Topic: [Arms Law] Question about combat example page 35

[ioticus]

On the example of combat on page 35 of Arms Law it says the Greater Orc loses its initiative to Athlon when it changes its action.  I see no support for this in the rules, unless I missed it.  Wouldn't the Orc only be penalized 10% in its action and keep the same initiative?

[Erik Sharma]

The round of sequences is that you go through the initiative order and let everyone make 1 action. Once that is done you start over again and let the ones with remaining % make their second action and repeat this process until no one has any percentage left.

So the Greater Orc takes 10% Change Action that and have to wait until his next turn in the initiative sequence until he can make his new action.

[ioticus]

Where does it say canceling an action is considered an action?

[pastaav]

Where does it say canceling an action is considered an action?

Consider the meaning of
Canceiling an action
and
Replaceing an action

The idea that you should keep your place in the initiative sequence when you cancel might not be the most natural evaluation of the meaning if you ask me.

[ioticus]

In the example the Orc cancels his action and chooses another target.  Where in the rules is there a distinction made between cancelling an action and replacing an action?  Under cancelling an action it just says you declare another action and lose 10% initiative.  It doesn't say he loses any initiative.

[Cory Magel]

You'll never logically win the argument that cancelling your action does not result in changing your action.  Even if you cancelled your action, then repeated the same cancelled action (therefore claiming you did not replace your action) you are obviously taking the action after the one you cancelled... and therefore it occurs later and logically you will have lost a percentage of your action and initiative.

In the case of the example, changing targets is obviously changing your action and starting a new one.  If this were not the case there would be no point in declaring targets in the first place.

[ioticus]

If the extra 10% lost would result in going to another step in the sequence, like if he went from a short (45%) to a long action (55%), then I could see how he would go after Athlon if Athlon was acting in the short step.  But that is not the case here since they are both in the long action step.  Again, how do you infer from the rules that he loses initiative?

[Erik Sharma]

In the example the Orc cancels his action and chooses another target.  Where in the rules is there a distinction made between cancelling an action and replacing an action?  Under cancelling an action it just says you declare another action and lose 10% initiative.  It doesn't say he loses any initiative.

Well first of all the percentage doesn't have anything to do with initiative except if it falls under Short or Long Actions.

And yes it doesn't say anywhere that he doesn't loose his turn in the round. But you have to take into consideration on how the rest of the rules work. Fact is that anything that cost % of activity is an action, so it's safe to assume that since it does cost activity it is an action as anything else! The idea is that you spend 10% to reevaluate the situation and decide what to do instead. But on how you describe it you want it to work as an Simultaneous Action and that is all up to the GM decision on how it would work and cost in activity.

Either way some logic have to be applied. We are just stating how the rules are written and intended. You can of course do whatever you please and suits your group since it's your game. We all do that.