[Plane]

rules under Power Parry that allow certain attacks to parry that way.

My point is simply that Aura in basic set is talking about normal parrying.

Power defenses aren’t mundane defenses, though. A hero can attempt a Power Block and a mundane block on the same turn, has no penalty on future parries if he tries a Power Parry, and can attempt a Power Parry during a Move and Attack.

If P says they are going to wait until they see E attacking, PC's wait will trigger when PC sees E making any attack i.e. GM says, he reaches for a gun, points at gun at you, etc.

If P says they are going to wait until E hits them, PC's wait will trigger when PC is hit. PC doesn't know if any given attack is going to hit, or if his defense will work. If the PC doesn't act prior to being hit and defending, the PC *can't* know how the attack will turn out.

There is a distinction between 'the to-hit roll succeeded' and 'being hit'. I think PCs (not just Ps) know if an attack will miss (or else you would still do active defenses against misses) and even if a defense will fail (or else you couldn't do the 2nd half of "All-Out Defense: Double").

I think you would also know if a Sacrificial Dodge (or Block/Parry) would succeed, because if one of those manages to stop an attack, you choose not to actively defend.

First off, meta-gaming is using player knowledge that the character doesn't have to guide the character. Assuming your character know, voids the possibility of meta-gaming.

It's an educated assumption. Why else would you not bother to dodge+drop if someone shot wide of you?

taking a maneuver based on something your character does not know isn't something to encourage.

I really don't see the basis of thinking a character doesn't know. The only attacks you couldn't know about hit/miss are surprise ones.

Trying to game a Wait maneuver based on the outcome of dice and defenses is meta-gaming, since your character won't know the outcome until they witness the outcome in the game world (what we call events).

The event a character witnesses is the same they witness that leads them to not bother committing to an active defense.

"Wow, that ogre is throwing a massive punch at me, but I can tell from his stance that his fist is going to miss my face by a couple of inches, so I'm not going to cross-parry with both my knives and lose my ability to parry for the rest of the turn.

In fact, it's a fairly common thing for GMs to roll attacks, defenses, perception checks, and other things behind a screen such that even the players don't know the actual outcome until they need to defend. (Besides, every GM at one time or another has done a "fiat" result instead of taking what the dice show.)

A character doesn't know the exact outcome of dice, but they will know if they need to actively defend, meaning they will know whether or not the attack is on route to hit, or en route to miss.

"the attack will hit" is not an event until it has happened.

If that were the case, it would be too late to block/dodge/parry/retreat/warp away, if you were already hit then you'd be damaged.

Waits are done as a result of an event, not what-ifs.

The event is your character perceiving an encroaching hit/miss, which we know they can do since it affects their choice of whether to actively defend.

To put it another way, if you're triggering on any attack that will hit, but you stop it, then it wouldn't have hit, and you shouldn't have triggered the wait. You've created a paradox and destroyed that universe.

This is like arguing "if an attack will hit, but you dodge it, then it wouldn't have hit, and you shouldn't have dodged".