-engage in the next round on the far side of the enemy party (or right next to their back row).&quot;Obviously, the enemies should have some options here, to protect their wizards/archers in the back.&nbsp; First, the disengaging party has fewer members while they're maneuvering.&nbsp; So the enemies have a chance to win during the attempted flank.&nbsp; Second, flanking takes time (actions).&nbsp; The enemies have the advantage of more combat actions (that don't involve disengaging).&nbsp; Third, while the flankers are away flanking, the enemies can choose to flee, which is easier while they have fewer attackers to worry about.But they had better do something useful, because their back row is about to face direct attack.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 6098920, member: 6685730"] So the idea is that you don't have a "rearward" stance, if you're outnumbered (by 2x) or have only one person in your front line? Interesting. My first impression of the One Ring rule is that it requires too much math. Having two people forward is easy enough to count. But then combatants on each side are saying, "really? We have five on our side, and they have three. You're telling me that One Guy can still hide from us?" Now let's be generous, and assume that combatants on both sides are always maneuvering for best position. Which means the front rows are always maneuvering to be in direct attack position, and the rear rows are always maneuvering to stay out of direct contact. Can one guy in front protect three guys in the rear? Heck no. So I'm seeing a sort of Disengage action, heedless of numbers of combatants, which says, "go ahead and flank any party you want. When you're in the back row, a successful Movement or Sneak skill allows you to leave the combat. You can then re-engage in the next round on the far side of the enemy party (or right next to their back row)." Obviously, the enemies should have some options here, to protect their wizards/archers in the back. First, the disengaging party has fewer members while they're maneuvering. So the enemies have a chance to win during the attempted flank. Second, flanking takes time (actions). The enemies have the advantage of more combat actions (that don't involve disengaging). Third, while the flankers are away flanking, the enemies can choose to flee, which is easier while they have fewer attackers to worry about. But they had better do something useful, because their back row is about to face direct attack. [/QUOTE]

Verification