Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[condor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

As written the rules for Turning Corners in Tactical Shooting aren't for situations where you are in combat and choosing maneuvers each turn.

"These small-unit maneuvers work best when using a battle map and Tactical Combat (pp. B384-392)."

GURPS Tactical Shooting, p. 21, first phrase after the title and epigraph.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you actually use turn order (the slicing the pie rules do not), then after you use your Ready maneuver to step out, your opponent will get to shoot you on their turn before you can act again. That's in addition to shooting you immediately if they had a Wait in effect.

If you use the Slicing the Pie rules as written, you should remember that you're only half-way into combat, and little things like what maneuver you're using and whose turn is whose are ignored, unless they're not. And if you happen to engage in pie-slicing actually using the combat rules (say because you do it in the middle of a larger combat), expect inconsistent results.

This is true. But it might be just fair and realistic. Someone who is under fire better retreat (dive and drop) as part of his defense, and if advanced only one hex from the corner would be able to step back before his foe is able to act in his own turn.

The rules in p.24 say that if someone used Wait maneuver, the Opportunity Fire rules apply (p. B390). In the Opportunity fire mode you cannot move, just like in the raw Wait maneuver. It could be a price you pay for the benefit of acting first.

Otherwise, it is suggested that you DON'T use Wait to round the corner at all: "If neither of you chose to Wait, you both roll as above but as a Quick Contest; the winner acts first and a tie means truly simultaneous actions!"

It could be interpreted as Step and (possibly) Attack, that is right, but not as Step and Wait at all, at least inside raw.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think a 'if nothing happens' clause is allowed or should be.

I thought more about Wait triggering conditions.

As sir_pudding said, there is no global turn. So, all events you can speak of assume (or entails) until my next turn. For instance:

- "If he leaves his hex, I attack" - this assumes "If he leaves his hex until my next turn ". The same is true for the corner situation (the guy taking opportunity fire): If someone pops out that corner until my next round , I shoot."

This is automatic. So, I can't find anything wrong with:

- "If he keeps this side of that line, (until my next round), I step forward and (keep) Ready my sword".

Everything hints that Step and Wait IS NOT raw.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you want to have the ability to make a reactive attack, you need to Wait. Period.

Wrong. If you want to have the ability to make a guaranteed reactive attack before your foe has any opportunity of doing anything, you take Wait maneuver. But for that, you must commit into doing really nothing. In all other contexts, you react on a turn by turn basis. Besides, is it realistic entitling a guy to approach a corner with a gun the same reaction privileges as his foe, who is stopped and waiting focused on that specific spot?

In this case, I am really inclined to think that, in raw, the Slicing and Pie tactic is addressed by a series of Move(Steps) under special rules or keep my gun Ready and step, also under special rules, it doesn't matter.

Turn 1, Player B: Waits, Opportunity Fire.
Turn 1, Player A, step out of the corner and take a view. - Player B interrupts him and shoots. Player A dodges and drop for cover.
Turn 2, Player B. Waits, Opportunity Fire on the corner.
Turn 2, Player A: Changes posture from prone to kneeling.
Turn 3, Player B: Waits, Opportunity Fire.
Turn 3, Player A: Changes posture from kneeling to standing.
Turn 3, Player B: Waits, Opportunity Fire.
Turn 4, Player A: Attack. He steps. - Player B shoots. Player A rolls dodge without retreating, and succeeds. Then, Player A attacks.

It seems fair to me. In turn 3, the situation is way more favorable to Player B, which has all the bonuses from aiming (+3 and precision), while Player A has none of them, -2 because he doesn't see the target when his turn begins. The only scenario in which he is not able to react is if he insists in not dodging for cover in his first round. This would be stupid. As he would be utterly confused, trying to assess where the shot came from to begin with, I think it just reasonable if his foe shoots twice before him if he is faster.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yeah, a literal reading of the RAW seems to say that, but it has real problems. Imagine a situation where A is a in room and B is by the door. Why can't A go through the door when B opens it?

He would have to evade him. But assuming a three-yard-wide door, basically this is the same as the warrior closing in a foe in a three yard wide dead-end alley. In raw, it would solve through a sequence like:

Turn 1, Warrior: Waits - "If he comes within reach (until my next turn assumed), I attack".
Turn 1, Foe: Do nothing.
Turn 2, Warrior: Waits - "If he comes within reach (until my next turn assumed), I attack".
Turn 2, Foe: Do nothing.
...
Turn n, Warrior: Waits - "If he keeps across that line (until my next turn assumed), I Ready my sword and Step forward."
Turn n, Foe (without knowing the contents of the triggering condition): Do nothing. Warrior steps.
Turn n+1, Warrior: Waits - "If he comes within reach, I hit him."
Turn n+1, Foe: (Foe: Craps! I should have tried run past him! Shall I try now?) Move! - Warrior interrupts his move.

This would create a rate of approach of less than 1 yard per second, which seems realistic to me. And it does sound as a solution inside raw.

A quick contest would do in most cases, but once in a while, play it in Tactical combat could add fun - mainly if the player must capture the foe quickly.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

No, no I totally misremembered. Sorry.

I'm not sure you did, but it's on p24 not p23. Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by Tactical Shooting p. 24

If someone is lurking around the corner, he may use Opportunity Fire (p. B390) if he took a Wait maneuver. If neither of you chose to wait, you both roll as above but as a Quick Contest; the winner acts first and a tie means truly simultaneous actions! (Emphasis mine.)

That seems to imply a Step an Wait maneuver. After all, is doesn't say "If he did not choose to wait...", it says "neither."

[condor]

Originally Posted by acrosome

That seems to imply a Step an Wait maneuver. After all, is doesn't say "If he did not choose to wait...", it says "neither."

For me, "neither of you" in this case clearly means "(NOT you) AND (NOT your foe)", just like in the sentence: "Neither John nor Betty is at home."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neither?s=t

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

"These small-unit maneuvers work best when using a battle map and Tactical Combat (pp. B384-392)."

GURPS Tactical Shooting, p. 21, first phrase after the title and epigraph.

Yes but that doesn't mean that you are using turn-by-turn movement and the map at all times. Turning Corners only makes sense to apply in a situation where the shooters are at Condition Yellow or Orange and the mobile shooter encounters a hostile shooter. If the mobile shooter is in condition Red it can't apply. In that case they act on their turns as normal.

Example 1 (Turning Corners):
Player: I start clearing this room by slicing the pie (moves token).
GM: There's a hostile in here! Roll a Quick Contest!

Example 2 (Normal Combat):
Player: I take a Move and enter the room (moves token).
GM: There's a hostile in the room. He shoots at you with a AoA: Determined!

Alternatively if you apply that rule to normal combat, then you are giving a free attack in all sorts of weird situations. If I take a Move and Attack to flank a guy that shot at me on his turn, does he get a Quick Contest to shoot at me again? If not why not? It's the same as the Turning Corners situation.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

The rules in p.24 say that if someone used Wait maneuver, the Opportunity Fire rules apply (p. B390). In the Opportunity fire mode you cannot move, just like in the raw Wait maneuver. It could be a price you pay for the benefit of acting first.

No, you can still move as part of the triggered action, just as with any Wait. You can Step with an Attack or move half your Move with an All-Out Attack (with the normal restrictions). Opportunity Fire doesn't change this.

Otherwise, it is suggested that you DON'T use Wait to round the corner at all: "If neither of you chose to Wait, you both roll as above but as a Quick Contest; the winner acts first and a tie means truly simultaneous actions!"

If both chose Waits the same situation would apply as Cascading Waits.

It could be interpreted as Step and (possibly) Attack, that is right, but not as Step and Wait at all, at least inside raw.

What the RAW lacks is a situation where a mobile shooter is expecting a hostile in the room, and the hostile isn't expecting the mobile shooter.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

- "If he keeps this side of that line, (until my next round), I step forward and (keep) Ready my sword".

Taking a Ready to ready a weapon that's already Ready just to get the step is silly. You might as well say "I take a Concentrate and think about Prime Numbers" in order to get the step. I wouldn't allow a player to Ready something that is Ready.

Everything hints that Step and Wait IS NOT raw.

No one is claiming that is. Nor will the game police confiscate your dice if you allow it.

Wrong. If you want to have the ability to make a guaranteed reactive attack before your foe has any opportunity of doing anything, you take Wait maneuver. But for that, you must commit into doing really nothing. In all other contexts, you react on a turn by turn basis.

That's not a reactive attack; that's just a normal attack on your turn.

Besides, is it realistic entitling a guy to approach a corner with a gun the same reaction privileges as his foe, who is stopped and waiting focused on that specific spot?

That is an interesting question isn't it? On the other hand, if the Turning Corners rule was meant to apply in normal combat situations ought it not apply anytime a target becomes available and neither fighter has a Wait? In which case GURPS just got Attacks of Opportunity; which is bad.

In this case, I am really inclined to think that, in raw, the Slicing and Pie tactic is addressed by a series of Move(Steps) under special rules or keep my gun Ready and step, also under special rules, it doesn't matter.

"Keep my gun Ready" isn't RAW and moreover is just silly.

He would have to evade him. But assuming a three-yard-wide door, basically this is the same as the warrior closing in a foe in a three yard wide dead-end alley. In raw, it would solve through a sequence like:

Not what I'm talking about at all. Imagine that Able is trapped in a tiny room with a pressure plate that activates on his turn and shuts the door. Ben is outside next to a lever that opens the door on his turn. By GURPS Raw Able can't Wait to Move out of the room. None of the legal Maneuvers he can take with Wait make sense. Able dies of thirst.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

For me, "neither of you" in this case clearly means "(NOT you) AND (NOT your foe)", just like in the sentence: "Neither John nor Betty is at home."

Which does imply that John could be at home. In this case there is an implication that the mobile shooter took a Wait. However there's also a RAW situation where the mobile shooter could have taken a Wait: if he is on a vehicle or mount, so this doesn't actually solve anything.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Which does imply that John could be at home. .

No, it doesn't. It explicitly means John is not home and Betty is not at home.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by corwyn

No, it doesn't. It explicitly means John is not home and Betty is not at home.

Why bother to state that John is not at home if it is impossible for him to ever be at home?

[condor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Which does imply that John could be at home. In this case there is an implication that the mobile shooter took a Wait. However there's also a RAW situation where the mobile shooter could have taken a Wait: if he is on a vehicle or mount, so this doesn't actually solve anything.

That would be bad reading. Neither means NOT A and NOT B. Period.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes but that doesn't mean that you are using turn-by-turn movement and the map at all times. Turning Corners only makes sense to apply in a situation where the shooters are at Condition Yellow or Orange and the mobile shooter encounters a hostile shooter. If the mobile shooter is in condition Red it can't apply. In that case they act on their turns as normal.

Any event in which fast physical action is important, as fighting or pre-fighting, should be addressed by Tactical Combat.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What the RAW lacks is a situation where a mobile shooter is expecting a hostile in the room, and the hostile isn't expecting the mobile shooter.

No, it doesn't lack.

Turn 1, Player A. Step the corner and Ready my gun.
Turn 1, Player B. (Not expecting trouble, gun across his chest) - Ready my gun.
Turn 2, Player A. Shot.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Taking a Ready to ready a weapon that's already Ready just to get the step is silly. You might as well say "I take a Concentrate and think about Prime Numbers" in order to get the step. I wouldn't allow a player to Ready something that is Ready.

"Keep my gun Ready" isn't RAW and moreover is just silly.

There are loads of actions which you could do in a combat: count, take something in your pocket, grab some sand from the ground, etc. You need to pay attention to the maneuver description, not just stick to its name.
The book says that "Concentrate" and "Ready" are kind of generic maneuvers, that you use like a wildcard when addressing different mental or physical tasks during a combat while moving a little.
If you are prone and decide to grab a handful of sand - would you attack the ground? Grapple? I would use Ready in this case.
It accommodates to the game dynamics a zillion of physical and mental actions that you deem could be performed while stepping a little.

So he is not Readying the gun strictu sensu, he is just performing a physical and mental action which is not covered by the Basic Maneuvers: walking in a rehearsed fashion, carefully, slowly.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

No one is claiming that is. Nor will the game police confiscate your dice if you allow it.

As a 3rd. edition player, I used to Step and Wait. A player noted it, I said "Strange", we kept on and after a time, I decided to dig into it, out of curiosity, and check what SJ guys were thinking when changed the text. Instead of assuming that the rules are crap, I'm trying to devise some possibilities:

* Does it affect game balance?
*Are the rules coherent?
*Is it possible to play in these new rules?
*Was it just poorly written?

It is not I am afraid of the rules, its just that I am interested in this point as a puzzle.

But thanks for the advice, anyway.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That's not a reactive attack; that's just a normal attack on your turn.

Yeah, but once you will do it as soon as you see your foe, it can be seen as a slower reactive attack.
But you're right: Cascading Waits may solve it too.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That is an interesting question isn't it? On the other hand, if the Turning Corners rule was meant to apply in normal combat situations ought it not apply anytime a target becomes available and neither fighter has a Wait? In which case GURPS just got Attacks of Opportunity; which is bad.

No. It just apply when you don't see your target in the beginning of your turn. It seems the same modifier applied to pop-up attacks. p. B390.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

No, you can still move as part of the triggered action, just as with any Wait. You can Step with an Attack or move half your Move with an All-Out Attack (with the normal restrictions). Opportunity Fire doesn't change this.
If both chose Waits the same situation would apply as Cascading Waits.

Wrong. "To use opportunity fire, you must take the Wait maneuver. You must stand still and watch for a target in a specified area." p. B390.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Not what I'm talking about at all. Imagine that Able is trapped in a tiny room with a pressure plate that activates on his turn and shuts the door. Ben is outside next to a lever that opens the door on his turn. By GURPS Raw Able can't Wait to Move out of the room. None of the legal Maneuvers he can take with Wait make sense. Able dies of thirst.

This problem doesn't exist in GURPS. You can't condition a lever to a turn nor to any other meta-information. You can't even say "I wait and attack him if he takes a Concentrate maneuver", because the maneuvers are not part of the diegesis of the game - they are just the way we use to deal with it. So, or the plate activates the trap by someone stepping on it or it doesn't. The same applies to the lever.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why bother to state that John is not at home if it is impossible for him to ever be at home?

If you mean that John can theoretically be home at some other time, then sure.but at that time you would word the statement differently to allow for that possibility. Since the gurps wording will always be the same, it will always mean A is not waiting AND B is not waiting. Always.