Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[hal]

Originally Posted by sjard

It's a special case rule, out of combat thing. Combat starts with contact and an opposed roll when using this rule. As such, of course it contravenes the Basic Set RAW, it's an optional special exception special case rule from Tactical Shooting. A special situation rule to represent a special situation combat scenario in Close Quarters Battle.

This thread was started with someone trying to recreate it in tactical combat with the turn by turn of combat when it wasn't intended for that, using the concepts of wait/step and wait.

And yes, it can be done incorrectly, usually by rounding the corner too tightly giving far too narrow of a field of view, or too sharply giving you too little time to react. but that is far below the granularity of GURPS combat. For that you'd need to do (this is my opinion of course) 1/4 or 1/8th second turns, and probably a random initiative to see who goes first.

However, since it is not intended to be used turn by turn, the granularity issue is nonexistent. Doing it incorrectly, I would assume, falls under the tactics skill of the character in question.

You haven't sold me on that concept I'm afraid. For a rule to be a special case, it has to acknowledge that it is a special case.

The more I look at the wording of Slicing the Pie, and the actual maneuver "Attack", the more convinced I am that there is NO difference between the two:

To wit:

Attack as a maneuver - allows the person to move before or after their attack.

Slice the Pie or Turning the Corner requires that you MOVE first, then attack if you spot a target.

How are they different? To my eye, they aren't. The ONLY reason to use the GURPS Classic rules as opposed to the GURPS 4e rules when it comes to Turning the Corner is simply that when you have TWO individuals who are in wait mode, it becomes important to know which one triggers first.

As it stands? The rules as written in GURPS TACTICAL SHOOTING by implication, now allow a non-waiting individual to engage in what amounts to a waiting attack by potentially allowing a character exercising the turning the corner attack - when under normal circumstances - a non-waiting individual may NOT interrupt or attack out of sequence.

THIS is why I consider that particular wording to be done poorly in light of GURPS 4e not allowing one to Step and Wait.

Normal rules without GURPS TACTICAL SHOOTING:

Person A with speed X+1 goes faster than person B with speed X, who in turn goes faster than person with speed X-1. If Person A is in motion, unless Person B took a wait action prior, person B may NOT interrupt person A's action/move/maneuver.

Person A with Speed X+1 (fill in same conditions as above etc), is maneuvering next to person B, who DID take a wait action prior. Person B may NOW interrupt person A's action - up to and including attacking while they move, attacking before they attack, or moving before they can complete their turn.

What does Turning the Corner allow? It allows for a defender to force the attacker into a contest of skills to see if the non-waiting defender can interrupt the Attacker's activity.

So - thanks, but no thanks.

What are the ways for a character to be around the corner and NOT in wait mode while an advancing tactical shooter is slooooowly turning the corner, cutting the pie so to speak?

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Skarg

There's some skill and awareness involved both in covering a door, and in stepping into it, so that you see the enemy before they see you. Managing sound, shadows, what you're leading with, where you're looking, what you take cover behind, how you stand, etc., that's probably mostly best left to a skill or several.

The advantage in guarding is, as long as you guess the right door to cover, you know mostly where to look (but not how high nor which side, unless a shadow gives it away). Also you presumably have time to pick a place in the room with the best cover and the least likelihood to be expected. Also since you're not moving, your motion won't be visible against the background.

The advantage of the guy moving slowly around the corner is that he knows and controls where to appear around the corner, and he knows when it's happening.

I don't think it's an automatic win for either side by any means, which is why I'd say it should be a contest of skills and not an "if you're using Op Fire, you go first" thing.

Well said, Skarg. In such situations, I would require a role for initiative a-la the partial surprise rules.

Originally Posted by B393

[Partial surprise] may occur when the defenders were expecting trouble . . . or when each party surprised the other! The GM should require each side to roll for initiative.
To determine who gets the initiative, the leader of each side rolls 1d.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by hal

You haven't sold me on that concept I'm afraid. For a rule to be a special case, it has to acknowledge that it is a special case.

The more I look at the wording of Slicing the Pie, and the actual maneuver "Attack", the more convinced I am that there is NO difference between the two

Are you practicing Death of the Author here? We've had direct answers about the intent, I believe.

[condor]

Originally Posted by hal

What are the ways for a character to be around the corner and NOT in wait mode while an advancing tactical shooter is slooooowly turning the corner, cutting the pie so to speak?

As I have already said, in my opinion, the way the rules are written in 4th ed makes it seem that you use instrumental Ready or Concentrate to turn a corner using a "Slicing the pie" military maneuver.

Why could it not be Wait? Because it does not allow movement if the condition is not triggered, and turning a corner requires movement without any triggering.

Why could it not be Attack or Evaluate? Because there is not a target when you take the step, so there is no way to announce it.

Why could it be Ready? Because it is used as a catchall maneuver for every physical action that doesn't fit in the other maneuvers, as described in GURPS p. 383 "This is not a specific maneuver, but a “generic” choice that lets you do one second’s worth of any multi-second action." And in page 37 of Tactical Shooting, GURPS system suggests Ready as a maneuver to be used when all you want to do is a tactically rehearsed movement.

Why could it be Concentrate? Because spotting a warrior sneaking by a corner is much more a Per based task than Peeling or doing other military formations. If a cat screeches by your side, it makes sense a Will test to keep focused as well. I prefer this last solution. In p. 366 it is written: "This [concentrate] may be casting a magical spell, using a psi ability, making a Sense roll to spot an invisible warrior, making a Leadership roll to give orders, making an Electronics Operation roll to operate a sensor, or any similar action, including most IQ-based skill rolls."

As a rule of thumb, 4th edition seemed to have expanded a lot the use of Ready and Concentrate maneuver, giving them new functions previously under the scope of maneuvers such Wait.

Anyway, whatever the maneuver chosen, even if someone uses Attack or Evaluate because he thinks it strange using Ready or Concentrate maneuvers in these situations, it does not matter: there is still a significant difference from 3rd ed. If only one person is moving, he is in a disadvantageous position against someone who is, say, comfortably Waiting (Opportunity fire). Even he is faster, he will have to dodge an attack before having the chance of act at all.

The question is: is that realistic? From my experience in first person shot games, it depends on the position of the one who is waiting. If he is a sniper on a ceiling, or someone comfortably stablished in a similarly strong position, - like a distant balcony, I think it is fair allowing Opportunity fire. He will probably blow to smithereens the first one who turns the corner 9 out of 10 times.

Originally Posted by Skarg

There's some skill and awareness involved both in covering a door, and in stepping into it, so that you see the enemy
(...)
I don't think it's an automatic win for either side by any means, which is why I'd say it should be a contest of skills and not an "if you're using Op Fire, you go first" thing.

Edit: I agree.

Of course, if both characters are sneaking by the door at ground level, it is rare that someone will be able take a Wait maneuver, because it is too "automatic" and requires exclusive attention. Generally no player will be able to guard an area nor a line, as Opportunity fire requires. For instance, if an NPC someone is guarding a door in a room, he might state that he is "Waiting" for someone to enter in the hex immediately after the threshold. But is that efficient? No, of course. Someone "Slicing the pie" would not step in that hex, but rather make an arc farther from it. The NPC could state that if someone crossing a line from his eyes to the center of the door will be fired - an equally bad condition. He could choose a line from him to the right side of the doorjamb. But if someone comes from the left, his attention is focused on that line and he will lose automatically the dispute in the "Slicing he pie" situation. Wait is too risky and inadequate in this case, even if we stick by the rules. As I see, both players will prefer using Ready or Concentrate under "Slicing the pie" rules.

But I prefer not discarding the Wait possibility, because some rooms have quirks. For instance, if I know for sure that enemies will come only from the right side of a door that opens to a corridor (the door is on the base of an L), and there is no other entrance to the room behind me - well, that is different. I am in a strong position, and I think that Opportunity fire applies, generally from where I am to an area on the corridor, because the player can just create a very narrow condition, as required by Wait.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Skarg

* 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 (...) 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.

Thanks. Good to know these possibilities from people who play using tactical combat. It makes me more prone to stick to 4th ed ones.

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

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

Indeed, the 4th edition version is just the 2nd option you gave above [movement after the triggering of the event] for the 3rd edition. In the 4th edition, the 1st option is no longer available.

Yes, it seems to be that way.

As I said before, THERE IS a (somewhat cumbersome and legalist) solution for the 3 yard alley in raw. The warrior who is encroaching the trickster writes down two secret Wait conditions:

1st condition: If the trickster comes close enough, I Step and Attack him.

2nd condition: If the trickster does not move, I Step and Ready (instrumental ready, as said above, based on the p. 383 definition of Ready as a "catchall" for any physical action that does not fit).

Each turn, the warrior secretly choses one of the two conditions. The trickster's job is to outguess him to run when the 2nd condition was chosen. It has the positive effect of simulating the natural hesitation in these scenarios, as the player's rate of choice will not necessarily be 50/50 if he wants to be on the safe side.

Turn one, both are four hex from each other:
Trickster: Wait - if the warrior steps close enough, I step back and Attack. Warrior: Wait (and secretly picks up the paper with the 1st condition). None condition is triggered, everyone hesitated this second.

Turn two:
Trickster: Wait - same thing as turn one. Warrior: I wait (and secretly picks up the 2nd condition).

Turn three:
Trickster: Wait - same thing. After tricksters announces his maneuver, but before it takes place, Warrior steps. He is 3 hex from the trickster. Now it is Warrior's turn again. He Waits (1st condition).

And so on. As I tested this conditions in practice, most players tend to choose some nine 1st conditions for each 2nd one they take. If a GM wants to give advantage to a high Per fighter, or wants to simplify the game, he can create a house rule based on the "Slicing the pie". I have made one, that I have posted in this thread:

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

Cornering

If a player wants to corner a foe in an alley or other closed corridor up to five hex wide, he takes a series of Concentrate maneuvers. If his enemy wants to run past him, he takes a Concentrate maneuver too in order to guess the right moment to escape. Every turn, both roll a Per or Per-based Tactics or Soldier contest. If the foe wins, it means he guessed the right moment to run past (i.e., when the player was doing "2nd" maneuver above): the foe is entitled to act, presumably taking a Move or a Move and attack maneuver and the player cornering him can do nothing but defend or resist evading - if it is the case. If the player wins, it means that the enemy tried his escaping but guessed the wrong moment ("1st" maneuver). The player is forced to trigger an Attack or All-Out Attack maneuver (since this represents a series of "Wait" maneuvers. If the player takes his time to corner his foe (representing more "2nd" Wait maneuvers for each "1st" one), he has a bonus: + 1 if he takes a step only each 2 seconds; +2 if he takes a step each 5 seconds; +3 if he takes a step each 10 seconds, and that is it.

Edited: Grammatical mistakes.

[condor]

Skarg, I will write down some opinions according to the way I have been playing, and some results.

It seems to me that, the way 4th edition is written, Wait has lost a lot of its tactical value as a combat maneuver. Evaluate has assumed part of its functions, Ready and Concentrate others. Wait has some very limited functions now, mainly when you know exactly what you will do, in order to to give a slight advantage even to the most unskilled warriors in trivial actions, as the "knife on the throat" hostage situations, or when you are blocking a dungeon corridor.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* Do we actually need to specify the sub-type of AoA or not?"

Yes. The principle of the new rules seems to be: you are very very focused and know exactly what you will do.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* What if a foe steps up who isn't an orc? Can I attack?

No. You are surprised and hesitate if an elf appear. It takes a second to reassess the situation.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* What if I have a friend who's an orc, who happens to step up? Do I have to attack him?

As described in Opportunity Fire, you might specify that you are trying to differentiate friends from foes, and if you don't, you must attack.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* 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?

As a principle, because it gives first-strike to a player, Wait is a very pre-programmed maneuver now. So, if something different happens, as rule you lose your turn hesitating.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* 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?

No, you are not. One particular event - that is what is written in p. 366 - and it works pretty well in order to avoid abuse.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* 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?

I think you lose your Wait. You are slightly "stunned", kind of "man, you broke my sword" kind of hesitating, but can act normally next turn.

Originally Posted by Skarg

* 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.

In 4th ed. combat, Wait seems to be a maneuver you take only after you spend some turns studying the other one's pattern of actions - if you take it at all. A great prize - first-strike - will only be granted if you guess right what your foe's next move will be. As a rule, most of this first-strike dispute was relegated to "Evaluate" combined with "Deceptive attack" maneuvers, what empowers the character more than the player. I liked it, because it tends to curb abuses and weird situations triggered by series of synchronized player's Wait maneuvers.

Again, these are personal experiences. As a trend, 4th ed. rules stimulate more turns to be taken: lots of hesitating, evaluating, etc. I like it because in MMA, for instance, it is this kind of "empty" turns that fills the majority of time. But it takes more time.

So, a good Tactical Combat combat tends not to happen every session. When it happens, it happens only once.

Edited: Clarity.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

No, you are not. One particular event - that is what is written in p. 366 - and it works pretty well in order to avoid abuse.

Yes, based on this post by Kromm, I believe you are.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Yes, based on this post by Kromm, I believe you are.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yes, but you are allowed to name broad triggers and broad reactions as long as they aren't vague (not the same as broad) and provided that your maneuver is declared.

I think that Kromm here is talking about being broad. It seems to be the difference between saying "I will attack the first one that steps on that area" rather than "I will pierce the point of my sword in the belly of the first green-eyed Orc that attacks me". You can be broad, but you cannot name more than one event nor reaction, nor change the condition or the reaction later.

What Skarg suggested is different: he is trying to be exhaustive, that is, naming more than one event.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I think that Kromm here is talking about being broad. It seems to be the difference between saying "I will attack the first one that steps on that area" rather than "I will pierce the point of my sword in the belly of the first green-eyed Orc that attacks me". You can be broad, but you cannot name more than one event nor reaction, nor change the condition or the reaction later.

Well, let's look at some specific official examples.

Originally Posted by B366

You must specify exactly what your action will be when you take the Wait maneuver, and what will trigger it. For instance, “I’ll make an All-Out Attack (Determined) with my sword on the first orc to move toward me.”

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yes, but you are allowed to name broad triggers and broad reactions as long as they aren't vague (not the same as broad) and provided that your maneuver is declared. A perfectly legal Wait would be "I wait until after my pal Jim-Bob acts, and then take an Attack maneuver against whomever Jim-Bob attacked, or my nearest foe otherwise." Complex? Sure, but it's legal. The trigger and action are specified, and most important, the maneuver is declared.

Note that Kromm's example allows for declaring two different objects for the attack. It is also very clear which of the two objects takes precedence for being attacked.

Based on this, my interpretation of "complex" is that you can name more than one event and reaction, but all must work with a single attack maneuver and weapon. If I may add a third example.

If any of the previously encountered hostile races enters the room, or if any currently in the room move towards me or any of my friends, or if any currently in the room ready a weapon; then I will All Out Attack (Determined) with my sword that hostile, unless he's too far away in which case I will attack the hostile that is closest to one of my friends, unless he's too far away in which case I will attack the closest hostile.

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I think that Kromm here is talking about being broad. It seems to be the difference between saying "I will attack the first one that steps on that area" rather than "I will pierce the point of my sword in the belly of the first green-eyed Orc that attacks me". You can be broad, but you cannot name more than one event nor reaction, nor change the condition or the reaction later.

What Skarg suggested is different: he is trying to be exhaustive, that is, naming more than one event.

I agree. The trigger can be broad, but there has to be just one trigger and one response. It has to be able to be stated as "if... then... ", not "if... then... otherwise..." Part of the balancing of Wait is that you lose your opportunity to act on that turn if the trigger doesn't happen.

The reaction has to specify a particular Maneuver (Attack, All-out-attack, Feint, Ready), but apparently the target of that Maneuver can be conditional - "The one my friend attacked, or the nearest foe to me."

It's not clear how specifically the Maneuver has to be described. RAW say "You must specify exactly what your action will be" Does that mean you have to declare a hit location when you describe your action, if you want to target one? Specify a deceptive attack and at what penalty? I don't think you do. As long as the maneuver and some description of the target is supplied. As such, I would say you don't lose your opportunity to attack if your sword is broken. You can still make an Attack with your shield, your fist, maybe even fast-drawing another weapon, etc.

As to the main topic of this thread, I think just allowing a Step and Wait and not allowing movement after the trigger if a step was taken before is the simplest approach. Since the idea is that discrete actions of turn by turn combat is really representing more fluid, concurrent actions, when you step and wait, you are really taking a step as you wait, and can't really move in reaction to the trigger. If you wait then convert to a Maneuver that allows a step or half your move, you are waiting then springing into movement in response to the trigger. It makes enough sense to me for game purposes.