Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[D10]

Rules aside, I have always played and GMed with steping and waiting being allowed and I think it makes the game better.

[condor]

Originally Posted by D10

Rules aside, I have always played and GMed with steping and waiting being allowed and I think it makes the game better.

D10, as GURPS has a lot of rules interactions, I do my best for avoiding house rules. At least to me, they proved tricky in my past experience.

I think that, after some research, the step in the Wait maneuver may not be necessary after all. In the case of the Tactical Shooting example, it seems to solve itself.

You do not enter into combat mode in this case, at least not with whoever is waiting for you. So, the rules say that if you give cautious side steps, you are entitled to a Perception Quick contest with whoever is on the other side of the corner. If he has taken Wait maneuver, he has the upper hand. The disadvantage of a Move and Attack maneuver here is obvious, because you get -2 in the Perception roll and the worse of -2 and the Bulk in the Attack roll.

In the case of closing in a foe, the only solution I see is Evaluating him from, say, five yards, and then approach taking Step and Evaluate (keeping the bonus of +3). If he tries to go around, you Move and Attack, and have an adjusted skill of 9, his back towards you. But this is not enough...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

D10, as GURPS has a lot of rules interactions, I do my best for avoiding house rules. At least to me, they proved tricky in my past experience.

I think that, after some research, the step in the Wait maneuver may not be necessary after all. In the case of the Tactical Shooting example, it seems to solve itself.

You do not enter into combat mode in this case, at least not with whoever is waiting for you. So, the rules say that if you give cautious side steps, you are entitled to a Perception Quick contest with whoever is on the other side of the corner. If he has taken Wait maneuver, he has the upper hand. The disadvantage of a Move and Attack maneuver here is obvious, because you get -2 in the Perception roll and the worse of -2 and the Bulk in the Attack roll.

In the case of closing in a foe, the only solution I see is Evaluating him from, say, five yards, and then approach taking Step and Evaluate (keeping the bonus of +3). If he tries to go around, you Move and Attack, and have an adjusted skill of 9, his back towards you. But this is not enough...

Pie-slicing is specifically phrased in terms of combat maneuvers. It definitely requires a step-and-wait. It'd also be really awkward for it to only be possible to perform a basic tactical evolution if you are not in combat time!


Generally I see no problem with step-and-wait except for the puzzling way it been (not) addressed in published rules.

[Grouchy Chris]

Here is what Kromm had to say about it. The gist: RAW does not allow a Step with Wait, but it's entirely reasonable to allow it anyway.

[condor]

Thank you, Grouchy Chris. This settles the matter to a great extent, at least for me, since I am used to the old 3rd. edition maneuver.

Yet, just for the sake of curiosity, I would like to find a raw solution for the two situations:

1) Warrior A closing in a foe B in a three yard wide dead-end alley, and;

2) The "Slicing the Pie" situation (GURPS Tactical Shooting, p. 24).

The best I could devise was using Wait maneuver triggered by a clause "If nothing happens in a heartbeat, I Step and (keep) Ready my weapon".

In the case of the situation #2, a guy with a gun would declare a series of Wait maneuvers like that: "If I don't see anything coming from that corner during a heartbeat, I will Step and (keep) Ready my Rifle".

Situation #1 seems more tricky. Fourth edition Wait maneuver likes Link magic (Magic, p.134), because it is strict and once set cannot be changed. So, if warrior A and B were two players instead of PC and NPC, they should write down their "If clauses", or whisper them in the GM's ears.

In this hypothetical situation, Warrior A controls the exit of a three yard wide alley, and do not wish foe B to escape. He would begin with Wait maneuvers triggered this way: "if foe b falls within my sword reach, I will slice him" (Warrior's Clause 1). That would generate a stalemate situation, because player B could declare "I do nothing" (Foe's Clause), and this situation repeats for, say, 20 turns.

Then, Warrior A could secretly change his triggering condition in one turn to "If foe B doesn't move in a heartbeat, I will Step and Ready" (Warrior's Clause 2). In his next turn, which comes immediately after, he would return to the "if foe by falls within my sword reach..." thing.

Foe B could risk to run in his own turn, but he would never know for sure if Warrior A was "programmed" for walking or striking that very second. It would be a matter of risking and taking the opportunity, but he could have the chance of passing by him. This could be fun, for two reasons. First, it generates some suspense, what is great. Second, the faster a Warrior tries to encroach his opponent, the bigger his risks.

In the case of an NPC, a GM could either write down the Wait conditions in secret, and play it like a poker game, or he could only ask the player for its rate of alternation - like, each 10 seconds of Warrior's Clause 1, I will risk a Warrior's Clause 2, and roll a die for, say 10%. Or, if a foe rolls an Acting test, he could lead the Warrior to think he really means to surrender himself, only to slip through his fingers.

If the warrior has more than five minutes, this stalemate situation could be ignored. But if he is in a hurry, this would simulate realistic hesitation. A Warrior would have to really inch forward if wanted to make things the safe way. Otherwise, he would be trading haste for waste.

Kromm here says that a Wait clause can be complex, but cannot be vague. In raw, am I allowed say "if nothing happens during a turn (or a heartbeat), I will do the following"?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

Thank you, Grouchy Chris. This settles the matter to a great extent, at least for me, since I am used to the old 3rd. edition maneuver.

Yet, just for the sake of curiosity, I would like to find a raw solution for the two situations:

1) Warrior A closing in a foe B in a three yard wide dead-end alley, and;

2) The "Slicing the Pie" situation (GURPS Tactical Shooting, p. 24).

The best I could devise was using Wait maneuver triggered by a clause "If nothing happens in a heartbeat, I Step and (keep) Ready my weapon".

In the case of the situation #2, a guy with a gun would declare a series of Wait maneuvers like that: "If I don't see anything coming from that corner during a heartbeat, I will Step and (keep) Ready my Rifle".

Situation #1 seems more tricky. Fourth edition Wait maneuver likes Link magic (Magic, p.134), because it is strict and once set cannot be changed. So, if warrior A and B were two players instead of PC and NPC, they should write down their "If clauses", or whisper them in the GM's ears.

In this hypothetical situation, Warrior A controls the exit of a three yard wide alley, and do not wish foe B to escape. He would begin with Wait maneuvers triggered this way: "if foe b falls within my sword reach, I will slice him" (Warrior's Clause 1). That would generate a stalemate situation, because player B could declare "I do nothing" (Foe's Clause), and this situation repeats for, say, 20 turns.

Then, Warrior A could secretly change his triggering condition in one turn to "If foe B doesn't move in a heartbeat, I will Step and Ready" (Warrior's Clause 2). In his next turn, which comes immediately after, he would return to the "if foe by falls within my sword reach..." thing.

Foe B could risk to run in his own turn, but he would never know for sure if Warrior A was "programmed" for walking or striking that very second. It would be a matter of risking and taking the opportunity, but he could have the chance of passing by him. This could be fun, for two reasons. First, it generates some suspense, what is great. Second, the faster a Warrior tries to encroach his opponent, the bigger his risks.

In the case of an NPC, a GM could either write down the Wait conditions in secret, and play it like a poker game, or he could only ask the player for its rate of alternation - like, each 10 seconds of Warrior's Clause 1, I will risk a Warrior's Clause 2, and roll a die for, say 10%. Or, if a foe rolls an Acting test, he could lead the Warrior to think he really means to surrender himself, only to slip through his fingers.

If the warrior has more than five minutes, this stalemate situation could be ignored. But if he is in a hurry, this would simulate realistic hesitation. A Warrior would have to really inch forward if wanted to make things the safe way. Otherwise, he would be trading haste for waste.

Kromm here says that a Wait clause can be complex, but cannot be vague. In raw, am I allowed say "if nothing happens during a turn (or a heartbeat), I will do the following"?

I don't think a 'if nothing happens' clause is allowed or should be.

I also advise against trying to pretzel RAW into supporting functions that it simply doesn't really.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think a 'if nothing happens' clause is allowed or should be.

I also advise against trying to pretzel RAW into supporting functions that it simply doesn't really.

I'm not pretzeling raw into advanced functions - I'm kind of pretzeling it into two very common situations that should well be addressed by it. One of this situations GURPS' authors describe in great details in their own books. In last case, I yield to house rules, but I like best to compare them with "standard ones" before, to think what I gain and what I lose when changing things. Here, I'm just trying my best to trust the coherence of set of rules that SJ guys has been trying to perfect over years. I think that if there was no solution at all for this inside raw, they should at least have published an Errata.

Anyway, "If nothing happens" might not be a valid condition, I agree with you. In this case, something like "I count one and if he stands still" or "if nothing bobs up from that corner untill I count one" would be better, because they would allow surprises. In the corner situation, it is obvious, if say, a bird pops out, the player should shot - and it simulates very well a very nervous guy approaching a corner.

In the case of a warrior closing in a foe, it would allow the foe to move for testing the warrior. This is more realistic, indeed.

Kromm here says that the Wait maneuver has problems. Allowing the players to take the step portion "isn't optimal, because foes can tell they are commited".

It certainly spoils the suspense of the Wait. It works for the shooting situation because of range, but in the melee battlefield, the foe would simply run far, and it somehow weakens the waiting strategy. You can end up with players who rarely wait at all. It is important to consider that in 3rd. edition you could waive your plans, but in 4th your are not allowed to - so if you walk, you will have only one option, and if the foe comes into your reach, you must act. You are commited, this is an entirely different maneuver from 3rd edition. So, in the battlefield, allowing a previous step could create new problems.

According to raw, instead of going back and waiting, a spearman (two yards reach) would not be able to step back and Wait, and would be forced to Wait next to his swordman foe. His Wait clause would be something like "if he strikes, I step back and attack". This is not a retreat, so I think it would put him out of reach, unless the guy step forward. Anyhow, the swordman has the control over the spearman, and something of poker comes into the combat. First, the swordman can feint, and if he succeeds, I think the Wait is triggered. Second, the spearman can say, secretly, "if he stands untill I count one, I step back and ready".

On the other side, the swordman can spend time evaluating to make a feint each three seconds. Or make his own Wait maneuver guesses.

I like it. It loosens the rythm of the combat, creating little stalemates, with each player trying to guess each other's moves to take advantage more than attacking every turn, what is closer to real life.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think a 'if nothing happens' clause is allowed or should be.

I thought more about Wait triggering conditions.

As sir_pudding said, there is no global turn. So, all events you can speak of assume (or entails) until my next turn. For instance:

- "If he leaves his hex, I attack" - this assumes "If he leaves his hex until my next turn ". The same is true for the corner situation (the guy taking opportunity fire): If someone pops out that corner until my next round , I shoot."

This is automatic. So, I can't find anything wrong with:

- "If he keeps this side of that line, (until my next round), I step forward and (keep) Ready my sword".

Everything hints that Step and Wait IS NOT raw.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you want to have the ability to make a reactive attack, you need to Wait. Period.

Wrong. If you want to have the ability to make a guaranteed reactive attack before your foe has any opportunity of doing anything, you take Wait maneuver. But for that, you must commit into doing really nothing. In all other contexts, you react on a turn by turn basis. Besides, is it realistic entitling a guy to approach a corner with a gun the same reaction privileges as his foe, who is stopped and waiting focused on that specific spot?

In this case, I am really inclined to think that, in raw, the Slicing and Pie tactic is addressed by a series of Move(Steps) under special rules or keep my gun Ready and step, also under special rules, it doesn't matter.

Turn 1, Player B: Waits, Opportunity Fire.
Turn 1, Player A, step out of the corner and take a view. - Player B interrupts him and shoots. Player A dodges and drop for cover.
Turn 2, Player B. Waits, Opportunity Fire on the corner.
Turn 2, Player A: Changes posture from prone to kneeling.
Turn 3, Player B: Waits, Opportunity Fire.
Turn 3, Player A: Changes posture from kneeling to standing.
Turn 3, Player B: Waits, Opportunity Fire.
Turn 4, Player A: Attack. He steps. - Player B shoots. Player A rolls dodge without retreating, and succeeds. Then, Player A attacks.

It seems fair to me. In turn 3, the situation is way more favorable to Player B, which has all the bonuses from aiming (+3 and precision), while Player A has none of them, -2 because he doesn't see the target when his turn begins. The only scenario in which he is not able to react is if he insists in not dodging for cover in his first round. This would be stupid. As he would be utterly confused, trying to assess where the shot came from to begin with, I think it just reasonable if his foe shoots twice before him if he is faster.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yeah, a literal reading of the RAW seems to say that, but it has real problems. Imagine a situation where A is a in room and B is by the door. Why can't A go through the door when B opens it?

He would have to evade him. But assuming a three-yard-wide door, basically this is the same as the warrior closing in a foe in a three yard wide dead-end alley. In raw, it would solve through a sequence like:

Turn 1, Warrior: Waits - "If he comes within reach (until my next turn assumed), I attack".
Turn 1, Foe: Do nothing.
Turn 2, Warrior: Waits - "If he comes within reach (until my next turn assumed), I attack".
Turn 2, Foe: Do nothing.
...
Turn n, Warrior: Waits - "If he keeps across that line (until my next turn assumed), I Ready my sword and Step forward."
Turn n, Foe (without knowing the contents of the triggering condition): Do nothing. Warrior steps.
Turn n+1, Warrior: Waits - "If he comes within reach, I hit him."
Turn n+1, Foe: (Foe: Craps! I should have tried run past him! Shall I try now?) Move! - Warrior interrupts his move.

This would create a rate of approach of less than 1 yard per second, which seems realistic to me. And it does sound as a solution inside raw.

A quick contest would do in most cases, but once in a while, play it in Tactical combat could add fun - mainly if the player must capture the foe quickly.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't think it's necessary. I find it useful. Really though it mostly will never come up, especially if you don't (as I gather most people don't) use the Tactical Combat rules at all.

I know that you can circumvent it through not using the Tactical System. Indeed, I use it very little.

Originally Posted by D10

Rules aside, I have always played and GMed with steping and waiting being allowed and I think it makes the game better.

D10 said it in the beginning of the post. Grouchy Chris brought Kromm opinion. I agreed.

Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris

Here is what Kromm had to say about it. The gist: RAW does not allow a Step with Wait, but it's entirely reasonable to allow it anyway.

But the post itself started with two very specific problems, in Tactical System :

1) The slicing-the-pie: what maneuver to use?, and

2) Guy A closing in foe B in a three-yard-alley: By raw, if he Waits, and his foe stays put, he cannot walk; if he steps, he spends his maneuver and his foe can Move past him. It is not a minor problem. Basic Set dedicates a third of a page on it, but instead of solving it, makes the thing more confusing.


The conclusions I arrived, within this specific discussion are:

About the "Slicing the Pie" situation:

You could consider the Steps proposed in TS p. 24 as Move maneuvers, restricted by special rules, Attack without a target on a turn by turn basis, or Ready (or keep the gun ready) and step, also on a turn by turn basis. Even Step and Wait. It makes no big difference in TS terms. Ulzgoroth said:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

it won't give you any ability to react to what you find, because you took a Ready maneuver rather than a Wait.

I disagree. The thing here is that Wait maneuver makes the player fell safer, because he is entitled to interrupt his foe's turn, and because it sounds coherent. But if both guys are paying attention, it ends up in the same either if both took step and wait, Attack, Ready or just steps: initiative will be disputed under special rules. The first to attack, or to react, is the one who wins. If one guy is Moving fast or Moving and Attacking, he has a penalty in this dispute. Only Opportunity Fire has true priority in this case.

In the case of the dead-end alley situation:


1) Using Wait maneuvers with different, alternating clauses. One of them is "if foe B falls within reach, I strike him" and the other "if foe B stays put, I walk". This would generate some suspense, because foe B could try to guess when to run, but as there is no clear definition of time (stays put for how long? a turn?), it is lame - probably not even raw. Besides, it creates a dangerous precedent when thinking about odd Wait clauses.

2) Using Tactical System under special rules, and, in practice, allow Step and Wait only in these situations.

3) Allowing Step and Wait always. As when you take a Step in advance in a Wait maneuver, in most cases, you are in a disadvantageous position because you are committed with a future maneuver, I think this is no big deal.

4) Allowing the player who took a Wait maneuver the possibility of taking a step in the case his triggering condition don't take place, in the end of the turn.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I disagree. The thing here is that Wait maneuver makes the player fell safer, because he is entitled to interrupt his foe's turn, and because it sounds coherent. But if both guys are paying attention, it ends up in the same either if both took step and wait, Attack, Ready or just steps: initiative will be disputed under special rules. The first to attack, or to react, is the one who wins. If one guy is Moving fast or Moving and Attacking, he has a penalty in this dispute. Only Opportunity Fire has true priority in this case.

If you actually use turn order (the slicing the pie rules do not), then after you use your Ready maneuver to step out, your opponent will get to shoot you on their turn before you can act again. That's in addition to shooting you immediately if they had a Wait in effect.

If you use the Slicing the Pie rules as written, you should remember that you're only half-way into combat, and little things like what maneuver you're using and whose turn is whose are ignored, unless they're not. And if you happen to engage in pie-slicing actually using the combat rules (say because you do it in the middle of a larger combat), expect inconsistent results.