I was addressing your point:-
But it doesn't seem that you are trying very hard to understand my point, given your response.
Although, conceptually, the action is non-stop and continuous, this doesn't mean that every action within it happens simultaneously with every other action in it. In real life combats, no-one takes 'turns'. However, some stuff happens before other stuff, and some stuff happens in response to other stuff and would not have happened otherwise.
I didn't say that every
action happens simultaneously. I said the
turns are simultaneous. Perhaps I should have said,
roughly simultaneous. Stuff happening before other stuff is determined by
initiative whenever it matters. To ensure this, the movement and actions taken by the participant with the higher initiative are
resolved before those taken by the participant with the lower initiative. This keeps things orderly. It doesn't mean that
everything that happens on one turn happens before
everything
that happens on the next turn. There is overlap.
The game can only cope with all this by going in turns. We know that this is an approximation, and we know it represents continuous combat. But we really cannot say that all of the turns happen at the same time, both because the combatants most definitely do act in turns in the game, but also because it accurately models some stuff happening in response to other stuff.
If each participant waited for the participant before her/him in initiative order to finish his/her turn before taking her/his own, then the combat round would take far longer than the roughly six seconds that the rules state it does. Please imagine a round of combat with twenty participants, each of which take their turns on a different count of initiative. If the round is six seconds in duration then each of those turns lasts only 0.3 seconds if, as you say, the turns do not happen at the same time. It's quite clear from the movement rates that each turn is meant to inhabit the entire six seconds of the round. What is the narrative reason in your games that combatants are able to complete their turns at lightning speed and then idly stand around for the other 5.7 seconds and watch the others take their turns (tongue in cheek)?
Therefore, the target with the higher initiative does not automatically become aware of what the assassin hasn't done yet, when he doesn't even know the assassin is there!
You keep asserting this, as if you're refuting some claim I have made. I never said the target becomes aware of the assassin before he knows the assassin is there. That would be absurd!
Certainly, two gunfighters in a fast-draw contest can see each other going for their guns and react faster, because they can already see each other. This does not apply to a surprise attack. If one gunfighter was to draw and fire when the other has his back turned, sure, have a Stealth/Perception contest; if the target is not surprised (because his victory in the contested roll means that he hears the gun being drawn) then his faster initiative means he can turn and fire at the dirty backshooter! But if the victim failed the contest, he is not only surprised, he could not attack the backshooter even if he could act on his first turn, because he doesn't know that there is a backshooter! He will be unsurprised if he hears the shot (he now notices a threat), and his initiative total is neither here nor there in that regard.
That's funny, because the way I see it he would be
quite surprised to hear the shot! What reason for surprise would he have
before that moment? Why would he be
surprised to not notice a threat? Was he expecting a threat to be there and was surprised when it wasn't? I don't think surprise means what you think it means.