Say, 2 monsters, for example glorfindel and a mordor troll fight. glorfindel calls a heroic fight. As theire both monsters, no-one can win the fight (if neither of them die). Does this mean glorfindels heroic fight doesn't continue (as its a "draw"), or that his fight does continue (dispite the draw) or that it continues if he caused more wounds than the troll?

how do you guys play this? or is there some section in the rulebook that I missed?

_________________
Everything that has a beginning has an end
There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time

I think you actually have to kill everything that you're fighting against in order to have heroic fight work.

I think you're confused with SBG, in WOTR you only need to win the combat

_________________
Everything that has a beginning has an end
There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time

A casualty, for sake of winning a battle against a monnster, is however many times you beat the resilience of your foe. So, when fighting a resilience 2 monster and you deal 6 hits, you would have 3 casualties for purpose of winning the fight. 7 hits would also count as 3 casualties. As normal, whoever has the most casualties wins the fight.

_________________
hmmmm.....

Thanks! do you have a page number though?

_________________
Everything that has a beginning has an end
There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time

I think it´s a house rule from war Illithid cause to count if someone wins a fight you need to check wich side maked the most casualtys not the most hits and if both sides have the same numer of casualtys(in this case 0) no one has won the fight. That's why it is not smart to make a heroic fight against a monster cause you have to kil it.

Although there is no specific wording in the book, I can't imagine that it would work any other way. The rules for winning a fight state that you total the number of casualties per side. THe rules on hard to kill state that when a model with this rule suffers hits equal to its Resilience characteristic, do not remove it as a casualty. Arguably, this means only killing the monster counts, so you can only win that way.

Another thing to look at are the rules for Mighty Blow ability (Lurtz and Boromir) which allows them to cause casualties regardless of resilience. Although not clarified, I think it is fairly safe to assume that monsters (which would include things like the Balrog, Sauron, Mumak, etc.) would not just be flat out killed. Instead I believe that a "casualty" is simply getting enough hits to equal their resilience (which causes a "Hard to Kill!" roll).

The only other method that I could see argued would be to instead compare the number of wound counters generated between sides.

While technically there is no hard evidence to say for sure my way is correct. I would say that if you played WotR going only by what exact wordings say than you are not playing games that are very fun at all. (Might Blow wackiness, Mumaks dying to shrubbery, White Council reviving itself, etc.)

_________________
hmmmm.....

No evidence? Page 50 gives you the definition of winning a combat, its the number of models removed what counts and not the number of hits, it actually say's (not hits!)

First off, I said no hard evidence to support myself, not to go the other way.

Second off, it specifically says count casualties. It also specifically says not hits. It doesn't specifically say count removed models. Nor does it specifically say don't count wound counters or rolls on the hard to kill table. If you want to get rediculously specific there is in fact no way to cause a casualty against a monster. On a 6 it says it is slain and removed from game. It never says it counts as a casualty which would make it completely impossible to win a fight against a monster.

However, I think common sense should win out here where it should be obvious that this is not how it is supposed to work. Just like I believe that it looks like they wanted a casualty on a monster to be a roll on the table, for all intents and purposes. Are you going to tell me you play where might blow would kill even the Balrog in one hit? Or do you count one casualty as a roll on the table? Its effectively the same thing that I am getting at here.

_________________
hmmmm.....

Eh? It doesn't matter whever you are after evidence for yourself or not, a casualty is a model removed as mentioned when reading the Removing Casualties in the shooting and combat rules sections and especially Determining the Winner section on page 50.

There is even an example to stress this, and following that example: if two R2 cavalry units fight and one causes 3 hits and the other causes 2 hit, only one model on each side is removed - it's a draw, as described on page 50. It will be no different if two monsters collide until one dies on the Hard to Hit table.

Mighty Blow says that regardless of the Resistance a casualty is caused. So cause 1 hit on Balrog with R2 it counts as a casualty, and then you follow the Hard to Kill rules where it says that you do not remove as a casualty but roll on the chart. So no, Boromir doesn't alway's kill a Balrog with one blow.

So as for the original question, if the two fighting monsters are in a fight then one has to be removed as a casualty for the fight to be won.

In this case I would LIKE to use War Illithid's example just because it might add a cool little spin on fighting with monsters, but I do have to agree with Hithero that in the rules it does actually say that you would have to kill the monster to consider it a casualty. I'm getting this from the top of pg. 51 under Monsters and Retreats.
In a nutshell it just says that a monster never panics unless it's involved in a multiple fight, and it's side loses.
Since you only test for panic if you lose a fight, I think it's implied that it will never lose if it's still alive, with multiple fights being the exception. Since a Heroic Fight requires either one side or other to win the fight I don't think you'd be able to use it in a one on one match up between monsters.
That being said though I wouldn't mind trying the other way just to see how it works. Just add another dimension to monster combat.

That is a good point Jayha, I definitely missed that part of the text, which does make it fairly obvious. This makes lesser monsters more useful against more powerful ones. Force Treebeard to waste a few turns pounding on a troll maybe...

_________________
hmmmm.....