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

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

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

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

Is that sarcasm? Seriously, because I can't tell.

Your example is not a tie. In your example the PC goes first and should get his resolved Triumph first, then the NPC. I am really not seeing what the confusion is here.

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

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

Is that sarcasm? Seriously, because I can't tell.

Your example is not a tie. In your example the PC goes first and should get his resolved Triumph first, then the NPC. I am really not seeing what the confusion is here.

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 4 success, 3 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

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.

If you've rolled initiative combat has commenced.

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

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

Is that sarcasm? Seriously, because I can't tell.

Your example is not a tie. In your example the PC goes first and should get his resolved Triumph first, then the NPC. I am really not seeing what the confusion is here.

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 4 success, 3 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

NPC goes first in the initiative order and should resolve their Triumph first. PC would go next.

Perhaps I was misunderstanding the situation, I thought the argument was the characters involved rolled ties on their initiative checks, which included a triumph. In both of your examples the character with the higher initiative should resolve their triumph first. I still fail to see what the problem is.

If you've rolled initiative combat has commenced.

That's an interesting theory. How do you support this claim? Given, specifically, that this is a conversation about who goes first when using a triumph to gain a bonus maneuver before combat begins*...

(*further compounded by the opinion of some here - myself included - that this bonus maneuver gained and used in such a manner does not impact the character's limit of 2 maneuvers per round, when they choose to eventually take their first action somewhere along the initiative order.)

that's not how I read it, I don't think there has to be an order to the extra maneuver use at all. It says the character has noticed something critical because of the Triumph on the roll that allows them to take an extra Maneuver "during the first round of combat". It doesn't say right away. It doesn't say it can't be out of turn. It doesn't say before initiative steps are resolved. You don't even have to have won the initiative roll. It just says something was noticed and you get an extra Maneuver.

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

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

Is that sarcasm? Seriously, because I can't tell.

Your example is not a tie. In your example the PC goes first and should get his resolved Triumph first, then the NPC. I am really not seeing what the confusion is here.

A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 4 success, 3 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?

NPC goes first in the initiative order and should resolve their Triumph first. PC would go next.

Perhaps I was misunderstanding the situation, I thought the argument was the characters involved rolled ties on their initiative checks, which included a triumph. In both of your examples the character with the higher initiative should resolve their triumph first. I still fail to see what the problem is.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

If you are going to pick up someone else's argument, and run with it, you should at least know what you are arguing.

Aservan (the one whom you quoted in addition to me as we were discussing who goes first), indicated the PC should always get the benefit (i.e., "tie") and thus the NPC's should be forced to commit their triumph-generated free maneuver first. I tended to agree in theory. Then you ran onto the field, strapped the goalpost to your back, and started running zig-zag all over the place.

If you've rolled initiative combat has commenced.

That's an interesting theory. How do you support this claim? Given, specifically, that this is a conversation about who goes first when using a triumph to gain a bonus maneuver before combat begins*...

(*further compounded by the opinion of some here - myself included - that this bonus maneuver gained and used in such a manner does not impact the character's limit of 2 maneuvers per round, when they choose to eventually take their first action somewhere along the initiative order.)

EoE CRB p. 199 second column 7th paragraph Vigilance "Triumphs may be spent to allow the character to take an extra Maneuver during the first round of combat"

The Triumph is generated on an initiative roll. The rules for initiative are contained in the combat rules section of the book.

What order everyone wants to take their extra Maneuver that's easy, their call, but who goes first in selecting to use their extra Maneuver is easy, whoever won initiative. Doesn't say anything about having to take the Maneuver immediately. Doesn't say it can't be taken out of turn.

For a Vigilance skill check? Sure. You do understand though that this is not an "initiative rule".

Are you implying that a character cannot gain a free maneuver if they use Cool for initiative?

Not according to the rules for Cool on p. 108. EoE CRB. They get 3 Strain on a Triumph.

Last night I was looking through the CRB to find the text for how Triumphs are used as a tie breaker. For the life of me, I couldn't find it. It is a rule written down somewhere, right? I'm not just dreaming this. Anyone know where in the CRB I can find the rule? Or is it a holdover from the basic game or beta?

I don't think there is such a thing as a tie breaker in initiative as tie goes to the player.

I don't think there is such a thing as a tie breaker in initiative as tie goes to the player.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the way they have it worded is that Advantages are a "tie breaker".

Step 1. Count and compare successes.

Step 2. If there is a tie in success, count and compare advantages.

Step 3. If there is a tie in success and advantages, PC slot is first.

I could've sworn there was text specifically calling out Triumphs when comparing successes and figuring out the order and ties. Anyone have a page number for how Triumphs are used for determining initiative order?

I'm thinking more generally in terms of a tie, as in both sides with 3 Successes, 3 Advantages, a Triumph, tie goes to the player. If you can't have a tie I don't know how you can have a tie breaker I guess is my point.

I don't remember reading anywhere that Triumphs are used for tiebreaking initiative rolls. Triumphs CAN mean a bonus manoeuvre prior to the first turn of combat, but they don't necessarily have to mean that - creative players and GMs should feel free to come up with their own interpretations.

And to address another issue, just because the skills section in the book describes a Triumph on Vigilance to give an extra manoeuvre and a Triumph on Cool to recover 3 strain doesn't mean it has to be that way. Those are just suggestions, probably based on how characters using Cool for initiative probably have already taken cover, drawn their weapons, and so on and therefore have less need of a bonus manoeuvre.

Where is it written that Triumphs can be used to make a Maneuver before combat has commenced, because I don't see how you can have a Triumph to spend unless you rolled initiative because if you rolled initiative combat has commenced.

Initiative is rolled at the start of Structured Gameplay. Combat is the most common example of Structured Gameplay, but not all Structured Gameplay is combat. Therefore, it follows that rolling Initiative does not necessarily indicate that combat has commenced.

Which has what precisely to do with the point and details of the conversation we are all having about Triumphs and extra Maneuvers generated by one on an Vigilance check during initiative? Or was it you were just trying to derail a thread with a pointless tangential comment on semantics within the conversation that really adds nothing to the discussion and has no real point?

Is it your intention to appear hostile, or am I misreading you?

Just so I can follow this, I'm making bullet points, because, geez, you're all being very confusing.

- Vigilance, Pg 119, states that a Triumph can be used to take an extra maneuver during the first round of combat. It doesn't say whether or not it can be used outside of their player slot, but it does count towards their 2 maneuvers per turn.

-Structured Gameplay starts "before" you start the roll for initiative. Structured Encompasses 5 states: Rolling for initiative, Making Player/NPC slots, the Round itself, the End of Round, and the End of Encounter.

- When rolling initiative, use Vigilance or Cool. You can use the advantage/triumph however you want. Advantages break Success Ties, PCness breaks ties of Success and Advantage. No where does it state that Triumph breaks ties, so unless you use it as "3 strain" (cool), "a free maneuver" (vigilance) or something not in the rule book, it's pointless.

- So in the case of 3 Success, 3 Advantage (PC) vs 3 Success, 3 Advantage, 1 Triumph (NPC), the PC still goes first, and the NPC gets a free maneuver during the first round. It doesn't state that it can be used out of their slot, so I will assume it just removes the 2 strain cost. This is just my assumption of how to read the RAW, so grain o' salt.