Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2013, 09:02 PM   #31
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
It needs to be something with some game mechanical or narrative relevance. "If he twitches" isn't good enough, IMO.
I don't like to put it that way, but I agree that a condition such that nobody at the table has any way to tell when it's happened isn't good, and would put 'if he twitches' in the sense intended here under that.

However, I do think that if your mechanics can be subverted by a third party dropping a handkerchief at a strategic time, there's probably something off.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 09:31 PM   #32
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
I don't think I'd accept a Wait condition (involving another person) that doesn't involve a Maneuver being taken by the target. Otherwise you can produce endless numbers of obviously stupid Wait conditions.
Oh, I agree that the Wait is abusive, but the problem is that there are situations in which such a Wait condition is legitimate, so it seems odd to say "No, you can't do that here, because it'll give you an unfair mechanical advantage." "So much as twitches" is appropriate if you're checking to see if someone is still alive, or if you've given them an order not to "move a muscle" and mean it literally. For less of an edge case, talking is a free action and doesn't need any sort of Maneuver, yet certainly a Wait to silence (via shooting, stabbing, etc) a target if he/she attempts to speak is legitimate.

There's also the issue of what to do if the spearman were to declare a Wait with the same effect ("I step in and attack") but a less-abusive trigger ("If given the order," "If his accomplice reaches the door," etc). This shouldn't be illegal, and seems legitimate for Cascading Waits, but to the swordsman what really is the difference between this and the spearman attacking? Some unrelated action is causing the spearman's reaction, certainly that doesn't suddenly make the spearman faster?

We also have a distinct issue of drama. Let's change the situation a bit - the spearman is one of if not the best warriors in the world, but his son is disarmed, seriously wounded, and struggling to stand two yards from the swordsman, who happens to be a random bandit. The swordsman threatens the spearman - "Try anything and I'll run your boy through!" (Wait: If spearman does anything but move away or stay put, I step and attack his son). Should there really be no way for the cinematically-badass spearman to take out the swordsman before he gets the chance to kill the boy?
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 09:50 PM   #33
Adversary
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Ok, I am not as up on the minutia of Gurps melee as I would like to me, so I could be missing something obvious here. But take the following situation: one company of heavy infantry, armed with swords, is holding a position. A second company of heavy infantry advances on them with spears. The swordsmen are waiting. The spearmen I guess would advance with a series of steps, to avoid the penalties for move and attack. (Let's leave out slams/shield rushes for now).

Under these rules, when the spearmen approach to melee combat range, the swordsmen will get the first hit, as their waits are triggered and they step-and-attack the spearman. This seems wrong.
Adversary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 10:13 PM   #34
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
We also have a distinct issue of drama. Let's change the situation a bit - the spearman is one of if not the best warriors in the world, but his son is disarmed, seriously wounded, and struggling to stand two yards from the swordsman, who happens to be a random bandit. The swordsman threatens the spearman - "Try anything and I'll run your boy through!" (Wait: If spearman does anything but move away or stay put, I step and attack his son). Should there really be no way for the cinematically-badass spearman to take out the swordsman before he gets the chance to kill the boy?
I had a thread about that once.

Of course, in your scenario there's also the obvious solution of parrying the sword with the spear, which is probably a better way than trying to kill the swordsman out of hand. For a second of course, that ability is gated behind a perk...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adversary View Post
Ok, I am not as up on the minutia of Gurps melee as I would like to me, so I could be missing something obvious here. But take the following situation: one company of heavy infantry, armed with swords, is holding a position. A second company of heavy infantry advances on them with spears. The swordsmen are waiting. The spearmen I guess would advance with a series of steps, to avoid the penalties for move and attack. (Let's leave out slams/shield rushes for now).

Under these rules, when the spearmen approach to melee combat range, the swordsmen will get the first hit, as their waits are triggered and they step-and-attack the spearman. This seems wrong.
Actually, if we're talking about units, no, that's not how it goes.

The following is pretending that 'step and wait' is a legal maneuver. Which it sort of halfway is.

The spearmen approach to 2 yards (though I sort of think they should have longer spears and stop at three instead.) The swordsmen in the front rank trigger and move forward to attack. Then the spearmen in the second rank have their own Wait maneuvers trigger, and attack the advancing swordsmen. (Or get into Cascading Waits with them maybe, but at least they have a chance to preempt.)
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 10:52 PM   #35
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
...with similar opposition to this, I see. Looks like this idea is something that is rather disliked.
That said, I think the -10 from that thread is probably a good idea when dealing with actions the enemy can take instantly (like pulling a trigger, flipping a switch, fast-drawing a vial of super-flu, etc), while actions that require a bit longer would be at a lesser penalty. Possibly something like -10 for "instant" actions (as above), -8 for "very fast" actions (stabbing with a sword or taking a step), -6 for "fast" actions (taking a step and stabbing with a sword; swinging a sword), -4 for "normal" actions (taking a step and swinging a sword), and -2 for "slow" actions (moving more than a step - through chambara, Committed Attack, or All-Out Attack - and attacking). Assess an additional -2 if the target's action would take him out of the character's reach (or if there's another reason the character needs to act before the target reaches his destination, like if the target is trying to step on a trap to kill everyone in the room).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Of course, in your scenario there's also the obvious solution of parrying the sword with the spear, which is probably a better way than trying to kill the swordsman out of hand. For a second of course, that ability is gated behind a perk...
While the spearman probably would have Sacrificial Parry, there's nothing to guarantee the bandit's attack will be within range for the spearman to Parry it. Also, I think killing the bandit has more cinematic precedence, and looks much more badass.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 10:51 AM   #36
lexington
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Oh, I agree that the Wait is abusive, but the problem is that there are situations in which such a Wait condition is legitimate, so it seems odd to say "No, you can't do that here, because it'll give you an unfair mechanical advantage." "So much as twitches" is appropriate if you're checking to see if someone is still alive, or if you've given them an order not to "move a muscle" and mean it literally. For less of an edge case, talking is a free action and doesn't need any sort of Maneuver, yet certainly a Wait to silence (via shooting, stabbing, etc) a target if he/she attempts to speak is legitimate.
Perhaps defining it in terms of game mechanics wasn't the right way. From a game design perspective the intent of a Wait is not "automatically trigger cascading waits". It must be possible for the Wait to not be triggered.
lexington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 11:19 AM   #37
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
Perhaps defining it in terms of game mechanics wasn't the right way. From a game design perspective the intent of a Wait is not "automatically trigger cascading waits". It must be possible for the Wait to not be triggered.
On the flip side, I'd say that there should not be an incentive to use Waits this way. Perhaps it should not be permitted to have a Wait that triggers right away, but it also shouldn't be desirable to!
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 04:22 PM   #38
Adversary
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
I had a thread about that once.

Actually, if we're talking about units, no, that's not how it goes.

The following is pretending that 'step and wait' is a legal maneuver. Which it sort of halfway is.

The spearmen approach to 2 yards (though I sort of think they should have longer spears and stop at three instead.) The swordsmen in the front rank trigger and move forward to attack. Then the spearmen in the second rank have their own Wait maneuvers trigger, and attack the advancing swordsmen. (Or get into Cascading Waits with them maybe, but at least they have a chance to preempt.)
Step and wait is halfway legal? Can you explain?

Ok, I think I see how presuming that the spearman have a second rank fixes the problem, sort of...the front rank takes step-and-attack, triggering the swordsmen's wait. The swordsmen step and attack, triggering the 2nd rank of spearman's wait.

But this seems an odd workaround to the problem. It does jibe with what Kromm said about the reachier fighters having to use appropriate tactics, in this case fighting in ranks. But really, it doesn't have to be two large bodies of men--I just used that to give an example of swordsmen holding while spearmen attacked, and to relate it to historical warfare.

Alternate scenario: Princess Ingenue is chained to the wall. Fortunately, Joe Hero has managed to get between her and her captor, vicious Bill Villain. Joe has a sword, Bill has a spear. Bill begins Stepping slowly toward Joe. But when Bill finally Step-and-Attacks, Joe's Wait triggers and he gets to hit first, stepping right past 3 feet of Bill's spear?

I just don't understand why the extra reach is only helpful when standing still/fighting defensively/retreating, but not when advancing. You still get to hit the other guy 3 feet before he gets to hit you.

There is such a thing as baiting a longer fighter forward, then taking advantage of their forward movement to step inside their range. UFC fighter Lyoto Machida will back up, back up, back up until his opponent gets frustrated and chases, then step in to meet them, sometimes with a short-range strike like a knee. And I can see tactics that the swordsman might use to get the first hit, e.g. striking the spear out of the way or leaping in at an unexpected angle. But all of these require the shorter fighter to do something, perhaps requiring considerable speed and skill, to deal with the other's reach. It isn't an automatic function of just choosing a wait maneuver.
Adversary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 04:28 PM   #39
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adversary View Post
Step and wait is halfway legal? Can you explain?
Not specifically mentioning it was sort of an oversight in Tactical Shooting. It's basically required to make slicing the pie make any sense.
Quote:
Joe's Wait triggers and he gets to hit first, stepping right past 3 feet of Bill's spear?
If Bill retreats and parries he's still within reach of Joe.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 06:21 PM   #40
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adversary View Post
Step and wait is halfway legal? Can you explain?

Ok, I think I see how presuming that the spearman have a second rank fixes the problem, sort of...the front rank takes step-and-attack, triggering the swordsmen's wait. The swordsmen step and attack, triggering the 2nd rank of spearman's wait.

But this seems an odd workaround to the problem. It does jibe with what Kromm said about the reachier fighters having to use appropriate tactics, in this case fighting in ranks. But really, it doesn't have to be two large bodies of men--I just used that to give an example of swordsmen holding while spearmen attacked, and to relate it to historical warfare.
If you're talking about archaic spear units, I think just one line is very unlikely. If you want to talk about effectively one guy, do that rather than complicate things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adversary View Post
Alternate scenario: Princess Ingenue is chained to the wall. Fortunately, Joe Hero has managed to get between her and her captor, vicious Bill Villain. Joe has a sword, Bill has a spear. Bill begins Stepping slowly toward Joe. But when Bill finally Step-and-Attacks, Joe's Wait triggers and he gets to hit first, stepping right past 3 feet of Bill's spear?
And the princess is relevant to this story how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adversary View Post
I just don't understand why the extra reach is only helpful when standing still/fighting defensively/retreating, but not when advancing. You still get to hit the other guy 3 feet before he gets to hit you.
It's pretty simple, really. It's because you don't have enough reach. You've got one yard reach advantage, and advancing one yard means losing one yard worth of standoff.

If you had a two yard reach advantage you could advance and still have a yard of standoff.


As Sir Pudding points out, the extra yard does give you room to have more favorable defenses against the Wait than you could afford to use if you only had a reach 1 weapon.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
maneuver, reach, wait

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.