Attack and Step with Wait Maneuver?

[Anders Gabrielsson]

I'm with Bruno on this: This isn't a rules problem, it's a tactics problem. If someone is standing and waiting for you to act with their weapon at the ready, should you just move up to them and attack, or should you try to do something different? If you've moved up and tried to attack once and they've slipped away, should you do it again or come up with something new?

Let A do this, and let B come up with some way to counter the tactic. It's not going to last long anyway - sooner or later one or the other will get in a solid blow, someone else will join the fight or the situation will change in some other way. The next time B is in this position you can be damn sure he'll be a lot more clever about it, and if not then he deserves to get kicked around.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think that's right. A's attack happens during B's maneuver in this scenario, not before it.

Not relevant, your defense from this turn carries over until your next turn, if your next turn gets interrupted by a Wait your current defense is still this turn's, not next's.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Not relevant, your defense from this turn carries over until your next turn, if your next turn gets interrupted by a Wait your current defense is still this turn's, not next's.

• A's turn 1 begins: I choose Wait: I'll attack B with Attack if he tries to attack me.
• B's turn 1 begins: I choose to All Out Attack A.
  • A's Wait is triggered. A attacks B. B's currently engaged in an All Out Attack and gets no defense.
  • B All Out Attacks A.
• A's turn 2 begins: I choose to Attack. B's currently engaged in an All Out Attack and gets not defense.
• B's turn 2 begins: I choose to...

That how I'd handle it, at any rate. The fact that A's Wait maneuver interrupts B's turn mean it happens during B's turn.

[polydac]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

• A's turn 1 begins: I choose Wait: I'll attack B with Attack if he tries to attack me.
• B's turn 1 begins: I choose to All Out Attack A.
  • A's Wait is triggered. A attacks B. B's currently engaged in an All Out Attack and gets no defense.
  • B All Out Attacks A.
• A's turn 2 begins: I choose to Attack. B's currently engaged in an All Out Attack and gets not defense.
• B's turn 2 begins: I choose to...

That how I'd handle it, at any rate. The fact that A's Wait maneuver interrupts B's turn mean it happens during B's turn.

That is my understanding for AoA as well, but I think Move and Attack is treated differently (see Martial Arts pg 107). If B uses a Move and Attack, the defense penalties do not kick in until after player B attacks (and then the penalty depends in part on what "appendage" is used to make the attack). If a Waiting foe (player A) attacks before B, then B defends normally.

Consequently, it seemed reasonable to let player B change from a Step and Attack to a Move and Attack mid-turn because at this point, the defense modifiers are still the same (but not so if switching to an AoA)...

That said, after reading all of the posts, I now have a better appreciation for how proper tactics can eliminate this stepback dilemma, thereby making a rules change unnecessary (I also will never use Step and Attack against a Waiting foe again!). But, for the near term I will probably still allow players to convert Step and Attack to Move and Attack in this circumstance because most of our group (myself included) are inexperienced and don't appreciate all of the quirks and strategic implications of a Wait maneuver.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Not relevant, your defense from this turn carries over until your next turn, if your next turn gets interrupted by a Wait your current defense is still this turn's, not next's.

Very interesting point, do you have a reference where it is explained (e.g. by Kromm)?

Anybody knows if that's RAW in this case?

Originally Posted by polydac

But, for the near term I will probably still allow players to convert Step and Attack to Move and Attack in this circumstance because most of our group (myself included) are inexperienced and don't appreciate all of the quirks and strategic implications of a Wait maneuver.

Good solution in my opinion. As been suggested, personally I'd also allow the option to pay 1 FP for taking an extra step afterwards (Giant Step), because that seems to model the effort of the attacker to keep on his target really well, too.

[polydac]

Originally Posted by OldSam

personally I'd also allow the option to pay 1 FP for taking an extra step afterwards (Giant Step), because that seems to model the effort of the attacker to keep on his target really well, too.

Agreed. I haven't used Extra Effort rules previously, but it does appear to be a good fit for situation at hand.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by polydac

That is my understanding for AoA as well, but I think Move and Attack is treated differently (see Martial Arts pg 107). If B uses a Move and Attack, the defense penalties do not kick in until after player B attacks (and then the penalty depends in part on what "appendage" is used to make the attack). If a Waiting foe (player A) attacks before B, then B defends normally.

To wit, from p. MA107 "If someone uses a Wait to interrupts your [Wait and Attack] maneuver before [you make your attack roll], you may defend normally...".

I stand corrected. Thank you, polydac.

[Kromey]

As a (former) fencer, I can chime in with real-world experience on this situation:

It is certainly possible for A to wait for B, deliver a swift counter-attack and then step back out of reach, foiling the attack B was coming forward to deliver. This can and does happen all the time in fencing -- "keeping distance" is one of the most basic defenses in fencing, in fact. And taking that a step further, there is a very true axiom in the sport: "He who controls the distance controls the match." In this case, A is in control of the distance, which puts him in control of the fight.

It therefore falls to B to devise a counter-tactic that puts him in control of the distance (and the fight). That could mean moving forward faster (Move and Attack), or swiftly recognizing A's tactic and putting forth a little extra effort to take another step forward to close that new distance (Extra Effort: Extra Step). Maybe he'll step forward and then lunge. Maybe he'll charge forward and slam into or tackle A. Maybe he'll switch to a defensive tactic to steal the initiative away from A, thereby turning A's tactic against him (obviously at a later time, as he's lost the opportunity this round to Wait himself).

There's lots B can do to counter this tactic. And that's not even mentioning (as others have pointed out) that A's attack-then-retreat simply cannot go on forever -- eventually A will run out of room, or B will get clever and corral A into a corner, or...

But maybe, as your OP implied, A's using this tactic to be able to deliver 2 unanswered attacks early on: using his Wait to get an attack and foil B's attack, then on his next turn stepping in with an Attack. Good for A! That was a clever tactic, and he absolutely should reap a reward for it. If B survives this fight, he will have learned a lesson, and won't fall for this same trap again in the future. Also note, however, that this tactic is highly situational -- it will only ever work with two opponents with identical Reach weapons that start precisely 1 yard/space out of range of each other. Seriously, how many fights start this way? (Well, I suppose if two fighters are precisely one's full Move apart, with Reach 1 weapons...) And if it didn't start this way, but got to this point mid-way through the fight, well, that was rather stupid on B's part, and he deserves the punishment A is about to unleash on him!

BTW, this type of maneuver is a "feint". In RPGs (haven't gotten to any feinting rules in GURPS yet, if there are any in Basic), feints are usually modeled solely as "pretend attacks" designed to open up a hole in your opponent's defenses; in the real world, a feint can indeed be that, or it can be a more defensive one -- like hesitating slightly and then stepping backwards out of the reach of your opponent's attack, allowing you to swiftly counter-attack. In the real world, B would think he's got the drop on A, and would step forward expecting to attack a not-quite-yet-prepared foe, only to be surprised by A's swift reaction...

(Edit: I realize this post is very light on answers from RAW, or responses based on GURPS mechanics. It's mostly intended to show that, as I suspect was the reasoning behind the OP's post anyway, this situation can indeed arise in the real world, and thus the GURPS rules are not "broken" in the sense that they are failing to accurately model a real-world situation. Quite the contrary, as the OP described his understanding of the RAW mechanics, they do accurately model a real-world situation. Which isn't to say that the OP's suggested "fix" of allowing a mid-maneuver switch for B to Move and Attack is wrong -- if that's what it takes to make the game fun for him and his group, then by all means allow it! I'm just pointing out that A was rather clever here, and this would indeed net him a real-world advantage not unlike what the OP described the rules giving him.)

[polydac]

Originally Posted by Kromey

(Edit: I realize this post is very light on answers from RAW, or responses based on GURPS mechanics. It's mostly intended to show that, as I suspect was the reasoning behind the OP's post anyway, this situation can indeed arise in the real world, and thus the GURPS rules are not "broken" in the sense that they are failing to accurately model a real-world situation. Quite the contrary, as the OP described his understanding of the RAW mechanics, they do accurately model a real-world situation. Which isn't to say that the OP's suggested "fix" of allowing a mid-maneuver switch for B to Move and Attack is wrong -- if that's what it takes to make the game fun for him and his group, then by all means allow it! I'm just pointing out that A was rather clever here, and this would indeed net him a real-world advantage not unlike what the OP described the rules giving him.)

Kromey, thanks for the excellent real world examples! That does indeed address the original concern around the realism of such a manuever (particularly player A getting 2 consecutive attacks which really troubled me).

I do like your analogy that this could also be a type of feint maneuver with the followup "atack" being a step back instead of a swing. It provides justification for NOT allowing player B to convert a Step and Attack to a Move and Attack mid turn (e.g. player B steps forward to swing, and the "feint" from A causes B's momentum to shift back, thereby thwarting normal movement). I will probably still allow a mid-turn change to "Giant Step" or lunge type maneuver as these do seem reasonable under the circumstances...

[Kromey]

Originally Posted by polydac

I do like your analogy that this could also be a type of feint maneuver with the followup "atack" being a step back instead of a swing. It provides justification for NOT allowing player B to convert a Step and Attack to a Move and Attack mid turn (e.g. player B steps forward to swing, and the "feint" from A causes B's momentum to shift back, thereby thwarting normal movement). I will probably still allow a mid-turn change to "Giant Step" or lunge type maneuver as these do seem reasonable under the circumstances...

This is how I would likely rule it as well -- converting mid-action just feels wrong, but allowing Extra Effort still rewards A's good tactical choice by helping to deplete B's resources (in the form of FP). Meta-game, I'd only allow B's player a few short seconds to realize he can do this and announce it before simply declaring his attack has failed and moving the action along to whomever is next -- not only does this help keep things moving along, but it also helps simulate the real-world scenario where B has only the briefest of moments in which he can react (and no time to really think -- what most people, and especially most RPG players, fail to realize is that combat is at least 90% instinct, and what thought there is is directed not at the current moment but rather several moments later -- hence fencing being known also as "physical chess").