Should Waiting permanently change your place in the turn sequence?

[VIVIT]

The FAQ strongly recommends against trying to reorder the turn sequence after a battle has started and gives some pretty sound reasons why this should not be done. If the turn order suddenly changes from A–B–C to C–B–A, then for one pair of seconds we end up with A–B–C–C–B–A, giving C two turns in a row and forcing A to wait twice as long as normal before he gets his next turn. If A took an AOA last turn, he's hurting! This also messes with the durations of effects, which run on the "clock" of the character maintaining them.

Except, there's one way that actions can be resolved in a different order than normal: the Wait maneuver. And it has some of the same problematic effects. Suppose A declares to Wait before executing an AOA on C as soon as the latter does something. Because A's next turn comes immediately after C's, A recovers his defense right away, negating the sole drawback of the AOA maneuver. A loses his AOA if he's forced to defend on the turns leading up to the activation of the Wait Maneuver, but he can defend.

The only way I can possibly see this being fixed is if the Wait maneuver changes your place in the turn sequence to just before (or just after, but before is probably better) the character whose turn you interrupted. Has anyone tried this before, and if so, how well has it worked?

[Rupert]

The way I read the 'Wait' manoeuvre, as you have to specify just what your Wait will turn into when you go into the Wait, you lose your active defences right then, which removes that little 'exploit'.

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The way I read the 'Wait' manoeuvre, as you have to specify just what your Wait will turn into when you go into the Wait, you lose your active defences right then, which removes that little 'exploit'.

RAW implies that the maneuver you select for your reflex action has no effect on your active defenses. You still can't defend and AOA on the same turn, but you don't sacrifice the option to defend until you actually claim your AOA. Reach permitting, you can even substitute a standard Attack for your AOA in this event:

Originally Posted by B366

Active Defense: You may defend normally while you are waiting or after your Wait is triggered. But if you defend while taking a Wait, you may not transform your Wait into an All-Out Attack; you must convert your
Wait into an Attack instead.

By analogy, the same should be permitted with a CA after a parry with the weapon you intend to use to attack and/or after a Retreat.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

By analogy, the same should be permitted with a CA after a parry with the weapon you intend to use to attack and/or after a Retreat.

There probably should be an option in that case to voluntarily take a defense penalty (as you normally would with a committed attack) to still be able to do a Committed Attack.

[Stormcrow]

You'll have to explain why you'd want to change the turn sequence. It's not for realism: the turn sequence itself is not realistic anyway. It's not to penalize hesitation: the person Waiting isn't hesitating, and going later in the sequence isn't really a penalty, as it's all just one big circle anyway.

You have your position in the turn sequence because of the speed of your reflexes at the start of combat. Waiting doesn't alter your reflex speed, and once you're past the first turn everyone goes before or after everyone else, depending on where in the cycle you look.

[tbone]

There was just a thread on this topic recently. I'll link to it so interested parties can catch both threads:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=183576

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

You'll have to explain why you'd want to change the turn sequence. It's not for realism: the turn sequence itself is not realistic anyway. It's not to penalize hesitation: the person Waiting isn't hesitating, and going later in the sequence isn't really a penalty, as it's all just one big circle anyway.

The purpose behind having Wait change your location in the turn sequence - which I'll note is how it works in some other games - is so that you don't get to act more-or-less back-to-back. As it stands, using the A-B-C turn sequence, you could have A use a Wait, then if it gets triggered on C's turn the sequence essentially becomes - for that round and the next - B-A-C-A-B-C. The problem is more clear with more participants - if you have A-B-C-D-E-F, you could have a Wait cause this to become B-C-D-E-A-F-A-B-C-D-E-F.

As for All Out Attack, while the rule that you can't convert your Wait to such if you've attempted an Active Defense after declaring said Wait is helpful at avoiding exploitation, it still allows the character to avoid a large downside of All Out Attack - namely, it makes you a prime target, meaning foes are more likely to attack you (and can safely Telegraph their attacks). Consider in the A-B-C situation if A is B's bodyguard, and C wants to kill B. A could declare a Wait to attack C if C attacks B (some GM's may let the trigger be "if C attacks," meaning A would get to make an attack if C attacks A or B). C doesn't know the details of the Wait, but he/she does know that B is a squishier target (and is actually who he/she wants to kill anyway), so opts to attack B - this lets A use an All Out Attack on C, as C has already made his/her attack, and so A will get to go again before C can exploit the opening. If A had instead opted to use All Out Attack on C from the start, without bothering with the Wait, A would have left himself/herself open to attack - provided C survived, C likely would have targeted A with a Telegraphic Attack, given A's momentary lack of defense, in hopes of narrowing things down to a fight between just B and C. Indeed, even outside a bodyguard situation, you could have A and B take Waits to attack if C attacks; if C attacks A, A can defend and then do a normal Attack while B can do an All Out Attack; if C attacks B, A can do an All Out Attack while B can defend and then do a normal Attack.

The problem with having Wait move the turn order, aside from potential complications, is that, without an exploit like the above, Wait is a very-rarely-used option - it's sufficiently limited that it's only useful in rare situations. Making Wait a worse option by having it shift your position in turn order for the rest of the fight is going to make it used even less frequently. Changing Wait so it doesn't have a trigger, but is instead something like "once you declare a Wait, you may interrupt anybody's turn to take your own," would make it much more useful, and would make it changing your place in the turn order more palatable - a fair trade, rather than making a typically-bad option even worse. Being able to react that effectively isn't terribly realistic, of course, but should work fine for typical GURPS levels of realism. A "Gritty Realism" option may require you to declare a trigger, then either make you unable to act until you've waited a full second if the trigger doesn't occur, or simply give you a penalty to interrupt something else - -2 for multitasking may work alright.
EDIT: I made a similar comment at the end of the thread linked by t-bone, albeit without the "gritty realism" option (I thought of it back then, but opted against posting it as the suggestion was more of a digression from the thread topic - which was if Waiting was supposed to change turn order; it seems more appropriate for this thread, which is explicitly about houserules).

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The purpose behind having Wait change your location in the turn sequence - which I'll note is how it works in some other games - is so that you don't get to act more-or-less back-to-back. As it stands, using the A-B-C turn sequence, you could have A use a Wait, then if it gets triggered on C's turn the sequence essentially becomes - for that round and the next - B-A-C-A-B-C. The problem is more clear with more participants - if you have A-B-C-D-E-F, you could have a Wait cause this to become B-C-D-E-A-F-A-B-C-D-E-F.

Well, I mean... so what? You still get to act the same number of times as everyone else. What's the problem with it?

As for All Out Attack, while the rule that you can't convert your Wait to such if you've attempted an Active Defense after declaring said Wait is helpful at avoiding exploitation, it still allows the character to avoid a large downside of All Out Attack - namely, it makes you a prime target

At the risk of not having your Wait triggered and losing your entire action anyway. And that's assuming that whoever it is you plan to All-Out Attack normally acts shortly before you do. And that's assuming you didn't need to use a defense while Waiting. Taking a Wait to interrupt whoever goes just before you go also means all the time you're Waiting is time that the enemy has to act without you interrupting them. B, C, D, and E all got to act before A, and if any of them do something A doesn't like, that's at least partly A's fault for being so focused on F.

Doesn't seem like such an abusive thing to do to me.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Well, I mean... so what? You still get to act the same number of times as everyone else. What's the problem with it?

It causes a bit of a disconnect amongst the players when one character acts more-or-less back-to-back, particularly when there are a large number of combatants. With 10 characters, you could have a case where one character interrupts another, then immediately takes their next turn. Mechanically, it's not a serious issue (although it does mean you can set things up in a manner that leaves your foe unable to react*), but it can damage suspension of disbelief when one character holds off on acting for a moment, then suddenly spends a moment acting at double normal speed (or, rather, seeming to).

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

At the risk of not having your Wait triggered and losing your entire action anyway. And that's assuming that whoever it is you plan to All-Out Attack normally acts shortly before you do. And that's assuming you didn't need to use a defense while Waiting. Taking a Wait to interrupt whoever goes just before you go also means all the time you're Waiting is time that the enemy has to act without you interrupting them. B, C, D, and E all got to act before A, and if any of them do something A doesn't like, that's at least partly A's fault for being so focused on F.

As I demonstrated right after the part you quoted, it's possible to set things up to be readily exploitable. Yes, the foe can do something unexpected, causing A to waste their turn... although given this means the person A is protecting isn't having to deal with C's sword being swung at their neck, that's arguably Mission Accomplished.

*"Judo Throw him if he attacks me" lets you throw the foe, then get another turn to attempt a Pin, stomp on his head, etc before the foe gets a chance to Break Free (if you did a Sacrifice Throw to maintain a grapple) or Change Posture to get into a position that lets him more readily defend (I can't recall if you or your target gets to decide if the foe lands face down or face up, but if you get to decide, you can opt the throw the target face-down and have your next attack treated as an attack from behind, leaving most foes with no defense). Using a limb-lock instead lets you immediately deal damage without giving the foe a chance to Break Free - and you can immediately turn the lock into a Throw From Lock to deal even more damage. If the target ends up Stunned, you get to act and capitalize on their -4 to Active Defenses before they get even their first chance to shake it off. And so forth - there are a lot of exploits that getting two actions between those of your foe gets you, and simply having to delay the first is arguably an insufficient price to pay.

[SID]

I wouldn’t bother with changing turn order. You know, this is highly circumstantial, if the fight or the GM give you enough room to pull this, go for it.

For example:

If it´s A vs B in melee range, wielding katanas, wearing no armor, same skill level and move score, I doubt A would make a successful “wait and AOA”, unless… you are ready to forfeit something else.