I've seen a fair number of posts lately suggesting that winning initiative is providing a disproportionate advantage in combat at many tables. This idea has also been percolating in my head since one of our players joked that the main benefit of a good initiative roll from him was to allow me or our Hired Gun the first action, and another lamented that his roll of once success, six advantage essentially did nothing for him since PCs win ties anyways.

To an extent shooting first *is* the best form of defense, but I'm also wondering if people have considered allowing boons and setbacks on initiative rolls to spent as normal for combat resolution; for example, allowing a Vigilance/Cool roll of three successes, two advantage to not only tally as their initiative result but also allow the character to take a free maneuver before combat begins. Or similarly, using threat to give boost dice to the opposing side - but to less threatening characters, to both encourage the party to shake up the "optimal" initiative order and reflect that the party generating threat may be focusing on the fellows in battle armor up front, giving the less obvious threats on the other side an advantage in taking them off-guard. Essentially initiative would include a "pre-combat round" of maneuvering and jockeying for position right before the blaster bolts start flying.

I think the benefits of a system like this would be two-fold. First, it would provide some "ownership" of the initiative roll since it would affect your starting situation in combat even if another party member uses the actual slot you generated for another purpose. Second, it adds an element of uncertainty and could help groups from the "You turn around the corner, combat starts, roll initiative," school of gaming play around with more dynamic setups and springboard ideas for more engaging combat situations than simply determining who opens up first and proceeding straight to, "First one to die, loses!"

On a related note, I'm also leaning towards arguing at our table that Discipline should be a valid Initiative skill/roll for organized groups of minions. My understanding in actual combat squads is that speed of reaction is just as dependent on everyone watching the area they're supposed to, notifying their comrades, and reacting without hesitation in a crisis as it is on actual observational skills.

Thoughts?

I've seen a fair number of posts lately suggesting that winning initiative is providing a disproportionate advantage in combat at many tables. This idea has also been percolating in my head since one of our players joked that the main benefit of a good initiative roll from him was to allow me or our Hired Gun the first action, and another lamented that his roll of once success, six advantage essentially did nothing for him since PCs win ties anyways.

I think our group is perfectly happy to have our highest initiative wins go to allowing our Hired Gun/Heavy to go before everything else, so that's not a mechanic that I would like to see changed in our own group.

As for the guy who rolls six advantage, I think the RAW allow him to choose to use some of those advantages for other things -- like giving someone else a boost die, or recovering some strain, or whatever. It's up to him how he chooses to spend his six advantages, although any that are not spent on winning ties could be a ... disadvantage.

To an extent shooting first *is* the best form of defense, but I'm also wondering if people have considered allowing boons and setbacks on initiative rolls to spent as normal for combat resolution; for example, allowing a Vigilance/Cool roll of three successes, two advantage to not only tally as their initiative result but also allow the character to take a free maneuver before combat begins.

Free maneuver on just two advantage? No, I wouldn't be inclined to allow that. If he got a Triumph, then I'd be happy to let him spend his three successes to win the top initiative slot (if no one else rolled three successes or better), and he could choose to use his two advantages to give a boost die to the next allied attack, and then the Triumph could be spent to get a free maneuver before any other action is taken. IMO, that's all according to the RAW.

In fact, I believe that's actually a direct example of how the RAW describes one way to use a Triumph in combat.

Or similarly, using threat to give boost dice to the opposing side - but to less threatening characters, to both encourage the party to shake up the "optimal" initiative order and reflect that the party generating threat may be focusing on the fellows in battle armor up front, giving the less obvious threats on the other side an advantage in taking them off-guard. Essentially initiative would include a "pre-combat round" of maneuvering and jockeying for position right before the blaster bolts start flying.

Using threat to give boost die to the opposition is in accordance to my recollection of RAW. But there are only three types of enemy characters -- minions, rivals, and nemesis (singular instead of plural, because there's almost never more than one nemesis in a given encounter). And minions don't act quite the same way as rivals and nemesis do. If you wanted to use the opportunity to give minions a boost die instead of giving it to a rival or nemesis, I think that would be in accordance with RAW -- as GM, you are welcome to assign the boost die wherever you think is appropriate.

But a House Rule that says enemy boost die always have to be given to the least threatening group? I'm not sure I'd go that far.

And if you did have a House Rule that said that, I don't think it would have any impact at all on how the players decide to use their initiative slots to their advantage. If anything, I would be inclined to think that it would encourage them to go after stronger targets that they might have otherwise avoided, simply because they know that you will intentionally choose to weaken those targets slightly by the way you assign boost dice to the enemy.

On a related note, I'm also leaning towards arguing at our table that Discipline should be a valid Initiative skill/roll for organized groups of minions. My understanding in actual combat squads is that speed of reaction is just as dependent on everyone watching the area they're supposed to, notifying their comrades, and reacting without hesitation in a crisis as it is on actual observational skills.

For trained minion groups, I would say that you should definitely allow for a Discipline roll before the Initiative roll, and whatever successes they generate on the Discipline roll should be allowed to give them boost die on their Initiative roll. There's definitely an effect there that should be taken into account. However, note that Discipline only gives boost or setback dice to the Initiative roll and is not itself directly used to generate the Initiative.

Again, I think that's totally in line with the RAW, and certainly in line with the RAI.

I like the idea of spending advantages to gain Boosts or a free maneuver action but I'd probably have the player trade off the possibility of a lower initiative order—someone with 1 Success 6 Advantage could spend 2 Adv for an immediate free maneuver, 1 Adv to notice an important detail, 2 Adv to Boost their next check when their turn finally comes up, and end up with an initiative result of 1 Success 1 Advantage. They might end up going after an NPC that has an initiative result of 1 Success 2 Advantage but they've gained a lot of benefits as a trade-off.

The only downside is it can create an additional delay between the narration of combat having started and when structured gameplay begins. When I say something like, "The blast doors open and a group of Stormtroopers shower you with a flurry of blaster bolts," I stand up, I start the battle music, I start making emotive gestures to the table, and I want everybody to get excited—"Ok, everyone, roll for initiative..." [record scratch]

[Five minutes of rolling and negotiating Boosts and free maneuvers. Someone gets up and opens another bag of Skittles. Another plays a bit of Dragonvale before combat actually begins.]

I could see doing this with a group of players that knew the rules extremely well.

PCs winning ties refers to when a PC rolls the same number of successes AND advantages as an NPC. An NPC with 1 success and 2 advantage acts before a PC with 1 success and 1 advantage. Only if both rolled 1 success and 2 advantage would the PC automatically win the tie.

Cool and Vigilance make some suggestions for Advantages which to me are in addition to the ones you already can spend Advantages on in combat. I think if the skills are used for initiative that equals combat, so multiple Advantages could be handed out for upgrades to others, setbacks and what not to the opposition, Strain recovery, etc. Triumphs are also detailed with a Triumph for Cool able to be used to recover 3 Strain. So there are a lot of options for using the positive results of an initiative roll for just more than establishing initiative order.

It might be a good idea that, for the first round of combat, character go in the order they roll. Swapping spots on the next rounds as normal. It would add some variety to that first round and make the transition from regular play to combat rounds a little bit quicker.

It might be a good idea that, for the first round of combat, character go in the order they roll. Swapping spots on the next rounds as normal. It would add some variety to that first round and make the transition from regular play to combat rounds a little bit quicker.

that sounds like an good houserule. consider the idea stolen.

Cool and Vigilance make some suggestions for Advantages which to me are in addition to the ones you already can spend Advantages on in combat. I think if the skills are used for initiative that equals combat, so multiple Advantages could be handed out for upgrades to others, setbacks and what not to the opposition, Strain recovery, etc. Triumphs are also detailed with a Triumph for Cool able to be used to recover 3 Strain. So there are a lot of options for using the positive results of an initiative roll for just more than establishing initiative order.

Isn't the Triumph for Vigilance detailed to be a free maneuver able to be taken immedietly? Would this maneuver count against your 2 maneuver limit on your turn?

Cool and Vigilance make some suggestions for Advantages which to me are in addition to the ones you already can spend Advantages on in combat. I think if the skills are used for initiative that equals combat, so multiple Advantages could be handed out for upgrades to others, setbacks and what not to the opposition, Strain recovery, etc. Triumphs are also detailed with a Triumph for Cool able to be used to recover 3 Strain. So there are a lot of options for using the positive results of an initiative roll for just more than establishing initiative order.

Isn't the Triumph for Vigilance detailed to be a free maneuver able to be taken immedietly? Would this maneuver count against your 2 maneuver limit on your turn?

It makes Maneuver #2 Strain free, but you still have the 2 per turn limit barring some other factor like a Signature Ability. There are allowances for out of turn Maneuvers I think I recall if the opposition really botches a roll.

Isn't the Triumph for Vigilance detailed to be a free maneuver able to be taken immedietly? Would this maneuver count against your 2 maneuver limit on your turn?

My recollection is that you get to take that Triumph-supplied free maneuver before anyone else gets to act that round. You then get your normal maneuver whenever you choose to take your Round during the Turn.

I have yet to hear or see any solutions for the case where multiple people get Triumphs -- who goes first? ;-)

I have yet to hear or see any solutions for the case where multiple people get Triumphs -- who goes first? ;-)

I don't think manoeuvres usually interfere with each other, so I'm not sure if it matters. If two people both use Side Step before combat starts, does it matter which one does it first?

I don't think manoeuvres usually interfere with each other, so I'm not sure if it matters. If two people both use Side Step before combat starts, does it matter which one does it first?

I guess it depends on what the maneuvers are. But I can imagine some circumstances under which it would actually make a difference as to who goes first. I just haven't figured out what would be the right way to handle that situation.

I don't think manoeuvres usually interfere with each other, so I'm not sure if it matters. If two people both use Side Step before combat starts, does it matter which one does it first?

I guess it depends on what the maneuvers are. But I can imagine some circumstances under which it would actually make a difference as to who goes first. I just haven't figured out what would be the right way to handle that situation.

What would those be? Because offhand I can't think of any.

Just off the top of my head, the only thing that timing could potentially impact, would be if someone wanted to use their triumph-generated free maneuver to engage another character who didn't want to be. And that other character also got a triumph-generated free maneuver and wanted to use it to step away. Depending on what order it occurs, either the first individual's maneuver goes off first and the second character reacts to negate the benefit, or the second character moves away first thus making the first character's intended move invalid before he even had a chance to use it.

But that's a minor (probably rare) issue resolvable in the moment, IMO.

Free maneuvers gained from triumph don't count against your two maneuver limit per turn limit. They happen "immediately" as initiative is rolled. That's before the turn even begins.

I think the idea is that you reacted fortuitously, or were luckily in the right place when combat begins. Neither rational would limit you as to taking more maneuvers when you are actually fighting. Also if they count against the limit that seriously limits (pun intended) the awesome factor of getting a triumph during initiative. I might not even want to take such a maneuver for fear that enemy action would invalidate my plans.

As for two people taking a triumph based pre-turn maneuver, I don't think it matters. Player A engages with his, while NPC B retreats. Net effect is that NPC B is unengaged but still at short range. It's not D&D where there is some sort of lockdown mechanic for getting into melee. The order you perform the maneuvers in doesn't even matter because the net effect is the same.

As for two people taking a triumph based pre-turn maneuver, I don't think it matters. Player A engages with his, while NPC B retreats. Net effect is that NPC B is unengaged but still at short range. It's not D&D where there is some sort of lockdown mechanic for getting into melee. The order you perform the maneuvers in doesn't even matter because the net effect is the same.

Not exactly. And not at all my point. Which you either glossed over or ignored.

PC A and NPC B start the encounter at short range and both generate a triumph on initiative.

If the PC takes his free maneuver first, followed by the NPC, it unfolds as you say. End result, they are still at short range from each other.

If the NPC goes first, he may not be inclined to react to the movement and do something other than move away. Thus the PC going after can indeed engage. Or, alternately, the NPC smartly moves away first on its bonus maneuver to medium range. The PC then could choose to forgo making up the distance and instead choose to do something else.

So it does matter.

Now, whether that's a big deal or not, is beside the point.

So you're arguing causality. If that's your worry, tie goes to the PC. NPCs have to spend their triumphs first and then PCs can. PCs are the stars and their triumph (and despair) is more interesting than NPC action.

I was figuring rational decision making on the NPC's part. Why would he back away unless he wanted to move farther away from a PC Melee Monster? If he figures it's a shootout staying close significantly increases his chance of a hit (1 purple vs. 2). If the NPC is looking for cover and the only such is away from the PCs he's going to do that regardless of any PC action. It's still a moot point. Am I missing something?

In my experience most combat starts at medium or longer range so a single maneuver isn't enough to engage anyway.

So you're arguing causality. If that's your worry, tie goes to the PC. NPCs have to spend their triumphs first and then PCs can. PCs are the stars and their triumph (and despair) is more interesting than NPC action.

Not sure you can decide what's more interesting (or not) at others' tables, but OK. Tie goes to the PC is a great theory. One that is probably a good go-to house rule for these instances.

I was figuring rational decision making on the NPC's part. Why would he back away unless he wanted to move farther away from a PC Melee Monster? If he figures it's a shootout staying close significantly increases his chance of a hit (1 purple vs. 2). If the NPC is looking for cover and the only such is away from the PCs he's going to do that regardless of any PC action. It's still a moot point. Am I missing something?

Figuring... Assuming... What's the difference in this case? In the end, you're trying to pigeonhole specific, narrow possible instances into a general idea. Maybe that's the something you're missing? Though I do like that you answer your own questions...

In my experience most combat starts at medium or longer range so a single maneuver isn't enough to engage anyway.

Good thing your experience isn't what is being discussed. Otherwise you'd be the only one with something to offer...

FWIW, my experience differs from yours apparently. I've had plenty of combats start at short range. Heck, some have even broken out starting at engaged. Go figure.

So you're arguing causality. If that's your worry, tie goes to the PC. NPCs have to spend their triumphs first and then PCs can. PCs are the stars and their triumph (and despair) is more interesting than NPC action.

Not sure you can decide what's more interesting (or not) at others' tables, but OK. Tie goes to the PC is a great theory. One that is probably a good go-to house rule for these instances.

It's not a houserule though, Initiative ties go to the PCs. That is RAW.

In my experience, anything beyond Medium range is rather uncommon. We often have combats beginning at Short Range.

So you're arguing causality. If that's your worry, tie goes to the PC. NPCs have to spend their triumphs first and then PCs can. PCs are the stars and their triumph (and despair) is more interesting than NPC action.

Not sure you can decide what's more interesting (or not) at others' tables, but OK. Tie goes to the PC is a great theory. One that is probably a good go-to house rule for these instances.

It's not a houserule though, Initiative ties go to the PCs. That is RAW.

RAW? No. No it isn't. Not in this case.

You are stretching the rules for initiative (within the framework of slot order placement), into pre-initiative bonus maneuvers gained through a triumph, which happens prior to the start of combat.

Is it hard to see the logic of extending the rule out to cover this? No. Of course not. Makes perfect sense in some ways. I said as much already. But please don't toss 'RAW' around so willy-nilly.

In my experience, anything beyond Medium range is rather uncommon. We often have combats beginning at Short Range.

Man I would love this. My Marauder would have some gory fun.

Pretty sure that's why the GM doesn't let me start so close very often.

In my experience, anything beyond Medium range is rather uncommon. We often have combats beginning at Short Range.

Man I would love this. My Marauder would have some gory fun.

Pretty sure that's why the GM doesn't let me start so close very often.

Our combats almost always start out at Long Range, but my Wookiee Maurauder has recently picked up a grav belt that my GM says will let him make much longer jumps than usual and cover ground much faster. So, maybe I will now be able to go from Long to Engaged in a single Maneuver. I sure hope so!

Of course, I'm not the most dangerous combat monster in the group, so maybe he's actually doing this as a way to allow me to put myself out there as yet another target that could be potentially hit by our the LRB from our Kalatooinian Heavy, thus slightly increasing the odds that his minions will survive a bit longer.

I think I'm beginning to see a trend. It would appear groups that start combat at long range or greater may have something in common... Wookiee Marauders.

So you're arguing causality. If that's your worry, tie goes to the PC. NPCs have to spend their triumphs first and then PCs can. PCs are the stars and their triumph (and despair) is more interesting than NPC action.

Not sure you can decide what's more interesting (or not) at others' tables, but OK. Tie goes to the PC is a great theory. One that is probably a good go-to house rule for these instances.

It's not a houserule though, Initiative ties go to the PCs. That is RAW.

RAW? No. No it isn't. Not in this case.

You are stretching the rules for initiative (within the framework of slot order placement), into pre-initiative bonus maneuvers gained through a triumph, which happens prior to the start of combat.

Is it hard to see the logic of extending the rule out to cover this? No. Of course not. Makes perfect sense in some ways. I said as much already. But please don't toss 'RAW' around so willy-nilly.

A PC and an NPC both roll 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that not a tie?