Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

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.

But that's not imposing an additional restriction. Any RAW Wait maneuver requires you to stand still. So when the Basic Set points that out, all it's doing is pointing it out.

Now if there's something in that paragraph that prohibits taking the movement when the Wait discharges, maybe you can quote that?

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

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.

They sort of are, actually. It's been specifically addressed that Maneuvers are generally not hidden information.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

That would be bad reading.

No, I'm pretty sure it's not.

Neither means NOT A and NOT B.

Sure, which is why I'm not arguing that it is strongly in favor of Step and Wait. It is merely odd that it specifies that the mobile shooter didn't take a Wait, if the mobile shooter cannot take a Wait.

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

Who says? According to Kromm most GURPS players don't ever use the Tactical Combat rules (this includes himself, by the way).

Anyway you are missing my point. You can use the map without using turns. I can tell you for a fact that was what was going on with the suggestion that you can take Waits at Condition Orange bur otherwise "slow" time doesn't start until Condition Red. This was what I was thinking when I wrote those rules.

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.

What if Player A's weapon is already Ready (it ought to be if he's clearing rooms)? What he can't do (by RAW) is say, when "I turn the corner, I shoot whoever is there".

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.

Sure, but forcing players to take these actions just to be able to move a step on a Wait maneuver is absurd rules-lawyering and at least in my group would probably cause an arguement.

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.

Where? I've already quoted the relevant sections in post #25.

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.

No, Ready is correct here. What I'm saying is that forcing a character to pick up sand in order to move is silly.

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.

I'm not talking about the modifier. I'm talking about the Quick Contest to see who shoots first. This doesn't make any sense if you are using "combat time" and taking Maneuvers, since the person who goes next simply gets to shoot next in that situation.

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.

Yes, you can't move when you take the Wait, you can still move after the Wait is triggered. There's nothing about Opportunity Fire that changes this. I'm pretty certain that this is correct, and I'm loathe to bug Kromm about something this trivial but if you really think I'm wrong here, perhaps you should PM him.

This problem doesn't exist in GURPS. You can't condition a lever to a turn nor to any other meta-information.

I don't understand what you mean by this. You can pull a lever with a Ready maneuver. That happens on the turn that the lever is pulled, right?

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.

You can absolutely can do this, otherwise it would be impossible to interrupt a one second spell.

Okay well, since you don't like the example, how about the door again? Able and Ben are friendly. Able has a higher basic speed. Able wants to go through a door when Ben opens it. By RAW he can't Wait for Ben to open it and then Move through it. This is silly.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Okay well, since you don't like the example, how about the door again? Able and Ben are friendly. Able has a higher basic speed. Able wants to go through a door when Ben opens it. By RAW he can't Wait for Ben to open it and then Move through it. This is silly.

How Able knows that Ben is about to open the door? Is there anything preventing his foes about seeing the same thing Able sees? Because if he runs after the door is open, his foes should be able to do the same thing. Problem is, in Tactical Combat table everyone share your intentions, but combat is simulated on a second by second basis.

Suppose they share a code, Able raises his thumb. Well, in this case, he would use Ready maneuver for making the signal, Ben would run in advance.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the fact that his foes can take advantage of Ben opening the door.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

How Able knows that Ben is about to open the door? Is there anything preventing his foes about seeing the same thing Able sees? Because if he runs after the door is open, his foes should be able to do the same thing. Problem is, in Tactical Combat table everyone share your intentions, but combat is simulated on a second by second basis.

Suppose they share a code, Able raises his thumb. Well, in this case, he would use Ready maneuver for making the signal, Ben would run in advance.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the fact that his foes can take advantage of Ben opening the door.

...Wait doesn't serve to exclude foes. They're allowed to Wait too if they want to.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...Wait doesn't serve to exclude foes. They're allowed to Wait too if they want to.

So, what is the difference between allowing a Wait and Move in this case?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

So, what is the difference between allowing a Wait and Move in this case?

There's fundamentally a difference between twiddling your thumbs for a turn and then moving on your next turn, and Waiting for the path to open and Moving in response. It's in the number of turns involved...

[condor]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

Sure, but forcing players to take these actions just to be able to move a step on a Wait maneuver is absurd rules-lawyering and at least in my group would probably cause an arguement.

It is not rules-lawyering: it is trying to understanding why a rule is written this or that way, in order to achieve realism.

And it is not forcing players to take this maneuver just to take a step. A model, like a scientific one, has some reductions. There is a difference between a model (the rules system) and the reality it represents (the events in your story). Molecules are not spheres - it is just a way of understanding them and accommodating them into calculations.

In the same way, any small action made while taking a step, other than the described (like Attack) could be addressed by Ready. When the rules allowed Ready to be take with Wait, what they could trying to say is - any small action could be made while taking a step over 1 second could be triggered by Wait.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

There's fundamentally a difference between twiddling your thumbs for a turn and then moving on your next turn, and Waiting for the path to open and Moving in response. It's in the number of turns involved...

As said, there is fundamentally a difference between a model and the reality it tries to represent.

The number of turns is not relevant in this case. If everyone Waits for the door to be open (Cascading Waits), or if everyone will act on their own turns, the order is what determines advantage. Again, there is a difference between the model and the events.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

As said, there is fundamentally a difference between a model and the reality it tries to represent.

In GURPS, there's a very strong coupling.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

The number of turns is not relevant in this case. If everyone Waits for the door to be open (Cascading Waits), or if everyone will act on their own turns, the order is what determines advantage. Again, there is a difference between the model and the events.

Well, if determining who goes through the door first is the only thing that matters, yes, the number of turns is not relevant.

In most cases, that's not true at all.

Also, of course, there's another functional difference. With Waits who goes first is decided by either which party Waited, or a Cascading Waits roll-off. With no Waits, it's decided by who happens to come next in the Basic Speed round-robin after the person opening the door.

[condor]

When I am playing, I almost never use Tactical Combat. But I'm not playing just now, I'm in a forum discussing the better way to address in raw what seems to be an inconsistency. So I came to a specialized forum to discuss it.

This is the kind of answer I expect in a thread focused on rules:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

In GURPS, there's a very strong coupling.
With Waits who goes first is decided by either which party Waited, or a Cascading Waits roll-off. With no Waits, it's decided by who happens to come next in the Basic Speed round-robin after the person opening the door.

I see it and say: "Ah! That is right! Wait gives the player, not the character the priority to act."

But this kind of reply does not add much to the discussion:

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

According to Kromm most GURPS players don't ever use the Tactical Combat rules (this includes himself, by the way).

Suppose I don't want to play just now, suppose I want to use Tactical Combat system to design a small castle: how many sentries should realistically put here and there in order to keep it well guarded, and without spending all the crown's money? How many guards in this corridor? How many in this battlement? Etc. What is the point in reading 600 pages, plus specific books, focused not on storytelling, but on how to realistically to simulate real situations, if I can't trust it even for doing simple tasks?

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

So, what is the difference between allowing a Wait and Move in this case?

Move isn't a manoeuvre you can trigger from a Wait.