[TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

In a situation where a tactical team is sweeping a building and a shooter is 'slicing the pie'

Am I correct in assuming this is excecuted as one step per round at a time? So one step, roll to spot (or it may be automatic succes) and the shooter may shoot if there is a target, but does not shoot if there is none. He announces in advance if he wants to evaluate before firing, for -2 to-hit.
If there is an enemy with a Wait he may also shoot, and this is the time to roll Quick contests to see who shoots first, right?
But if there is an enemy without a Wait, you just shot him?
If there is no target you take another step in the same round?

This sounds almost like a Move-and-Wait manoeuvre, but there is no such a thing?

The alternative would be to declare a Move-and Attack right? To rush in and shoot if anybody is there. An enemy with a Wait may very well shoot faster than you. So it is not recommended unless you're in a hurry!
But can you declare this and *not* shoot if there is no target? Is this similar to the -2 for evaluate? To say "I rush in and shoot at any target whatsoever, but if there is none then naturally I don't shoot"?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

The examples I've seen on TV have all been faster than 1 yard/second, from what I remember. I'd call that a special version of Move-and-Attack, rather than 'step->wait->step->wait->step->shoot'.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Tactical Shooting doesn't explain it 100% clear - not for me that it.

It sounds like a series of Step-and-Attack (if there *is* a target), moving at 1 ys/sec.

I asked because I also presume a faster slice rate. Mmmmmm slice...

That was why I saw this as a good opportunity to come up with an exception to Wait to allow some move. I think half move would be apporpriate, or even Move/3. AFter all an AoA(determined-Ranged) allows half move, but only forwards - and I assuem this means in the direction you are facing, which IMHO is forwards regardless of how the legs are pointing.

Is there no longer a 'pop-up shot modifiers like there was in 3rd ed?
Meaning a penalty for not having the target visible until you yourself moved (or stood up) to bring it into sight.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

From TS24: "The next turn, take another step, and so on, slowly circling around the corner."

It does not say this explicitly, but I would treat this like a Step and Concentrate maneuver. See Situational Awareness, TS11. In game terms, you also avoid Bulk penalties.

The reason you go slow is so that you can see the guy first, and so that no more of you is visible than necessary. More cover, means a harder shot for him. Stealth is involved as well, since you could very well ease out, see him, and shoot him before he sees you. It can take a long time to clear a building this way. If you have to move in on a bad guy taking the Wait maneuver there are two ways: rush him and cause a Fright Check, or approach him while using maximum cover.

By slicing the pie, if you spy him and are undetected, you can then move back into cover, alert your partner or support team, and decide how to attack. A SWAT team or military squad might use explosives or flash bangs. A couple of cops searching a reported B&E might quietly switch places -- bringing the single long gun between them into the front position, say. Gesture helps here! Or they may decide to rush the guy and scare him into surrendering. Ready on 1, 2, 3 . . . "Freeze!, Freeze!, Drop the gun!, Drop the gun!, Drop the gun!, Drop the gun! . . ."

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Well, this is the main difference really. You get a better shot by taking a long time. Of course a maxed-out CQB technique limits this.
On could also assume that is an enemy heard you approach - os suspects somebody is coming - he'll Wait. But indisciplined or hurried enemies migth not keep this up for very long, so a multi-round-slicer may not see the enemy (or vice versa) until several seconds later where the enemy may have started moving. But this is merely a thought experiment.

Using flash-bangs to initiate the rush should mean it is ok to hurry using MaA.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I talked with Kromm and Hans about "Step and Wait." They both think it's fine, and this is how pie-slicing should be treated.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Has this been discussed in an earlier thread then? Because I feel a sense of Deja Vu...
But then again I often do ;)

Edit: But only Step-and... not Move-and...? So it's still the slow method at 1 yd/sec.
For a faster version it's just Move-and-Attack with the clause that the -2 for evaluating also allows you to not shoot if there are no targets. Of course you still need to roll Vision to spot the target in the first place.

But the slow slice allows you to use Sighted Shooting or what? So the Reflex Sight is usable?
And the fast slice only allows unsighted shots and hence only tactical lights and laser aimpoints?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I think it was, but there was also private mail.

dhc

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Done properly, this is somewhat slow and precise. The object isn't to rush, but not to get shot or grabbed. Moving quickly around corners is done when time is of the essence (bombs ticking, hostages dying, etc.), but that isn't the same maneuver. People trained to slice the pie will still move as if they were doing it and look where they're supposed to look – that's the power of training – but they'll be operating too quickly to be guaranteed the initiative if someone is waiting. In game terms, they'll be walking the same path but without a Wait against their enemies.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Roger.
But how is the timing against a Waiting and stationary target?

The SWAT officer makes repeated Step-and-Waits around the corner, until he get LOS on a target. Assuming he maes his Per roll to spot the enemy, who shoots first?
Both have a wait going, so do they roll for speed as normal? Is there any difference in the fact that the SWAT guy is moving and the other is stationary?
I'd be tempted to give the stationary party a slight bonus to shoot first.

Which is why this is best preceeded by a flash-bang grenade.

However looking at TS p10 the box lists rules for "neither fighter has ready weapon" and "one party has ready weapon" - not "both have ready weapon"?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Martial Arts has rules for cascading Waits, p.108.

Both have a ready weapon is the 'combat is already in progress' case, and is resolved using the standard turn sequence.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Actually, when do you have to declare the nature of your attack on a Step and Attack? I think it would be most streamlined to simply say that you can Step and Attack and choose whether to attack after the step changes your LoS. If the step triggers a gunman's Wait (Opportunity Fire), maybe make a contest of Per, or Per based Soldier, with the waiting firer at some bonus, minus the penalties listed under Opportunity Fire (B548).

The mover would, I assume, take the same -2 penalty as a pop up shot if he shoots.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

That may not work:

A is the SWAT guy slicing the pie of a hallway corner
B is the foul terrorist crouching behidn a desk with a Wait aimed at he corner.

Sequence:
B: Wait, opportunity fire at the corner
A: Step-and-Wait, no target presents itself, nothing happens
B: Still Waits
A: Step-and-Wait, no target presents itself, nothing happens
...[this may go on for several seconds, until:]...
A: Step-and-Wait, suddenly there is a target. BANG!
B: Was actually waiting for this so: BANG!


Now, since A was the one moving into LOS, is he the active party and shoots first? That sounds silly since B was Waiting for this very thing.

Do you only now look at Basic Speeds to see who goes first? Odds are that the SWAT guy is highly trained and faster so he always shoots first. So what is the effect of B's Wait?

TS p24 says you roll a quick contest *if neither chose a Wait manoeuvre*. But what if *both* did as in the example above?
Would that be the same? Make a roll for speed? That seems fair.
Sure, if only one guy was Waiting he shoots first.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

You use Cascading Waits (p. MA108) for multiple fighters taking Wait. It's also modified by hip shooting and unsighted shooting in Fast-Draw situations, if applicable. As it says on TS24, it's a Contest of skill, but not necessarily Guns. If using Wait, you get bonuses for being faster, moving less, and having Combat Reflexes.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Allowing Wait and Step is a significant change to the dynamics of combat though! For example, it lets someone use Wait to close the distance with a longer weapon, instead of Evaluate or AoD. If this is supposed to be a general principle not a special case, it would have been proper to spell it out.

It also means that a "leading someone at gunpoint" situation gives the gunman a Wait, instead of allowing an uncooperative prisoner one turn to act before the gunman responds. That is a big mechanical change to a fairly common situation in fiction.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

It's effectively a new maneuver, but not much of one. Normal Waits let you convert the Wait maneuver into, say, an Attack maneuver, which would let you step. A Step-and-Wait basically means you use that Step before the wait, and I would assume no longer have the step available for the triggered maneuver. It also makes perfect sense that someone could move very slowly (1 yard a second is a slow walking pace) would be able to wait and respond to a situation they are expecting quickly. I doubt you'll see many step-and-waits to close distance simply because the use of the step before the wait and the general uselessness compared to simply moving in is going to make it a fairly unimpressive option. Might be tactically useful at times, but it's pretty niche.

Yeah, reacting faster than someone who's walking you at gunpoint and intentionally prepared to shoot you if you do anything typically only works in fiction. The only way it works in real-life is when there is something to distract the guy's attention from that idea, whether it's carelessness, a lack of formed intent, hesitation, or a simple distraction. Cascading waits works perfectly well for someone being walked along and waiting for an opportunity (And on that note, they would also be doing a step-and-wait).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Sorry for the necro, but I'm interested in the situation as well. Here's what seems like an important nuance to me:
It seems very important what is the triggering condition.
Note that if it's a Step-And-Wait, then first A makes a Step, then A starts waiting for some condition to trigger an attack. So at the moment A shows up in B's FoV, A is not Waiting yet - merely Stepping in preparation to Wait.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Alternatively, he could be Waiting and Stepping at the same time. Nothing prevents him from doing both!

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Huh? In that case, nothing prevents Waiting and Attacking at the same time. Now, that doesn't seem to make sense.
A state-of-conditional-Waiting is when a character does nothing unless the trigger event registers. If you're placing the Step outside the conditional block of the turn, then it's not part of the conditional block.

Otherwise the following situation becomes possible:
Opponents both have a Reach 1 weapon.
A declares a Wait, opting to whack B if B steps into Reach 1.
B does a Step And Wait, with the wait condition being 'when A is in reach' and the action being 'whack A'.
As B Steps, B becomes in range, and B's Wait is triggered, allowing to contest A's priority.
This way, B gets the best of both worlds, with no drawback.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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).

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}.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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 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).

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.

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?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Strange to say, I've spent whole last day studying step-and-wait/move-and-wait threads on these forums. It's a funny coincidence this topic revived.

What on earth did prevent A from attacking the same turn? That was his own decision, so he must face the consequences. When it comes to simulationsm, I can see no reason why A must have the significant edge over B. A could use his opportunity to attack immediately (before B could get prepared), but he chose to Wait. Now both fighters are in fairly equal situations: they have weapons with same Reach and they both need to make some movement in order to attack. Isn't Cascading Waits (MA108) rule a satisfying solution? Also, as Celti said, A do has an advantage, as he has no penalty due to movement (it isn't fair, but it's realistic - offensive fighting can be more difficult than defensive manner).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Exactly so.

Sure, but why is that a bad thing?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

A while back I suggested the idea of mechanics for beating a Wait. There was quite a lot of disagreement with the idea, though I didn't find it very convincing...

This would be making it substantially easier than what I was suggesting, though.



Also, there's a perversity. 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? You do exactly the same thing as if you didn't, because if you actually used that information to make some kind of Attack maneuver, you'd be handing them a guaranteed first shot rather than a roll-off.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

But its not a free lunch the chap waiting without moving gets a +2 bounus on the cascading wait QC that quite a lot in cases of roughly similar levels of combatants.

The step and wait cutting the pie is a compromise solution when facing a potential waiting opponent on the other side of the door between:

A). moving in normally (and more quickly) and attacking, and getting hit by a waiting opponent

and

B). Standing there with you own wait not moving.


Cutting the pie is normally down by those initiating the action, doing so against opponent who can sit and wait is a compromise. This is shown by the relative -2 disadvantage.

For me step and wait is kind of like the half way house between wait and not waiting, in the same way as defensive attack is compromise between AoD and standard attack.

Basically a free lunch assumes there's no down sides to doing it, and that not the case. Your limited to a step, your limited in your target choice (you concentrating on the appearance of target in a specific place) and your disadvantaged against a waiting target who's waiting for you.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Nothing prevented A from doing it, A just made the choice to do it in a more tactically sound manner. A still has the initiative as compared to B, but instead of attacking before B immediately, A chose to attack before B when in range (or sight, for pie-slicing).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I just quoted a wall of text showing what happened back when a similar free lunch was available and what was bad about it.
There are no down sides to doing it. Let's compare:

• Wait gives up the right to attack immediately (risking characters in the turn sequence between A and B doing something to influence it, among other things) and the right to move before the Wait is triggered. A Wait is wasted if the external condition doesn't occur (e.g. nobody steps into your range).
• Attack gets to perform the action immediately, with a step before or after it. It also is vulnerable to Waits (i.e. a Waiter gets to act before the Attacker).
• A Step-and-Wait does everything the Attack does and more, with no downsides; plus everything Wait does (though you move your Step to before your Attack). It gets to attack immediately by setting up a trigger condition that you yourself fulfil by stepping (so you never waste your opportunity). It gets a free ride to become 'tied' in the initiative order with someone who has the initiative. It gets the mobility of Attack. It is not any more vulnerable to Waits or Step-and-Waits than a Wait, and is always a priority over an enemy Attack.

Really, Step-and-Wait gets the best of both worlds, and no or nearly no drawbacks in exchange for it. If you have the right to make Step-and-Waits, you'll probably never ever need to perform normal Attacks ever again.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Only your limited to a step so you're having to do this very slowly, you only get you to attack vs. the expected target, so you can be flanked and will not react well to other things. Finally your still disadvantaged against someone doing a normal wait, waiting for you. If he wins the QC with the +2 bonus you get none of the benefits and only the disadvantages.

Step and wait accesses the benefits of both, but the disadvantages of both apply too. That's what a half way house means.

The thing is your making very abstract comparisons, I think it because less of problem if you actually envisage situations this would be used in because the context will effect the relative benefits an issues of each choice.


Take the example already given:

One chap (A) in a room covering the door taking a wait action for target appearing in the door. One chap (B) cutting the pie with the intent to clear the room.


The chap inside is waiting in the room so is not on the clock, the chap outside is initiating so it stands to reason he is on the clock.

'A' has choice he can move and attack getting more movement

But he't eat 'B's attack


'A' can wait in the normal fashion, which is safest for him, but nothing happens room will never be cleared


'A' can step and wait, which at least gets him to his goal, but all else being equal he'll be at a disadvantage when it comes to the ensuing cascading waits QC.


basically to truly judge this you have to take into account the whole context. Yes in abstract your right if you take step and wait, step and wait every single round you will have an advantage over taking normal attacks, but only so long as you targets appear when and where you expect them to appear and moving step per turn doesn't cause you other issues.

As GM I can think of many ways to punish someone doing that (and I think RL combat would too)

This is true of assessing combat options in general I find some situations will favour some options over other, but that's kind of the point of them. Assuming a situation that favours one option is not a very good way to compare options in general.

However I should add I tend to play up situational awareness and gun sighting and all the stuff in TS in this kind of circumstance.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Can you please give an example of such a condition? I don't think I as a GM would actually allow a Wait that contrived.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Generally agreed.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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.

Wouldn't work in SWAT scenarios --
 

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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:

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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.

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).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

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

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Sure sure sure, Vicky - you don't like the idea of Step-and-Wait being able to challenge other Waits - but then that just makes Slicing the Pie have no benefits whatsoever. So do you have any ideas on how to make it so Wait isn't the auto-kill-the-cops rule vs someone trying to perform a maneuver specifically designed for taking out foes Waiting to shoot at you while you're breaching a door?

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Not quite true. The Step and Wait means that:
-If there is someone in the exposed slice that isn't Waiting, you get them before they have a chance to get you (which Step and Attack would also grant if you're okay with that being a Step-acquire-targets-and-Attack).
And:
-If there is no one in the exposed slice, you are in a Wait, so if anyone comes into the exposed slice before your next turn you have the drop on them.
Is slicing the pie really used when you literally expect people to be pointing guns through the doorway just waiting for you to make an appearance? (Non-rhetorical question about actual tactics! In GURPS terms, pie slicing certainly works fine if there's someone around the corner who isn't performing continuous 'Wait for someone to expose themselves' Maneuvers.)

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I'd assume yes, though tossing a grenade of some type (flashbang or frag, probably) first would probably occur if feasible.

That said, what I think should happen in the whole 'Person A waits to ambush Person B; Person B expects the ambush and Slices the Pie' is that both Person A and B fire their shots, even if one or both of them die in that first round of contact.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

The grenade would cover a lot of sins, though. It would also make a more aggressive entry (Move and Attack right into the room, say) more of an option.
Hmm, that one is going to require fairly substantial bending to make likely, won't it? Since 'both act simultaneously' normally only comes up as the result of a tie in Cascading Waits.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I took a look at this at some length on my blog.

Tactical Shooting and Slicing the Pie

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

True, because its still a risky tactic, even with step and wait you're at a penalty on the QC, your still likely to get shot.

Tossing grenades, going though though / making a different entrance. etc all about breaking the situation of the the man in the room know where you wil be, but you not knowing where he'll be.

That leaves aside that tossing grenades (at least explosive ones) may not be feasible for other reasons.

But you can make you trigger condition not one based on a closing target.

Ultimately my issue is I can see no reason why the action of trying to pre-empt your target or some specific action should mean you lose the ability to move your feet.

Well other than share game balance one, but as I sai the reality of that in play will very much come down to how you treat waits

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Slicing the pie is when you don't necessarily know, what's in the room, but suspect it might be bad. It an exploratory tactic, but one designed to keep you safe as possible. The safest tactic is of course not to go into the room, but that may not be feasible

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Mr. Cole suggests step'n'wait has a -2 to everything, and that the person who sees first (Perception or Per-based skill QC) shoots first. I think it's elegant and simple and I support it. There is no free lunch. Lunch costs -2.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

*shrug* Works for me.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Ok but that limits the relevancy for actual play. Especially as you say mainly in these standoffs. However its these standoffs that are likely going to be cascading waits, which is precisely when the step and wait is penalised. You said earlier "a mere -2" well ok rachet it up. But either way -2 on a test where only the Speed stat kicks in is quiet a lot.


What I don't like about those stand offs is that you're both standing like statues while all else goes on around you, or one of you gets shot.

Also if nothing else if set and wait truly did just replace attack, then it would balance out as by that argument everyone would be step and waiting. TBH this would only really occur (if it occurred at all) in melee, and the benefit then is reduced as the overwhelming benefit of attacking first is less in melee than it is in gun fights, especially with the various options.

However I agree if that did happen it would be a lb of cure for a oz of probelm!

True but the normal conditions don't make a lot of sense.

As it stands there is no way a someone passing the doorway can do so in way that doesn't involve automatically getting shot at first by some one with a wait. Which is exactly the situation that slicing the pie is designed to mitigate in real life.*

Wait is ultimately a way to seize the initiative later by choosing not to take go earlier. The prescription that you can only do that while standing still is odder each time I look at it

However to restate again I would certainly play up the limitations of wait as previously described.

*that said while i dislike hyper specific single situation only rules adaptations, I also don't like changing an entire system to allow one single specific tactic to work as intended.

A good compromise point might be to restrict step and wait to just this or very similar situations. This might make certain sense as teh steps in slicing the pie are actually very short, way shorter than a GURPS step. It really is just about staring down you gun's narrow field of fire that takes in a tiny slice of the room. Some of this might actually be below the resolution of GURPS.

And as I said earlier it could just be done my playing up the disadvantages of wait.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

.......and me

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

-2 to all DX/IQ-derived rolls seems like the closest thing for paying for this lunch so far, because it provides a modest penalty to things other than the newly-gained QC: rolls to IFF, rolls to avoid misstepping while you're not looking where you're going*, Per rolls of all sorts etc. (Normally, penalties aren't inherited by secondary attributes, but it seems like in this case there should be an exception-rule.)

However, this solution still retains the following issue:

And this very much produces the situation quoted above.

Oh, I also realised that my idea of saying the tradeoff is giving up the right to make Active Defences is silly, because it has absolutely zero effect if the Waiter-B is ready to make an All-Out Attack. Just like when designing AoA Techniques, you may not apply a defence penalty to them.

Which made me think: perhaps the proper way to make Slicing the Pie mechanic available is a Rules Exemption and/or Unique Technique?

* == Is this the first time when I'm considering the floor to be something other than a featureless plane? It quite well might be.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I vaguely recall Kromm offering the idea of describing a successful Dodge against a Wait-triggered Attack as being able to pre-empt the attack, with the caveat that doing it successfully means the opponent still didn't waste the bullet during the trigger moment, and you have to account for it after you resolve your own attack. Interestingly, this gives a new, more literal meaning to the mechanic of Deceptive Attacks (in this case, by Waiter) representing sheer speed!

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

You can, but then you're not able to trigger it yourself. As for not moving your feet, the Wait seems to assume that you're as primed for a lightning-fast execution of your waiting attack as possible. If you're stepping, your condition might be triggered while you're off-balance.

Maybe make it layered like the ETS resolution:
Those with ETS doing static Waits resolve order amongst themeselves,
then
Those with ETS doing Stepping Waits and Stepping Attacks act after them and resolve the order among themselves
then
Those without ETS doing Static Waits act after them and resolve order amongst themselves
then
Those without ETS doing Stepping Waits and Stepping Attacks act after them and resolve the order among themselves.
(Note: very rough idea; not cooked; not suitable for ready use unless further prepared.)

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Well of course only in this standoffs. Cascading Waits only ever happens when someone is in a Wait standoff.

It does look like the only game mechanic that naturally produces situational lulls in combat, as opposed to resource-consumption-based ones.

It seems to depend on what are the chances of doing a Stun-or-worse outcome with an attack, which depends on damage and DR, not on whether the situation is mêlée or ranged. In fact, the 21ft rule (i.e. mêlée vs. firearm) seems like it might show up here too!

To quote the allegedly correct translation of Machiavelli: before doing something, think through all the possible consequences.

Indeed, this is one of those situations where if you want a change, you have to go through all the ripple-changes too, calling in the mythical 'G5e'. Allowing such Steps in just Pie-Slicing seems convoluted and un-GenericUniversal.
Allowing something like 'spend five turns, get the right to Step while still Waiting on turn 5' . . . well, maybe, but it still looks clumsy and very unlike the rest of GURPS (well, the rules from Swimming speeds are calculated in hexes travelled per 10 seconds, but that's about it).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Thing is you can word a wait's trigger to an extant that you can actually dictate when it will go off (this very much depends on what you allow for wait, wait more than most has the opportunity to be abused, but well see my basic point about all this).

Also as to the point about being triggered while stepping, I think that's the nub and crux of Douglas Coles's -2 to everything, you are ultimately doing two things at once and your concentration is divided.

So not much scope for step and wait to render attack completely useless then?

Only if both take it up, and there's difference between encouraging lulls in combat (something I'm all for and I use the AP system to do so as well) and rooting everyones feet to the spot.

I also tend to make evaluate and wait indistinguishable to the observer as well.

Only that's more a question of TL, TL3 is not going to have to Mexican stand off with missile weapons. TL6+ firearms first to shoot at close range is a big advantage.

Only if there's un-readied firearms involved (much as in real life, that 21' rule from FBI research is based on guns being holstered and/or safetied*). But again TL is your key thing here.

*the fact its occasionally been morphed into something else since is probably a matter for another thread.

True but I'm pretty sure most here would of have done that.

Yes that why I'd favour a more abstract reduced effect wait if it was being used in these kind of situations. But would think carefully about when are where i'd use it. As previously said would play up the disadvantages of waits, if I thought it was being misused.

Ultimately slicing the pie is a tool to be used, and tools work best when applied to the problem they are designed for. So while I get your point about the danger of super tool that trumps all other in all other situations I think it would be possible to compensate.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

That seems much harder to arrange unless you can Step-while-Waiting.

It seems like a step in the right direction; it somewhat reduces, but not eliminates, the problem that was sighted back in 3e and fixed with 4e - namely, sufficiently high skill level being enough to trump tactics.

A non-penalised Step-While-Waiting definitely makes Attack useless in these stand-offs, and the big thing being that if S-w-W is available, almost everything turns into this kind of standoff.
E.g. it used to be that when you both have Reach 1 weapons, and there is one or two empty hexes between you, you have to choose whether to Wait (retaining initiative, but not closing in if the attacker e.g. decides to Evaluate from a distance instead of stepping forward). But with S-w-W, you can just keep advancing while Waiting - if there are two empty hexes between you, you just step, leaving one empty hex between, and Wait. And then do it again. And the worse you get for that is a -2 to your skills, while still able to steal the initiative from someone who took a static Wait. So basically, this creates an incentive for everyone to always Wait instead of Attacking while closing, every single time - at worst you're at -2 to DX. Think about it this way: would you allow someone to attack out of sequence, earlier than normal (e.g. two times in a row) in exchange for a -2 to DX?

Sure, S-w-W is no better than regular Attack in a flurry. But unless it applies -2 DX, it's not worse either. And before a flurry, it's golden.

You don't have to be rooted. You get a meaningful choice between staying ready to spring on the attacker (retaining initiative), or advancing on the enemy who is ready to 'ambush' you (and if you have good Active Defences, and you should, it's not even a tragedy).

This is actually something I considered. But I think secret manoeuvres are a complication (and, ironically, a grounds for bringing back in the usefulness of Body Language in combat).

It's not just a TL thing. DR also matters. If the opponent is in a battlesuit that has a 90% chance of stopping a burst from your beam rifle, things are different than if the opponent is in a flak vest that can barely slow your .30-06.

That's definitely an interesting topic, but I agree that it's a branch too far.

Well, as a tool, it cuts deeply into fundamental assumptions about initiative in GURPS. It tries to rewrite the answer to the question 'what Movement does a Wait allow'. We've had this tool in 3e, and it was discarded as inappropriate. I wouldn't bring back it lightly, even as a foot-in-the-door.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Not sure why? I'm mean I can see they are different in certain circumstances, but I think they are not as generally different as you seem to.

Well I've never played 3e so this could be you talking with the voice of experience and me not. However I'd say high skill already trumps tactic to an extent anyway (the point being it's not an either or thing, and in some cases high skill makes available some tactics.).

Only that option will be open to both. It would balance out (but see whet I earlier posted about that). don't forget a S&W is penalised against a normal W.

well again that will depend on how you treat Waits.

Maybe in a TL3 melee orientated setting, by in TL8 gun play one your risking getting you head shot off.

Ah well I've been running secret manoeuvres since I've been running games (and that way before I started playing GURPS). For me it's a must in running combat.

Well yes that's mainly a factor of TL, but yes I agree it directly manifested through DR vs. damage out put.

fair enough maybe next time it comes up
Maybe, as I said I never played 3e so it may not appreciate the reality of this change. However I can't help but think how we treat wait's in general will be a bigger deciding factor when it come to the scope of the impact on the wider system.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Well, normally, when you Wait, something external has to happen for it to be triggered. If it doesn't happen, you don't get to use your conditional action. If you say you want to chop the enemy when the enemy starts swinging his sword, and the enemy just freezes, you wasted a Wait. That's the price of being pre-emptive, among other things. And normally, you can't do anything while Waiting that would set the trigger condition to 'true'. But with a Step that can be used while the trigger-checker is already primed, you can set up a condition that you yourself can fulfill, e.g. become in Reach 1 from an enemy (which suddenly brings back the ability to trump an enemy Wait that existed in 3e).

BTW, ability to arbitrarily trigger one's Waits is also something that was done away with. Here's a quote from 3e so that you see for yourself what I'm comparing to:
You also force Waiters to take the extremely situational and optional gamble offered in Martial Arts (for 4e):

The tradeoffs betwen Step-while-Waiting, Step-then-Wait, and normal Wait do not compare to the tradeoffs between a normal Wait and a normal Attack.

If the bullet connects. You can also risk having one's head chopped off in a TL3 mêlée. If the ax connects.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

The thing that surprised me most in going through it again - and I'd forgotten how old this thread was - is that Step and Wait wasn't mentioned explicitly. Mostly, the TS description seems to be written around Step and All-Out Attack (Determined), but there's enough wiggle in it that it's not clear.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I thought about that, and I think this is a good case for a special case.

If the Waiter on the receiving end of slicing the pie knows exactly what's going on and what to expect - and more importantly exactly when to expect it - it's possible he should get a larger advantage on that initial QC.

But if he just knows someone might come around the corner at some random time in the future, then the slicer and he are in the same boat - looking at a partially revealed target skirting the corner, back from the wall, both looking for trouble. I think a cascading contest of Per is the right thing here.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

TS pretty explicitly references Opportunity Fire when describing what the 'ambusher' can do to the 'assaulter':
That seems to very clearly forbid movement of any sort for the opportunist; if the opportunist can't do it, surely the assaulter can't either.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Now you're going in circles.

You need to accept something: the rule was written with the option for Step and Wait allowed. We vetted with with Sean - or rather, HANS vetted this with Sean in the draft process and gave him permission to add the step. The unfortunate thing for clarity and framing the debate is that (as I mention in my blog post) the allowance of this seems to be implicit rather than explicit.

Second, the -2 (or higher if you like; I considered -2 for movement AND -2 for a sort of pop-up attack for -4 to the QC , but that seemed overly harsh) provides for the movement.

I'd suggest walking through this scanario on a tactical map and looking for just how little exposed extra map there is on each step as the pie is sliced.

As to the "but steppenwait is the only thing that will ever be used!" question: well, that's fine with me. There are turn-order artifacts that step and wait fixes that exist in the RAW, so it's really a matter of taste.

One thing that wouuld be interesting, but I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea, would be to allow the Wait-and-Aim guy to add his Acc to the Perception roll, or maybe Acc-2, min 0. That gives a mechanical advantage to the guy who chooses the frozen Wait. Thing is, I'm not sure if that works in reality-ville.Does using an Acc 5 rifle give you an advatage over a PPQ with Acc 2 or 3 in your ability to detect a target coming around a corner? I'd think not.

Alternately, frozen Wait couuld perhaps claim a bonus to the Per contest of up to +3 for repeated Evaluates, which would make the net QC delta 5ve points - enough that you will really need/want to be a truly expert room-clearing guy to win that.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Hmm. This is something that sounds extremely unlike what the text says (i.e. the reference to being hit by Opportunity Fire, which is pretty explicitly non-steppable etc.). Of course, I haven't been in the playtest, nor am I Sean, so I don't know what is written between the lines (yet).

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Just go back and read the two posts by Sean around post 9 of this thread, and he confirms it. I do note in my blog post that the lack of explicit mention (there's a drive-by in the form of "if neither of you took Waits" ) and almost narrativeish descrtiption rather than a step-by-step mechanical guide makes discussions like this one regrettably unavoidable.

The second part of this is that Sean and the other authors do not write rules for mindless automatons and in a way where every case is always explicitly covered, consistent with ever other book ever written regardless of scenrario, and accounting for all possible contrived edge cases.

Step and Wait allows for movign slowly and deliberately through an area, covering a line or arc. It prevents artifacts like another combatant being able to sneak through your line because your "turn" happened to end at a particular arbitrary moment in time, allowing a rules exploit. It allows an extra couple of Quick Contests that might currently be a bit too much in favor of the attacker, which there are now two suggestions on how to fix: a blanket -2 penalty to the stepper, and up to +3 Evaluate bonus for the stationary participant.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Hey now. The thing with RPGs is that we can do anything. I could give people who use Wait +2 to Sex Appeal rolls. The question is what's legitimate. Information in the source material is assumed legitimate unless it stinks to high heaven, and so we want it to be sufficient for play. In this case, the explicit material in the book is not sufficient. We are united in our regret that TS didn't make steppenwait explicit, but we are where we are. Neither my desire to use legitimate rules in my games nor my instinct to question rules that are found outside the books, and the broader implications thereof if they're incorporated, make me a mindless automaton. Consider it a compliment to SJGames' editorial staff that we prefer material that they've taken a look at to other ideas, even from the same author.

Regarding pie-slicing, if it's a contrived edge case, then it's an edge case that Hans devoted over 400 words to contriving. If you're referring to the non-slicing implications of steppenwait, Vicky quoted some design logic about the shift from 3e to 4e that make clear that, in fact, the potential of steppenwait to privilege skill over preparation had been judged and found undesirable.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I always just let my players spend Wildcard points on a failure if they engaged a bad target while forgoing a wait.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

My point is that the rules are guidelines to be used or discarded as is appropriate for genre, play style, and what's right at the moment. What Vicky often seems to be looking for is a black-and-white answer, no assumptions, no cases where a rule is not applicable, and despite the artificial nature of a turn-based game with discretized skills and actions, no artifacts.

What seems to be missing is simply a notion that the attacker steps and if a target presents itself, he shoots. If not, he stands ready in case a target does present itself before his next artificially descretized action. In game terms, you take a Step and Attack, which turns into a Wait if there ain't no one to shoot...or a Step and Wait, which instantly transitions to an attack if there's a target to hand. Either would work with a little GM elbow grease, and Kromm noted that the Step and Wait is the solution discussed with Hans.

The fact that you're revealing so little of the room at a time, and that both parties in the Step-and-Wait vs. Wait will more or less at the same time see each other coming in about the same slice of vision means that even though normally a Wait is privileged over the incoming action, both mechanics and verisimilitude suggest that a contest of Per-based skills (including Per-based Per) is a good way to execute this.

The mindless automaton comment is directed at a way of looking at rules as if they're the whole of everything, and if any interpretation or fuzziness is encountered, that's a problem with the rules as always being not explicit enough. GURPS is always stated to have a strong Rule Zero leaning, despite the mountains of guidelines written (and I've written my share), one must always remember that rules are guidelines, and also that different solutions appeal to different people. Langy and Ulzgoroth, for example, shrugged this off a while back and said "it's fine as-is, or take a -2, who cares?" more or less.

Since I devoted four hours and 3,500 words to the issue, I think we're in agreement that more clarity is useful in this case, and I tried to provide it - at least according to my own sensibilties.

The contrived edge case is that the assumption for the Waiting character is a degree of assumed omniscience and focus on his part that doesn't comport with how these pie-slicing events go down. Especially when they go down as conducted by experts.



In a face-to-face melee confrontation where both combatants have full view of each other, I agree with Peter's assessment (picking on Peter because I believe it was he who was quoted). In the case of stepping around a corner where both combatants are being revealed at the same time to each other, I feel that a Quick Contest is appropriate in this case, and (as I've mentioned) have provided several options to slant the contest in favor of the stationary waiting person.

Finally, we have now spent over 60 posts on a 2-year-old thread because a quibble was brought up that despite every other case in GURPS where the maneuver is what it is, and movement is just an integral and analog part of it, an arbitrary assumption was made in the necro itself that the Step and the Wait are distinct and sequential only in this case. So yeah, if I seem a bit exasperated that many solutions have been offered by willing interlocutors and the only feedback is "yeah, well THIS other rule on p. XX is a problem, what are YOU going to do to fix it for me?" I plead guilty.

So I'm out, having offered a solution to the problem.

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

Still not sure how any of that truly limits wait then step attack over wait and step then attack.

However as I said before I think Wait is one of those rules we all see a bit differently because of the it's inbuilt (and necessary) ambiguity.


I agree but I'm not sure why they'd be required to, they are different things and there will be different reasons to chose them at different times.

To be honest I think you looking for the platonic ideal of balanced in abstract, but ignoring how all this works in play where contest is king.

Neither do I see how your point is relevant to my point that yes you might end up swapping some Attack and wait, for Step & wait and Wait, but that doesn't remove tactical choice. I agree with you point that adding another compromise manoeuvre will mean basic attack will probably be less widely used, but that's like saying MA adding defensive attack and committed attacks made normal attack less widely used. I.e I'm sure it's true, but I'm not sure it's a problem.

Yes, but you have to be standing within 1-2 yard for that to happen, you can parry it, the axe is what doing what 1d+3 - 2d+2, I can get DR 7+ on the head (plus the skull) petty easily etc.

It's rather different for main battle rifles in TL5+ vs. standard helmets and armour. Have you played much WW2 era stuff?

or put it this way no one's going to bother slicing the pie for a guy standing in the middle of the room with an axe, well not unless it's a very, very, small room anyway

Re: [TS] Slicing the pie, a question?
 

I somewhat digress from Slicing the Pie, but I'd like to bring an EXAMPLE in favour of Step-and-Wait.

Cyberpunk Julie Electrica's turn has begun. She's absolutely sure (possibly one of her mates told her via radio and then passed out) that her enemy, Ripperjack, is going to rush inside the room unless she will shoot him (it doesn't matter why it's so important for her - any GM can invent hundred reasons). She has Move 6, so she can't reach Ripperjack on her turn with Move and Attack. If she takes any other maneuver, Rippejack, who's Move is 7, will run into the room unharmed. She can't "cover" the doorway from her current position, so she needs to move 1 yard in order to assume shooting position.

Sure, a player who plays Julie Electrica could announce "I step and Attack after I hear that Ripperjack gets near the doorway", but it's doesn't look very sensible - overwatching implies vision, not hearing. Julie Electrica will use her eyes to shoot after all. Also hearing can fail more easily, while having the enemy in a plain sight is a better option.
So, what she's gonna do? Of course, Step and Wait! Because if Julie can hear Ripperjack (*triggered*), step and shoot him, why on earth she shouldn't be able to step, see Ripperjack (*triggered*) and shoot him?

Also Aim allows a step, but realistically stepping and aiming isn't that different from stepping and waiting - generally, you just step and point your gun in a designated direction. If one can Aim and Wait (B390), why shouldn't there be a Step? Sure, Aim won't bring benefits anyway if shooter won't be aiming for at least one full second, but that doesn't change the matter.

Here Kromm spoke well about using movement portion of declared reaction during Wait maneuver (before reaction is triggered - if it will ever be triggered). And not only Step, but also Move/2 for AoA.

There is no problem if characters use Step and Wait (or even Move and Wait) all the time - that is what gunfighters do when they move in a hostile environment. This matter has been discussed in the aforementioned thread as well.