wait and counterattack

[Balor Patch]

I don't think a character's action ends until they declare a new action, and I don't see any way that using it with Counterattack is broken. However, corwyn's point about AoA is interesting. In the following sequence A, by being willing to accept B's attack, gets in an AoA that B couldn't exploit.

A1a Declare Wait, when B attacks will accept attack, if attack hits will Parry and Attack (using Countattack if available), else if attack misses will AoA.
B1a Declare Attack, and do it!
A1b Parry if necessary, and take any consequent damage, shock, etc.
A1b Interrupt with Wait and attack or AoA as declared.
B1b Defend as desired, and take any consequent damage, shock, etc.
A2a Declare Attack (or whatever)
B2a Defend as desired, and take any consequent damage, shock, etc.
B2b Declare Attack
A2b Defend as desired, and take any consequent damage, shock, etc.
A3x

I still don't think it's abusive but YMMV.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

A1a Declare Wait, when B attacks will accept attack, if attack hits will Parry and Attack (using Countattack if available), else if attack misses will AoA.

I don't think you can declare Waits as complicated if/then/else statements.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't think you can declare Waits as complicated if/then/else statements.

I don't think "Specify your action and its trigger when you take the Wait maneuver" gives any guidance on that, that with ETS of course you can, with a Trademark Move you should be able to, and otherwise it comes down to GM rulings about using too much time. Fifteen if-thens a second? Make an IQ-10 roll or Do Nothing!

I'll point out there is one if-then already built in. You can specify if you don't defend before the trigger then AoA else Attack.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

I'll point out there is one if-then already built in. You can specify if you don't defend before the trigger then AoA else Attack.

Except that's apparently a special exception, I don't think you can derive a general rule that permits it.

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't think you can declare Waits as complicated if/then/else statements.

"I Wait. If he drops his defences, I Attack."

It's crystal-clear. I have declared a Wait maneuver, with a declared Action (Attack), based on a clear Trigger, defined by my opponent's Action (his Attack left him exposed). My Attack is based on the Counterattack Technique; also valid, assuming I Parry him. (If I don't Parry him, then he hasn't dropped his defences, therefore the Wait is not triggered, therefore I lose my Action for that second.)

I do not believe the sequence broken in any way. Why? Because, while I will get two Attacks back-to-back if I successfully Parry his Attack, I risk *losing* one of my Attacks if:

1. He also Waits
2. I fail to Parry his attack
3. Someone else attacks me instead of him (you can only Wait for one trigger).

For these reasons, the sequence is likely only to be used in a scenario where A has a clear skill superiority over B, and B does not have numbers on A. In other words, in a cinematic game, taking out the Mooks who always attack you one at a time. In any other set of circumstances, you are taking a fairly significant risk for a good, but not decisive, edge.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

"I Wait. If he drops his defences, I Attack."

Sure, but I don't see anything that lets you convert that Attack into an All-Out Attack. The converse is permitted by the exception for All-Out Attacks, but that doesn't mean that converting Attacks into All-Out Attacks is permitted. If you can freely convert any maneuver into any other Wait-legal maneuver when the Wait is triggered then there's no point in declaring a maneuver with the Wait in the first place.

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Sure, but I don't see anything that lets you convert that Attack into an All-Out Attack. The converse is permitted by the exception for All-Out Attacks, but that doesn't mean that converting Attacks into All-Out Attacks is permitted. If you can freely convert any maneuver into any other Wait-legal maneuver when the Wait is triggered then there's no point in declaring a maneuver with the Wait in the first place.

You're absolutely right. You would be converting the AoA to a regular Attack, not vice versa. The original post, however, was about Wait-Counterattack-Attack as a sequence.

Originally Posted by fifiste

Counterattack says you can do it on your turn following a parry.
Can you declare a wait .. I'll wait parry+counterattack.
I see this that you trade an otherwise free attack before your parry, for an attack immidiately right now but with and added -2 to parry for your opponent.

Corwyn then introduced this wrinkle:

Originally Posted by corwyn

Is there anything, mechanically, preventing Alpha attacking with an All-out attack, thereby getting all the benefits and none of the disadvantages - assuming he only has one opponent.

I replied:

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

On the Wait/Counterattack? Yes. He has to Parry, which he cannot do without an active defence. It's explicitly stated on B366.

If you declare the initial attack as the AoA (and don't need to Parry), however, you lose the strategic advantage of the OP's sequence, which is that X has two attacks in a row relative to Y (assuming a successful Parry of Y's initial attack).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

You're absolutely right. You would be converting the AoA to a regular Attack, not vice versa. The original post, however, was about Wait-Counterattack-Attack as a sequence.

That's not what I was responding to about "if/then/else". I quoted Balor Patch.

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

A1a Declare Wait, when B attacks will accept attack, if attack hits will Parry and Attack (using Countattack if available), else if attack misses will AoA.

I don't think you can convert Attacks in AoAs like that. If you can, there's little point in specifying a Maneuver at all. After all you could just create a complex if/then/else statement that includes all of Attack, All-Out Attack, Feint, and Ready every time. Which defeats the purpose of declaring a specified Maneuver in the first place.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

I don't. I don't see how those say I can't use a trigger of "I will Parry the next guy who attacks me, and if my Parry succeeds I'll attack him back." Maybe I'm just being obtuse.

By my reading of what Kromm said, you can't do this is you're the next character in the turn sequence. That's because the moment your parry succeeds (Assuming it's his last attack), his turn is over, and it is now your turn. There's nothing to interrupt, because it's your turn. You can't interrupt your own turn. If there were someone else in the turn sequence before then, then you could still do it because you're still interrupting someone else's turn.

Even if it's a little odd at times, I'm perfectly fine with it, as it seems a little odd to be able to use a wait to do two turns worth of action at the exact same point in the turn sequence.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

That's because the moment your parry succeeds (Assuming it's his last attack), his turn is over,

That's not true, though. He can still possibly move or take free actions.