Mutually assured destruction

[thulben]

So I'm learning a new form for my martial arts training and the last meaningful step in the form comes after the two fighters involved have disengaged and see an opening in the other guy and so go for a slash with a knife. As that's happening, both realize that to follow through with their own cut would mean that they'd get cut as well, and so both bail. My question is: are either/both of these actions resolvable in GURPS? It seems that because of the granularity of turns that it's not, but I'd be interested in being proven incorrect.

[alaph]

ow ow, this involves some game theory too, if you could be reasonably sure htat the other guy would figure this to be a no win situation then you would come out the better by taking the risk...

but I digress

[Nymdok]

Sounds like both making a defensive attack?

Nymdok

[aesir23]

If both had hit, I'd call it a Stop Hit scenario. But the aborted attacks...I don't know. I'm interested to see what other forumites can come up with.

[Anaraxes]

It doesn't have to be all one maneuver in GURPS terms. One way to put mechanics behind that text: On turn one, you score some success (so you think). Turn two you're going to take advantage with an All-Out Attack. But then the other guy takes his turn, and you realize that you're not in the right position for that after all, so you choose another maneuver.

Another might be that these stylists are using Aggressive Parries. "See an opening" might reflect a Feint on the one hand, but then deciding not to risk it after all.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Another might be that these stylists are using Aggressive Parries.

As far as I know, there aren't any rules for armed Aggressive Parries in 4e.

[Icelander]

Isn't the situation described adequately covered by one character choosing Wait and planning to use Stop Hit when attacked and the other one noting that at the last moment and seeing that the most likely result is both getting wounded?

[thulben]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

It doesn't have to be all one maneuver in GURPS terms. One way to put mechanics behind that text: On turn one, you score some success (so you think). Turn two you're going to take advantage with an All-Out Attack. But then the other guy takes his turn, and you realize that you're not in the right position for that after all, so you choose another maneuver.

Another might be that these stylists are using Aggressive Parries. "See an opening" might reflect a Feint on the one hand, but then deciding not to risk it after all.

As I understand the form, there aren't any AoA's involved. The transition from attack to bailing out of it happens during the attack. Kind of an "oh sh**" moment, and so you change directions and finish your cut, just not on the originally intended path.

I don't see it as a Feint, either. If I understand that correctly in game terms, that's where you fake an attack to draw your opponent into an action that you can take advantage of. While we have that in some of our other forms, that's not what's going on here. Both sides legitimately think they have a shot and, because both sides are set up to capitalize on it, neither can lest everyone get cut.

[thulben]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Sounds like both making a defensive attack?

Nymdok

Hmm... maybe. That would explain the ability to bail (dodge?) at the last minute. I don't think that resolves the simultaneous actions, though. That is, both sides are attacking at the same time which causes both sides to bail at the same time. If those operations were serialized, it'd change considerably (to attack -> defend -> counter-attack -> defend). That's how GURPS combat usually goes, hence the quandary.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by thulben

Hmm... maybe. That would explain the ability to bail (dodge?) at the last minute. I don't think that resolves the simultaneous actions, though. That is, both sides are attacking at the same time which causes both sides to bail at the same time. If those operations were serialized, it'd change considerably (to attack -> defend -> counter-attack -> defend). That's how GURPS combat usually goes, hence the quandary.

GURPS attacks are resolved consequentially, but are actually taking place at more or less the same time.

There's generally no problem with describing a situation narratively to explain a result that otherwise might seem strange. Such as both characters missing at the same time (perhaps both used Deceptive Attacks and reduced their skill to 10).