Wait maneuver issues

[Tomsdad]

OK I found one of the examples you gave that I hadn't seen

Originally Posted by Gnome

My issue is not with realism (reality isn't turn-based after all, so no turn-based system can be "realistic") but with game balance. Because your defenses reset at the start of your turn, Wait can be used to beat down enemy defenses, which shouldn't be its purpose--its purpose should be to time things so that I can hit that guy who tries to run past me, coordinate actions with my allies, and so on. The fact that it also gives a major combat advantage on top of allowing you to time things more or less perfectly is the game balance issue.

I think its reasonable that Wait should be able to do all those things really. Take the beating down defences (i.e hitting twice in row to inflict repeated defence penalties).

The person taking a 'Wait' is changing up the flow of combat to do that as in "I'm going to risk holding back now in order to get in later and hit twice". Giving their opponent a chance to take the initiative (hitting when they weren't due to, or also taking a 'Wait').


The other thing here is we keep setting this situation up with the Wait happening at the beginning of the combat and pointing out it gives two goes in row i.e

ABAB becomes BAAB when 'A' takes a wait, 'A' gets two attacks in a row

but what if 'A' does that mid way through a combat? Then 'B' will also get two goes in row i.e

BABA becomes BBAA

More importantly 'B' gets their double go before 'A', 'A' might be in no shape to enjoy their double go having gifted 'B' theirs! (such is the risk of taking a wait) Although TBF at least 'A' won't get repeated parry penalties as their parry will have refreshed when they decided to Wait after 'B's first go.

Originally Posted by Gnome

Taking a Wait triggered by an ally's action allows me to avoid the oft-mentioned drawback of Wait, which is the possibility the Wait won't be triggered.
If I'm a fighter (BS7) and wizard (BS5) fighting against an enemy (BS6), I can take a Wait (attack when the wizard casts) and use a free action to say "hey beardy, do that magicky stuff!" The enemy takes an action, the wizard casts a spell, I attack...and then it's my turn and I attack again. The enemy had one action, I had two actions in a row (with all of the concomitant benefits), and he never got to have two actions in a row. Now this is still somewhat situational (the enemy could have used his action to run away, for example), but assuming that we're in the midst of a pitched battle in which no one is going to simply give up, this is a pervasive problem.

Thing is you have a 2 on 1 situation, the two already have a massive advantage. Yes it's one that Wait may increase but that's more to do with the 2 on 1 advantage and the opportunities for working together it gives than the abstract imbalance of Wait.

In fact I'd say the wait here is not a great move, it allows the (BS6) enemy a chance to remove heir biggest disadvantage (being outnumbered 2-to-1) by attacking the (BS5) wizard without having to defend first against the faster (BS7) fighter. Even if he can't actually hit the wizard (say the wizard is sensibly hanging back using the fighter as a meat shield) he still gets a go at improving his situation because he's be given the initiative he would normally not get*, given he's outnumbered and one of his foes is faster than him. He'll be taking two hits in row anyway even without Wait being involved as the sequence will normally be:

(BS7.F)(BS6.E)(BS5.W)(BS7.F)(BS6.E)(BS5.W)(BS7.F)(BS6.E)(BS5.W)

That said it depends on what the wizard is going to do. If he's going hit him with an explosive fireball, than yeah you want your fighter to follow up, not go first! Or say the wizard is going to do something that reduces the enemies ability to defend against the fighter (e.g send him to sleep, blind or paralysis him etc).

But well wizard's introduce a wealth of variables!



*Which TBF you do point out in your post!

[Tomsdad]

In general I think a lot of the issues cited about 'Wait' become most apparent when you look in terms of only one or two exchanges (an exchange being everyone involved have one go). But as you extend your view out to more exchanges and have more people involved the less impact it has.



Of course how relevant that is will depend on how long your combats are (but very short combats suggests a significant advantage in play anyway)

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The other thing here is we keep setting this situation up with the Wait happening at the beginning of the combat and pointing out it gives two goes in row i.e

ABAB becomes BAAB when 'A' takes a wait, 'A' gets two attacks in a row

but what if 'A' does that mid way through a combat? Then 'B' will also get two goes in row i.e

BABA becomes BBAA

More importantly 'B' gets their double go before 'A', 'A' might be in no shape to enjoy their double go having gifted 'B' theirs! (such is the risk of taking a wait) Although TBF at least 'A' won't get repeated parry penalties as their parry will have refreshed when they decided to Wait after 'B's first go.!

I, and possibly others, discussed this above...the two turns framing the wait have two major disadvantages in comparison. First, as you recognize, it doesn't help overwhelm defenses since they refresh when the Wait is declared. Second, B doesn't know that the doubled-up action will happen (and A hasn't even committed to it) until after B's first action. Which limits what can be done with it.

To be fair, A does get constrained as to what they can do with their first action by the limitations of the Wait, so there is that.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

In general I think a lot of the issues cited about 'Wait' become most apparent when you look in terms of only one or two exchanges (an exchange being everyone involved have one go). But as you extend your view out to more exchanges and have more people involved the less impact it has.



Of course how relevant that is will depend on how long your combats are (but very short combats suggests a significant advantage in play anyway)

In GURPS, you shouldn't expect very many exchanges unless there's something buffing everyone's defenses out of proportion to their attacks. When you instead aggressively nerf them with doubled-up attacks, it'll go even faster.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I, and possibly others, discussed this above...the two turns framing the wait have two major disadvantages in comparison. First, as you recognize, it doesn't help overwhelm defenses since they refresh when the Wait is declared.

Do they? This may be where part of my difference of opinion is coming from now that you point it out. I've always assumed they refresh at the *end* of your turn, which you haven't gotten to until the Wait triggers. Conversely when your Wait triggers because of something B does, it *interrupts* B's turn, it doesn't *follow* it. His defenses haven't refreshed yet either, so you still face the same ones he would have had if you'd acted on your normal turn, and they do refresh at the end of his turn, which means your "second turn in a row" faces the new set for whatever his maneuver choice was. I can see how doing it the other way does provide a lot more advantage to A, but I don't think that's how it's intended to play. You may still be able get multiple attacks in one set of B's defenses if you trigger on something other than B's actions, but it's harder to engineer.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Do they? This may be where part of my difference of opinion is coming from now that you point it out. I've always assumed they refresh at the *end* of your turn, which you haven't gotten to until the Wait triggers. Conversely when your Wait triggers because of something B does, it *interrupts* B's turn, it doesn't *follow* it. His defenses haven't refreshed yet either, so you still face the same ones he would have had if you'd acted on your normal turn, and they do refresh at the end of his turn, which means your "second turn in a row" faces the new set for whatever his maneuver choice was. I can see how doing it the other way does provide a lot more advantage to A, but I don't think that's how it's intended to play. You may still be able get multiple attacks in one set of B's defenses if you trigger on something other than B's actions, but it's harder to engineer.

I don't understand why anyone would expect defenses to refresh at the end of turn, but it's possible as far as I can see.

The idea that Wait makes your turn end at a completely different point, possibly pushing it back all the way to the start of your next turn (if the Wait never goes off) seems completely ridiculous though.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I, and possibly others, discussed this above...the two turns framing the wait have two major disadvantages in comparison. First, as you recognize, it doesn't help overwhelm defenses since they refresh when the Wait is declared. Second, B doesn't know that the doubled-up action will happen (and A hasn't even committed to it) until after B's first action. Which limits what can be done with it.

To be fair, A does get constrained as to what they can do with their first action by the limitations of the Wait, so there is that.

All that's true, but there's also the point that your still giving up the advantage to let the other person go first. The cleverest wait strategy in the world is still going to look a bit silly if in the meantime the other chap stabs you in the face.

In any remotely equal fight having an active opponent free to act is always a risk (which is why the most effective 'Wait' strategies are the ones where you weren't in direct danger anyway. e.g the mounted warrior starting out of range, or the chaps piling up behind a corner in the OP)

As to 'B' not knowing he's going to get two in a row it's true, but I find a lot of my combatants are relying on stringing two things together anyway (e.g set up & attack, or feint & attack) so while their choices won't be made with foreknowledge they won't have, they still get the benefit.

There's also the issue that in these discussions the people doing these things always seem to be fighting opponents who conveniently act in a way to make the point being made.

IME "in the wild" these examples are not ubiquitous!

However all this said I suspect different perspectives on this will be informed by what goes on in our individual games, and thus how 'major' those advantages you mention play out as being.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

In GURPS, you shouldn't expect very many exchanges unless there's something buffing everyone's defenses out of proportion to their attacks. When you instead aggressively nerf them with doubled-up attacks, it'll go even faster.

Well actually as per what I said above that is an assumption that is very much going to be dependent on the context of our own games.

I'm running a C11th v.low fantasy campaign, with (in GURPS terms) low Strength and skills that rarely exceed 16-18. (Which is also why many rely on two manoeuvre tactics as mentioned above).

ST10-12, DR5 mail, big shields, high shield skill and shield wall tactics = quite often several exchanges.


Now you might argue that constitutes defence being buffed out of proportion to attack, but really I consider that a pretty un-fantastical depiction of C11th tactics, and well in real life people's overriding motivation was not to be killed

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Do they? This may be where part of my difference of opinion is coming from now that you point it out. I've always assumed they refresh at the *end* of your turn, which you haven't gotten to until the Wait triggers.

Your turn ends, and your next one begins, when you select a maneuver. The moment it comes to you and you say "I Wait," you are in a new turn. Likewise, when the opponent declares an attack, it is in his next turn immediately, even if his attack is interrupted.

From Campaigns, p. 363:

A given participant’s turn is the one-second period that stretches from when he chooses a maneuver until his next opportunity to select a maneuver. This overlaps the turns of other characters.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't understand why anyone would expect defenses to refresh at the end of turn, but it's possible as far as I can see.

The idea that Wait makes your turn end at a completely different point, possibly pushing it back all the way to the start of your next turn (if the Wait never goes off) seems completely ridiculous though.

I think this is mostly because I insist on thinking of turns as normally having no duration rather than being units of a second. This mostly only matters in edge cases like Wait or Altered Time Rate, but I find it often does clarify those quite a bit.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

All that's true, but there's also the point that your still giving up the advantage to let the other person go first. The cleverest wait strategy in the world is still going to look a bit silly if in the meantime the other chap stabs you in the face.

On the other hand that's not a great concern if you're expecting a large number of exchanges. You can't really use both concerns at once!

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

As to 'B' not knowing he's going to get two in a row it's true, but I find a lot of my combatants are relying on stringing two things together anyway (e.g set up & attack, or feint & attack) so while their choices won't be made with foreknowledge they won't have, they still get the benefit.

There's also the issue that in these discussions the people doing these things always seem to be fighting opponents who conveniently act in a way to make the point being made.

Moving to set up your following move has much the same problem, if the enemy has a move in between - your setup will normally be voided by their responding move. You're likely to get more out of planning on your 'setup' forcing a reaction than on actually getting to follow-through.

...Though if you do do that for whatever reason, your target performing a Wait to arrange a double-action will let you follow through on the setup. So there's that. It's certainly not a choice for every possible circumstance. (Using the Wait this way also practically guarantees that the target has an opportunity to escape you, since they can react to your Wait by moving away.)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Now you might argue that constitutes defence being buffed out of proportion to attack, but really I consider that a pretty un-fantastical depiction of C11th tactics, and well in real life people's overriding motivation was not to be killed

I definitely would argue that. I didn't say such circumstances were unrealistic! In quite a few contexts they are (Matrix-like dodge-dominant gunfights for example) but in some they're very realistic.

...Though I might suggest that people should pack maces and grappling moves.

Originally Posted by malloyd

I think this is mostly because I insist on thinking of turns as normally having no duration rather than being units of a second. This mostly only matters in edge cases like Wait or Altered Time Rate, but I find it often does clarify those quite a bit.

I'm not sure either how that's relevant or how you reconcile it with attaching significance to 'end of turn'.

I must, however, disagree with RyanW: end of turn is a point with some rules significance (recovery from Stun, at a minimum, and I guess also Shock) and it isn't the same as the start of your next turn:

Originally Posted by GURPS FAQ

3.4.1.3 In combat, when does your turn end?

Your turn ends after you've chosen, executed, and ended a maneuver – Attack, Concentrate, etc. For the sole purpose of active defenses, your turn has consequences that extend past that period, until you choose your next maneuver. Thus, one could say your turn doesn't end until your next one begins. But everything that refers to turns in the Basic Set – with the sole exception of the active defense rules – hews to the more restricted usage above.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The cleverest wait strategy in the world is still going to look a bit silly if in the meantime the other chap stabs you in the face.

Your Wait trigger had better be phrased in such a way that it goes off whenever someone tries to stab you in the face.

There's also the issue that in these discussions the people doing these things always seem to be fighting opponents who conveniently act in a way to make the point being made.

I've had this come up in multiple games. The mounted attacker was in a Weird West type campaign (my character was shooting at the rider with a pair of revolvers while getting torn apart by an onslaught of attacks due to Wait timing).
In DF I've seen multiple instances of Wait being used effectively in coordinating fighters and casters. The double-attack thing comes up occasionally as an annoying side effect. It can turn the tide in a battle, so it's not insignificant, but most battles don't feature many Waits.