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 12-06-2012, 03:25 PM   #11
DavidSev
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

I seem to recall some attacks / techniques require a step to do? Dunno if any of them would be useful with wait or if it would matter.

AFAIR, RAW says you can't move & attack with a wait as the move takes the whole second. A step doesn't take the whole second and would (I assume) happen as part of the attack, so IMO there's no problem with it being part of the wait.

With the conflict of sequential turns and simultaneous actions there will never be a realism based solution, and no rule is un-abusable; if people insist on munchkining the rules just smash their heads into the table and hand wave it.
DavidSev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 03:46 PM   #12
JP42
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSev View Post
AFAIR, RAW says you can't move & attack with a wait as the move takes the whole second. A step doesn't take the whole second and would (I assume) happen as part of the attack, so IMO there's no problem with it being part of the wait.
They get pretty weasely in the description of Wait:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campaigns,p366
You can use the Wait maneuver for any “reflex action” you want to plan in advance, provided you specify both the response and the action that will trigger it. This can include holding a knife at a hostage’s throat, or even a noncombat action (e.g., “If Dora sees any orcs, she will pull this rope immediately – otherwise, she does nothing.”). An action only qualifies as a “reflex” if you could do it in a single motion. The GM’s decision is final.
But in the mechanics text at the end of the Wait maneuver:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campaigns,p366
you may move as allowed by the maneuver you specified (Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or Ready).
JP42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 05:18 PM   #13
Alex1976
 
Alex1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Crosby, TX
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Here's another scenario that could use clarification.

Jack gets jumped by Ben and Paul in the street walking home. All are unarmed except Ben, who is welding a large knife. Both Ben and Paul are 3 hexes away.

Turn Order
Paul 6
Ben 5.5
Jack 5

Turn One
Paul takes a Step (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Ready with his knife (2 Hexes away now)
Jack takes Wait ("When Ben gets 1 hex away he'll Step and Attack into Close Combat with Grapple")

Turn Two
Paul takes the Evaluate (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Attack (1 Hex away now)
Jack (???)

The question: Does Jack's Evaluate carry over from turn one and allow him to attack in close combat in turn two? If so, does Jack get another attack after Ben has the opportunity to finish his turn, effectively giving Jack two attack in one turn?
__________________
Alex (MIB #9454)

Obsidian Portal Profile GURPS Scanners, Shadowrun, Overworld, & Dark Fantasy
Alex1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 05:27 PM   #14
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 Alex1976 View Post
Turn One
Paul takes a Step (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Ready with his knife (2 Hexes away now)
Jack takes Wait ("When Ben gets 1 hex away he'll Step and Attack into Close Combat with Grapple")

Turn Two
Paul takes the Evaluate (2 hexes away now)
Ben takes Step and Attack (1 Hex away now)
Jack (???)
GURPS turns don't work like that. Specifically GURPS doesn't have rounds. It's actually just:
1) Paul's Turn
2) Ben's Turn
3) Jack's Turn
4) Paul's Turn
5) Ben's Turn
6) Jack's Turn
and so on.
Quote:
The question: Does Jack's Evaluate carry over from turn one and allow him to attack in close combat in turn two?
What Evaluate? Jack took a Wait. Jack's Wait is Triggered by Ben's Movement and Jack gets to try to close to Close Combat and Grapple (but Ben still gets to Parry with his knife and if he succeeds not only does it stop Jack from closing it also has a good chance of hurting Jack).
Quote:
If so, does Jack get another attack after Ben has the opportunity to finish his turn, effectively giving Jack two attack in one turn?
Jack gets to take his turn as normal (assuming he's not now Stunned and forced to Do Nothing) but he's not taking "two attacks in one turn". He is just taking his turn.

Last edited by sir_pudding; 08-02-2013 at 03:18 PM.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 01:48 PM   #15
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

In the OP's scenario, I would actually require the swordsman* to use a Stop-Hit, such that the attacks are resolved simultaneously - although I would not require him to have declared a Stop-Hit when he made his Wait. Thus, spearman* gets his attack as well - it really makes no sense for him to potentially lose the ability to attack just because the guy with the shorter weapon still had a Step left over. Alternatively, I would resolve it similarly to Who Draws First - let each character roll the relevant weapon skill, with the swordsman's Wait+Step and the spearman's superior reach canceling each other out (A Matter of Inches would still apply, I'd just count each weapon as starting out at the same length, so a shorter sword/longer spear gives the swordsman a penalty, a longer sword/shorter spear gives the swordsman a bonus). Whoever wins strikes first!

*I'm assuming the character with the Reach 1 weapons has a sword, the character with Reach 2 has a spear, although these could easily be different weapons, like a flail against a greatsword.

Last edited by Varyon; 08-02-2013 at 01:51 PM.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 02:08 PM   #16
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Exploiting greater Reach requires the use of suitable tactics; by itself, Reach gives you nothing. The topic at hand is a case in point: If you have a longer-Reach weapon, then don't charge at people. Let them charge at you. You should be the one taking a Wait. If you're moving toward someone who has a Wait, then you're no longer using your superior Reach to maximum effect . . . you're splitting your attention between movement and point control. That will let somebody who's seeking an opening – and an enemy with a Wait definitely counts – dart past your point when it wobbles during your movement.

Which is to say, if someone has a Wait and you step into range of his attack, too bad . . . you've just sacrificed your Reach advantage. To keep that advantage, note that he's taking a Wait, stand your ground, and take a Wait of your own. If he refuses to close, then congratulations – you've kept him at bay. If he closes, then you can attack him first. And if you both Wait, then your Reach gives you the advantage in a cascading Waits situation. All of these things are using Reach to your advantage. Just running into a set trap is foolish, and does cede the initiative to your foe, however short his Reach.

Long-weapon tactics are somewhat "boring" from a heroic combat point of view. You have to use steps and retreats to backpedal to maintain a gap, and you have to fight reactively by taking a lot of Wait maneuvers. Whereas someone with a short weapon is always moving forward, pressing the attack, so as not to be held at bay. If you reverse these roles and roll forward with a long weapon while someone with a shorter one gets to Wait and react, you're going to do poorly. I think this is quite realistic.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 02:16 PM   #17
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
To keep that advantage, note that he's taking a Wait, stand your ground, and take a Wait of your own. If he refuses to close, then congratulations – you've kept him at bay. If he closes, then you can attack him first. And if you both Wait, then your Reach gives you the advantage in a cascading Waits situation. All of these things are using Reach to your advantage. Just running into a set trap is foolish, and does cede the initiative to your foe, however short his Reach.
I just wanted to jump up and down and say "Yes, this." But that looks silly on a computer.

But it's important to remember that if you're menacing someone with a long spear for one-Mississippi-two-Mississippi- / - five Mississippi, while yes, that's five "wasted" turns in GURPS, watch nearly any sparring demo, and you've just seen a "lull and flurry" mapped to a one-second time scale.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 02:29 PM   #18
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

It helps a lot if the GM has mooks, at least, refuse to close with a waiting PC who has a spear, halberd, greatsword, etc. while the PC's allies are off behind him doing something time-critical that the mooks were sent to prevent. Then long-weapon tactics look and feel useful. The problem with long weapons is that they're best for formations and genuine battlefields, where who holds the ground matters, but less good for a few skirmishers running around like weasels on meth.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 03:05 PM   #19
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

I think I'm going to need to respectfully disagree. Certainly running into the trap (Move and Attack) is likely to end poorly for the spearman, but I think the skill penalty from Move and Attack readily handles that (in case of a Stop-Hit, spearman is going to suffer an additional defense penalty; in case of Who Strikes First, the penalty is likely going to guarantee swordsman wins the contest). There's still the issue that, under my system, springing the trap with an All-Out Attack allows the spearman to "win" when running into the attack, but I think the fact the character isn't paying any attention to his defenses makes up for his need to pay attention to his movement.

The big problem with letting the swordsman "win" by default comes about when the characters start out merely 3 yards from each other, and the spearman opts to Step and Attack. A Step is available with nearly every maneuver, and is implied to take little attention or thought. Additionally, I personally tend to visualize a Step and Attack as the character attacking while taking the Step, rather than stepping forward, stopping, then swinging/stabbing. Stepping and stabbing with a Reach 2 spear shouldn't allow the guy with the small knife (just barely Reach 1) to lunge forward and slice you first 100% of the time, just because he was Waiting for you. Certainly the GURPS turn sequence is an abstraction, and you could just as easily say that, if he misses you and you hit him, you actually attacked first... except then you're potentially down a defense and the round's Retreat (if your spear would require a Ready to bring it back down to Reach 1, or if it lacks Reach 1 to start with).

I'll readily concede that what I'm proposing is well within the realm of House Rules and adds a bit more complication to the scenario, and I accept that in some cases (the "spearman" swinging a dueling halberd and the "swordsman" thrusting with a pata) Kromm's ruling probably makes more sense, but I think having it not be 100% one way or the other is much more realistic. My scheme may be off (perhaps the "spearman" should always suffer some penalty, giving the advantage to the "swordsman"), but I think it violates my suspension of disbelief far less than the alternative.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 03:41 PM   #20
Adversary
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Default Re: Wait Maneuver clarification

I am not sure I buy that the longer fighter has to stay on the defensive to take advantage. Look at boxing, MMA, etc. Certain attacks--jabs, kicks with the lead leg--are longer ranged than others, and some fighters have more reach than others. But not all fighters that utilize jabs and front leg kicks do so defensively. It is certainly possible to attack behind the jab, or launch a lead-leg kick to the opponent's front leg, without the shorter-armed opponent always getting to land a hook or an uppercut first.

Some fighters use jabs and kicks to stop opponents from coming in (i.e., they use wait). But others--Junior Dos Santos with his long jabs to the body, and Jon Jones with his kicks to his opponents' legs come to mind--are perfectly willing to move in behind their strikes. Step in, use reach to land a shot on a waiting opponent, and then in many cases, step back out before the shorter opponent can counter (probably a form of defensive attack).
Adversary 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 02:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.