Wait Maneuver clarification

[DavidSev]

I seem to recall some attacks / techniques require a step to do? Dunno if any of them would be useful with wait or if it would matter.

AFAIR, RAW says you can't move & attack with a wait as the move takes the whole second. A step doesn't take the whole second and would (I assume) happen as part of the attack, so IMO there's no problem with it being part of the wait.

With the conflict of sequential turns and simultaneous actions there will never be a realism based solution, and no rule is un-abusable; if people insist on munchkining the rules just smash their heads into the table and hand wave it.

[JP42]

Originally Posted by DavidSev

AFAIR, RAW says you can't move & attack with a wait as the move takes the whole second. A step doesn't take the whole second and would (I assume) happen as part of the attack, so IMO there's no problem with it being part of the wait.

They get pretty weasely in the description of Wait:

Originally Posted by Campaigns,p366

You can use the Wait maneuver for any “reflex action” you want to plan in advance, provided you specify both the response and the action that will trigger it. This can include holding a knife at a hostage’s throat, or even a noncombat action (e.g., “If Dora sees any orcs, she will pull this rope immediately – otherwise, she does nothing.”). An action only qualifies as a “reflex” if you could do it in a single motion. The GM’s decision is final.

But in the mechanics text at the end of the Wait maneuver:

Originally Posted by Campaigns,p366

you may move as allowed by the maneuver you specified (Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or Ready).

[Alex1976]

Here's another scenario that could use clarification.

Jack gets jumped by Ben and Paul in the street walking home. All are unarmed except Ben, who is welding a large knife. Both Ben and Paul are 3 hexes away.

Turn Order
Paul 6
Ben 5.5
Jack 5

Turn One
Paul takes a Step (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Ready with his knife (2 Hexes away now)
Jack takes Wait ("When Ben gets 1 hex away he'll Step and Attack into Close Combat with Grapple")

Turn Two
Paul takes the Evaluate (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Attack (1 Hex away now)
Jack (???)

The question: Does Jack's Evaluate carry over from turn one and allow him to attack in close combat in turn two? If so, does Jack get another attack after Ben has the opportunity to finish his turn, effectively giving Jack two attack in one turn?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Alex1976

Turn One
Paul takes a Step (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Ready with his knife (2 Hexes away now)
Jack takes Wait ("When Ben gets 1 hex away he'll Step and Attack into Close Combat with Grapple")

Turn Two
Paul takes the Evaluate (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Attack (1 Hex away now)
Jack (???)

GURPS turns don't work like that. Specifically GURPS doesn't have rounds. It's actually just:
1) Paul's Turn
2) Ben's Turn
3) Jack's Turn
4) Paul's Turn
5) Ben's Turn
6) Jack's Turn
and so on.

The question: Does Jack's Evaluate carry over from turn one and allow him to attack in close combat in turn two?

What Evaluate? Jack took a Wait. Jack's Wait is Triggered by Ben's Movement and Jack gets to try to close to Close Combat and Grapple (but Ben still gets to Parry with his knife and if he succeeds not only does it stop Jack from closing it also has a good chance of hurting Jack).

If so, does Jack get another attack after Ben has the opportunity to finish his turn, effectively giving Jack two attack in one turn?

Jack gets to take his turn as normal (assuming he's not now Stunned and forced to Do Nothing) but he's not taking "two attacks in one turn". He is just taking his turn.

[Varyon]

In the OP's scenario, I would actually require the swordsman* to use a Stop-Hit, such that the attacks are resolved simultaneously - although I would not require him to have declared a Stop-Hit when he made his Wait. Thus, spearman* gets his attack as well - it really makes no sense for him to potentially lose the ability to attack just because the guy with the shorter weapon still had a Step left over. Alternatively, I would resolve it similarly to Who Draws First - let each character roll the relevant weapon skill, with the swordsman's Wait+Step and the spearman's superior reach canceling each other out (A Matter of Inches would still apply, I'd just count each weapon as starting out at the same length, so a shorter sword/longer spear gives the swordsman a penalty, a longer sword/shorter spear gives the swordsman a bonus). Whoever wins strikes first!

*I'm assuming the character with the Reach 1 weapons has a sword, the character with Reach 2 has a spear, although these could easily be different weapons, like a flail against a greatsword.

[Kromm]

Exploiting greater Reach requires the use of suitable tactics; by itself, Reach gives you nothing. The topic at hand is a case in point: If you have a longer-Reach weapon, then don't charge at people. Let them charge at you. You should be the one taking a Wait. If you're moving toward someone who has a Wait, then you're no longer using your superior Reach to maximum effect . . . you're splitting your attention between movement and point control. That will let somebody who's seeking an opening – and an enemy with a Wait definitely counts – dart past your point when it wobbles during your movement.

Which is to say, if someone has a Wait and you step into range of his attack, too bad . . . you've just sacrificed your Reach advantage. To keep that advantage, note that he's taking a Wait, stand your ground, and take a Wait of your own. If he refuses to close, then congratulations – you've kept him at bay. If he closes, then you can attack him first. And if you both Wait, then your Reach gives you the advantage in a cascading Waits situation. All of these things are using Reach to your advantage. Just running into a set trap is foolish, and does cede the initiative to your foe, however short his Reach.

Long-weapon tactics are somewhat "boring" from a heroic combat point of view. You have to use steps and retreats to backpedal to maintain a gap, and you have to fight reactively by taking a lot of Wait maneuvers. Whereas someone with a short weapon is always moving forward, pressing the attack, so as not to be held at bay. If you reverse these roles and roll forward with a long weapon while someone with a shorter one gets to Wait and react, you're going to do poorly. I think this is quite realistic.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

To keep that advantage, note that he's taking a Wait, stand your ground, and take a Wait of your own. If he refuses to close, then congratulations – you've kept him at bay. If he closes, then you can attack him first. And if you both Wait, then your Reach gives you the advantage in a cascading Waits situation. All of these things are using Reach to your advantage. Just running into a set trap is foolish, and does cede the initiative to your foe, however short his Reach.

I just wanted to jump up and down and say "Yes, this." But that looks silly on a computer.

But it's important to remember that if you're menacing someone with a long spear for one-Mississippi-two-Mississippi- / - five Mississippi, while yes, that's five "wasted" turns in GURPS, watch nearly any sparring demo, and you've just seen a "lull and flurry" mapped to a one-second time scale.

[Kromm]

It helps a lot if the GM has mooks, at least, refuse to close with a waiting PC who has a spear, halberd, greatsword, etc. while the PC's allies are off behind him doing something time-critical that the mooks were sent to prevent. Then long-weapon tactics look and feel useful. The problem with long weapons is that they're best for formations and genuine battlefields, where who holds the ground matters, but less good for a few skirmishers running around like weasels on meth.

[Varyon]

I think I'm going to need to respectfully disagree. Certainly running into the trap (Move and Attack) is likely to end poorly for the spearman, but I think the skill penalty from Move and Attack readily handles that (in case of a Stop-Hit, spearman is going to suffer an additional defense penalty; in case of Who Strikes First, the penalty is likely going to guarantee swordsman wins the contest). There's still the issue that, under my system, springing the trap with an All-Out Attack allows the spearman to "win" when running into the attack, but I think the fact the character isn't paying any attention to his defenses makes up for his need to pay attention to his movement.

The big problem with letting the swordsman "win" by default comes about when the characters start out merely 3 yards from each other, and the spearman opts to Step and Attack. A Step is available with nearly every maneuver, and is implied to take little attention or thought. Additionally, I personally tend to visualize a Step and Attack as the character attacking while taking the Step, rather than stepping forward, stopping, then swinging/stabbing. Stepping and stabbing with a Reach 2 spear shouldn't allow the guy with the small knife (just barely Reach 1) to lunge forward and slice you first 100% of the time, just because he was Waiting for you. Certainly the GURPS turn sequence is an abstraction, and you could just as easily say that, if he misses you and you hit him, you actually attacked first... except then you're potentially down a defense and the round's Retreat (if your spear would require a Ready to bring it back down to Reach 1, or if it lacks Reach 1 to start with).

I'll readily concede that what I'm proposing is well within the realm of House Rules and adds a bit more complication to the scenario, and I accept that in some cases (the "spearman" swinging a dueling halberd and the "swordsman" thrusting with a pata) Kromm's ruling probably makes more sense, but I think having it not be 100% one way or the other is much more realistic. My scheme may be off (perhaps the "spearman" should always suffer some penalty, giving the advantage to the "swordsman"), but I think it violates my suspension of disbelief far less than the alternative.

[Adversary]

I am not sure I buy that the longer fighter has to stay on the defensive to take advantage. Look at boxing, MMA, etc. Certain attacks--jabs, kicks with the lead leg--are longer ranged than others, and some fighters have more reach than others. But not all fighters that utilize jabs and front leg kicks do so defensively. It is certainly possible to attack behind the jab, or launch a lead-leg kick to the opponent's front leg, without the shorter-armed opponent always getting to land a hook or an uppercut first.

Some fighters use jabs and kicks to stop opponents from coming in (i.e., they use wait). But others--Junior Dos Santos with his long jabs to the body, and Jon Jones with his kicks to his opponents' legs come to mind--are perfectly willing to move in behind their strikes. Step in, use reach to land a shot on a waiting opponent, and then in many cases, step back out before the shorter opponent can counter (probably a form of defensive attack).