12-05-2014, 05:55 AM | #21 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
Because A gave up (lowercase) initiative and a Step in exchange for getting to interrupt B when B comes into range. While B now manages to retain all of {initiative, a Step, a right 'interrupt' A}. |
|
12-05-2014, 06:10 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
"Movement: None until your Wait is triggered. At that point, you may move as allowed by the maneuver you specified (Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or Ready)." Perhaps the Wait could be phrased as such: "I take a Wait to Attack anything that comes into view, and, should nothing do so before my next turn, I take a step immediately before my next turn." I think that allows a shooter to cautiously advance, invokes the Cascading Waits rule if they walk into an ambush, etc. |
|
12-05-2014, 06:13 AM | #23 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
All of the discussion in TS playtest very clearly involved a Step. Perhaps it was a tacit assumption, but the slicing maneuver very much describes the first step, then wait. Second, if Wait-then-step you can never actually clear the corner, since I don't think "if nothing happens" is a valid trigger. If it is, it's an interesting way to resolve the issue.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
12-05-2014, 06:28 AM | #24 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2014, 06:32 AM | #25 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
The more elegant solution is Step-and-Wait, and I agree with Langy that the way GURPS works, the sequence game-mechanically (step/wait vs wait step, or in his example, step/attack vs attack/step) is overly specific relative to the real world actions, which are blended. They are meant to be simultaneous or nearly so, which is exactly why you can attack/step or step/attack. This has also been the articulated reason for infinite Dodges - you make one giant amalgam dodge, and you can only rationalize what happened after they're all over and it's about to be your turn again. GURPS descretizes because it has to to be playable. Not because that's precisely how it's being fought our in our mind's vision. This entire thing is nearly resolved with Step-and-Wait, and that was the intent of the rule.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
12-05-2014, 07:45 AM | #26 | |||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with Step-And-Wait, however, is that it gives a free lunch to those who take Step-and-Wait, in the form of getting the benefits of Wait without the drawbacks. Thus, by allowing Step-and-Wait to be simultaneous, you're essentially allowing people to trigger their own Wait immediately, thus gaining (lowercase) initiative where they lack it. Also, from the FAQ back before my days: Quote:
And there's
Spoiler:
|
|||
12-05-2014, 09:05 AM | #27 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
It feels like this is a foolish stance to take, like I'm trying to interpret the wisdom of forefathers that are actually present and telling me they disagree. That said, I'm rather attached to Basic, so I'll take it: I don't believe in step-and-wait because it's explicitly prohibited, and I guess that means I model things as wait-and-step.
What if the step walks you in to someone else's wait? I'd treat that as a who-draws-first scenario with something like a +2 for the stationary fighter. |
12-05-2014, 09:31 AM | #28 |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA, Arizona, Mesa
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
If character A is Waiting, and character B is Step-and-Waiting, wouldn't you simply use the Cascading Waits rules as written, noting that B is at +0 because he is moving a Step, and A is at +2 because he's not moving at all, as written in the listed modifiers?
|
12-05-2014, 09:42 AM | #29 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
Quote:
Normally, A has the initiative, and opts to give up the ability to use said initiative immediately in exchange for the ability to interrupt those who lost the initiative. But with the simultaneous ruling, B suddenly gets the ability to ignore A's initiative, or, more precisely, to act as if their initiatives are tied. Notice that B loses nothing by taking Step-and-simultaneous-Wait instead of taking an Attack or a normal Wait. Normally, in GURPS, TANSTAAFL. |
|
12-05-2014, 09:55 AM | #30 |
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
|
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
I thought the procedure here was a Step and Attack, and if there's no target after the Step, it's just wasted.
[Edit] I get it now…Attack triggers a standing Wait, while with Wait vs Wait, the aggressor has a chance to act first
__________________
The Art of D. Raymond Lunceford, The Daniverse: Core Group Annex The Daniverse Game Blog Last edited by Gigermann; 12-06-2014 at 11:57 AM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|