Committed Attack - two steps and standing up

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Anders

Regardless of whether it's RAW, would this break anything?

I think so, because you'd be able use Committed Attack to rise from kneeling and then step, but not use your Move 11+ step to do so, or do so with any other maneuver. You couldn't even do it with Change Posture.

If you allow it with CA, you should allow it with any multi-yard step, IMO, because CA should work like the rest of GURPS. It's not a weird exception.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Well, I was trying to be brief, but I'll cite the relevant rules now.





The way I read this is that CA gives another step, and "a step" is the same as "move (Move/10, round up) hexes." If I attack with Move 7, I can step one hex. If I attack with Move 17, I can step two hexes (or split that up into moving one hex, attacking and moving another hex; but standing from kneeling still uses the whole step). If I CA with Move 7, I can step twice, which means that I could turn the first step into standing from kneeling and the second into moving one hex. If I CA with Move 17, I can step twice, covering a total of 4 hexes (as each step is two yards), or only two if I need to turn one of the steps into standing from kneeling.

Essentially, I read it thus: a Step is a unit of movement. Basic Move determines the hexes traveled in a Step. Maneuver chosen determines allotment of no Steps, one Step or, for CA, two Steps. One Step can become standing from kneeling, or moving a number of hexes determined by Basic Move, and it's permissible to split up that movement.

That's how I read it as well

Mv10 - means one step is 1 hex
Mv11+ means one step is 1-2 hexes

Committed attack allows a 2nd Step

And going from Kneeling to Standing is one step (not one hex)

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

I think so, because you'd be able use Committed Attack to rise from kneeling and then step, but not use your Move 11+ step to do so, or do so with any other maneuver. You couldn't even do it with Change Posture.

If you allow it with CA, you should allow it with any multi-yard step, IMO, because CA should work like the rest of GURPS. It's not a weird exception.

Only if you do take the 2nd step with CA you suffer extra penalties to balance it out. Something that a someone who happens to have a 2 hex step doesn't get (although he has to have Mv11+ first of course).

Someone with a two 2 hex step already has an advantage (he can doesn't need to take a CA to move two hexes, and can do the one hex forward attack, one hex back thing as well), so I'm not to worried about them being unfairly disadvantaged here.


To me an attack that is started from kneeling and includes a 1 yard forward movement sounds like a pretty good example of a committed attack where your sacrificing not only defence but accuracy for movement.

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

It's possible I'm wrong, despite having originated that maneuver. But from alpha test until now, I have always run it at giving +1 yard length of step as defined by B368, not as two separate and discrete times you get access to a "step" action each of which is separately and discretely dealt with using the rules on B368.

FWIW, the authorial intention by me was the former, not the latter, and my reading of Martial Arts p. 99-100 and Basic Set p. 368 is that the wording supports that. The fact that we made sure to make it clear that the split-step of B368 is valid and common here (and cited real-world examples of how you'd used that with CA) doesn't change that reading to me.

The pertinent information on B368 indicates that with a step greater that one, you can "For instance, if you had a two-yard step, you could move one yard, make an attack, and move another yard during an Attack maneuver."

The important point is that they are not stepping twice, they are moving one yard twice during their one step.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

I think so, because you'd be able use Committed Attack to rise from kneeling and then step, but not use your Move 11+ step to do so, or do so with any other maneuver. You couldn't even do it with Change Posture.

If you allow it with CA, you should allow it with any multi-yard step, IMO, because CA should work like the rest of GURPS. It's not a weird exception.

I'm astonished I've so fundamentally misunderstood step...

If a Step (damn it, it's a calculated & defined quantity, I'm capitalizing it) for a character with move 11 has a Step of 2, then takes a Committed Attack giving them and additional Step, by my readying of the rules, they can move four yards. If that's not the case, Martial Arts has some serious errata issues. Adding one to the length of your Step is Very different than adding a second Step.

[McAllister]

The author's intent makes perfect sense if a "Step" is [(move/10, round up) yards, split up as desired, which can also be turned into standing from kneeling to the cost of all hexes moved], and a "step" is moving one yard. Then, the Attack maneuver gives you a Step, while a Committed Attack has the option of giving you a Step plus a step.

It's just not how I read it. I read it like The Benj, Erling, Tomsdad and the_matrix_walker: CA gives you a second Step, and a Step can either be hex(es) of movement or standing from kneeling.

[Kromm]

Step is simply a unit of distance equal to 1/10 of your Move, rounded up, minimum one yard. You might be accorded it once or rarely twice by your choice of maneuver. You can split up this movement however you wish. There are special cases where changing posture can replace all of this movement:

• p. B368: You can use a step to go from a kneeling to a standing posture (or vice versa) instead of moving. This requires your entire step, no matter how far you could normally move.
• Martial Arts, p. 98:
  • Dive forward to go from standing to kneeling, crawling, or lying prone. This counts as your entire step if making an Attack or Committed Attack.
  • Dive forward to go from kneeling to crawling or lying prone. This takes your entire movement allowance in all cases.
  • Fall backward to go from standing to sitting or lying face-up. This takes your entire movement allowance if you make an All-Out Attack, Attack, or Committed Attack.
  • Fall backward to go from kneeling or sitting to lying face-up. This uses up all of your movement in all cases.

All Committed Attack does is give you twice the usual step distance as your movement allowance. It does not allow you to bypass rules that say "instead of moving" or that use up your entire movement allowance.

I agree that it would be clearer if Committed Attack said that it gave you double your usual step as allowed movement, instead of two steps. The latter leaves itself open to rules-lawyering.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The latter leaves itself open to rules-lawyering.

Let the record state that, while I can't speak to what precisely you mean by the term, I understand it to be a pejorative that suggests arguing in bad faith, and I wouldn't be thrilled if that were what you were implying.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Let the record state that, while I can't speak to what precisely you mean by the term, I understand it to be a pejorative that suggests arguing in bad faith, and I wouldn't be thrilled if that were what you were implying.

It means what it has meant since the 1970s when I got into RPGs: interpreting the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. Some people do this to make their PCs more powerful, some do it to curb rival or enemy characters, some do it because they believe that rules should be strictly prescriptive to prevent gamer-gamer arguments, some do it to help the designers, some do it to show they're better than the designers, some do it for the pure intellectual challenge, and I suppose some do it because they're bored. What I said isn't a judgment, only a comment that "doubles your step" would bring the letter and spirit into closer agreement than "gives two steps" obviously does, thereby reducing the potential for rules-lawyering for any reason.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

It's possible I'm wrong, despite having originated that maneuver. But from alpha test until now, I have always run it at giving +1 yard length of step as defined by B368, not as two separate and discrete times you get access to a "step" action each of which is separately and discretely dealt with using the rules on B368.

FWIW, the authorial intention by me was the former, not the latter, and my reading of Martial Arts p. 99-100 and Basic Set p. 368 is that the wording supports that. The fact that we made sure to make it clear that the split-step of B368 is valid and common here (and cited real-world examples of how you'd used that with CA) doesn't change that reading to me.

Originally Posted by Kromm

All Committed Attack does is give you twice the usual step distance as your movement allowance. It does not allow you to bypass rules that say "instead of moving" or that use up your entire movement allowance.

While these agree on whether you should have multiple 'counts as a step' things you can trade in for other effects, they disagree about what Committed Attack does.

I think the actual wording of Committed Attack is completely incompatible with Peter's version. There's nothing about +1 yard in it.

Originally Posted by Kromm

It means what it has meant since the 1970s when I got into RPGs: interpreting the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. Some people do this to make their PCs more powerful, some do it to curb rival or enemy characters, some do it because they believe that rules should be strictly prescriptive to prevent gamer-gamer arguments, some do it to help the designers, some do it to show they're better than the designers, some do it for the pure intellectual challenge, and I suppose some do it because they're bored. What I said isn't a judgment, only a comment that "doubles your step" would bring the letter and spirit into closer agreement than "gives two steps" obviously does, thereby reducing the potential for rules-lawyering for any reason.

Some do it because they have no supernatural ability to discern what the spirit of the rule is.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Some do it because they have no supernatural ability to discern what the spirit of the rule is.

A lot comes to down to what a 'reasonable' interpretation of the rules would be. Same as in law. Of course, one of the editor's duties is to cut down on the number of 'reasonable' interpretations, but you can't really get rid of all ambiguity. Not with any kind of language we know. That's why the GM is there - someone at the table must say "this is how it works."

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anders

A lot comes to down to what a 'reasonable' interpretation of the rules would be.

Yes. For instance, "gives you two steps" and "doubles your step distance" are synonyms to some readers – e.g., our playtesters, it seems – and reasonably so. Others see "step" as special game object that can be traded in for effects, so two of them should let you get twice as many such effects. The latter is a valid interpretation but it doesn't make the other one less valid. My job is to avoid such ambiguity where I can and to explain what's meant when I fail. My only request is that people don't use "wrong" when they mean "ambiguous."