Author Topic: question on bank Initiative Vs OVERRUN Combat & forcing THE INITIATIVE  (Read 907 times)

nicholasdelaughter

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
so I'm a gm with a group of mercenary forces all sharing command ability's because they all took a contract on the same plaint with the same contractor (yes it was random roll & in front of everyone when generated contract for each person. Gods of fate can be cruel) so there facing a force with bank the initiate. the mercenary have both doing overrun combat & forcing the initiative just to try make it hard on me. So, I Pull bank initiative there crying foul and broken on me. on their behalf i post this. is there an dice roll still even they are put into an auto win by a margin of 1 or am I reading it wrong.

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3826
How I read it you would never roll, unless you wanted to give the players a chance.

Banking the Initiative and Forcing the Initiative are declared at the same time. But BtI means you forgo the roll entirely, so FtI’s bonus to the roll never comes into play. Because on turns you auto-lose the iniative it’s a set margin of 1 for the other team, the players can never activate Overrun Combat.

FtI has a caveat it cannot be used first turn (fairly obvious though, as no one has killed anything prior to turn 1) but BtI doesn’t have that restriction.

So unless you want to give them an opportunity to use overrun combat there isn’t really a reason to roll for initiative. Just lose early, and bank up wins for important turns.
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

nicholasdelaughter

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
i would agree with you but it is a hard counter to overrun ability since needs to trigger needs to be every 2 points = 1 unit move and shoot before fire phase and by turn 2 there in range and unable to use the overrun ability since it forces a margin of 1 by turn 3 I win do the moves and stuff then restart to the whole process.

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3826
Yeah basically their command abilities are useless against this one unless you decide to roll.

Your most optimal plan for initiative is
Turn 1: auto-lose (1 margin, no overrun)
Turn 2: auto-lose (1 margin, no overrun)
Turn 3: win by 1
Repeat.
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

Keflyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
There are several problems with this interpretation of the rule. But the main one is that Banking Initiative says that it "...allows the opposing force to automatically win it's initiative at 1-point Margin of Success."

The key word in that sentence is *allows*. It doesn't say "force", "must", "has to", etc.

If Banking Initiative gets to 'force' initiative in this manner, Overrun Combat is utterly and totally invalidated as a Special Command Ability.

Overrun Combat vs. Banking Initiative:

Case 1:
Overrun Combat runs into Banking Initiative and it really means "forces/railroads/ties the hands of the other player into never using their ability"
1.) Round 1: Banking Initiative forces Overrun Combat into a 1-point win -> Overrun Combat never triggers
2.) Round 2: Banking Initiative forces Overrun Combat into a 1-point win -> Overrun Combat never triggers
3.) Round 3: Banking Initiative gets an auto-win
4.) (repeat rounds 1-3, and player with Overrun Combat who designed their entire force around it is stuck with a useless ability).

Net result? - Only 1 SCA is available for play. Why bother picking any other initiative ability?

Case 2:
Now, let's look at the reverse: If it says 'allows' and Overrun Combat runs into Banking Initiative, the Overrun Combat player chooses to roll instead of taking the auto win, they can
On every round:
1.) still lose initiative, Banking Initiative takes the loss, tallies the loss for a future win ... or...
2.) win the initiative, and thus they... take an early win on their initiative.
Net result? - both SCAs are in play.

Counter argument for the 2nd interpretation:
"Overrun Combat can be used to overwhelm other SCAs." Overrun Combat's use can still be countered by several factors:
1.) Overrun Combat is best used when stacking initiative bonuses. This is done through some combination Battlefield Intelligence, Combat Intuition, Tactical Genius and Mech abilities. In the case of the mech abilities, these often vastly increase the price of units (double cost for things like PRB/RCN, C3S/MHQ1,etc.) , sacrificing firepower, defensive ability and speed for equivalent PV.  So to use it, expensive units need to be purchased and heavy investment must be used just to make it work. This is it's own balance mechanism.
2.) Overrun Combat is easily countered without Banking the Initiative. Artillery, Aerospace or just Battlefield Support (strikes, artillery, bombing, strafing, mines) can all break up clumps of expensive units (see above).  Because those units are inherently expensive, any AoE ability becomes increasingly more valuable.
3.) Strategic Planning all by itself allows for +2 Initiative which takes away much of the bite of Overrun Combat.

If the point of Banking Initiative is to guarantee an initiative win for both players, no matter the opposing SCA, then that happens in Case 2, while preserving other SCAs abilities to work. Case 1 just invalidates Overrun Combat by conveniently ignoring text to force players into invalidating their force.

That's why I think the use of the word 'allows' was intentional. The game wants to allow both SCA's to work.

nicholasdelaughter

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
here the thing your cutting paragraphs and not taking account the whole paragraph that reads as thus) To use this command ability, the player acting as the leader
of his particular Force must declare—before any Initiative rolls are made—that he is yielding the Initiative to his opponent. For the purposes of any abilities where Initiative margins are considered, this allows the opposing force to automatically win its Initiative at a 1-point Margin of Success.) by how my minds reads it and i could be off. it states that for this ability to happen is elects Eather an auto win with no margin or with a margin. now since the overrun works on a margin there for it given you get a 1-point margin to where it brakes overrun completely on loss of initiate. now sure turn one nothing big turn two can be sway depending on the margin itself. and 3rd turn yes BTI wins then after depends on if it is evoking another time, if so, breaks the Overrun as its stated. to fix this by home brew would be fix the margin of success to a hardline point. but what holding me up that from BI Initiative can be place up high ( i have seen 6 so far) so should i put do to BI initative as margin of success or should i put it in a ok point of 2 that were I'm having a dilemma.
« Last Edit: 22 January 2025, 15:37:13 by nicholasdelaughter »

Keflyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
But you still need to answer cases 1 and 2.

I focused phrase *allows* because it sets up the rest of the argument. Read the whole argument.

Banking Initiative doesn't get to be an "I win" button. The way you're interpreting it, it has no balance. What balances Banking Initiative in your usage? Does *any* initiative SCA balance against it in your interpretation?

There are only 13 SCAs with Initiative mentions.
1) Banking Initiative
2) Combat Drop Specialists
3) Counterparts
4) Enemy Specialization
5) Environment Specialization
6) Forcing the Initiative
7) False Flag
8) In the Moment
9) Overrun Combat
10) Regional Specialization
11) Strategic Planning
12) Tactical Adjustments
13) Tactical Specialization

Let's look at how each stacks against Banking Initiative.
1) Banking Initiative (ties / same ability; Banking Initiative nullifies Banking Initiative)
2) Combat Drop Specialists (only works when dropping units, Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
3) Counterparts (needs two *regiments*, Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
4) Enemy Specialization (needs a specific enemy, Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
5) Environment Specialization (needs a specific environment, Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
6) Forcing the Initiative (needs enemy *kills*, Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
7) False Flag (requires units to be held off map, limited by 2d6 roll; Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
8) In the Moment (hurts possessing unit for 2 turns, is only used for tactical flexibility and still: Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
9) Overrun Combat (see earlier in the thread about how Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
10) Regional Specialization (requires unit to be on home turf; Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
11) Strategic Planning (+2 bonus offered to non-green/regular units; Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
12) Tactical Adjustments (after turn 3, negates CAs and SCAs; (strictest interpretation?) Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)
13) Tactical Specialization (+1 initiative under specific circumstances; Banking Initiative trumps this if it *forces 1-point wins/losses*)

Basically, *all 12 SCAs not named Banking Initiative* of the Initiative modifier SCAs have *some kind of balance* but you insist that Banking Initiative is perfectly balanced and trumps all 12 of the other abilities and can work when the other 12 can't.

The 'home brew' solution of 'win by 2' for Overrun Combat, is utterly useless and removes the ability's primary use. 'Win by 2' lets *1* unit move and attack. 1 Unit's 'move, fire, resolve' won't decide anything on it's own (in general).

Overrun Combat's balancing has been outlined above.

What is the Balance / Counter for Banking Initiative?


Overrun Combat needs *everything* to go well to work. That becomes the balance to it.
« Last Edit: 22 January 2025, 16:20:02 by Keflyn »

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3826
Allows tells you it breaks the standard rules and lets you do something different. Not some weird thing you think it does.

Banning the Initiative means no dice rolls for any player. The other player can’t choose to roll dice. They either won or lost by 1.

You can’t say Force A wins by 1, then have Force A roll dice to see that they win by more than 1. They have no target number or opposing dice to compare to. They can’t force the other player to roll, negating their own SCA.


There is no’ answer’ to case 1. That’s how jt works.
Case 2 is just non-sense you have come up with.
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

Keflyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
And thanks for not even answering the argument. Please read reply #6 above on how many abilities are invalidated by this interpretation and the effect of that.

"You can’t say Force A wins by 1, then have Force A roll dice to see that they win by more than 1. They have no target number or opposing dice to compare to. They can’t force the other player to roll, negating their own SCA."

The flip side of that is one ability shouldn't force the other ability to not have a choice.

That's the problem with the ability.  By saying "allows" you have an option. You can have a win/loss by one, or you can have a standard roll. By interpreting the SCA your way, you *take* choice away from the other player. In the bigger scheme of the game, every other Initiative ability is nerfed.  That's the definition of an overpowered interpretation.

"Allows tells you it breaks the standard rules and lets you do something different. Not some weird thing you think it does."

I'm not sure how you define the word "allow" but this is the standard definition:
allow: "give (someone) permission to do something."

Nowhere does that say: Force the other player to do a thing.

If it was meant to say "force the other player to take a result" then they would say it.

Your idea is that in a game that promotes choice and probability, one player gets to dictate to the other player what they get to do? They just get an 'I win' button unless they choose that ability? You don't find that to be inherently unbalanced?

What is the price of taking "Banking Initiative"? That one ability, invalidates 12 other abilities. How is that even close to fair?

Is there any price or balancing to it? Or do you really want an "I win" button?
« Last Edit: 22 January 2025, 19:46:49 by Keflyn »

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3826
they arent balanced. thats the point of them.

no one is taking Highlander Burial because its balanced against other SCAs, its because its fluffy and fun.

you can ask in the rules section if it bothers you that much

The important part of the text is this (or the part you are focusing on anyway)

Quote
For the purposes of any abilities where Initiative margins are considered,
this allows the opposing force to automatically win its Initiative at
a 1-point Margin of Success

Force A with BtI has already ceded the initiative, that part is already over. Allows is only for determining the margin (which is fixed at one). it doesnt say anything else about any other aspect of the initiative process
« Last Edit: 22 January 2025, 20:16:02 by Kerfuffin(925) »
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

Keflyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Good job, you answered the question. It's an inherently unfair Special Combat Ability that unbalanced and overpowered with no counter except itself. So why bother listing any other ability? It's an "I win" button. Good to know.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4418
Good job, you answered the question. It's an inherently unfair Special Combat Ability that unbalanced and overpowered with no counter except itself. So why bother listing any other ability? It's an "I win" button. Good to know.

Because risking not auto-winning by the roll of the dice can actually improve your chances of Moving first more than every third round.  It gets even more useless when considering that SPAs, either chosen directly or from Formation bonuses, can alter the Initiative scheme more reliably and effectively.  When you combine Initiative bonus SPAs with Initiative bonus FCAs, the guarantee of only having first Initiative in only one of 3 rounds is rather poor.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great counter to Overrun, especially when it isn't required to be used (either Overrun or Banking Initiative), but that doesn't make it automatically awesome.

I've played against both of them in campaigns over the last 3 years (currently facing off against Overruning Jade Falcons right now, in fact), and we've learned how to deal with both of them.

We've actually managed to learn how to move in such a way that Overrun can be very painful to use against us, such that the GM is like, "Crap, I can overrun with an entire Lance, but if I move any of them, they'll be screwed as soon as they can move."  There's actually been times he's used Overrun to help a unit in Forced Withdrawal to get away.

Banking Initiative is harder to counter, but if you're moving properly, again, it won't matter as much.  If anything you can plan farther ahead, especially if they are using it every Turn.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Keflyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Because risking not auto-winning by the roll of the dice can actually improve your chances of Moving first more than every third round.  It gets even more useless when considering that SPAs, either chosen directly or from Formation bonuses, can alter the Initiative scheme more reliably and effectively.  When you combine Initiative bonus SPAs with Initiative bonus FCAs, the guarantee of only having first Initiative in only one of 3 rounds is rather poor.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great counter to Overrun, especially when it isn't required to be used (either Overrun or Banking Initiative), but that doesn't make it automatically awesome.

I've played against both of them in campaigns over the last 3 years (currently facing off against Overruning Jade Falcons right now, in fact), and we've learned how to deal with both of them.

We've actually managed to learn how to move in such a way that Overrun can be very painful to use against us, such that the GM is like, "Crap, I can overrun with an entire Lance, but if I move any of them, they'll be screwed as soon as they can move."  There's actually been times he's used Overrun to help a unit in Forced Withdrawal to get away.

Banking Initiative is harder to counter, but if you're moving properly, again, it won't matter as much.  If anything you can plan farther ahead, especially if they are using it every Turn.

OK, I'm going to grant most of those observations. And I'm glad you've had success against overrun. In fact that's, what I'm actually observing. Banking Initiative is the hard counter that takes control away from one side.

The ones I have questions about are where you say there are more reliable ways to modify initiative. That would be true, except for the fact that the Banking Initiative ability forces an outcome. There's no choices, there's no probability, there's no chance. I'm arguing for chance and probability.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with many of your arguments.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4418
OK, I'm going to grant most of those observations. And I'm glad you've had success against overrun. In fact that's, what I'm actually observing. Banking Initiative is the hard counter that takes control away from one side.

Our introduction to Overrun was quite brutal.  We lose Initiative (our unit's SCAs were Esprit de Corps and Hit 'n' Run at the time, swapped HnR to Assault Operations later), and one of our J. Edgar Hovercraft sitting safely behind a Level 1 out of sight from a Thunderbolt then gets charged by the Thunderbolt (not Charged, just ran over the hill to Melee range) then Immobilized before it could do anything.

Before that campaign chain ended, we were getting very good at our Movement, planning on where they would go next anticipating the Overrun.

Our GM also let us keep our TMM from the previous Turn as opposed to just standing naked during the Overrun.  He's a pretty good guy that way.

The ones I have questions about are where you say there are more reliable ways to modify initiative. That would be true, except for the fact that the Banking Initiative ability forces an outcome. There's no choices, there's no probability, there's no chance. I'm arguing for chance and probability.

It's only that way if they are Banking every single Turn they can't turn those Banks in.

Still, when you have several bonuses to Initiative (easier with Quirks, but those are harder to track in Alpha Strike), even rolling a little lower can see you win.  That usually means that one can be winning Initiative 4/5 times more than just 1/3.  This is what I mean by more reliability.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

nicholasdelaughter

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
see here the issue on declaration before rolling Imitative you declare loss and it's an automatic loss for any advantage giving for overrun needs a margin of win by 2 but because of the rules set forth say any margin of win is 1. now to fix it that become the issue not only overrun being denied 2 time in a row of any margin on the 3rd time i win the initiate with no dice roll and I Rince and repeat without a bit sure i lose 2 rounds but overrun gets blocked out completely. I been looking at a fix and with many ideas and looking at the fixes I think up it not looking promising. either give him the margin 2 and he does it for one unit once a turn (yes o that a good thing but if you make a force that specialize on wining the imitative by big margin it a kick in the teeth, now if you go by Battlefield Intelligence score well that a major disengages to bank Imitative to the point on not worth taking it. i can't find a middle round at all. that why Im asking anyone for any advice or have catalyst game lab come up with a fix.