[TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

[Langy]

This all seems to boil down to the idea that Waits should never be able to be pre-empted; if someone is Waiting on the other side of a door, Slicing the Pie should always result in the pie slicer getting shot first.

Why do you think that that's a worthy goal, Vicky?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Langy

This all seems to boil down to the idea that Waits should never be able to be pre-empted; if someone is Waiting on the other side of a door, Slicing the Pie should always result in the pie slicer getting shot first.

Why do you think that that's a worthy goal, Vicky?

I think that changing that is a fairly significant change to the basic maneuver setup, and if it's done it should be done in a general way that doesn't give perverse incentives.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I think that changing that is a fairly significant change to the basic maneuver setup, and if it's done it should be done in a general way that doesn't give perverse incentives.

Generally agreed.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Which is in all aspects no slower, no narrower, and no more vulnerable than Attack nor Wait.

You say it has the disadvantages of both. This isn't so:
A Wait's flaws relative to the Attack are that (a) Waiter can't move until the condition triggers and (b) Waiter might lose a turn if the condition does not trigger (and has no control over whether the condition triggers). Attack's flaw relative to Wait is primarily that the Attacker gets automatically interrupted by a Waiter (assuming the waiter has the initiative).
Step-and-simultaneous-Wait (a) can move as for a normal Attack, (b) can guarantee a trigger of one's condition by wording the conditions in such a way that they always trigger upon stepping and (c) gets to contest people who Wait. A Step-then-Wait gets benefit (a) but not (b); whether benefit (c) applies depends on what the Enemy Waiter's condition is.

You're bringing in Move and Attack, but we're not comparing Attack to Move and Attack nor Wait to M&A. We're comparing Wait vs. Attack vs. Step-and-simultaneous-Wait. And in that comparison, S&sW is always better than either.

So what did A give up in order to gain the QC roll in the first place, as compared to normal Attack?
It's like you invented a new manoeuvre, Desperate Attack, which gets all the benefits of All-Out Attack, and may roll defences as if performing a Committed Attack. If such a manoeuvre would become available, it would always be taken in favour of (instead of) both AoA and Committed Attack, since it has no drawbacks compared to them.


Which applies to Attack manoeuvres too - one step, and you need to see the target.

OK I think this is basically going to come down to a difference in how you and I treat Wait. I tend to be more prescriptive with it and play up its limitations more than your post would suggest you do.

Accordingly the balance point that step and wait would occupy in terms of game balance between attack and wait differ for us.

Now neither is right or wrong, but I suspect that what you fear will end up being best of both worlds abuse at your able, will end up being a difficult compromise decision at mine.

You do still seem to be only interested in comparing Step and wait to a attack with single step, I think this is a bit narrow and ignores the wider context these things happen in, as per my post.

Originally Posted by Langy

This all seems to boil down to the idea that Waits should never be able to be pre-empted; if someone is Waiting on the other side of a door, Slicing the Pie should always result in the pie slicer getting shot first.

To an extant I think that's were I am on this. For me this is all about about having an alternative to standing still or automatically running into a hail of fire, but one that is still a risk.

Personally speaking anything that encourages successful gun fights to be mix of slow and methodical movement with occasional quick dashing is generally speaking a good thing.

While I wouldn't have a general rule for beating waits, I like the concept of combat choices allowing you scope to do so without both rooted to the spot.

I view this as combatants seizing initiative from each other (barring surprise GURPS initiative being pretty much set in stone in the first turn by a single stat).

This all links into the theme of GURPS combat being concurrent, but mechanically being IgoUgo.

Maybe if people think it's too much of a free lunch they could penalise the QC further, making it harder to beat out a stationing wait?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

For a mêlée situation:
Condition is 'when an enemy is in range'. Then the character steps into range.

How is that any different from taking a normal wait and following with a step and attack, and making your condition "I wait until the target is one step away from my attack range"

Moreover unless you have reach advantage (in which case you play reach games not wait games), and your target also has wait triggered on "when my target in range" he'll attack you and you get into cascading waits with a -2 pen.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

For slicing the pie:
Condition is 'when an enemy is becomes a closer target than when the condition was declared'. Then the character steps forward. (Or you can set up the condition for 'further' and step back.)

With Slicing the Pie, you can't guarantee that you get to shoot, but you can guarantee that you get to shoot if/when you sight an enemy (which is really all you need): just set up the condition to 'if an enemy is in sight' and step behind the corner.

I think I'd probably need a tighter definition when slicing the pie. The whole concept of slicing the pie is your concentrating on single narrow field of vision at a time (that's why your having to take time to slice the pie after all).

So it's step do i see anything in small section/arc of the room, no? step a little more is anything revealed in the next small section/arc? And so on. It's not any target that presents itself in my normal field of view as I walk forward.

This is why clearing room is a problem and slicing the pie was developed. Someone in the room can be anywhere in the room but can focus on the doorway that the room clearer has to enter by. The room clearer has the opposite problem he has to go through the door but has to clear a wider area while doing so.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

but there's a good reason GIs in city operations in War Two tended to toss a grenade into the room before coming around the door frame.

[Xplo]

So, it seems to me that the mechanic that Vicky is complaining about is actually closer to reality: when closing to attack someone who's waiting for you, if you have the same range, both of you will act more or less simultaneously, resulting in a Cascading Wait situation. The RAW mechanic, where the closer has to stop and wait to see if the waiting fighter can hit him before he's allowed to act, is unrealistic. (And in the case proposed way upthread with the leading gunman unable to act to shoot his captive until after the captive gets a free second to act first, it's downright silly! TV may work that way, but real life sure doesn't!)

The only problem I can see with using Cascading Waits to resolve these things is that it adds extra mechanics to a combat system that's already notoriously picky and detailed - but I suppose that it would become second nature after regular practice. It also gives a bit of an edge to quicker fighters beyond going early in the initiative order (which is really only a significant advantage at the beginning of combat).

If you really want to penalize Waits over Attacks, then literally penalize Waits: -2 to triggered actions for haste, or something. Adjust to make Wait as odious as you need to keep people from using it frivolously to replace standard Attacks.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you can beat a Wait with a step-and-Wait, what do you do if you've got some sort of super-sense so you see the target around the corner before making your move?

Step back, or hide so that you can eventually attack them from behind. Attack THROUGH the corner. Announce your own Wait; if you can literally see him coming when he can't see you, you ought to get a bonus on the eventual contest to hit first. There are options.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Langy

This all seems to boil down to the idea that Waits should never be able to be pre-empted; if someone is Waiting on the other side of a door, Slicing the Pie should always result in the pie slicer getting shot first.

Why do you think that that's a worthy goal, Vicky?

I don't say never pre-empted. I'm perfectly fine with a Wait happening to pre-empt a Wait under some conditions.
But the proposition of allowing Step-and-simultaneous-Wait makes it so that enemy Waits always can be pre-empted (though they are not necessarily always pre-empted). There is no reason whatsoever to take Attack against a Waiting opponent, which effectively brings back the mechanic (with slight changes) for which 3e was criticised and why it got changed in 4e.
The reason for Wait-vs-Wait lulls disappears, because the second combatant can easily get the benefits of both a Wait and an Attack by taking Step-while-Waiting, and accepting a mere -2 in the QC instead of auto-losing it. That's about as good as a manoeuvre that gets all the benefits of AoA but a mere -2 to defence; it'll be taken over the former manoeuvre every time.

See also:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Exploiting greater Reach requires the use of suitable tactics; by itself, Reach gives you nothing. The topic at hand is a case in point: If you have a longer-Reach weapon, then don't charge at people. Let them charge at you. You should be the one taking a Wait. If you're moving toward someone who has a Wait, then you're no longer using your superior Reach to maximum effect . . . you're splitting your attention between movement and point control. That will let somebody who's seeking an opening – and an enemy with a Wait definitely counts – dart past your point when it wobbles during your movement.

Which is to say, if someone has a Wait and you step into range of his attack, too bad . . . you've just sacrificed your Reach advantage. To keep that advantage, note that he's taking a Wait, stand your ground, and take a Wait of your own. If he refuses to close, then congratulations – you've kept him at bay. If he closes, then you can attack him first. And if you both Wait, then your Reach gives you the advantage in a cascading Waits situation. All of these things are using Reach to your advantage. Just running into a set trap is foolish, and does cede the initiative to your foe, however short his Reach.

Long-weapon tactics are somewhat "boring" from a heroic combat point of view. You have to use steps and retreats to backpedal to maintain a gap, and you have to fight reactively by taking a lot of Wait maneuvers. Whereas someone with a short weapon is always moving forward, pressing the attack, so as not to be held at bay. If you reverse these roles and roll forward with a long weapon while someone with a shorter one gets to Wait and react, you're going to do poorly. I think this is quite realistic.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

[ . . . ]
GURPS chooses to hand the advantage to the Waiting fighter, since he's given up a lot of options in order to attack first if someone sets off his trigger and moves within the range he can attack within. I think that's fair.

3e made it a contest of skills, which had the effect of making Wait useless against highly-skilled opponents because they went first anyway, so you really gave up your advantage by trying it. You could go back to that, but to me that's going back to a less accurate and more inherently unfair rule, which says "skill trumps all" instead of "Wait trumps the person you're waiting for."

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

You do still seem to be only interested in comparing Step and wait to a attack with single step, I think this is a bit narrow and ignores the wider context these things happen in, as per my post.

I'm comparing it to Attack because it threatens to make Attack meaningless, particularly in these standoffs. It doesn't make Move-and-Attack meaningless, so I'm not comparing it to it.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Maybe if people think it's too much of a free lunch they could penalise the QC further, making it harder to beat out a stationing wait?

It's not the QC that needs to be penalised. It's something else that the Waiter-B has to give up for the privilege of gaining a QC where he had none under normal conditions. Forfeiting Active Defences might be comparable or slightly worse (after all, the higher your Dodge on a normal Attack, the less you care about shooting second).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

How is that any different from taking a normal wait and following with a step and attack, and making your condition "I wait until the target is one step away from my attack range"

Moreover unless you have reach advantage (in which case you play reach games not wait games), and your target also has wait triggered on "when my target in range" he'll attack you and you get into cascading waits with a -2 pen.

The difference is that normally you can only make the condition while standing, so it only triggers if the enemy closes in.