Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

"These small-unit maneuvers work best when using a battle map and Tactical Combat (pp. B384-392)."

GURPS Tactical Shooting, p. 21, first phrase after the title and epigraph.

Yes but that doesn't mean that you are using turn-by-turn movement and the map at all times. Turning Corners only makes sense to apply in a situation where the shooters are at Condition Yellow or Orange and the mobile shooter encounters a hostile shooter. If the mobile shooter is in condition Red it can't apply. In that case they act on their turns as normal.

Example 1 (Turning Corners):
Player: I start clearing this room by slicing the pie (moves token).
GM: There's a hostile in here! Roll a Quick Contest!

Example 2 (Normal Combat):
Player: I take a Move and enter the room (moves token).
GM: There's a hostile in the room. He shoots at you with a AoA: Determined!

Alternatively if you apply that rule to normal combat, then you are giving a free attack in all sorts of weird situations. If I take a Move and Attack to flank a guy that shot at me on his turn, does he get a Quick Contest to shoot at me again? If not why not? It's the same as the Turning Corners situation.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

The rules in p.24 say that if someone used Wait maneuver, the Opportunity Fire rules apply (p. B390). In the Opportunity fire mode you cannot move, just like in the raw Wait maneuver. It could be a price you pay for the benefit of acting first.

No, you can still move as part of the triggered action, just as with any Wait. You can Step with an Attack or move half your Move with an All-Out Attack (with the normal restrictions). Opportunity Fire doesn't change this.

Otherwise, it is suggested that you DON'T use Wait to round the corner at all: "If neither of you chose to Wait, you both roll as above but as a Quick Contest; the winner acts first and a tie means truly simultaneous actions!"

If both chose Waits the same situation would apply as Cascading Waits.

It could be interpreted as Step and (possibly) Attack, that is right, but not as Step and Wait at all, at least inside raw.

What the RAW lacks is a situation where a mobile shooter is expecting a hostile in the room, and the hostile isn't expecting the mobile shooter.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

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

Taking a Ready to ready a weapon that's already Ready just to get the step is silly. You might as well say "I take a Concentrate and think about Prime Numbers" in order to get the step. I wouldn't allow a player to Ready something that is Ready.

Everything hints that Step and Wait IS NOT raw.

No one is claiming that is. Nor will the game police confiscate your dice if you allow it.

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.

That's not a reactive attack; that's just a normal attack on your turn.

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?

That is an interesting question isn't it? On the other hand, if the Turning Corners rule was meant to apply in normal combat situations ought it not apply anytime a target becomes available and neither fighter has a Wait? In which case GURPS just got Attacks of Opportunity; which is bad.

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.

"Keep my gun Ready" isn't RAW and moreover is just silly.

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:

Not what I'm talking about at all. Imagine that Able is trapped in a tiny room with a pressure plate that activates on his turn and shuts the door. Ben is outside next to a lever that opens the door on his turn. By GURPS Raw Able can't Wait to Move out of the room. None of the legal Maneuvers he can take with Wait make sense. Able dies of thirst.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

For me, "neither of you" in this case clearly means "(NOT you) AND (NOT your foe)", just like in the sentence: "Neither John nor Betty is at home."

Which does imply that John could be at home. In this case there is an implication that the mobile shooter took a Wait. However there's also a RAW situation where the mobile shooter could have taken a Wait: if he is on a vehicle or mount, so this doesn't actually solve anything.