QUOTE (Cochise @ Jan 23 2015, 02:21 PM)

Which particular aspect don't you agree with? Because what you wrote next has little to do with what I stated.
I don't agree to this part, especially not the bolted part:
Sidenote: The reversed declaration order does create problems more than just occasionally due to the fact that it enables characters to react to things that haven't yet occured and
thus make it a kind of clearvoyance thing by the character who ultimately overrides what was declared by others.
QUOTE
I didn't comment on the degree of "realism" of these mechanics.
Simply because any sequential combat resolution mechanic will never be able to model things that occur in parallel. Actions not truly being "instant" is just one of the things that cannot be modelled to a truly satisfying degree. Other things are mental processing times in order to adapt to changes in the environment or the inability of doing so.
I'm aware that both approaches (total reversed declarations (each initiative pass) and declarations per initiative) can't be 100% realistic. My favor goes to reversed nonetheless (non RAW, which is a clear thing).
Wait I must really highlight that we're not RAW. We must discuss it as if it was house ruling and trying to build a consensus around that. If you think I'm wrong because it's not written that way in the rulebook, the discussion is closed because I agree that it is not written that way.
First off, I don't consider that casting a spell is ""instant" (=actual time requirement equals 0s)", because if I consider that to be the case, you could technically do truckloads of other thing. Count up to 3 (for the 3 seconds of Combat turn). If that spell cast counts for 0 secs, you'd certainly able to shoot with a firearm to, wouldn't you?
"=>you're stipulating that the involved mage makes his decision at a fixed time X and starts casting."
yes.
"=>Unfortunately - given his lower "reflexes" / "reaction" one could easily stipulate that his decision making also takes longer and thus his actual decision and start of action occurs at X+Y after the Combat Turn has started."
partially. In the exemple, it's more like if he pointed with his finger in the direction of the samourai, the fireball starts to grow, and finally the fireball starts flying to the samourai, which took X+Y.
"=>This could easily be some time after the point where the samurai gets his first action due to his enhanced reaction / reflexes."
exactely, the samourai notices and is so quick that his own X' (own reaction time) +Y' (time to perform the reaction) is actually lower than mages X+Y. So he shoots at him while the mage was raising his finger in his direction.
"=>In your example the samurai appearently becomes aware of the mage's intend at fixed time X as well. He's acting upon something that the mage only just decided but by no means has even begun to do."
So here we have a different perception of it.
"=>That's a clearvoyant act from the samurai's side, particularly if the samurai doesn't spend part of his initial action to try and assess the situation with regards to the magicians intention, because ..."
Per Raw, you'd have to spend a free action to make a perception test. I would simply consider it as free but:
"=>[*] ... unless the mage is under some form of Geas that forces him to make destinct gestures, audible incantations or starts exhibiting something like the Shamanistic Mask his act of spell casting doesn't give any sensory cues that directly relate to his intend. So whatever the mage "does" in the short timeframe between start of the Combat Turn and getting to the samurai's first Combat Phase with initiative score of 21 there isn't much for the samurai that would allow him to get knowledge about what the mage is up to and then making the successful decision of countering exactly that. "
Yes as a GM I consider whether my NPC could have noticed it or not (eventually rolling) and same goes for the PC. If the spellcasting is hard to notice for whatever considerations, the PC has to roll in order to counter it.
Exemple:
PC Mage: Initiative 5: I ll cast fireball
GM: Initiative 9: goons are going to shoot. Samourai, roll a perception test TN6
PC Samourai (initiative 18) : 3 successes!
GM: One of them is actually a mage and will throw you a fireball.
PC I'll shoot him!
=>"[*]... declaration of actions occurs on the meta-level between players and then characters start acting upon that meta-knowledge. So it's a direct breakage of one of the most basic concepts in roleplaying: The separation of player knowledge vs. character knowledge"
Honestly, I handle it quite well. I don't use it when it's not requiered (like nobody has anything special that makes reacting a very usefull thing) but when I do, it doesn't lead to much metagaming as I keep it in check by beeing fair.
=>"Trust me, the character whom's declared actions gets overridden is usually penalized more than enough. he'll be lucky to even get a chance of declaring a different action."
Definitely, yes. That's why I always warn the mages. The "shoot the mage" mentality makes their life dangerous. And even harder if the mage has to change his action. I consider them as hasted ones (hence the penalty). Say the samourai shoots at 21. He's done it in about 1 second out of the 3. So this time, the new action is done quicker hence a penalty.
Yes it has holes (why couldn't the samourai re-react with his second pass?). But that's the point where rules would become too ruly at my taste. So I consider that the samouri had enough advantages for beeing quick.
--------------------------
Otherwise: my fights doesn't last long usually because most of the times, they don't go past 2 Combat turns. Fights are very lethal in SR3