Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

Thank you, Grouchy Chris. This settles the matter to a great extent, at least for me, since I am used to the old 3rd. edition maneuver.

Yet, just for the sake of curiosity, I would like to find a raw solution for the two situations:

1) Warrior A closing in a foe B in a three yard wide dead-end alley, and;

2) The "Slicing the Pie" situation (GURPS Tactical Shooting, p. 24).

The best I could devise was using Wait maneuver triggered by a clause "If nothing happens in a heartbeat, I Step and (keep) Ready my weapon".

In the case of the situation #2, a guy with a gun would declare a series of Wait maneuvers like that: "If I don't see anything coming from that corner during a heartbeat, I will Step and (keep) Ready my Rifle".

Situation #1 seems more tricky. Fourth edition Wait maneuver likes Link magic (Magic, p.134), because it is strict and once set cannot be changed. So, if warrior A and B were two players instead of PC and NPC, they should write down their "If clauses", or whisper them in the GM's ears.

In this hypothetical situation, Warrior A controls the exit of a three yard wide alley, and do not wish foe B to escape. He would begin with Wait maneuvers triggered this way: "if foe b falls within my sword reach, I will slice him" (Warrior's Clause 1). That would generate a stalemate situation, because player B could declare "I do nothing" (Foe's Clause), and this situation repeats for, say, 20 turns.

Then, Warrior A could secretly change his triggering condition in one turn to "If foe B doesn't move in a heartbeat, I will Step and Ready" (Warrior's Clause 2). In his next turn, which comes immediately after, he would return to the "if foe by falls within my sword reach..." thing.

Foe B could risk to run in his own turn, but he would never know for sure if Warrior A was "programmed" for walking or striking that very second. It would be a matter of risking and taking the opportunity, but he could have the chance of passing by him. This could be fun, for two reasons. First, it generates some suspense, what is great. Second, the faster a Warrior tries to encroach his opponent, the bigger his risks.

In the case of an NPC, a GM could either write down the Wait conditions in secret, and play it like a poker game, or he could only ask the player for its rate of alternation - like, each 10 seconds of Warrior's Clause 1, I will risk a Warrior's Clause 2, and roll a die for, say 10%. Or, if a foe rolls an Acting test, he could lead the Warrior to think he really means to surrender himself, only to slip through his fingers.

If the warrior has more than five minutes, this stalemate situation could be ignored. But if he is in a hurry, this would simulate realistic hesitation. A Warrior would have to really inch forward if wanted to make things the safe way. Otherwise, he would be trading haste for waste.

Kromm here says that a Wait clause can be complex, but cannot be vague. In raw, am I allowed say "if nothing happens during a turn (or a heartbeat), I will do the following"?

I don't think a 'if nothing happens' clause is allowed or should be.

I also advise against trying to pretzel RAW into supporting functions that it simply doesn't really.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think a 'if nothing happens' clause is allowed or should be.

I also advise against trying to pretzel RAW into supporting functions that it simply doesn't really.

I'm not pretzeling raw into advanced functions - I'm kind of pretzeling it into two very common situations that should well be addressed by it. One of this situations GURPS' authors describe in great details in their own books. In last case, I yield to house rules, but I like best to compare them with "standard ones" before, to think what I gain and what I lose when changing things. Here, I'm just trying my best to trust the coherence of set of rules that SJ guys has been trying to perfect over years. I think that if there was no solution at all for this inside raw, they should at least have published an Errata.

Anyway, "If nothing happens" might not be a valid condition, I agree with you. In this case, something like "I count one and if he stands still" or "if nothing bobs up from that corner untill I count one" would be better, because they would allow surprises. In the corner situation, it is obvious, if say, a bird pops out, the player should shot - and it simulates very well a very nervous guy approaching a corner.

In the case of a warrior closing in a foe, it would allow the foe to move for testing the warrior. This is more realistic, indeed.

Kromm here says that the Wait maneuver has problems. Allowing the players to take the step portion "isn't optimal, because foes can tell they are commited".

It certainly spoils the suspense of the Wait. It works for the shooting situation because of range, but in the melee battlefield, the foe would simply run far, and it somehow weakens the waiting strategy. You can end up with players who rarely wait at all. It is important to consider that in 3rd. edition you could waive your plans, but in 4th your are not allowed to - so if you walk, you will have only one option, and if the foe comes into your reach, you must act. You are commited, this is an entirely different maneuver from 3rd edition. So, in the battlefield, allowing a previous step could create new problems.

According to raw, instead of going back and waiting, a spearman (two yards reach) would not be able to step back and Wait, and would be forced to Wait next to his swordman foe. His Wait clause would be something like "if he strikes, I step back and attack". This is not a retreat, so I think it would put him out of reach, unless the guy step forward. Anyhow, the swordman has the control over the spearman, and something of poker comes into the combat. First, the swordman can feint, and if he succeeds, I think the Wait is triggered. Second, the spearman can say, secretly, "if he stands untill I count one, I step back and ready".

On the other side, the swordman can spend time evaluating to make a feint each three seconds. Or make his own Wait maneuver guesses.

I like it. It loosens the rythm of the combat, creating little stalemates, with each player trying to guess each other's moves to take advantage more than attacking every turn, what is closer to real life.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I'm not pretzeling raw into advanced functions

Which is completely different from what I said. What the rules should do doesn't change what they do do.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

It certainly spoils the suspense of the Wait. It works for the shooting situation because of range, but in the melee battlefield, the foe would simply run far, and it somehow weakens the waiting strategy. You can end up with players who rarely wait at all. It is important to consider that in 3rd. edition you could waive your plans, but in 4th your are not allowed to - so if you walk, you will have only one option, and if the foe comes into your reach, you must act. You are commited, this is an entirely different maneuver from 3rd edition. So, in the battlefield, allowing a previous step could create new problems.

Just run away usually works against melee Waits (and some ranged Waits). Even if they haven't pre-spent their ability to move, mobility is pretty limited anyway and a wait is unlikely to include 'if he moves away, I AoA after him'.

Comparisons to third edition rules have zero meaning for me, for the record...

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Which is completely different from what I said. What the rules should do doesn't change what they do do.

I don't think I am able to state what the rules do do or what they don't in this case. Real world is complex, and there will always be events that fall right between GURPS maneuvers, it doesn't matter how well crafted they are. For me, it is a matter of interpretation to a certain extent, limited by the Basic Set itself and by SJ "jurisprudence".

Ready maneuver inherently is a kind of catchall for every physical action that doesn't fit into the other categories, so I would prefer it over Wait. Basic Set says it clearly, e.g., "This is not a specific maneuver, but a “generic” choice that lets you do one second’s worth of any multi-second action." Five cautious rehearsed steps toward a corner while yielding a ready weapon could well be considered a series of Ready maneuvers in my opinion - but I might well be wrong.

As might be wrong about the "hesitation clauses" as well. Yet, despite some doubts, I am more inclined to accept it.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Just run away usually works against melee Waits (and some ranged Waits). Even if they haven't pre-spent their ability to move, mobility is pretty limited anyway and a wait is unlikely to include 'if he moves away, I AoA after him'.

True.

Yet, if you are not allowed to move before the triggered action, and Evaluate a foe, you could choose between giving that away by stepping, or hiding it by standing still. A Warrior could lead his foe to think he is waiting when he has +3 of accumulated bonus, and here a double AoA with Feint, or +4 (+7) with Deceptive Attack could be interesting.

My point is, Wait rules were created to foster uncertainty. Maybe preserving it could worth the trouble.

Anyway, as far as I can see, there are three solutions:

1) Consider these actions as Ready maneuvers triggered by a "if these conditions keep untill I count 1, I step and ready";

2) Allow a Step portion of movement to Wait, to be deduced from the maneuver effectevely taken or not;

3) Allow an optional step in the end of the turn if no maneuver was taken.

In my opinion, none is absurd, 1 could be considered raw. 1 and 3 are less risky.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I don't think I am able to state what the rules do do or what they don't in this case. Real world is complex, and there will always be events that fall right between GURPS maneuvers, it doesn't matter how well crafted they are. For me, it is a matter of interpretation to a certain extent, limited by the Basic Set itself and by SJ "jurisprudence".

...The Basic Set defines the maneuvers. They only have any meaning by way of those definitions.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

Ready maneuver inherently is a kind of catchall for every physical action that doesn't fit into the other categories, so I would prefer it over Wait. Basic Set says it clearly, e.g., "This is not a specific maneuver, but a “generic” choice that lets you do one second’s worth of any multi-second action." Five cautious rehearsed steps toward a corner while yielding a ready weapon could well be considered a series of Ready maneuvers in my opinion - but I might well be wrong.

As might be wrong about the "hesitation clauses" as well. Yet, despite some doubts, I am more inclined to accept it.

If you're proposing that a Ready maneuver could actually let you make an attack, yeah, that's nonsensical. If that's not what you're trying to say, I have no idea what you mean.

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

True.

Yet, if you are not allowed to move before the triggered action, and Evaluate a foe, you could choose between giving that away by stepping, or hiding it by standing still. A Warrior could lead his foe to think he is waiting when he has +3 of accumulated bonus, and here a double AoA with Feint, or +4 (+7) with Deceptive Attack could be interesting.

My point is, Wait rules were created to foster uncertainty. Maybe preserving it could worth the trouble.

Your point is incorrect. Wait is not a secret maneuver, designed to leave the opponent unable to tell what maneuver you're doing. If you Wait, everybody knows, though they may not know what for or what you'll do if you see it. Wait exists more to address uncertainty than to create it.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

Ready maneuver inherently is a kind of catchall for every physical action that doesn't fit into the other categories, so I would prefer it over Wait. Basic Set says it clearly, e.g., "This is not a specific maneuver, but a “generic” choice that lets you do one second’s worth of any multi-second action." Five cautious rehearsed steps toward a corner while yielding a ready weapon could well be considered a series of Ready maneuvers in my opinion - but I might well be wrong.

I think you are confusing what "Ready" means in GURPS with what it means in D&D or Pathfinder. In GURPS a "Ready" usually just makes a weapon or other tool in hand and prepared for use. "Wait" is almost exactly analogous to "Ready" in those other systems (except that in GURPS nothing ever changes your position in the turn sequence relative to the Basic Speed of other combatants).

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Your point is incorrect. Wait is not a secret maneuver, designed to leave the opponent unable to tell what maneuver you're doing. If you Wait, everybody knows, though they may not know what for or what you'll do if you see it.

True, you're right. Everyone must declare his/her maneuver.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you're proposing that a Ready maneuver could actually let you make an attack, yeah, that's nonsensical. If that's not what you're trying to say, I have no idea what you mean.

I never said it. What I proposed was a resolution on a turn by turn basis.

In the 5 second approach to the corner, it would mean that in turn 1, Player 1 would Wait, with the triggering condition "If I breathe and no enemy comes out from that corner, I will take a step and keep ready my weapon." If that set of conditions happens, he would step and would act again, repeating the maneuver. Should someone appear from out of the corner, Player 1 would do nothing untill the end of hiw own turn. If this enemy is in a Move and Attack maneuver, e.g., warned by a spy, he acts first, what is logical. If there is an enemy taking opportunity fire (a true Wait maneuver), he interrupts Player 1 turn to act first. In any other scenario, Player 1 is allert (acting on a turn by turn basis) and will probably start a new turn before his enemy. If Player 1 simply runs, he has the penalties explained by Tactical Shooting.

Indeed, in this case there would be little difference from just taking ready maneuvers for five seconds in a row.

In the case of fighting I am not proposing that a Ready maneuver becomes an attack at all. What I thought about is that a player could take turns between Wait - "If he comes within reach I strike" and Wait "if he doesn't move until I breathe I keep my sword ready and take a step".

In either case, I don't think it falls out from the limits of Ready maneuver.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I never said it. What I proposed was a resolution on a turn by turn basis.

In the 5 second approach to the corner, it would mean that in turn 1, Player 1 would Wait, with the triggering condition "If I breathe and no enemy comes out from that corner, I will take a step and keep ready my weapon." If that set of conditions happens, he would step and would act again, repeating the maneuver. Should someone appear from out of the corner, Player 1 would do nothing untill the end of hiw own turn. If this enemy is in a Move and Attack maneuver, e.g., warned by a spy, he acts first, what is logical. If there is an enemy taking opportunity fire (a true Wait maneuver), he interrupts Player 1 turn to act first. In any other scenario, Player 1 is allert (acting on a turn by turn basis) and will probably start a new turn before his enemy. If Player 1 simply runs, he has the penalties explained by Tactical Shooting.

Indeed, in this case there would be little difference from just taking ready maneuvers for five seconds in a row.

In the case of fighting I am not proposing that a Ready maneuver becomes an attack at all. What I thought about is that a player could take turns between Wait - "If he comes within reach I strike" and Wait "if he doesn't move until I breathe I keep my sword ready and take a step".

In either case, I don't think it falls out from the limits of Ready maneuver.

How does the Ready maneuver even enter into it? Are you trying to figure out what Maneuver you can use to take a step and not do anything else? That is really not the problem here at all. Heck, I'm not sure, but I think you could just use Do Nothing for that.

The problem is that Wait does not get a 'if no trigger happens...' case.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think you are confusing what "Ready" means in GURPS with what it means in D&D or Pathfinder. In GURPS a "Ready" usually just makes a weapon or other tool in hand and prepared for use. "Wait" is almost exactly analogous to "Ready" in those other systems (except that in GURPS nothing ever changes your position in the turn sequence relative to the Basic Speed of other combatants).

It is stated in BS, p. 383. "This is not a specific maneuver, but a “generic” choice that lets you do one second’s worth of any multi-second action.

To me it seems that Wait is a very specific maneuver triggered by a specific event, that demands all the character's attention and no movement at all. I think the confusion comes from its name, and from the fact that in 3rd. it was different.

This may well be a problem without solution within raw, as Ulzgoroth believes. If it is, though, I don't think the problem is with using the Ready maneuver for approaching a corner, but with the (no-)conditions of the Wait.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

How does the Ready maneuver even enter into it? Are you trying to figure out what Maneuver you can use to take a step and not do anything else? That is really not the problem here at all. Heck, I'm not sure, but I think you could just use Do Nothing for that.

The problem is that Wait does not get a 'if no trigger happens...' case.

No, you can't. You can't attack, because you don't have a target. Do nothing demands you not to move at all.

You could Move under the conditions specified in TS p. 24, i. e. 1 yard per second, that could be. But in raw you are not Waiting.

But I agree with you, no conditions are lame. And you cannot refer to maneuvers either.