Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Initiative ties
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:04:37 +0200
I was reading a bit in the Black Book the other night, and I noticed a
contradiction in the rules for resolving initiative ties on page 79.
In the first paragraph, it says "When multiple characters are eligible for
actions in the same Combat Phase, the character with the highest Initiative
total declares and resolves actions first."
Then in the second paragraph, it reads "When multiple characters have
actions in the same phase, those actions are declared in reverse order, from
the lowest Initiative total (...) to the highest."

I'd say these two pretty much totally contradict one another... I haven't
seen it mentioned in the errata sheets :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wish (n): something which doesn't come true
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 2
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:35:00 PDT
>I'd say these two pretty much totally contradict one another... I haven't
>seen it mentioned in the errata sheets :)

Funny how so many have missed it so completely for so long. :-)

I always let the one with the higest reaction go first, and if there's
another tie, the one with the highest quickness. If they have the same
quickness too, highest on a D6 goes first.


'Nuff said.

MxM
Message no. 3
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:50:05 GMT
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>

> I was reading a bit in the Black Book the other night, and I noticed a
> contradiction in the rules for resolving initiative ties on page 79.
> In the first paragraph, it says "When multiple characters are eligible for
> actions in the same Combat Phase, the character with the highest Initiative
> total declares and resolves actions first."
> Then in the second paragraph, it reads "When multiple characters have
> actions in the same phase, those actions are declared in reverse order, from
> the lowest Initiative total (...) to the highest."
>
> I'd say these two pretty much totally contradict one another... I haven't
> seen it mentioned in the errata sheets :)
>
well done FASA!!

second edition follows the latter, the slowest character acting in a
phase (lowest reaction) declares actions first, then the rest in
ascending reaction order, actions are then resolved in descending
order, highest reac to lowest. Note that folks that have not yet had
an action this round automatically go before folks on a second or
subsequent action (i.e. are treated as if having higher reaction so
plod going in 8 with reac 4 is treated as before sam in 8 reac 12
taking third action (rolled 28). sam declares, plod declares intent,
plod resolves, sam resolves)

eg
mage rolled 18, reac 4
merc rolled 18, reac 6
sam rolled 18, reac 10

turn order initative = 18
all these three characters dice pools refresh
mage declare intentions
merc declare
sam declare
sam resolve action results
merc resolve
mage resolve

(the latter are ONLY allowed to change if for example someone kills
thier target before they more, but only say target, eg mage could
declare 'manabolt a badguy' and choose the one merc and sam did not
shoot when he actually gets to act)

obviously this full sequence is not constructive to good roleplaying
most of the time, too much messing about but.

>
> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

Mark
Message no. 4
From: Dwayne MacKinnon <910252m@******.ACADIAU.CA>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:54:02 -0300
>
> I was reading a bit in the Black Book the other night, and I noticed a
> contradiction in the rules for resolving initiative ties on page 79.
> In the first paragraph, it says "When multiple characters are eligible for
> actions in the same Combat Phase, the character with the highest Initiative
> total declares and resolves actions first."
> Then in the second paragraph, it reads "When multiple characters have
> actions in the same phase, those actions are declared in reverse order, from
> the lowest Initiative total (...) to the highest."

Judging by the exampl following the second paragraph, Gurth, I'd say
that INITIATIVE should read REACTION in the second paragraph.
And, your first paragraph quote is wrong, I'm afraid. The first
paragraph talks about a combat TURN. So, this is how I think it goes:
Combat turn. Work out initiative. Characters with highest initiative
go first.
If two characters go on the same PHASE, the character with the lower
reaction says what s/he's doing first. This allows the second character
(the one with the better reaction) to REACT to what the other person is
doing.

> I'd say these two pretty much totally contradict one another... I haven't
> seen it mentioned in the errata sheets :)

Null perspiration, chummer. :-)

DMK

--
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own, never
910252m@******.acadiau.ca those of my employer.
Message no. 5
From: "Brian A. Stewart" <bstewart@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:35:48 -0700
>>
>> I was reading a bit in the Black Book the other night, and I noticed a
>> contradiction in the rules for resolving initiative ties on page 79.
>> In the first paragraph, it says "When multiple characters are eligible for
>> actions in the same Combat Phase, the character with the highest Initiative
>> total declares and resolves actions first."
>> Then in the second paragraph, it reads "When multiple characters have
>> actions in the same phase, those actions are declared in reverse order, from
>> the lowest Initiative total (...) to the highest."
>
>
>Judging by the exampl following the second paragraph, Gurth, I'd say
>that INITIATIVE should read REACTION in the second paragraph.
> And, your first paragraph quote is wrong, I'm afraid. The first
>paragraph talks about a combat TURN. So, this is how I think it goes:
> Combat turn. Work out initiative. Characters with highest initiative
>go first.
> If two characters go on the same PHASE, the character with the lower
>reaction says what s/he's doing first. This allows the second character
>(the one with the better reaction) to REACT to what the other person is
>doing.
>
>
>> I'd say these two pretty much totally contradict one another... I haven't
>> seen it mentioned in the errata sheets :)
>
>
>Null perspiration, chummer. :-)
>
>DMK
>
This is the way I scanned it, chummer.
Null persp.

Medic 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blessed are the young,
For they shall inherit the National Debt.

-Herbert Humphrey

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bstewart@***.uug.arizona.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 20:27:24 +0200
>I always let the one with the higest reaction go first, and if there's
>another tie, the one with the highest quickness. If they have the same
>quickness too, highest on a D6 goes first.

We do it like this: the one with the lowest Initiative total goes first. If
both have the same, the one with the highest Reaction goes first. If that's
still not enough, it depends on my mental state of health, I think... roll a
die, roll a Reaction test, whatever I feel like at that moment :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
We've got to... oh hell, who cares anyway?
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:23:40 +0200
> And, your first paragraph quote is wrong, I'm afraid. The first
>paragraph talks about a combat TURN.

Maybe in the softback edition it does, but my hardback SR2 (ltd edition :)
says "Combat Phase" exactly as I copied it in my original post.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's tv-speak, Andycam!
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 8
From: Dwayne MacKinnon <910252m@******.ACADIAU.CA>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 09:56:28 -0300
>
> > And, your first paragraph quote is wrong, I'm afraid. The first
> >paragraph talks about a combat TURN.
>
> Maybe in the softback edition it does, but my hardback SR2 (ltd edition :)
> says "Combat Phase" exactly as I copied it in my original post.
>
>
> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

But Gurth, but, but, but.... that'd mean that FASA fixed something!!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
And yes, I *DO* own the softcover. :)

DMK

--
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own, never
910252m@******.acadiau.ca those of my employer.
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Initiative ties
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:15:21 +0200
>But Gurth, but, but, but.... that'd mean that FASA fixed something!!

If you look at the errata sheets for hard- and soft-cover, you'll very soon
notice that the hardcover one is much longer :( Somehow the two aren't
identical, probably because they noticed mistakes in the hardcover and fixed
them before the softcover went to the printer. They didn't fix them all,
though...

> And yes, I *DO* own the softcover. :)

Thought so :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's tv-speak, Andycam!
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Initiative ties, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!