Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dross" data-source="post: 5432881" data-attributes="member: 33802">WB these are quotes from post #5, #9 & #35 respectively.   To me 5 & 9 contradict 35.My reasoning is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">posts 5 & 9 says: not having initiative in the first round is not that bad because I can delay to get initiative in the next round and have the advantage.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">post 35 (and others) says: having initiative in the first round is important, because with that I have initiative in subsequent rounds and thus have the advantage.</li> </ul>Is this what you are trying to say?what I'm saying is this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Having initiative in the first round is good because I have the advantage. This advantage carries over to subsequent rounds only because I had the advantage in round 1.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If I don't have the initiative in round 1 I'm at a disadvantage. If I delay until I have the initiative in the next round, I do not gain anything.</li> </ul>See my examples in post 31, everything came down to who won initiative in the 1st round. The rules use the term "cyclical" for combat because after the 1st  round, it then goes in an order (determined in R1) and a "round" becomes more a bookkeeping term  (for durations and the like) rather then distinct segments where people don't react to what happened earlier.</blockquote>