Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[condor]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Agreed, that's the way I see it as well.

Agreed, that's the way I see it as well.

Yeah, you are right: I didn't make myself clear. Wait does not allow you any movement unless the maneuver you are waiting for is triggered, that is it. The problem, so is, what happen if that maneuver is not triggered.

Originally Posted by sjard

My view is that this is more flexible in 4e than it was in 3e. Sure, you could move first, but if you were too far away, the attack portion triggered by the wait is wasted. Instead, with 4e, you wait first, then you can move with the attack. Far more flexibility.

I don't think so. In page 366 it is clearly written "Movement: None until your Wait is triggered." It does not make a big difference in non-tactical combat, to me: so, it clearly means tactical combat.

I think that there might be some unfair combat situation they try to prevent. With the new rule, there is no Contest of Skills. This could be used to some tactical advantage that is unfair.

Edited: As brought up by vicky_molokh and skarg, there might be some rule reason behind the change

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The reason for removing the 3e QC on Waits seems to differ:
Allowing someone to Step-and-Wait-while-Stepping would essentially bring back the issue TKD posted about. The 4e waiting change is similar to the En Passant rulespatch in chess, come to think of it.

This is risking to turn into a long highly technical discussion, but basically, GURPS 4e was not meant to be used with a Sliding Sequence, and adding slides will break some amount of things, such as durations of grenades and spells, which are tied to sequence, complicate durations/delays between unconsciousness checks, stun recovery, regeneration rates etc.

Originally Posted by Skarg

With multiple fighters on each side, Wait is also useful because you can react to what goes on with everyone else in many ways (someone else may create some opening you can take advantage of)..

Does anyone experienced in 3rd remember of more situations like that?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by sjard

Could just be a viewpoint thing, but to me, being able to decide after you know what's being done is more flexible than deciding before you know what's going to happen.

In general it is, except you wrote it like this was an extra thing in 4e. In 3e, you could do this same thing too, OR you could step before you Wait (Step could always be before OR after the action), which isn't mentioned in 4e and so seems to be an option you don't have. It can be a useful option, because it lets you move before someone else can (for instance, to block access to something, which otherwise a later character could move at least one hex before you) and yet still be waiting with your action. In Tactical Combat, it may not be what you often do, but it can be a very important option to have in some situations (e.g. you really want to protect something in a location that otherwise foes would be able to move to). The lack of wording that you need to specify what you will do under what circumstances is also more confining (and still seems bad/wrong to me unless you need some instant timing reaction bonus, such as in a hostage situation).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

...

I think that there might be some unfair combat situation they try to prevent. With the new rule, there is no Contest of Skills. This could be used to some tactical advantage that is unfair.

Edited: As brought up by vicky_molokh and skarg, there might be some rule reason behind the change

* The 3e contest of skills for people approaching with equal-length weapons adds a roll and a balance weakness to Wait. Some people who like Wait to give a distinct advantage over a later foe's Step & Attack complained about that, though it still gives some other advantages. By removing the option to Step before Wait, the 4e editors may have hoped to eliminate such contests without seeming arbitrary, though in 4e you could still say "If Sam moves up, I will use my Wait to attack Bob (who is waiting)." and get two Waiters to face off. I suspect this is largely an editorial desire to simplify/clarify and reduce questions.

* I too would love to hear if there were other actual good (for experienced realism-oriented map-using players) reasons for this change, but given the length/duration of this thread and lack of reasons mentioned, and my inability to think of any, I think it's just the desire to simplify/clarify and avoid the recurring questions. Also, the change to remove the option to Step before Wait seems like a similar simplification despite the negative impact on the game when using a map.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
With multiple fighters on each side, Wait is also useful because you can react to what goes on with everyone else in many ways (someone else may create some opening you can take advantage of)..

Does anyone experienced in 3rd remember of more situations like that?

People who don't play with maps are really playing another game, and I've even seen experienced players who do often use maps but sometimes don't, not realize the difference, but it is huge from my perspective as someone who's focused on map-based situations since TFT (1980...). It would be impossible to list all the possible advantages if you are allowed to Step and/or Attack during everyone else's turn as appropriate, because a GURPS combat with a map can have all sorts of situation changes in a single turn:

Fighters can fall and be knocked back and tackle each other, or just use Move to completely change who's facing whom. If you Wait with some script for the predictable only, but then some hobgoblin manages to tackle your ally on your non-shield side, and another foe with a poleaxe does an All-Out Attack to get to a hex where he can nail you from the side, it'd be great if you could take your Step to either back away, or at least bring your shield to face it. Or some ally using Wait behind you or to the side could effectively fill in unexpected gaps in a line.

On the offensive side, circumstances can present all sorts of opportunities that only Wait can take advantage of. If a foe drops their weapon, or a friend breaks a foe's weapon or shield, or knocks them down, or a foe steps someplace you can now hit them in a way you couldn't before, or your allies manage to use up one particular foe's defenses for the turn, but not others, the people who are waiting can take advantage of that (especially if they didn't have to write a detailed list of triggers and reactions on a note to the GM beforehand ...). You might also choose to attack the person your friends _haven't_ lowered the best defenses on yet, because there is another tier of allies who may be able to attack all of them, with stronger weapons than you have. Or you may see a reason to try to get a foe to use their Wait against you, so they won't be able to take advantage of a situation you see. Being able to Step whenever you want also means you might just use that to be able to get one hex closer to something so you can reach it on your next whole turn. You can also use the Step from a Wait to step into an opponent's hex so they are in Close Combat and can't use their long melee weapon. The list of possibilities is huge.

Even when you allow full freedom with Wait, all kinds of chaos can and does happen in one turn - things that a non-map-using players would not tend to imagine, and if they did, the other players would tend to complain it was silly or abusively just making up wild situations to take advantage. So without a map, you don't need to be able to slightly adjust your position to prevent being tackled from behind, because the GM would just say the other person can't do that without you being able to mitigate it. If you're using a map, all sorts of opportunities come up, and even careful movement can't stop it, especially if someone has gimped your Wait maneuver and says you need to say exactly what you'll do in advance of expected situations, and you can't step first and then Wait, etc.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Skarg

The lack of wording that you need to specify what you will do under what circumstances is also more confining (and still seems bad/wrong to me unless you need some instant timing reaction bonus, such as in a hostage situation).

Actually, I find the greatly increased wording for the 4e version much more versatile. Sure, you need to specify what you will be doing. But that's because you can do much more with the 4th Edition version than you can with the 3rd Edition version.

3rd Edition only lets you Attack or not. You can still use any allowed defenses.

4th Edition lets you Attack, Feint, All Out Attack, Ready, or use a Reflex Action (for uses such as using a hostage among many others). Or to coordinate attacks with slower party members. You can still use any allowed defenses.

The movement issue is, to my view, extremely minor. Sure you could choose to move before, but what if you choose poorly? Suddenly your wait becomes meaningless. Moving after is more flexible as you can adjust to correct a perceived error in placement.

Using the alley/corridor examples and ignoring ranged attacks. You use your step before waiting in a 3 yard wide space, it really doesn't make much difference if you move before, or after to the center of the area |_p_|, you can still reach the space on both sides.

In the 5 yard wide space, it's a bit more important. If you use your step to put yourself in the center |__p__| it only lets you cover the full space if you have a reach 2 weapon. However, if you were there before you used your step, you can then move one yard closer (in this example say the opponent is trying to go to your left) |_p___|, sure you now leave a gap on your right, but they are already moving towards your left so you can now reach them with a reach 1 weapon. This is the same for 4th Edition, or going after you wait in 3rd edition. So I see no real benefit to the 3rd edition rule over the 4th edition rule.

As pointed out before, the real benefit to the 4th edition version is just how many more options you actually have. In 3rd, if you miss your attack, they can continue past you. In 4th, if you decided to do an All Out Attack: Double, you can attack them again if the first attack misses. Or you can take an All Out Attack: Determined for a bonus to hit. Or an AOA: Strong, or stick out my leg and trip them, or... and the list goes on. 3rd edition you just get to attack or not. And you can also choose not to attack with 4th edition.

The argument that you didn't need to declare what you were doing in 3rd edition is somewhat moot in my view, because you didn't have more than one choice of what to do. So of course you didn't need to declare I take a Step and Wait, and I'll choose the Attack option if triggered. The only choice was to move before or after.

[Skarg]

sjard, Captain Joy and I were responding to what you wrote first, which seemed to say that not being _able_ to step first made it more flexible, which of course makes no sense.

That is, the option to Step before Wait in 3e is not _instead_ of the option to step with the action; it's just another option. You're right that it _does_ reduce flexibility _if_ you take that additional option. It's less flexible to do that, and the minority choice, but not having that choice is less flexible overall, on that one point. That's all we were saying.

It's not a minor point because in some cases it is a very valuable option, because it lets you take a step first in cases where you know that's what you want to do. For example, to block access to a wounded friend when there are enemies nearby who could otherwise step there and attack that friend and might survive your attack, but if you are in the hex first, they can't do it without taking you down first. And many other such situations where you want to be there first, and don't need the flexibility to move later.

It also is a very logical way to do the "slicing the pie" kind of thing, where you see no foes now, but if you take one step you may see foes, or you may want to be able to step forward and be ready to react right away to whatever happens next, and not "step around the corner and not be able to attack until my next turn" and not even "step around the corner and have zero chance to attack first against someone waiting around the corner, because on the 4th edition of the rules, someone decided to remove the natural quick contest to see who actually goes first when both people are being very careful and trying to be ready for action".

The points you make in the more recent post, about 4e now offering Feint, Ready, and All Out Attack (!!) are of course more choices (especially AoA), and so sure the overall 4e Wait might be more flexible overall, but that's not what we thought you were talking about, so it's not what we were responding to.

(BTW, Ready/short-action also seems to me like it was implied or at least would generally be allowed - IIRC there were 3e Q&A or rules which mentioned that Wait could be used for other simple actions besides an Attack per se.)

As for the the new 4e Wait conditional statement, if it said you only had to choose which flavor of Wait (Wait-Feint, Wait-AoA, "I'm waiting to pull the rope at the right time", etc) that would be one thing, but the example given is "I'll make an [AoA-Determined] with my sword on the first orc to move toward me." If that's really the expected level of detail required, then it boggles my mind in several ways:
* Do we actually need to specify the sub-type of AoA or not?"
* What if a foe steps up who isn't an orc? Can I attack?
* What if I have a friend who's an orc, who happens to step up? Do I have to attack him?
* What if the orc two hexes away throws their axe at me, but none move up? Can I use my wait to step up and attack him? Or do I have to lose my wait action because I didn't think of that and put it in my pre-programmed reaction?
* Am I allowed to specify a 3-page list of all possible reactions I will do based on everything I can imagine might happen on the next turn, and secretly pass it to the GM each turn? What's the limit?
* If someone breaks my sword first, is my Wait lost because I can't do what I said I planned, or can I shield bash or kick?
* Looking at my previous post, you'll see there are many possible things a player can do with a Wait (in 3e) in reaction to the almost countless things that can happen. If I have to guess which few will happen and write those to the GM, that's both less flexible, and way too much extra work, and makes little or no sense to me.
* etc etc etc. It looks to me way too unclear at best, and like an endless unworkable nightmare at worst.

[Skarg]

The 5-yard-wide alley situation, with one Move-5 hunter with a 1-hex melee weapon, seems to me to require the ability to step after an untriggered Wait (or to have a trigger that if he doesn't come closer, to step forward), to really be able to catch the Move-6 victim.

Otherwise, you have to just stand there and not close in on him, unless you are willing to use Move or All Out Attack. Otherwise, he can stay 3 hexes away forever, or run past you if you don't stand still and 4e Wait.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Skarg

sjard, Captain Joy and I were responding to what you wrote first, which seemed to say that not being _able_ to step first made it more flexible, which of course makes no sense.

It makes sense to me as being more flexible. If you already know where he's trying to go, and then react (wait triggered) in the middle of his action, that's far more flexible than possibly making a wrong move ahead of time and having him avoid you. Especially with the move after being only forward and not to the sides.

Originally Posted by Skarg

That is, the option to Step before Wait in 3e is not _instead_ of the option to step with the action; it's just another option.

No, it is very clearly an either/or situation as I read it. So yes, it is Step first instead of Step with the action. You can't do both.

Originally Posted by Skarg

The points you make in the more recent post, about 4e now offering Feint, Ready, and All Out Attack (!!) are of course more choices (especially AoA), and so sure the overall 4e Wait might be more flexible overall, but that's not what we thought you were talking about, so it's not what we were responding to.

It's all part of the same thing. Moving after you know what they're going to try to do is more flexible than moving before, since you can adjust accordingly. The choice of maneuver, since their movement is not restricted after the wait to a single step straight forward, is also more flexible. The way I see it, 4e just eliminated the chance of having the opponent gain the advantage of reacting to your move before the wait.

Originally Posted by 3rd edition

This maneuver lets you move one hex in any direction, change facing or stand still and wait for a foe to approach. At any time before your next turn, if a foe is close enough, you may attack. If you stood still on your turn, you may step one hex foreward and then attack.

(bolds added where italics were used in the book).

This clearly says if you stood still you may move one step straight forward with the attack. If you moved before the trigger you can only attack if the bad guy moves into range, but you may not move after.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Skarg

The 5-yard-wide alley situation, with one Move-5 hunter with a 1-hex melee weapon, seems to me to require the ability to step after an untriggered Wait (or to have a trigger that if he doesn't come closer, to step forward), to really be able to catch the Move-6 victim.

Otherwise, you have to just stand there and not close in on him, unless you are willing to use Move or All Out Attack. Otherwise, he can stay 3 hexes away forever, or run past you if you don't stand still and 4e Wait.

He (the bad guy) can do the same thing with a 3e step and wait as well if you moved first in a 5 yard wide alley. Even if you didn't, and you're standing in the middle of a 5 yard alley, and he tries to run by 2 yards away, you still can't reach him if you didn't move. Since you can only step one yard straight forward and not to the sides.

How far they can move makes no difference when dealing with a 1 yard (Move-1) step.

You're giving up most of your movement to maybe intercept him in the middle of his action. So yeah, if you miss, he can keep going.

[hal]

Has anyone remarked (I've not bothered to read the entire thread - so forgive me if I'm pointing something someone else has pointed out).

The option of turning the corner implies that there can be a contest of skills as the person turns the corner versus the guy who is in wait mode waiting for the one to come around the corner...

So let's label these two guys. Guy A has a speed of 5.25. Guy B has a speed of 5.5.

Guy A is waiting for Guy B to come around the corner so he can shoot. Guy A is waiting right?

This means then, that there can be no quick contest of skills because Guy B is using Opportunity fire.


Now, lets go back the other way...

Guy A is NOT waiting, he's not evaluating, or anything like that. Guy B takes a Step and Attack with the intent to use a quick evaluate target so as to not shoot if necessary.


Guy A can't interrupt Guy B's action right? He's not in wait mode. So Guy B gets the drop on A, fires with an additional -2 penalty or bulk penalty (which ever is worse).

What am I missing here?

Doesn't much matter per GURPS 4e rules because Guy slicing the Corner can't wait and step. He can only Step and attack, with intent to Evaluate the target (not Evaluate the maneuver, but determine if he wants to fire or not fire).

So, all this is making me think that I HAVE to be missing something.

[Skarg]

@sjard - I understand everything you write, but I don't understand why you seem to not follow half of what I write. I've written a lot already, and there isn't much I would write differently.

I don't see how you can fail to get that having another option (Step and then Wait) is at least an additional thing you could do, even if you might rarely choose to use it. I've already explained several cases where it can be a good choice. I've never tried to say it itself was always better or more flexible than waiting to move. It's just that if you aren't allowed to move first, then someone else can move before you can, which might in some cases be a bad thing.

You did clarify a few details that I was fuzzy on both about 4e and 3e RAW. Clearly my friends and I added some subtle house rule changes to 3e Wait, mainly the free step if you didn't step during your wait.

I still maintain that the "you can Step after an unused Wait" is NEEDED for one Move 5 reach 1 to be able to slowly catch a Move 6 in a dead-end 5-hex alley, without resorting to All Out Attack or Wild Swing or Slam/Tackle. That is, either 3e or 4e Wait can stop him getting by you, but you need to be able to advance if he doesn't try, or you'll be standing there all day not able to advance without either doing something reckless (AoA, flying tackle), or letting him run by. The house rule allowing a step after an unused Wait makes sense and solves this, as well as being nice for other situations which are very common (any time someone wants to be ready to fight and react, but not be strangely glued to one spot).

Moreover, I feel that much of the time in actual fights is spent in a Wait / Evaluate state, where people may be stepping without losing or using their Wait for several seconds or even minutes, and that if one of them tried to run close around, they'd be caught, even though they can also slowly change position and remain waiting and ready to react. Allowing an unused Wait to turn into a Step does a very good job of showing this, and I don't think 3e or 4e RAW allows this per se. But it was so natural that we forgot we made it a house rule and used it all the time.

It also goes really well with a contest of skill to see who strikes first, which got eradicated in 4e, it seems. So far, I think the cleanest way to do it without weird side effects, is the suggestion I posted several posts ago, where two Waiters coming together requires this Contest of skill, and if the first Waiter fails, he basically loses his Wait action. It gives the skill contest to see who goes first, without resulting in someone getting two actions in a row afterwards, and without messing up the action sequence for all sorts of things (e.g. Shock) as my first suggestion did.