(Answered) Initiative: I know I'm being pedantic here....

[Gauthic]

Under the initative phase it reads ".... Ties are rerolled."

There are certain rules lawyers out there and interpretation is quite subjective here and it might need a bit of revision in future versions (the text is the verbatim in my old BattleTech compendium too )

With two "sides" this text in the initiative works, but when dealing with three or more initiative rollers a "fairness" may be an issue.

If I were to read this text as a new player I'd play and read this as:
While all parties are rolling initiative, everyone with a tie re-rolls until there are no ties and then everyone goes in that initiative order

The way that I've always been a party to games, It was any ties now "roll off" for the initiative for their roll
For example:

• Player 1 rolls a 7
• Player 2 rolls a 4
• Player 3 rolls a 10
• Player 4 rolls a 4

Now if one reads the text verbatim say Player 2 and Player 4 now re-roll:

• Player 2 rolls a 9
• and Player 4 rolls a 8
• Player 3 still has a 10
• and Player 1 still has a 7

Now Player 2 & 4 are no longer at the lower end of a pecking order and Player 1 & 4 are punished for rolling poorly... I know it's semantics as it's all random in the long run, but the player may have his/her feeling hurt.

How is this handled at Battle Royale games at tournaments?

[Gauthic]

On a side note, the way we play here are the tying players roll off for initiative in "their slot" if they tie.

[Chunga]

There are no official rules for more than 2 players in a game. The rule you quoted is for a 2 player game. For 3 or more players, you will need to determine such a situation ahead of time.

That being said, in your example, here's what I would do. The players that rolled a 4 would then roll off for the '4' position. They do not get to jump higher into the init order. Whomever loses the roll would go first, the other second, then player 1, finally player 3. I don't know how you could come to your other conclusion that a tie means they get to reroll into the original init order. That's just preposterous.

[Gauthic]

I don't know how you could come to your other conclusion that a tie means they get to reroll into the original init order. That's just preposterous.

I never mentioned that was the way I interpreted it, this is a way that it could be read from a "rules lawyer argumentative type" (as I have several players who look for these sort of loop holes). I even gave examples of how I play multiplayer games. I was just looking for how it was done at a tournament for possible precedence when presenting my case to those types. I tend to do my best to head these sort of nit-pickers off at the pass.

This comment was just rude to a new-comer to your forums. There's no reason to poopoo the thought process of a rules-lawyer when you make an assumption about a game you've played for 25+ years and archaic text can be read literally with no other in-game precedence in the book.

Thank you, but I will never EVER post to this child board again if this is the sort of attitude I'll get. Heck, the majority of the questions in this child board remain unanswered, which is a shame for an official forum (and which I was going to be GLAD  to answer questions, but I think I'll pass now).

~G~

[Chunga]

My apologies, but I was using 'you' as an informal version of the Royal 'We'. I did not mean 'you' personally. I guess I should have written it this way:

I don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion that a tie means they get to reroll into the original init order.

Yes, still quite a bit of hyperbole, but the fact that you prefaced your whole question with the fact you were being pedantic led me to believe we were dealing with extremism. Again, my apologies.

I will endeavor to provide only the necessary answers going forward.

[Gauthic]

I understand now, perhaps I was a bit sensitive on the last line (I tend to stay away from the 2^nd tense unless I'm directly talking to someone on forums as it's hard to read intonation and expression in text when typing as if one talks).

I apologize for my sensitivity and misinterpretation as well it was late when I got around to reading and  posting that (although that's absolutely no excuse).

(yay 10 posts, no more verification! )