Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[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.