Official statement when "Flat-Footed" condition ends, please?

[bigwave]

Oh mighty POWERS THAT BE, please clarify this debate among those who seek only to know the truth of your proclamations!

There's been a bunch of questions posted about when a combatant stops being flat-footed in combat. There are two sides to the debate, and both have evidence in the rulebook. I (among others, I'm sure) would like to see an OFFICIAL response from one of the powers that be.

STANCE 1 : Once a combatant acts, be that in a surprise round or non-surprise round, he or she is not flat footed anymore. This seems supported by the flat-footed condition description ("A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed"; CRB, p567) and with wording under Unaware Combatants in the Combat chapter ("Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet"; CRB, p178

STANCE 2 : A combatant is flat-footed until after they act in the first non-surprise round, even if they were not surprised and acted in the surprise round. This side of the debate is supported by the wording under flat-footed in the Initiative section of Combat chapter ("before you have had a chance to act (Specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed"; CRB, p178) and some wording in the Surprise section on the same page ("a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin"; CRB, p176).

Stance 1 seems to garner the most support, probably because it makes more logical sense at first flush - once you act, you're good to go. (Also, stance 2 would create a situation where if an ambusher lost initiative to his victim, the ambusher would be flat-footed to the victim's attack after having already acting in the combat himself - a seeming contradiction to the "flat-footed" condition.)

Stance 2 is a more letter-of-the-law, semantic argument, making sense since surprise rounds are not "regular rounds" in the sense of having some irregular qualities (limited actions, not everyone may act). But are they intended as such - a totally separate combat round altogether. (Would that mean a separate initiative roll as well?)

[Zhayne]

Once your initiative comes up, you're no longer flat-footed. If you're surprised, you don't roll initiative during the surprise round.

[dragonhunterq]

Stance 1 is the only sensible answer. Stance 2 is..wrong...

If you roll initiative in the surprise round (meaning you are not surprised and get to act) when your turn in the initiative order comes up in that surprise round, what exactly is irregular about that?

[wraithstrike]

1. Asking for an official statement is something the developers don't like, and it will not help you get one since most of the questions can be answered by fellow players.

2.The answer is stance 1.

[In My Humble Opinion]

Stance 1 is correct. Stance two implies meaning where none is intended.

[Talon Stormwarden]

I know a VL who insists on stance 2. It's quite frustrating.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

There is nothing linguistic or logical or practical that makes sense about stance 2. Do you remain flat-footed while acting in the surprise round? During the remainder of surprise round? Or you just get flat-footed again as soon as the non-surprise rounds begin? It hurts my head to just think about the second interpretation.

[Tarantula]

Stance 1 is correct.

Stance 2 isn't following the "first regular turn in the initiative order". Once your initiative comes up, you are no longer flat-footed (from not acting).

[bigwave]

I post the question (and ask for something 'official') for the exact reason Talon gives. We have a local PFS FL that insists on stance #2 because of the wording I quoted. No matter the opinions of the players, no matter the logic behind it. Just looking for something 'official' to show him.

[Claxon]

bigwave wrote:

I post the question (and ask for something 'official') for the exact reason Talon gives. We have a local PFS FL that insists on stance #2 because of the wording I quoted. No matter the opinions of the players, no matter the logic behind it. Just looking for something 'official' to show him.

Don't bother with that. Go over his/her head to the VC or Mike Brock if necessary.

[Lifat]

This is why I hate playing RAW only.
My preferred styles are either homebrew or RAI close to RAW (only stepping outside RAW when absurdities arrise such as this). I think it is very clear that stance 1 was the intended rule, but I could see a rules lawyer arguing for stance 2...

[dragonhunterq]

Unless I have misunderstood Rules Lawyer has to be conflating 'regular round' and 'regular turn in the initiative order'. They are different things, so stance 2 is inherently flawed.
Lifat you'll be comforted to know that RAW and RAI coincide on this.

[The black raven]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood Rules Lawyer has to be conflating 'regular round' and 'regular turn in the initiative order'. They are different things, so stance 2 is inherently flawed.

Lifat you'll be comforted to know that RAW and RAI coincide on this.

What DH said. "regular round" means "not the surprise round", while "your first regular turn in the initiative order" actually means "the first time you actually get to act on your initiative result".

Because in the surprise round, you already know your initiative result (which is rolled at the very beginning of combat, before any surprise or normal round), but you may not be able to act on it if you are surprised.

So, if there is a surprise round and you are not surprised, then you take your first action on your initiative result in this surprise round and this becomes your first regular turn (i.e., the first turn when you acted). Otherwise, you take your first action on your initiative result in the first regular round (i.e., not surprise round) and this then becomes your first regular turn.

tldr : "your first regular turn" actually means "the first turn in which you acted".