[TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

vicky_molokh · 12-09-2014, 05:32 AM

Okay, I've talked it over with Kromm.
Short version:
Kromm endorses the Step-while-Waiting variant, but making it an official rule is a hypothetical 5th edition issue (i.e. it is not a rule in 4e):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I know that you at some points endorsed the use of a Step and Wait manoeuvre in GURPS 4th Edition, which, contrary to Basic Set, allows performing a Step before the trigger condition occurs, and considered even allowing to use the Move pre-trigger for when the trigger converts to a Move and Attack or All-Out Attack.
[...]
Is the new manoeuvre meant to be [list]First declare trigger condition, then make a step, and if while stepping the turns out to be true, you immediately shift in your declared conditional manoeuvre (including against somebody else who is standing and Waiting), otherwise proceed to wait for the condition to happen'?

Pretty much this. Wait works precisely like it does in the Basic Set, with the one difference being that you already took your movement. The trigger is defined at the very start of your turn, though, and can be set off by another Wait before or during your movement, by something your movement brings into range or into sight, or by events that occur after your movement and before your next turn.

But:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kromm

[...] It may be that +2 [in a Cascading Wait] is too small, and that an official "step and Wait" rule – which does not exist, so we're debating a future edition here – might need to amend this, [...] That sort of refinement is why we playtest.

Long version:

Spoiler:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

First[/b] declare trigger condition, then make a step, and if while stepping the turns out to be true, you immediately shift in your declared conditional manoeuvre (including against somebody else who is standing and Waiting), otherwise proceed to wait for the condition to happen'?

Pretty much this. Wait works precisely like it does in the Basic Set, with the one difference being that you already took your movement. The trigger is defined at the very start of your turn, though, and can be set off by another Wait before or during your movement, by something your movement brings into range or into sight, or by events that occur after your movement and before your next turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

lets people enter the threatened area of a Waiting enemy and yet get a chance to attack before the standing enemy attacks (by invoking Cascading Waits)

They have a chance, but that isn't automatic. Ultimately, this lets high-skill, high-Basic Speed fighters usually go first in a Wait-vs.-Wait situation, which seems fair. And the one who doesn't move at all is at +2 relative to the one who stepped. I really, really dislike the "automatically go first" version of Wait . . . Cascading Waits exists to give you a chance to act first, not to guarantee it, much as Attack gives you a chance to hit someone, but doesn't deny that person an active defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But why is it allowed to step into an enemy Wait with the right of a QC to act faster than the standing-Waiter at all?

Why not? I don't see the problem at all.

GURPS turns are meant to emulate simultaneous action with at most a millisecond-scale offset for differences in Basic Speed. Nobody actually steps a full yard toward another person while the other person does nothing . . . but nobody who's waiting gets settled in and sees an enemy stepping a full yard toward her, either. Per Cascading Waits, they both decide to Wait all at once, and the decision favors the highest skill + Basic Speed, with the person who stands still getting +2 for not dividing attention between watching and moving. I fail to see any issues with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I mean, you say you dislike the automatically-go-first, but yet automatically-go-first was brought in when 4e was written

. . . by my co-author, and not entirely with my blessing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

and was retained (against non-Waits) in Martial Arts too.

To be clear:

Against people who aren't taking a Wait, I have no problem with someone with a Wait going first automatically. In that case, a character as sacrificed an entire quantum of action – a turn – on an obvious gamble. It seems fair for that to pay off, because too often, it will not.

When two people take Wait, though, I dislike "I win!" going to the person who said it first. That's just an artifact of the turn sequence. It leverages even a lousy +0.25 to Basic Speed, worth next to nothing, into total victory over skill when the other party has made an equivalent sacrifice (giving up a turn). That seems wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kromm

I guess I just don't see the problem. From my perspective, it'll always come down to Cascading Waits, which means allowing a little movement adds value to having Combat Reflexes, high Basic Speed, good skill, etc. Which is important, because those things – unlike Wait maneuvers – cost points. And there's still +2 going to the person sitting around a corner or whatever, so in close matches, moving can be fatal.

It may be that +2 is too small, and that an official "step and Wait" rule – which does not exist, so we're debating a future edition here – might need to amend this, perhaps to state that static Wait is always at +4 or +5 or whatever vs. step and Wait. It might be that a clause like "if your step triggers the condition you just specified, you barely waited at all, and are acting hastily at -4" is needed. That sort of refinement is why we playtest.