Steve Jackson Games Forums
Page 3 of 9 12 3 4567 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   [TS] Slicing the pie, a question? (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=87539)

vicky_molokh 12-05-2014 06:55 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy (Post 1844367)
What prevents Waiting and Attacking at the same time is that those are two separate maneuvers. Step and Wait aren't separate Maneuvers. They're something that can be done at the same time - just like you can Attack and Step at the same time, not having to Step prior to the attack or after it.
You can either Step then Attack or Attack then Step, actually. The same should apply to Waits: either it's Step then Wait, or it's Wait then (in case a condition triggers) Step (and do whatever else is allowed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy (Post 1844367)
Also: Why do you think that A should automatically have priority in that situation? Making it a contest actually seems to make some sense as opposed to always prioritizing the person who gives up the initiative.
Because A gave up (lowercase) initiative and a Step in exchange for getting to interrupt B when B comes into range. While B now manages to retain all of {initiative, a Step, a right 'interrupt' A}.

McAllister 12-05-2014 07:10 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy (Post 1844367)
What prevents Waiting and Attacking at the same time is that those are two separate maneuvers. Step and Wait aren't separate Maneuvers. They're something that can be done at the same time - just like you can Attack and Step at the same time, not having to Step prior to the attack or after it.
BS366, the first blue section under Wait:
"Movement: None until your Wait is
triggered. At that point, you may move
as allowed by the maneuver you specified
(Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or
Ready)."

Perhaps the Wait could be phrased as such: "I take a Wait to Attack anything that comes into view, and, should nothing do so before my next turn, I take a step immediately before my next turn." I think that allows a shooter to cautiously advance, invokes the Cascading Waits rule if they walk into an ambush, etc.

DouglasCole 12-05-2014 07:13 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by McAllister (Post 1844377)
BS366, the first blue section under Wait:
"Movement: None until your Wait is
triggered. At that point, you may move
as allowed by the maneuver you specified
(Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or
Ready)."

Perhaps the Wait could be phrased as such: "I take a Wait to Attack anything that comes into view, and, should nothing do so before my next turn, I take a step immediately before my next turn." I think that allows a shooter to cautiously advance, invokes the Cascading Waits rule if they walk into an ambush, etc.
Two things:

All of the discussion in TS playtest very clearly involved a Step. Perhaps it was a tacit assumption, but the slicing maneuver very much describes the first step, then wait.

Second, if Wait-then-step you can never actually clear the corner, since I don't think "if nothing happens" is a valid trigger. If it is, it's an interesting way to resolve the issue.

vicky_molokh 12-05-2014 07:28 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole (Post 1844378)
Two things:

All of the discussion in TS playtest very clearly involved a Step. Perhaps it was a tacit assumption, but the slicing maneuver very much describes the first step, then wait.

Second, if Wait-then-step you can never actually clear the corner, since I don't think "if nothing happens" is a valid trigger. If it is, it's an interesting way to resolve the issue.
Some sort of stepping before Waiting probably needs to be possible. The problem is that Stepping while already primed allows you to effectively trigger your own Wait, effectively getting a chance to ambush the ambusher with no drawbacks (i.e. Wait becomes in all senses better than Step And Attack when it comes to such situations).

DouglasCole 12-05-2014 07:32 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1844380)
Some sort of stepping before Waiting probably needs to be possible. The problem is that Stepping while already primed allows you to effectively trigger your own Wait, effectively getting a chance to ambush the ambusher with no drawbacks (i.e. Wait becomes in all senses better than Step And Attack when it comes to such situations).
I think the way that McAllister has it phrased, if you get to "just before my turn" then you burn your wait in your step. Of course, then it IS your turn and so you've got no penalty for it.

The more elegant solution is Step-and-Wait, and I agree with Langy that the way GURPS works, the sequence game-mechanically (step/wait vs wait step, or in his example, step/attack vs attack/step) is overly specific relative to the real world actions, which are blended. They are meant to be simultaneous or nearly so, which is exactly why you can attack/step or step/attack. This has also been the articulated reason for infinite Dodges - you make one giant amalgam dodge, and you can only rationalize what happened after they're all over and it's about to be your turn again.

GURPS descretizes because it has to to be playable. Not because that's precisely how it's being fought our in our mind's vision.

This entire thing is nearly resolved with Step-and-Wait, and that was the intent of the rule.

vicky_molokh 12-05-2014 08:45 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole (Post 1844381)
I think the way that McAllister has it phrased, if you get to "just before my turn" then you burn your wait in your step. Of course, then it IS your turn and so you've got no penalty for it.
I vaguely recall Kromm taking a dim view of Waits that trigger on conditions such as after X, let alone something as tricky as this one. But I don't have the quote to back it up, so don't take my word for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole (Post 1844381)
The more elegant solution is Step-and-Wait, and I agree with Langy that the way GURPS works, the sequence game-mechanically (step/wait vs wait step, or in his example, step/attack vs attack/step) is overly specific relative to the real world actions, which are blended. They are meant to be simultaneous or nearly so, which is exactly why you can attack/step or step/attack. This has also been the articulated reason for infinite Dodges - you make one giant amalgam dodge, and you can only rationalize what happened after they're all over and it's about to be your turn again.

GURPS descretizes because it has to to be playable. Not because that's precisely how it's being fought our in our mind's vision.

This entire thing is nearly resolved with Step-and-Wait, and that was the intent of the rule.
Yes, quantumification is a necessity, a means, not an end unto itself.
The problem with Step-And-Wait, however, is that it gives a free lunch to those who take Step-and-Wait, in the form of getting the benefits of Wait without the drawbacks. Thus, by allowing Step-and-Wait to be simultaneous, you're essentially allowing people to trigger their own Wait immediately, thus gaining (lowercase) initiative where they lack it.

Also, from the FAQ back before my days:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.4.2.13
Why does the Wait maneuver not allow you to take the "move and attack" or "move" maneuvers?
Because if you spend some or most of a turn waiting, you're not using that time to move. Even allowing a step (for an Attack) or half-move (for an All-Out Attack) is optimistic.

And there's
Spoiler:  
Again, allowing Step-and-Wait brings back the issues of 3e that the 4e change was supposed to eliminate (though it no longer would happen due to bigger Reach).

McAllister 12-05-2014 10:05 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
It feels like this is a foolish stance to take, like I'm trying to interpret the wisdom of forefathers that are actually present and telling me they disagree. That said, I'm rather attached to Basic, so I'll take it: I don't believe in step-and-wait because it's explicitly prohibited, and I guess that means I model things as wait-and-step.

What if the step walks you in to someone else's wait? I'd treat that as a who-draws-first scenario with something like a +2 for the stationary fighter.

Celti 12-05-2014 10:31 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
If character A is Waiting, and character B is Step-and-Waiting, wouldn't you simply use the Cascading Waits rules as written, noting that B is at +0 because he is moving a Step, and A is at +2 because he's not moving at all, as written in the listed modifiers?

vicky_molokh 12-05-2014 10:42 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celti (Post 1844438)
If character A is Waiting, and character B is Step-and-Waiting, wouldn't you simply use the Cascading Waits rules as written, noting that B is at +0 because he is moving a Step, and A is at +2 because he's not moving at all, as written in the listed modifiers?
If you allow B to count as already Waiting when B makes the Step, this is the outcome. The problem is that this outcome is a free lunch:
Normally, A has the initiative, and opts to give up the ability to use said initiative immediately in exchange for the ability to interrupt those who lost the initiative.
But with the simultaneous ruling, B suddenly gets the ability to ignore A's initiative, or, more precisely, to act as if their initiatives are tied.
Notice that B loses nothing by taking Step-and-simultaneous-Wait instead of taking an Attack or a normal Wait.

Normally, in GURPS, TANSTAAFL.

Gigermann 12-05-2014 10:55 AM
Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 
I thought the procedure here was a Step and Attack, and if there's no target after the Step, it's just wasted.

[Edit] I get it now…Attack triggers a standing Wait, while with Wait vs Wait, the aggressor has a chance to act first


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM.
Page 3 of 9 12 3 4567 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.