Initiative in 4E

[Raellus]

Been thinking a bit about Initiative. Automatically giving the PCs higher initiative than the OPFOR kind of stacks the deck in favor of the good guys. Ref'ing 2.2, I was always a little loosey-goosey with the initiative order, almost always allowing the PCs to act first every round. With 4e's suppression rules, I think that might be game-breaking.

I agree with many of you that an initiative system should take into consideration characters' (both PCs and NPCs) competence, experience, tactical understanding, etc. Some people are just more decisive and quicker thinking than others, especially under pressure.

I don't have a lot of experience with other systems, but I'm familiar with how D&D 5e handles initiative, and I think something similar could work for 4e T2k. Please note, I have not field tested this system yet.

CUF scores are assigned a modifier which can be applied when drawing initiative (players have the option of not applying the modifier). PCs and NPCs draw initiative cards, as per the the rules, but PCs modify their roles up or down based on their respective CUF scores, as follows:

A = -2
B = -1
C = 0
D = +1

So, for example, Zeke, with CUF score B, draws the #5 initiative card. His initiative is now 4, if he so chooses. Rawlins, with a CUF score of A, draws an 8. His initiative is 6.

IIRC, most combat builds (among the archetypes, at least), start the game with CUF C. Most non-elite enemy NPCs also have CUF C. What I think this means is, early in the campaign, the odds re initiative will probably be close to even in most combat encounters. But if the PCs play smart and survive their first few firefights, they'll start to gain an edge.

Thoughts?

-

[unipus]

All of that is part of why I really don't give much of a damn about initiative, beyond what the narrative sets up. It starts to get very fiddly.

Initiative in the first turn matters very much. After that, it certainly matters, but not as much as the ongoing effects of suppression. If you're able to take out or suppress a few guys in the first and second turns then initiative becomes a very secondary concern after that.

FWIW, other FL rulesets, such as Coriolis, do have an initiative system where you get bonuses for using smaller weapons, which makes a lot of sense. It's also not my favorite system but I'm not sure why they outright abandoned it here.

[Tegyrius]

I've been chewing on this and my inclination is to do away with the card system entirely and adapt the system from Five Parsecs From Home (which, admittedly, is one of my shiny new toys, and thus biases me more favorably toward it). Here's an untested alpha draft:

Each combat round has three initiative phases. In order, these are Quick, Enemy, and Slow.

At the beginning of every combat round, each PC and allied NPC makes a Coolness Under Fire check (adding unit morale if within LOS or voice/radio contact of an ally). This check receives a -1 penalty if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF A and a +1 bonus if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF D. The Combat Awareness specialty's effect becomes a +1 bonus to initiative.


Quick phase: every PC/ally who succeeded with the CUF check

Enemy phase: every opponent

Slow phase: every PC/ally who failed the CUF check


In each phase, characters may act in any order.

- C.

[Ursus Maior]

If you meddle with initiative slot allocation, you will end up with (N)PCs occupying the same slot. How do you deal with that? Do they act at the same time or do they act in a separate order and if so, how is that determined?

I agree with the sentiment, that turn order after the first turn is largely unimportant. And if you want to make sure or more likely, you go before your enemy (especially in the first turn), then 4E gives you three options for that: Invest in Combat Awareness and draw two cards, invest in Recon to ambush your enemy or find someone who draws a lower card than you and switch turn order with them.

I think that leaves a lot of choices for skill & competence as well as small unit tactics.

[leonpoi]

Perhaps for initiative, simply roll your CUF dice and act on the value. That way higher CUF can roll higher but doesn’t always guarantee going first.

[Tegyrius]

If you meddle with initiative slot allocation, you will end up with (N)PCs occupying the same slot. How do you deal with that? Do they act at the same time or do they act in a separate order and if so, how is that determined?

When I've run other initiative systems that have slotted sides/teams/squads rather than individuals, I've never had an issue with my players deciding who goes in which order. It usually helps them smoothly handle coordinated actions, especially when order of operations matters in tasks like like breach/bang/clear. On the ref's side of the screen, the same applies: NPCs act in whatever order is logical for their assumed degree of competence.

- C.

[swaghauler]

Perhaps for initiative, simply roll your CUF dice and act on the value. That way higher CUF can roll higher but doesn’t always guarantee going first.

That's how I'd do it.

[swaghauler]

When I've run other initiative systems that have slotted sides/teams/squads rather than individuals, I've never had an issue with my players deciding who goes in which order. It usually helps them smoothly handle coordinated actions, especially when order of operations matters in tasks like like breach/bang/clear. On the ref's side of the screen, the same applies: NPCs act in whatever order is logical for their assumed degree of competence.

- C.

If more than one person goes on the same number (or on the same Initiative Step/Phase in V2.2), I have everyone perform their action and declare the actions are simultaneous. I have had two opponents take each other out of the fight with this rule.

[Tegyrius]

If more than one person goes on the same number (or on the same Initiative Step/Phase in V2.2), I have everyone perform their action and declare the actions are simultaneous. I have had two opponents take each other out of the fight with this rule.

Cinematic as hell. I can dig it. :)

- C.

[unipus]

Sounds fun -- although I imagine you're going to be seeing a lot of "zero successes." Of course there's also mishaps... cancel successes 1:1 and any excess dumps you to the bottom?

[swaghauler]

Sounds fun -- although I imagine you're going to be seeing a lot of "zero successes." Of course there's also mishaps... cancel successes 1:1 and any excess dumps you to the bottom?

If I run CUF for Initiative, you just roll the die and that's your starting number. I like the fact that it takes into account the combatant's experience (by the die size) but still allows a less experienced combatant to get a higher result than the pros (based on rolls). I would still keep any penalties from wounds, surprise, etc...

[unipus]

Ah the actual die facings. I see. You'd get pretty huge variance, but that could be fun. And you can use the normal game modifiers still.

I don't personally like rolling for initiative each turn, in any game, but I can see how some exceptions for that might be possible. One that I particularly like (but would need to flesh out) would mean re-rolling only when something major happens (reinforcements arrive, somebody dies, etc).

[Raellus]

Perhaps for initiative, simply roll your CUF dice and act on the value. That way higher CUF can roll higher but doesn’t always guarantee going first.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't players most likely be hoping for a lower initiative number (i.e. 1 goes before 10, so a higher roll is a later turn slot)?

-

[swaghauler]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't players most likely be hoping for a lower initiative number (i.e. 1 goes before 10, so a higher roll is a later turn slot)?

-
I'll have to be brief because I am waiting to offload but I would say No. Why?

Under my proposal, you start out high and count down to 1. This is due to the fact that those participants with a higher CUF would roll a bigger die size. This gives them more chances to roll a higher number than those participants rolling a smaller die size... but yet still allows the smaller die user to occasionally out roll the bigger die user and go first. It also allows the GM to impose existing game penalties which REDUCE the die size on the Initiative roll. So you wind up with a situation where the lower die CAN win but it is less likely than the guy with the larger CUF die (representing his greater experience or speed of engagement). So it makes more sense to roll high and count down.

[Tegyrius]

I really am enjoying the discussion here, but could a mod split the alternate initiative systems material into its own thread? It feels like the “all things 4e” topic may need to branch a bit.

- C.

[leonpoi]

Yes. Start High and count down was my thinking also

[Rainbow Six]

I really am enjoying the discussion here, but could a mod split the alternate initiative systems material into its own thread? It feels like the “all things 4e” topic may need to branch a bit.

- C.
Split as requested.

[Mahatatain]

I’m considering the following homebrew V4 Initiative system and I’m keen to get people’s thoughts. Please note that this is a first draft so please be kind:


At the start of the first round everyone rolls their personal CUF die and then modifies the result to generate an initiative score.
The only modifier applied in round 1 is whether they are carrying their backpack or not. If they are carrying their backpack then no modifier is applied. If they aren’t carrying their backpack then a +2 modifier is applied.
The GM then counts down from the highest number, resolving actions until the first round is completed. Ties happen simultaneously.
At the end of the first round (and of every subsequent round) every participant declares whether they are Pressing or Holding. If everyone Holds then a Pause in the combat occurs and PCs and NPCs can perform non-combat actions unless a combat starts again.
If one participant in the combat declares Press then everyone rolls initiative as above but anyone who declared that they were Pressing applies a modifier of +4. Participants who declared Hold do not apply a modifier.
The GM then counts down from the highest number, taking actions until the first round is completed.
NPCs can be grouped together under a single roll for ease of tracking.


For example, Alex (CUF B and wearing a backpack) and Ben (CUF C and wearing a backpack) encounter two enemy soldiers on patrol (both CUF C and not wearing backpacks). Everyone rolls their CUF for round 1:

Alex rolls a 4 and applies no modifier for a total of 4.
Ben rolls a 5 and applies no modifier for a total of 5.
Enemy solider #1 rolls a 6 and applies a modifier of +2 (as he isn’t wearing a backpack) for a total of 8.
Enemy soldier #2 rolls an 8 and applies a modifier of +2 (as he also isn’t wearing a backpack) for a total of 10.
The round is resolved in the order Enemy soldier #2 (10), Enemy soldier #1 (8), Ben (5) and lastly Alex (4).


For ease let’s presume that no one was hit by any fire or was suppressed in round 1 and that Alex and Ben dropped their backpacks during the round.

We now have the declaration phase at the end of round 1. Let’s presume that that Enemy soldier #1 decided to Hold for some reason while the others all decided to Press. The combat continues for another round and the initiative rolls for round 2 would be made. Let’s presume that they are as follows:

Alex rolls a 9 and applies a +2 modifier as he now isn’t wearing a backpack and a +4 modifier as he Pressed for a total of 15
Ben rolls a 6 and applies a +2 modifier as he now isn’t wearing a backpack and a +4 modifier as he Pressed for a total of 12
Enemy soldier #1 rolls an 8 and applies a +2 modifier as he isn’t wearing a backpack for a total of 10
Enemy soldier #2 rolls a 7 and a +2 modifier as he isn’t wearing a backpack and a +4 modifier as he Pressed for a total of 13
The round is resolved in the order Alex (15), Enemy soldier #2 (13), Ben (12), Enemy soldier #1 (10).


How does that sound as an initiative system? Constructive criticism please.

From my perspective, the major negative with this homebrew system is that it involves rolling initiative every round but as it includes the Press/Hold mechanic from the V3 rules, which seems to create an interesting flow in an engagement, I think that it might be worth the extra dice rolling.

I'm also not sure how the V4 rule that allows you to swap initiative with another PC you are in communication with would work with this homebrew system.

[swaghauler]

I’m considering the following homebrew V4 Initiative system and I’m keen to get people’s thoughts. Please note that this is a first draft so please be kind:


At the start of the first round everyone rolls their personal CUF die and then modifies the result to generate an initiative score.
The only modifier applied in round 1 is whether they are carrying their backpack or not. If they are carrying their backpack then no modifier is applied. If they aren’t carrying their backpack then a +2 modifier is applied.
The GM then counts down from the highest number, resolving actions until the first round is completed. Ties happen simultaneously.
At the end of the first round (and of every subsequent round) every participant declares whether they are Pressing or Holding. If everyone Holds then a Pause in the combat occurs and PCs and NPCs can perform non-combat actions unless a combat starts again.
If one participant in the combat declares Press then everyone rolls initiative as above but anyone who declared that they were Pressing applies a modifier of +4. Participants who declared Hold do not apply a modifier.
The GM then counts down from the highest number, taking actions until the first round is completed.
NPCs can be grouped together under a single roll for ease of tracking.


For example, Alex (CUF B and wearing a backpack) and Ben (CUF C and wearing a backpack) encounter two enemy soldiers on patrol (both CUF C and not wearing backpacks). Everyone rolls their CUF for round 1:

Alex rolls a 4 and applies no modifier for a total of 4.
Ben rolls a 5 and applies no modifier for a total of 5.
Enemy solider #1 rolls a 6 and applies a modifier of +2 (as he isn’t wearing a backpack) for a total of 8.
Enemy soldier #2 rolls an 8 and applies a modifier of +2 (as he also isn’t wearing a backpack) for a total of 10.
The round is resolved in the order Enemy soldier #2 (10), Enemy soldier #1 (8), Ben (5) and lastly Alex (4).


For ease let’s presume that no one was hit by any fire or was suppressed in round 1 and that Alex and Ben dropped their backpacks during the round.

We now have the declaration phase at the end of round 1. Let’s presume that that Enemy soldier #1 decided to Hold for some reason while the others all decided to Press. The combat continues for another round and the initiative rolls for round 2 would be made. Let’s presume that they are as follows:

Alex rolls a 9 and applies a +2 modifier as he now isn’t wearing a backpack and a +4 modifier as he Pressed for a total of 15
Ben rolls a 6 and applies a +2 modifier as he now isn’t wearing a backpack and a +4 modifier as he Pressed for a total of 12
Enemy soldier #1 rolls an 8 and applies a +2 modifier as he isn’t wearing a backpack for a total of 10
Enemy soldier #2 rolls a 7 and a +2 modifier as he isn’t wearing a backpack and a +4 modifier as he Pressed for a total of 13
The round is resolved in the order Alex (15), Enemy soldier #2 (13), Ben (12), Enemy soldier #1 (10).


How does that sound as an initiative system? Constructive criticism please.

From my perspective, the major negative with this homebrew system is that it involves rolling initiative every round but as it includes the Press/Hold mechanic from the V3 rules, which seems to create an interesting flow in an engagement, I think that it might be worth the extra dice rolling.

I'm also not sure how the V4 rule that allows you to swap initiative with another PC you are in communication with would work with this homebrew system.
The simple solution to hold or press in your alfa build is that you do not reroll Initiative if EVERYONE chooses the same option from those two choices.

[Mahatatain]

The simple solution to hold or press in your alfa build is that you do not reroll Initiative if EVERYONE chooses the same option from those two choices.

That's an interesting idea.

If someone has dropped their pack then a modifier can just be applied to their original die roll to generate a revised total.

Thanks for this feedback. I will ponder on it further.

[unipus]

I really like this idea in general. I'd have to playtest it to see how it actually feels.

But, conceptually, it achieves two things I really like. One, the press/hold thing allows for the lulls that most real combat consists of where their guys are over there and your guys are over here and as long as you don't poke your head up too much or run around or get spotted doing something stupid probably not much is going to happen for a while. Trying to adjudicate that sort of thing while sticking to the action based system made it almost a real-time endeavor. My solution was usually just like "it looks like they're not eager to make any more moves unless you are," but this makes it a clean, fair mechanic.

The +4 modifier for pushing kinda contradicts it, though, since there's no penalty otherwise. Unless you're hit bad and just need to lay down, why is anyone incentivized to do anything other than push most of the time?

The other thing I like is that it plays nicely with other stuff in the game, but in an even easier fashion. Got the Combat Senses perk (or whatever it's called, I forget)? Roll all initiative checks with advantage. Ambushing? Get advantage. Being ambushed? Take disadvantage. (I'm not sure if I would pile on both of those modifiers on top of each other, maybe only the players' side is modified). I don't love how a successful ambush gives you automatic first action as it is RAW (among other reasons because it's a player-killer), but it should still be powerful.

The other thing I'd say is that, maybe on the first round only, I'd include unit morale. Maybe just a single unit die roll applies to everyone equally. This gives you a whole other tool to play with that can even pass forward from engagement to engagement. It's easier to beat an enemy that is beaten!

[Raellus]

It's tricky. Seems like attempts to add realism also end up adding complexity. The more steps added to the process, the slower combat goes, I imagine. One of good things about 4e rules that I keep hearing is how it speeds up combat, compared to earlier versions.

-

[unipus]

That's true... and a reason why I prefer to avoid "roll for initiative every round" and, really, limit die rolls as much as possible.

I do think there are some worthwhile tradeoffs in something like the system Mahatatain proposed. Getting rid of "dead" rounds of combat being a big one, potentially, which all by itself could compensate for any amount of speed lost to adding the initiative roll.

I play online, so initiative is automatic, which is hard to beat... but with a little work it could be automatic using something like this system, too.

[Tegyrius]

It's tricky. Seems like attempts to add realism also end up adding complexity. The more steps added to the process, the slower combat goes, I imagine. One of good things about 4e rules that I keep hearing is how it speeds up combat, compared to earlier versions.

Yes, but only if you're playing in real time. Play-by-post still takes a couple of months per combat scene. ;)

- C.

[Raellus]

Yes, but only if you're playing in real time. Play-by-post still takes a couple of months per combat scene. ;)

That is a fair point. As a PbP Ref, though, I definitely appreciate fewer rolls. With v2.2, a lot of times, it took longer to roll results than write the narrative descriptions of same.

About 4e's system, as-written, has anyone had a bad experience with the optional rule by which a group of enemy draw one initiative card as a collective, and all act on the same initiative turn? It strikes me that using that streamlining feature could potentially give an enemy force a huge tactical advantage.

For example, imagine a 6 v 6 engagement. Let's say one of the six PCs draws the one card, and then the OPFOR draws the two. That means the bad guys get six turns before the PCs get a second one. That seems game breaking to me. Am I missing something?

-

[Mahatatain]

I really like this idea in general. I'd have to playtest it to see how it actually feels.

But, conceptually, it achieves two things I really like. One, the press/hold thing allows for the lulls that most real combat consists of where their guys are over there and your guys are over here and as long as you don't poke your head up too much or run around or get spotted doing something stupid probably not much is going to happen for a while. Trying to adjudicate that sort of thing while sticking to the action based system made it almost a real-time endeavor. My solution was usually just like "it looks like they're not eager to make any more moves unless you are," but this makes it a clean, fair mechanic.

The +4 modifier for pushing kinda contradicts it, though, since there's no penalty otherwise. Unless you're hit bad and just need to lay down, why is anyone incentivized to do anything other than push most of the time?

Thanks for the input.

The modifier for Pressing was included based on the idea that if you Hold you are hesitating slightly and therefore not being as aggressively in combat. Initially, I had a negative modifier to the Initiative total for those participants declaring Hold but that potentially ends up with a negative initiative total so, for easy-to-understand maths, I flipped it around and made the modifier a positive one for declaring Press.

Does the concept of someone Pressing generally acting earlier in the combat round than someone Holding make sense though? What do people think?


The other thing I'd say is that, maybe on the first round only, I'd include unit morale. Maybe just a single unit die roll applies to everyone equally. This gives you a whole other tool to play with that can even pass forward from engagement to engagement. It's easier to beat an enemy that is beaten!
That’s an interesting suggestion. I’ll have a think about that. Thanks for this.

It's tricky. Seems like attempts to add realism also end up adding complexity. The more steps added to the process, the slower combat goes, I imagine. One of good things about 4e rules that I keep hearing is how it speeds up combat, compared to earlier versions.
Slowing down combat rounds by rolling initiative each round is certainly the main negative of this homebrew system.

This suggestion may well be a good solution to that though:
The simple solution to hold or press in your alfa build is that you do not reroll Initiative if EVERYONE chooses the same option from those two choices.
If everyone declares Hold then there is a Pause in the combat so you would only keep the latest set of initiative rolls if everyone declares Press. It’s a good idea though.

Yes, but only if you're playing in real time. Play-by-post still takes a couple of months per combat scene. ;)
Initiative tends to get ignored in PbP games in my experience as waiting for players to post in initiative order just delays the game further. This system might be slightly better for PbP games than the original rules (as it includes the Press/Hold mechanic) but I doubt it.

I think that the major issue with the 4E rules to resolve for PbP games is the Push mechanic for skill checks. That’s probably best discussed in the 4E rules thread though.


About 4e's system, as-written, has anyone had a bad experience with the optional rule by which a group of enemy draw one initiative card as a collective, and all act on the same initiative turn? It strikes me that using that streamlining feature could potentially give an enemy force a huge tactical advantage.

For example, imagine a 6 v 6 engagement. Let's say one of the six PCs draws the one card, and then the OPFOR draws the two. That means the bad guys get six turns before the PCs get a second one. That seems game breaking to me. Am I missing something?

I think that you’ve identified a potential issue with initiative system. I haven’t had an experience yet where the enemy get the drop on the PCs but I have had an encounter where the PCs had a surprise round and it was a slaughter. That’s probably realistic but it could potentially be a TPK very easily if the enemy either achieve complete surprise or act first as a block at the start of the combat round. Even with the 4E initiative system as written though I would break the enemy up into several groups and give them each their own initiative card to try to break things up. There are only 10 initiative cards though so the enemy can only be broken down into groups so far.

[swaghauler]

Thanks for the input.

The modifier for Pressing was included based on the idea that if you Hold you are hesitating slightly and therefore not being as aggressively in combat. Initially, I had a negative modifier to the Initiative total for those participants declaring Hold but that potentially ends up with a negative initiative total so, for easy-to-understand maths, I flipped it around and made the modifier a positive one for declaring Press.

Does the concept of someone Pressing generally acting earlier in the combat round than someone Holding make sense though? What do people think?



I think the holds should be LIGHTLY penalized because they are basically hesitating (for whatever reason) in the heat of the moment. I might have the people declaring "HOLD" roll initiative with a smaller die to emulate that.

[swaghauler]

I think that you’ve identified a potential issue with initiative system. I haven’t had an experience yet where the enemy get the drop on the PCs but I have had an encounter where the PCs had a surprise round and it was a slaughter. That’s probably realistic but it could potentially be a TPK very easily if the enemy either achieve complete surprise or act first as a block at the start of the combat round. Even with the 4E initiative system as written though I would break the enemy up into several groups and give them each their own initiative card to try to break things up. There are only 10 initiative cards though so the enemy can only be broken down into groups so far.

This was a BIG problem with the 6 step Initiative Phases in Twilight V2.2. The guy with the Initiative of 6 would go first and fire 5 bursts (for a 5-second round) and that was the end of the fight.

I transitioned to 6-second rounds and made each Phase basically a "mini-round." I then had everyone roll a 1D6 and add that to their Initiative then divide by 2 (rounding up). So a 7 Initiative (the highest RAW score) can begin to act from Phase 7 (high) down to Phase 4 (low). A 1 Initiative can act from Phase 4 (high) down to Phase 1 (low).

The mini-Round...

Each Phase represents 1 SECOND OF TIME, so I allow ONE ATTACK per Phase. This means that 7 Initiative shooter is going to fire SEVEN TIMES in 6 seconds, BUT he is going to fire at ONLY ONE TARGET, OR FIRE A SINGLE BURST PER PHASE. That means the 7 Initiative shooter will most likely be trading shots with slower combatants throughout the ROUND. Therefore, one must pick one's targets carefully, since ALL ACTIONS IN A SINGLE PHASE ARE SIMULTANEOUS. That means two shooters can kill each other in a single phase.

Movement is done the same way. Sprinting is 8m per Phase/Second. Running is 6m per Phase/Second. Trotting is 4m per Phase/Second, Walking is 2m per Phase/Second, and Crawling is 1m per Phase/Second.

Since Phases are 1 fixed second. Any action can be counted out in 1-second intervals and performed in that many Phases. Clear a Jam? 2 1-second phases. Drawing? 1 second/phase. It is easy and pretty fast to use.

[unipus]

I like phased actions like that in concept. In practice? Not so much.

@Raellus -- you're not entirely wrong with your question about initiative, but your example doesn't seem to play. In this case, the PC has drawn the worst card. It doesn't matter whether the NPCs act all on the same initiative, or individually, they're all going to go before him anyway.

(personally, I recommend grouping NPCs in no more than fireteam size, and usually no more than pairs, and at the price/convenience that they all move and fight in the same hex unless numbers are whittled down so much that I decide to split them)


I think that you’ve identified a potential issue with initiative system. I haven’t had an experience yet where the enemy get the drop on the PCs but I have had an encounter where the PCs had a surprise round and it was a slaughter. That’s probably realistic but it could potentially be a TPK very easily if the enemy either achieve complete surprise or act first as a block at the start of the combat round.

I actually don't think it's all that realistic. I've been a part of exercises involving ambushes. Even a perfect ambush at close range has a lot of potential to work out sub-optimally. One snapping twig or one person opening fire a second before everyone else means that some targets will escape the kill zone or be able to react while others will not. And this is the norm, not the exception (unless you're part of Ghost Recon).

That's why I said I liked that aspect of your system, which could instead just grant advantage/disadvantage on initiative rolls. An ambusher has a much better chance of acting first, but it's not guaranteed. And a very experienced target of an ambush might have their spidey sense go off just that half second before it all goes to shit...

[unipus]

My question remains in this Press/Hold system (I'll buy a new copy of 2013! I cannot find it anywhere and I'd like to support the lads!) though...

What advantage is there ever to Holding? Essentially you've got a prisoner's dilemma except why would I ever not choose Push?

[Raellus]

@Raellus -- your example doesn't seem to play. In this case, the PC has drawn the worst card. It doesn't matter whether the NPCs act all on the same initiative, or individually, they're all going to go before him anyway.

How is the 1 card the worst card? On p. 54 of the Player Manual:

Participants act in order from lowest to highest number, beginning with card #1, until everyone has taken their turn.

For example, imagine a 6 v 6 engagement. Let's say one of the six PCs draws the one card, and then the OPFOR draws the two. That means the bad guys get six turns before the PCs get a second one. That seems game breaking to me. Am I missing something?

So Player One, who drew the #1 card, goes first. The six OPFOR, who collectively drew the 2, go next. Then the remaining five PCs receive their turns.

Maybe my wording was unclear, or perhaps you were referring to one of the proffered house rules, where the high number goes first?

-

[Ursus Maior]

About 4e's system, as-written, has anyone had a bad experience with the optional rule by which a group of enemy draw one initiative card as a collective, and all act on the same initiative turn? It strikes me that using that streamlining feature could potentially give an enemy force a huge tactical advantage.

Am I missing something?
From experience in other systems that use NPC group initiatives, my opinion is that this rule on NPC Initiative (p. 55) works best, if you also you the optional rule on grouping actions, especially attacks.

Rules corresponding with this idea are Managing NPCs (p. 54), NPC Group Actions (p. 57), NPC Movement (p. 58), NPC Melee Attacks (p. 63), NPC Ranged Attacks (p. 66) and NPC Ammo Dice and Suppression and NPCs (p. 67) plus Explosions & NPCs (p. 68). This allows for combined movement, but also bundles attacks and ammo consumption. Also, remember that per p. 47 NPCs and Skills, NPCs should not push rolls regularly, unless they're key NPCs in important situations.

Combined attacks ease the administrative burden on the referee, allowing for only one roll to be made, but with a +1 per per additional NPC involved (up to a maximum +3), as they use the "helping" rule. Ammunition is not tracked, but one or more 1s rolled on an ammo dice results in empty magazines after the attack, making a reload action necessary; reloading always counts as a slow action for NPCs under this rule.

Key NPCs are advised to be handled separately, however, giving them a special status. I would also recommend to follow this idea.

In essence, this makes it possible for groups of up to four NPCs in one hex to be grouped together, while each NPC still adds something to the whole. An infantry squad (nine soldiers) could e. g. then be grouped into two rifle teams of up to four NPCs and a single special weapons user, such as a light machine gun operator, an anti-tank specialist or a grenade launcher operator. Only three roles would be made for those three "groups".

Other options include special weapons to be employed with more support, e. g. two light machine-gun teams of two persons, one anti-tank team of two persons and three riflemen for only four rolls needed.

[unipus]

How is the 1 card the worst card? On p. 54 of the Player Manual:

Participants act in order from lowest to highest number, beginning with card #1, until everyone has taken their turn.



So Player One, who drew the #1 card, goes first. The six OPFOR, who collectively drew the 2, go next. Then the remaining five PCs receive their turns.

Maybe my wording was unclear, or perhaps you were referring to one of the proffered house rules, where the high number goes first?

-

I think I was simply confused, as I haven't used the book's initiative system in quite a long time. Sorry!

However, I do agree with everything Ursus posted... some of these optional rules probably do not work best unless you're using them with other optional rules, and I would never group more than 4 NPCs (even that is a lot... a +3 to an attack is very significant in the harm it can cause). But that question also comes down to how many NPCs there are to begin with. If there's only 6 in total then I'd probably run them as individuals, or pairs at the most. If there's 20... then yeah maybe some fireteams, and the PCs deserve what they get for trying to fight 20 guys at once. :P

[Raellus]

Here's another idea for a simple mod to 4e initiative rules. Start by drawing initiative, as described in the rules.

After the draw, when an enemy turn immediately precedes that of a PC (i.e. the enemy would act right before the PC in the turn order), the PC can choose to make a CUF roll v said enemy's CUF. If the PC wins the roll, he/she can exchange places with the enemy (i.e. swap turns, essentially). If not, there's no change to the drawn initiative turn order. This process only occurs once, immediately after drawing initiative. PCs may only attempt one swap, if the afore mentioned conditions apply. Any resulting changes to turn order last throughout the remainder of the combat encounter.

This rule only applies to PCs. Enemy NPCs do not get an opportunity to swap with PCs whose drawn initiative places them earlier in the turn queue.

Example:

Enemy A draws a 2; Ruiz draws a 5; Teller draws a 7; Enemy B draws the 10.

Ruiz can roll CUF v Enemy A. If Ruiz wins the roll, she can swap initiative/turn order with Enemy A. Ruiz chooses to roll CUF, and wins. She opts to swap with Enemy A and now acts before same.

Since Teller's turn did not initially follow Enemy A, he can not roll CUF for a chance to swap with same. He still acts after Enemy A. Enemy B does not get an opportunity to swap turn order with Teller.

---

This simple system will allow CUF to have some impact on turn order, but not too much. It could improve the tactical situation somewhat for the PCs, but not for the OPFOR. That doesn't seem game-breaking to me. It also doesn't add too many steps to the process, so it shouldn't significantly slow down combat.

Is that clear? What do y'all think?

-

[unipus]

It's very straightforward and clear (in this example, more on that below though).

It's not my cup of tea because (a) I don't really like the default initiative system anyway and (b) the CUF roll isn't actually a choice. There's no downside so there's no reason you wouldn't roll it every single time.

My big question about the simplicity is what do you do when you have 5 PCs, and 5 NPCs, and their initiative is scattered all over the place?

Say: NPC, PC, PC, NPC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC, PC

[swaghauler]

My question remains in this Press/Hold system (I'll buy a new copy of 2013! I cannot find it anywhere and I'd like to support the lads!) though...

What advantage is there ever to Holding? Essentially you've got a prisoner's dilemma except why would I ever not choose Push?

In TW2K13's system, HOLD is often a forced option. A Suppression Attack is when the enemy shoots at you in TW2K13 with the full intention of suppressing you. They do a skill check and success will result in suppression. This will FORCE you to HOLD on the next round. Certain wounds or psychological injuries or Disadvantages will also force a HOLD under certain conditions (ie an animal that's afraid of fire encountering it). I also allowed INTIMIDATION ATTACKS to force a HOLD (psychological Warfare).

Sometimes it's a tactical choice. For instance, you are hiding from a group of attackers and you knife the only guy who detected you. The HOLD option might be a good choice to avoid detection by additional attackers.

[leonpoi]

I love the idea, I just don't know how you bring it in in a mechanical sense in a way that makes sense and flows well.

I feel that you almost want some time of counter or "timer" that is representing loss of group cohesion and short-term morale over time during a battle and as this starts going down then things start to become harder etc ("attrition"). It would happen on both sides and lead to a situation where the sides want to HOLD and regain and then the side that is losing when HOLDing is happening simply says - stuff this - we're out of here, and retreats or at least re-positions.

[edit] - specifically for holding I think I need to answer 1) why would a side want to hold? What's the benefit? 2) does a side need to hold or is it individuals that hold? 3) Why would a side not want to hold? What is the downside of holding?

With these I could start getting my head around what the intention is and then what the best way to implement might be.

An easy way could be to link it to CUF team morale - at some point unit cohesion and communication has suffered enough that everyone just needs to reground and work out wtf to do next?? Also situations where seriously wounded people need to be dealt with. I don't know, as an armchair soldier I'm not in the best place to judge here. I guess you do see the equivalent in team (ball) sports where you have many HOLDs between plays.

[Raellus]

It's not my cup of tea because... the CUF roll isn't actually a choice. There's no downside so there's no reason you wouldn't roll it every single time.

I see your point and I think in most cases you're right, but there may be instances where players want a chance to suss out enemy intentions before acting. For example, maybe the engagement starts at long range, and the PCs want to let the enemy get closer before engaging. Or the PCs are hoping to pull off a flanking move but they want to figure out where the enemy MGs are first.

My big question about the simplicity is what do you do when you have 5 PCs, and 5 NPCs, and their initiative is scattered all over the place?

Say: NPC 1, PC A, PC B, NPC 2, PC C, NPC 3, NPC 4, PC D, NPC 5, PC E

In this case, only four of the five PCs, and four of the five NPCs would roll against each other. A v 1, C v 2, D v 4, and E v 5. Yeah, it would add a minute or two to the turn to make the opposing CUF rolls, but I think most players would find the slight delay worth it for the chance to act before an enemy NPC.

I had a hard time phrasing this in the OP, but to clarify (I hope), one would only roll v an adjacent enemy in the queue. So, in this case, D only rolls against 4, not 4 and 3. And, again, enemy NPCs can't initiate a roll against a PC ahead of them in the queue. It's a PC only perk.

-

[Mahatatain]

Movement is done the same way. Sprinting is 8m per Phase/Second. Running is 6m per Phase/Second. Trotting is 4m per Phase/Second, Walking is 2m per Phase/Second, and Crawling is 1m per Phase/Second.

This isn't to do with initiative but this struck me as odd, presuming that I'm reading your numbers correctly. I'm sure that you're aware of this but a Sprinting distance of 8m per second works out as sprinting 100m in 12.5 seconds. That's a pretty good pace for someone in running gear and wearing spikes, let alone someone loaded down with combat gear and wearing boots.

[swaghauler]

This isn't to do with initiative but this struck me as odd, presuming that I'm reading your numbers correctly. I'm sure that you're aware of this but a Sprinting distance of 8m per second works out as sprinting 100m in 12.5 seconds. That's a pretty good pace for someone in running gear and wearing spikes, let alone someone loaded down with combat gear and wearing boots.

The 8m sprint is for an unencumbered runner. This is 80% of the fastest olympiad. You cannot sprint if you are carrying more than 1/2 STR (ru).

[Tegyrius]

I've been chewing on this and my inclination is to do away with the card system entirely and adapt the system from Five Parsecs From Home (which, admittedly, is one of my shiny new toys, and thus biases me more favorably toward it). Here's an untested alpha draft:

Each combat round has three initiative phases. In order, these are Quick, Enemy, and Slow.

At the beginning of every combat round, each PC and allied NPC makes a Coolness Under Fire check (adding unit morale if within LOS or voice/radio contact of an ally). This check receives a -1 penalty if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF A and a +1 bonus if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF D. The Combat Awareness specialty's effect becomes a +1 bonus to initiative.


Quick phase: every PC/ally who succeeded with the CUF check

Enemy phase: every opponent

Slow phase: every PC/ally who failed the CUF check


In each phase, characters may act in any order.

I've been running with this house rule since I started my current campaign (1e timeline, 4e rules) in January. We're currently 12 sessions and about 8 combats into it and it seems to be working fairly well. The final version is a bit more streamlined - I dropped the modifiers for enemy CUF:

At the beginning of each round, each player rolls Coolness Under Fire (adding Unit Morale if the PC is within voice or visual contact of a teammate). With success, they act in the fast phase, before all NPCs. With failure, they act in the slow phase, after all NPCs. Characters in each phase may act in any sequence and players may (briefly) discuss tactics and order of operations before declaring actions.

My observation in play is that this incentivizes keeping the team close (no lone-wolfing), rewards both individual proficiency (Coolness Under Fire) and team cohesion (Unit Morale), and allows the sort of coordinated action that we see in both documentary and cinematic examinations of small unit tactics.

- C.

[kcdusk]

I
My observation in play is that this incentivizes keeping the team close (no lone-wolfing), rewards both individual proficiency (Coolness Under Fire) and team cohesion (Unit Morale), and allows the sort of coordinated action that we see in both documentary and cinematic examinations of small unit tactics.

- C.

Agreed.

I have some observations on initiative coming up soon, from my own play experience.

[Tegyrius]

I should note that in our last combat scene, two PCs were detached for sniping and recon. They subsequently separated from one another before combat began. The PCs have no radios and I ruled that the two who'd gone solo were effectively out of voice communication with one another. The difference between using only CUF for initiative and using CUF + Unit Morale was starkly illuminated.

As an additional benefit, this system still works in Forge/Foundry (my group's virtual tabletop of choice) with no software tweaks.

No one has taken Combat Awareness, but the easiest way to integrate it with this system seems to be a flat +1 bonus to initiative checks, in keeping with the functionality of most other specialties.

- C.