Committed Attack - two steps and standing up

[Erling]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Crawling is Worse than kneelling skill NEVER limit you from doing an easier task than their normal task.

It's closer to a house rule or RAI, not to RAW. Whatever, I don't think it's that important. One way or another, Acrobatic Stand is an option for ninja-like fighters, not for regular soldiers, while I consider variant for well trained, but mundane characters. That's why I stick with trading 4 or 5 pts for standing up from kneeling.

"Committed Move" would be a good option as well if could derive it from CA, but it turned out to be that Committed Attack doesn't allow standing up with further movement.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Because that is a retroactive calculation which is based on setting a Step at 1 yard. And step is isn't set at one yard, in gurps.

For that to work your definition of step would need to be one yard, and those with Mv11-20 would be able to do 2 steps, and if they chose to do committed attack with an step they could do 3 steps. (which would still allow them to stand from kneeling and then move one yard, or two yards).

I'll repeat myself.

Please stop trying to extend the number example in one of my posts to a general explanation of the rule for all cases.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

Unlike Kromm, my postings generally are not exhaustive explanations of all cases of rules and all effects on those cases. This was one of those not-exhaustive posts. It's not incorrect, it's just not complete for all cases.

It (post #10) is correct only if we limit the scope to characters with 1-yard base step. That limitation is not indicated in the post and is contrary to the context. It's as 'not incorrect' as saying that sin x is approximately equal to x.


If the X+1 rule isn't what you meant, that's great, but it is what you had actually posted and what I was comparing to what Kromm posted.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It (post #10) is correct only if we limit the scope to characters with 1-yard base step. That limitation is not indicated in the post and is contrary to the context.

It's correct context of addressing the question in Post #1. The limitation isn't contrary to the post, nor is it necessary that I state all possible cases or limitation on what my post addresses when I'm replying.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If the X+1 rule isn't what you meant, that's great, but it is what you had actually posted and what I was comparing to what Kromm posted.

I don't read what I posted as saying that. I can see how someone can read it that way, but that doesn't make it incorrect.


All I think I got out of trying to help Erling and talk about what CA is supposed to be and do is a headache and useless argument about a way to read one of my posts.

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

All I think I got out of trying to help Erling and talk about what CA is supposed to be and do is a headache and useless argument about a way to read one of my posts.

Sorry for your headache.

If it is any consolation, the exchange did clarify the rules for some. The revelation that (without an added maneuver) there is no such thing as a second step, and making Committed Attacks, using Giant Step and trading Extra Attacks do not give you added steps, and instead give you a longer step (that can still be broken up) is actually VERY VERY rules relevant.

Even if I am going to house-rule it to my original interpretation (I like my chambara fighters to be able to get extra steps after getting off their knees or getting a crit on their Acrobatic Stand) it's always good to know the intent of the RAW.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

If it is any consolation, the exchange did clarify the rules for some.

It is a lot of consolation, but no less of a headache. :)