ATR and Feint

[Tomsdad]

OK so ATR doesn't come up at my table very often and I don't think I'd ever noticed until very recently that you can't feint as part of an ATR series of manoeuvres.

Now the reasoning seems to be since feints require tricking the opponent, the opponent has to be aware of them and be capable of reacting to the trick in the way you want in order to be tricked and ATR is so fast that the opponent can't do this.


So I guess my question is in terms of speed of action relative to your opponent (and your opponent being able to react to it) what's the difference is between:


ATR1: Feint & Attack

AOA: Feint & Attack (with or without spending a FP)

Rapid strike x2: Feint & Attack

Combination: Feint, Attack

(Some of these uses involve swapping feints for attacks a rule that postdates the ATR write up, I think?)

Is there something inherent to the way ATR1 allows two actions here that makes the difference when all four are ways you can feint and attack in one turn (subjective to the opponent)?


Then there's the rationale "opponent not being able to respond", OK I can see it’s harder to respond to things going faster if you yourself are not capable of acting so quickly. But what does that mean for ATR actions that also involve their opponent reacting to them e.g. attacks?

If I use ATR to attack faster, my opponent still reacts but does so by having to allot defences faster than they otherwise would if we were just trading attacks one each per turn. Basically the way GURPS combat works the difficulty in responding to multiple attacks in your turn is shown by having to rely on different defences or take penalties on repeated parries. Although dodge can be reused without penalty unless you use the limiting multiple dodges rules in MA.

I guess my point here is why can I throw two attacks in one subjective turn and enjoy the benefit of my opponent struggling to react to them when going twice as fast with ATR1, but can't do Feint & attack? It would seem me that a feint that you had less time to react to would be more effective?


Which brings me to my last point, what's a feint? It seems to cover a wide range of things, some of which the rationale above doesn't seem relevant to?

For example beats, I don't need the opponent to understand what's going on to knock their weapon out of line prior to attacking through the gap created? In fact if anything being able to do this so fast as to limit their perception of and reaction to what's going on would be a good thing!

Set up attacks from "delayed gratification" (pyramid 3/52) seem to involve some extra interaction with the opponent over and above the attack in order to get then to do what you want or otherwise gain an advantage but seems legal with ATR.

Of course again these examples post date the ATR write up in Characters


Is it just the QC element that leads to the restriction here? I can see the point a QC infers a direct contest, and a direct contest infers knowing you're in one. But I think I see the QC as a game abstraction for modelling trying to beat your opponent in something in lots of different ways and not all of them require positive knowledge of what's going on.
And again what's really the difference between a QC and an attack roll vs. a defence roll in concept and end result?


Is it a game balance thing? Given what you can do with ATR I'm not sure Feint and Attack is that over powered.


Anyway just my thoughts, it was mentioned in a recent thread and I hadn't noticed or had forgotten the limitation and I got thinking about it.

Am I missing something obvious?

Cheers
TD

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Given what you can do with ATR I'm not sure Feint and Attack is that over powered.

It's not, it's a dumb rule that's held over from 3e... I thought it was dumb back then and dumped it. Haven't looked back, haven't had any issues.

[Icelander]

I've always had problems with the justification given for disallowing Feints, that a foe had to be able to react to a Feint for it to affect him. As ATR does not penalise Active Defences against the attacks a character makes, clearly foes are able to react to him.

[Tomsdad]

Cool I was wondering how others did it and if they had had any issues letting feint combine with ATR.

I've also not had issues letting it combine

But as I say ATR doesn't come up very often in my games and when it does it tends not to be in lots of levels, so it's not like i've tested it that much!

Cheers

TD

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Is it a game balance thing? Given what you can do with ATR I'm not sure Feint and Attack is that over powered.

For one level of ATR, it probably isn't. It's multiple levels where it gets much more questionable.

The really *fundamental* problem is ATR attempts to model being really fast by messing with the turn system, but that isn't a model of reality. It's an artificial structure designed to produce plausible outcomes. *Any* time you start bumping up against the way turns work in determining outcomes you're exceeding the limits of the model in the same way you are when fractional hexes start to matter for something.

The "correct" way to do you are really fast in the turn model would probably be to have an entirely separate menu of available actions - and a different one for each level of ATR - not multiple actions just like those of other people. But that would be enormously complex for a fairly minor advantage. Failing that, tossing the entire "altered rate" concept, renaming the trait Extra Action(s), and treating them exactly the same way as Extra Attacks is maybe the least bad approach.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by malloyd

For one level of ATR, it probably isn't. It's multiple levels where it gets much more questionable.

I thought that might be the case but didn't have much direct experience of that (lots of ATR is as rare as hen's teeth at my table).

But considering ATR is 100pts per level you'd pay for the privilege!

Originally Posted by malloyd

The really *fundamental* problem is ATR attempts to model being really fast by messing with the turn system, but that isn't a model of reality. It's an artificial structure designed to produce plausible outcomes. *Any* time you start bumping up against the way turns work in determining outcomes you're exceeding the limits of the model in the same way you are when fractional hexes start to matter for something.

Yep I think your right. I like how it works most of the time, and the way multiple levels of ATR manifests in the system allows you to act in a way that in my head the character concepts of ATR are designed to support would act

But it does beg questions occasionally, e.g if I have ATR4 and Mv 8, I can take 4x actions with full move in them and move 32 yards or 4x my usual Mv in a second. But unless I have enhanced Mv 2 I'd be stuck at moving at my base Mv8 outside of combat turns?

Dumb question since again neither come up very often how does ATR and enhanced move interact in combat? Tapping into enhanced move counts as sprinting, but you still accelerate, decelerate and move via the movement portion of chosen actions right?

[Tomsdad]

As an aside since I'm now thinking about ATR.

How does Wait work with ATR. Obviously you have to finish on a Wait action (otherwise you next action invalidates it and you've basically wasted one).

But can you chain them together to always end on a wait to trap your opponent in loop of trigged waits, and can you chain them interrupting each part of your opponent's action?

e.g


ATR2: Speedy Mc Speed vs. Baz

They start 2 hexes apart,

Speedy's 1st go: Wait "trigger Baz steps forward one hex, I then for my 1st action step forward one hex and punch him, 2nd action punch him and then step back one hex*, 3rd action take a wait "repeat of the above but I don't have step forward in my first action". and so on.

Since Baz is going to have to always step in one hex, he's always going to trigger the Wait (of course Baz can do something else other than step in)

What if Baz's action is committed step forward twice and attack? Can he interrupted twice once on his first step as normal, and then again on his second by a wait that was set at the end of the series of action triggered by Baz's first step and a prior wait?


Normally the person who's action has been interrupted by a triggered wait gets to finish their action after the wait has been triggered and delayed action completed. But what happens if the wait's triggered action(s) contains another wait that can be triggered again by the next bit of the opponent's action?


NB: this is more a question of what is right by RAW in abstract not weather you'd let it go at you table!


Also if this is already addressed in the ATR write up or has a well known answer sorry. I've been missing the feint exclusion for years I could easily have missed something in this!



EDIT: I realise I'm being a bit loose with GURPS terminology "action" and "maneuver", sorry if that's confusing what I mean is "the various things you can do in a row thanks to ATR"


*or even 2nd action committed attack punch him and then step back two hexes* to completely reset the positions

[AlexanderHowl]

I just deal with it by banning ATR. A character with Extra Attack 5 (Multi-strike, +20%) [150] can feint with the first attack and benefit from the feint for the next five attacks without issue. It is just easier to ban ATR entirely and replace it with Compartmentalized Mind, Extra Attack, etc.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But it does beg questions occasionally, e.g if I have ATR4 and Mv 8, I can take 4x actions with full move in them and move 32 yards or 4x my usual Mv in a second. But unless I have enhanced Mv 2 I'd be stuck at moving at my base Mv8 outside of combat turns?

I don't see why that would be the case - nothing I can think of says ATR is "in combat only". BTW, ATR4 gives five actions - your normal one plus four more.

Dumb question since again neither come up very often how does ATR and enhanced move interact in combat? Tapping into enhanced move counts as sprinting, but you still accelerate, decelerate and move via the movement portion of chosen actions right?

You accelerate, etc., as per the normal rules. You just get several (in your example five) actions before anyone else gets to have another go.

Aside form the feint rule, I've never seen ATR as terribly complicated. Each level gives you another complete turn.

Though there is the question of whether one bleeds faster and, if so, does one heal (or regenerate) faster as well.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

As an aside since I'm now thinking about ATR.

How does Wait work with ATR. Obviously you have to finish on a Wait action (otherwise you next action invalidates it and you've basically wasted one).

But can you chain them together to always end on a wait to trap your opponent in loop of trigged waits, and can you chain them interrupting each part of your opponent's action?

e.g


ATR2: Speedy Mc Speed vs. Baz

They start 2 hexes apart,

Speedy's 1st go: Wait "trigger Baz steps forward one hex, I then for my 1st action step forward one hex and punch him, 2nd action punch him and then step back one hex*, 3rd action take a wait "repeat of the above but I don't have step forward in my first action". and so on.

Since Baz is going to have to always step in one hex, he's always going to trigger the Wait (of course Baz can do something else other than step in)

What if Baz's action is committed step forward twice and attack? Can he interrupted twice once on his first step as normal, and then again on his second by a wait that was set at the end of the series of action triggered by Baz's first step and a prior wait?


Normally the person who's action has been interrupted by a triggered wait gets to finish their action after the wait has been triggered and delayed action completed. But what happens if the wait's triggered action(s) contains another wait that can be triggered again by the next bit of the opponent's action?

A Wait can't contain another turn within it:

Originally Posted by Campaigns

Do nothing unless a particular event you specified in advance occurs before your next turn; e.g., a foe moves into range. If that happens, you may transform your Wait into an Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack (you must specify the option before acting), or Ready maneuver.

I've always assumed that a Concentrate manoeuvre (such as casting a spell) is also legitimate. Also, attempting this would come under that awkward rule about Feints, as you're depending on someone else's reactions and ATR says:

Originally Posted by Characters

In order to do anything that depends on someone else’s reactions, you must deliberately “slow down” and function at his speed.