Jedi Counseling 98

By Gary M. Sarli

In this installment of "Jedi Counseling," Gary M. Sarli answers your rules questions about the Star Wars Miniatures Gameand the Star Wars Roleplaying Game. If you have a question for the counselor, send it in through the link at the end of this column, and then check back here for the official answer!

Star Wars Roleplaying Game Questions

Q: When do you roll for initiative, exactly? Do you roll as soon as two opposing groups see each other? When a character makes a hostile action? Or what?

A: Short answer: You roll for initiative when the Gamemaster calls for it. He can call for it in either of the two situations described above, or any other time that he sees fit. (Some Gamemasters have been known to call for initiative and then have nothing happen, just to keep the players on their toes -- and a little paranoid.)

Long answer: Initiative matters only when the specific sequence of actions becomes important. For example, you would almost never need to roll for initiative if the PCs were just talking to an NPC. It would be easier to simply roleplay the interaction, allowing events to unfold in real time (or close to it).

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, so there might be a time when the GM wants the PCs to talk in turn. For example, during a tense stand-off or negotiation, something just shy of becoming a real fight, it's important to know who says what, and when. If a socially inept soldier wins initiative, for example, should he delay his action to let the noble do the talking? Or should he make a decision about what to say (or do) himself, rather than risk letting his opponent gain the upper hand?

Keep in mind that calling for initiative is virtually the same as saying, "You're being attacked." That's not what it really means, of course, but many players would rightfully interpret it that way. Thus, initiative tends to put the players into a combat mindset right off the bat, so you shouldn't call for it unless you intend for a fight to break out. Consider the difference between saying, "You see a stormtrooper standing guard; roll for initiative," and saying, "You see a stormtrooper standing guard; what do you do?" The first gives the impression that a fight has already started, but the second gives the impression of more possibilities: Maybe the PCs can talk, sneak, or lie their way past him.

That said, the Gamemaster is entitled to call for initiative as a way of making the PCs re-evaluate threats (and possibly hesitate at the wrong time). Imagine a party of Rebel commandos trying to make their way back to a friendly unit. The Gamemaster calls for a Spot check, and then says, "You notice some movement in the bushes ahead; roll for initiative." The PCs take the bait and open fire before discovering that the movement came from friendly troops sent to rescue them. This might teach the PCs to look before they leap, and it's a justifiable way of simulating the fog of war and the tension of finding your way through enemy lines. In real life, tragic friendly fire incidents do occur in similar situations.

Nevertheless, this technique should be used very sparingly. After all, the GM is manipulating the players' expectations to put them in a bad position. It might be fine once in a while, but the consequences of the first few incidents should not be irreparable. That way, the players can learn from their mistakes by seeing how close they came to disaster.

In the end, the best time to roll for initiative is when a PC declares a hostile action, or when an NPC makes a clear hostile action (which should be prompted in some way by the PCs, even if it's as simple as spotting the characters trying to sneak by).

Q: Regarding initiative, to what extent should the GM let the players coordinate their actions? For example, if they come up to a door, can they just declare that character A is going first, character B is going next, and character C will bring up the rear?

A: Sure, that's possible, but the PCs are technically using the delay action so they all end up in the right sequence. As long as no one on the other side of the door is aware of them (and taking steps to fight or interrupt them), it won't matter much.

For example, a party might come to a door and decide to breach it, toss in a stun grenade, and then have two soldiers move up and ready an action to shoot anyone inside who tries to make a counterattack. Each PC rolls for initiative, and the results are 16, 15, 11, and 8. Effectively, all the PCs will use the lowest initiative result (8) because they're delaying their actions until that initiative count so they occur in rapid succession. (They take their actions in whatever order desired, of course.)

The situation becomes more complicated if there are enemies on the other side who are also delaying their actions. In this case:

• PC #1 breaches the door at initiative count 8.
• If any enemies have a higher Initiative bonus than PC #2, they can act before he can throw his grenade. If not, the stun grenade detonates in the room.
• If any enemies have a higher Initiative bonus than PC #3, they can act next. Otherwise, PC #3 takes a 2-meter step into the room and readies an action to shoot the first person who makes a hostile move. (The same goes for PC #4, who is doing the same thing as PC #3.)
• If none of the enemies had a higher initiative count, none of them get to act until after the PCs have completed their "room breach" maneuver. That's one of the most overlooked benefits of Improved Initiative.

Of course, if the enemies on the other side have readied actions, they can interrupt the actions of the PCs regardless of their Initiative bonuses. For example, if NPC #1 had a readied action to shoot the first hostile who comes through the door, he'd interrupt PC #3's action after PC #3 makes his 2-meter step but before declaring his readied action to cover the room.

Obviously, this sort of thing can get rather complicated if you're trying to track all the activity on a piece of scrap paper. Personally, I recommend using the "Initiative Cards" (conceived by JD Wiker, former "Jedi Counseling" author and current president of The Game Mechanics) to help keep track of the initiative order and all the different delayed and readied actions that might come into play.

Star Wars Miniatures Questions

Q: Shields, Dark Armor, and Damage Reduction all use the phrase, "Resolve this ability only after all Bodyguard decisions have been made." I'd assumed that meant those abilities apply if the character with the ability is the one who takes damage from the attack.

However, a question in the FAQ asks if the original target's Shields ability would reduce the damage dealt to the Bodyguard character, and this was the answer: "Yes, but . . . you must choose whether you are going to transfer the damage as well as which ally with Bodyguard you are going to transfer it to before rolling to find out how much damage the original target's Shields absorb."

Thus, I concluded that this is what the "resolve after Bodyguard" clause was supposed to mean -- that you must commit to transferring the damage before you know how much damage there will be. What I don't understand, then, is why this clause would be included with Damage Reduction. You'd already know that the damage would be reduced by a fixed amount, so why would it matter if you resolved it before or after making any Bodyguard decisions? Is it possible that the FAQ's answer is incorrect or incomplete?

A: Yes, the FAQ is incorrect on this question, and as of this writing, it will be updated in the next revision. The correct answer is that Shields (as well as Damage Reduction, Dark Armor, and any other ability with the "resolve after Bodyguard" clause) only reduce the damage taken by the character who has the ability. If that damage is transferred to another character (such as with Bodyguard), the original character's "resolve after Bodyguard" ability does not apply to the damage taken by the other character.

The reasoning is more clear when you consider it as a sequence. As an example, let's say that a Destroyer Droid is adjacent to a Twi'lek Bodyguard, and the Destroyer Droid is attacked by a Clone Trooper.

1. The Clone Trooper makes a successful attack against the Destroyer Droid, so the Destroyer Droid would take 20 damage.
2. Both Bodyguard and Shields are "when [character] would take damage" effects, so they resolve in step #7 of the attack resolution sequence (see Jedi Counseling 65 or the FAQ. However, the "resolve after Bodyguard" clause requires that Bodyguard occur first even though it's in the same step.
3. In this case, let's say the Twi'lek Bodyguard takes the damage. At this point, the damage is still 20 because Shields has not come into play yet. Thus, the Twi'lek Bodyguard will take 20 damage, and the Destroyer Droid will take none.
4. Shields would normally apply next, but the Destroyer Droid is no longer taking damage so it no longer applies. (The ability applies "When this character would take damage . . .")
5. You continue through the rest of the attack resolution sequence normally. As long as no other abilities come into play, the Twi'lek Bodyguard will take 20 damage and the Destroyer Droid will take none.

Now, consider how this would be different if the Twi'lek Bodyguard did not use Bodyguard:

1. The Bodyguard ability is resolved when the Twi'lek Bodyguard's player decides not to invoke the ability. Thus, the Twi'lek Bodyguard will take no damage, and the Destroyer Droid will take 20.
2. Now that Bodyguard has been resolved, Shields comes into play. (The Destroyer Droid still qualifies to use the ability because it is still taking damage.) Let's say the Destroyer Droid makes one of the two saves required, so the damage is reduced by 10.
3. You continue through the rest of the attack resolution sequence normally. As long as no other abilities come into play, the Twi'lek Bodyguard will take no damage and the Destroyer Droid will take 10.

How did this error occur? It was a result of the change in wording of Shields between Clone Strike and Revenge of the Sith. In the original Clone Strike wording, Shields did not include the "resolve after Bodyguard" clause. Thus, the first question about this in the FAQ was written using the only existing rules at that time, resolving the ability as if you transfer only the final damage that the target would have taken (much as you would if the attacker had Ion Gun +10 and the original target was a Droid).

That wasn't the original intent of the rule, of course. Shields were meant to protect the Destroyer Droid, not the other characters. Therefore, when the designers wrote the rulebook for Revenge of the Sith, they added the "resolve after Bodyguard" clause. Using the logic I outlined above, it seemed clear that this would mean that Shields would now protect only the Destroyer Droid.

However, when the FAQ was revised, this nuance was overlooked, and the new rule was interpreted as if the old rule was the original intent. That resulted in the erroneous "Shields protect the Bodyguard but you commit to using it before knowing the damage" ruling. Later, when the designers added new abilities to the game that protect a character from damage (such as Damage Reduction and Dark Armor), they used the same "resolve after Bodyguard" clause, but the erroneous ruling was applied there as well because it had established an incorrect precedent.