Long time reader, first time poster but I had a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

This approach to initiative seems like it might lead to a lot of dice rolling, passing and sharing while everyone rolls initiative.  Of course you could always say that Agility -2 is your initiative.  Quick and no rolling.

Regarding the "sharing" of initiative spots.  As the GM you could always say that only party members in close range (or in contact range) could swap their turns.  In this instance the Wood Elf Hunter who is hanging back and firing into the enemies couldn't allow the dwarf to go at 4 instead of 2, but if the Hunter was standing right behind the dwarf he could.

I personally like the idea of players being able to talk and switch, seems like it would encourage playing as a party.  Of course I can do the same with the NPC's/monsters as well.  Smart NPC's can react to what the PC's are doing, and the fast reacting leader can direct his slow Trolls to go first also.

And off topic but while I am talking:  I've been enjoying RPG's since Basic D&D in the boxed set first came out.  Although I have never played Warhammer Fantasy I am very interested in the way FFG is developing this product.  It seems like a fresh take on things to me and I most certainly will be buying it and trying it out with my gaming group (mix of old and new).  I'm sorry Jay and his crew seem to be taking a beating on something that I think they have spent a lot of time and thought on.  Just though they might want to hear some encouraging words.  Back to lurking and waiting for 3rd edition to be available.

mac40k said:

Descent comes with the same kind of action counter and I must say my group does not use them much, even playing with 4 Heroes (in Descent they are called heroes, not in WFRP) and 8-10 monsters, because it's very easy to remember who acted already... Still it is good to have the tokens, or any of the ideas you indicate, if people find they tend to forget who acted already.

i think you guys are missing something, players only haggle about when to go if they have THE SAME INITIATIVE, so at best you will have 2 players haglling not the whole bunch

I have to admit I'm not thrilled or excited about the change to initiative. I am on the fence on whether it is a good change, or not, and I think only playing it will really tell how well it works.
A few thoughts to help consolidate my thoughts about it --

Pro:
- Progress tracker. A bonus. Most GMs already had a means of keeping track of the initiative order, whether it was writing it down on a piece of paper or using a stack of index cards with names on them. The progress tracker is a nice, easy, visual representation of this.
- "For combat encounters, Agility is used for initiative checks. For social encounters, Fellowship is used for initiative checks." Social Encounters? I like the idea of this, but cannot think of what a Social Encounter could possibly consist of.
- It encourages group tactics and working together. The group has to decide as a whole who goes in which slot.
- It is dynamic. Characters don't go in the same order every turn, so each turn can be 'new and fresh' for different players.
- Alleviates situations where conditions force an order to actions. For example, a narrow corridor or tunnel where the dwarf (being the most armored) goes first. Others cant move past the dwarf, so they have to wait for him to move before they can act.

Con:
- Possible loss of group focus. Players *might* get tired of deciding every turn who goes when. Also, despite the tension meter, it is possible for group arguments to erupt over the order, and causing friction in the group.
- Slower and more complicated. For all the other aspects of the game seeming to try to speed the game up, this will slow combat down as every turn the players (and the GM) will need to decide the order they are acting in.
- A mentioned by others, it doesn't make sense roleplaying wise. It's one thing to say the fast elf shouts a warning to the slow dwarf ... it's another thing to let the dwarf that rolled a 0 for init to go before everyone else, perhaps every turn.

First, I'd like to know what consists of Social Encounters? Jay, can you provide an example without spoiling anything? (PLEASE!) I think this would be a great selling point if it is true and is something that is likely to occur.

I don't see how some people still think this in any way relates to a boardgame more than any other RPG. So you get tokens to visually show how many rounds your Bless spell lasts, or tokens for how many rounds you are blinded, etc. Lots of GMs already use something similar (poker chips, small gem-rocks, etc) to record/keep track of various things. FFG just gives the GMs (and players) nice, solid quality tokens to use instead of home-made stuff.

Overall, I think I'll have to play a few combats to see if I (and my group) like this new method or not.

Farin said:

Not true Farin.  Read the article again.  Every round the group decides which Player Initiviate slot each character will go in (actually, I think it's even as they come up to act, not at the start of the round).  So, no, the whole group 'haggles' (decides) over who is going to act on which player initivative spot, not just two with the same initiative.

macd21 said:

Players would still have to think about who will act first.  My suggestion only differentiates between groups, but its still up to each group to decide who will act first among them.  The idea is to cut down on a lot of needless die rolling.

I would argue that the party waiting for a slower character to act adds more to the tension than allowing that character to act whenever they wish regardless of their Agility.  Imagine the party waiting for the Wizard to cast an Area Effect spell on their enemies, but the Wizard is slow and can't act until the end of the round.  In 3e its no longer a problem because now the party Elf can magically make the Wizard fast enough to get that spell off much earlier.  Oddly though, the usually fast moving Elf is mysteriously slowed by his magical ability to speed up others.  No, the only tension I see this adding to the game is between players arguing and that to me is a bad thing.

As for "all-round more fun" that is very subjective as I don't find having the players constantly bickering about who is going to act when adds anything to the enjoyment of the group.  Not to mention I can already foresee dropping the fast 'n furious combat narrative in order to give the players time to strategize (i.e. meta-game) in ways that should not be happening during combat, but should have been thought of and discussed beforehand.  I'm sure one of the Designer Diary's mentioned a difference between Narrative Time and Combat Time.

Redcrow said:

If you view it as the Elf magically making the others faster, then it's not going to work for you.  However, if you consider that in combat people don't take turns and that there's lots of simultaneous action then you might get something like this...

The wizard begins to cast his spell, reciting the words of the mystical incantation.  Focused on his craft he is vulnerable to attack and sensing an opportunity two of the Goblins clamber across the table to reach him.  Sensing the danger the Elf throws himself infront of the Goblins, thrusting a chair infront of him, forcing them to back off and buying the Wizard time to finish his spell.

The Elf's quick reactions have allowed the Wizard to perform his primary action first.  One thing I did note was that rounds weren't mentioned as being linked to a specific time frame (i.e. 10 seconds) - if this is the case rounds can be as involved as you like.

Obviously, Redcrow, if you don't like it, you don't like it.  That's fair enough.  You've pointed out a way of keeping with fixed initiative which is simple and effective and if after trying this system I find it to fiddly or full of bickering, believe me I'll be joining you.

I have to somewhat agree with Redcrow that the reasoning behind it doesn't seem sound.

Here's a possible suggestion to try to compromise between the two.  Allow a higher initiative player to (once at the start of combat) reduce their initiative by one to increase another (lower initiative) player's initiative by one.  This allows a slight shifting of initiative, without totally disrupting the order.  You could allow it every round, I suppose, but that would mean keeping track of initial initiative and current initiative, so a bit more headache.

I don't know. As I said, despite not 'feeling' story-wise like a reasonable thing, game mechanics-wise it could work the way it's written.  It will just take some playtesting for each GM/group I think to know if it will work for them.  If a group is cohesive and works together, it shouldn't be a problem.  If your group tends to be a bit fractious ... well, it could be a headache.

Redcrow said:

One of the main reasons I like the change to the initiative as we know it is that I never liked initiative being based almost exclusively in Agility... of course your reflexes have a lot to say how quickly you react to something, but in a real situation your intuition (Willpower) and how quick you analyse your situation (Intelligence) should also play a role... Also, things in the field of battle can influence a lot your reaction, and good leaders can position and direct other people to better react to threats... so I think, from in-game point of view, that the system has some sense in it (at least as much as having a completely fixed initiative order, as if all creatures were some kind of perfectly working engine...).

 Now, I also doubt there would be a lot of arguing in the group; don't confuse arguing with deciding among the players... If any of you has played Descent, you'll know that, in a turn, players will decide in which order each Hero (remember, Heroes in Descent; characters in WFRP...) will act and I have, to date, never seen players arguing strongly (and believe me I've played Descent a lot)...sometimes it takes them a bit more time to react than normal and in Descent what I do is gain some Threat if they take too much time to decide... similar to adding stress here.

So, what I see is that they have improved and generalized the simple system used in Descent (which works very well) so that they can apply it to a roleplaying system... I'll use the proposed initiative system for sure (the only change I might do is considering Initiative a skill based in Agility, Intelligence and Willpower instead of only Agility).

Is the theory behind the new system to get away from writing things down? I can't help but notice that all of these tokens and trackers and stuff takes the place of writing things down.

Is that the case? 

I think the theory behind the tokens is for easy visual representation.

You've got tokens and cards, etc so at a glance you can see what you need to know, rather than consulting notes or looking things up in the books, or trying to remember how many rounds a spell has left.

Dustin said:

Well, that would certainly help with the fact all the monster and hero token markers for the initiative meter look the same => everyone has to be able to act on each one because they can't be differentiated

dvang said:

i stand currected.......and i think ill house rule it.....if player get the same they will fight....but the initiative order is the order that stands......

cogollo said:

I would agree with this.  Unfortunately WFRP 3e only takes Agility into consideration which is the crux of my problem with it.  WFRP has just never had the kind of granularity that you describe.  My thought behind only having the PC with the highest Agility roll was really aimed at those who like the more abstract nature of initiative described in the Designer Diary and to cut down on needless excess die rolls which to me seem a bit superfluous in light of this new mechanic. 

If you are willing to accept that level of abstraction, why not just go the extra step and leave it at a single die roll for each side. 

Bertolac said:

I would consider that an action on the Elfs part and it doesn't explain how this would work any better than the old system where everyone moves on their own turn.  The fast Elf acts first and intercepts the Goblins thus allowing the slower Wizard more time to finish their spell. 

The new system would work more like this... The fast Elf slows down and the slower Wizard speeds up casting their spell... and then the Goblins attack and then the Elf acts. 

Maybe next we'll have everyone roll for their action, but then have the players haggle over which character should get the highest roll based on need rather than individual ability.  If its ok for initiative, why not everything else in combat.  The normally expert Troll Slayer could make a feint at the Ogre thus leaving an opening for the less skilled Priest to attack the creatures flank, but in doing so the Troll Slayer has a lower chance to hit himself.