Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[condor]

I created this post to gather all the differences between the old Step and Wait (3rd. ed.) and the new one (4th).

To begin with, I have a specific doubt regarding the new Wait maneuver.

In Basic Set, p. 366, it is said that you must "Do nothing" when performing Wait, which allows no movement. But in p. 385, in the box Wait Maneuver Strategy it is suggested that a character could have moved before performing the triggered action ("If you did not move at all on your turn, you may take a step").

In 3rd. ed. you could step. It allowed, e.g., Combatant A to close in his foe B against a three-yeard wide dead-end alley, inching forward while aware of any escaping attempt.

If the A must stay still while waiting, how is it that A encroaches B while preventing him from running in a dead-end alley situation?

[Ulzgoroth]

The Basic Set clearly does not allow you to move when declaring a Wait. (Though you could as part of the action when your Wait triggers.)

GURPS Tactical Shooting implicitly (re?)introduced an option of taking a step and wait. Since it never explicitly did so, it didn't actually lay down rules for doing it...

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The Basic Set clearly does not allow you to move when declaring a Wait. (Though you could as part of the action when your Wait triggers.)

GURPS Tactical Shooting implicitly (re?)introduced an option of taking a step and wait. Since it never explicitly did so, it didn't actually lay down rules for doing it...

Yeah, that is the problem.

And in the Errata, there is no hint that it is to be corrected.

[D10]

Rules aside, I have always played and GMed with steping and waiting being allowed and I think it makes the game better.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The Basic Set clearly does not allow you to move when declaring a Wait. (Though you could as part of the action when your Wait triggers.)

GURPS Tactical Shooting implicitly (re?)introduced an option of taking a step and wait. Since it never explicitly did so, it didn't actually lay down rules for doing it...

There are hints which makes things more confusing.

1) In GURPS Frequently Asked Questions http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/faq/FAQ4-3.html, Wait is called Step and Wait maneuver.

2) If step is not allowed with wait, than what maneuver is a player to take in order to perform a "Slicing the Pie" (Tactical Shooting, p. 24)? It is a situation in which a man steps around a corner. Does he take a series of Step and Wait, or does he make a series of Step and Attack, giving up the attack each turn a valid target does not present itself?

3) In GURPS Lite, an update from 3rd to 4th edition, where the issue could have been addressed, there is no description of the Wait maneuver.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

2) If step is not allowed with wait, than what maneuver is a player to take in order to perform a "Slicing the Pie" (Tactical Shooting, p. 24)? It is a situation in which a man steps around a corner. Does he take a series of Step and Wait, or does he make a series of Step and Attack, giving up the attack each turn a valid target does not present itself?

...That being the thing I specifically referred to in the post you quoted...

[condor]

Originally Posted by D10

Rules aside, I have always played and GMed with steping and waiting being allowed and I think it makes the game better.

D10, as GURPS has a lot of rules interactions, I do my best for avoiding house rules. At least to me, they proved tricky in my past experience.

I think that, after some research, the step in the Wait maneuver may not be necessary after all. In the case of the Tactical Shooting example, it seems to solve itself.

You do not enter into combat mode in this case, at least not with whoever is waiting for you. So, the rules say that if you give cautious side steps, you are entitled to a Perception Quick contest with whoever is on the other side of the corner. If he has taken Wait maneuver, he has the upper hand. The disadvantage of a Move and Attack maneuver here is obvious, because you get -2 in the Perception roll and the worse of -2 and the Bulk in the Attack roll.

In the case of closing in a foe, the only solution I see is Evaluating him from, say, five yards, and then approach taking Step and Evaluate (keeping the bonus of +3). If he tries to go around, you Move and Attack, and have an adjusted skill of 9, his back towards you. But this is not enough...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

D10, as GURPS has a lot of rules interactions, I do my best for avoiding house rules. At least to me, they proved tricky in my past experience.

I think that, after some research, the step in the Wait maneuver may not be necessary after all. In the case of the Tactical Shooting example, it seems to solve itself.

You do not enter into combat mode in this case, at least not with whoever is waiting for you. So, the rules say that if you give cautious side steps, you are entitled to a Perception Quick contest with whoever is on the other side of the corner. If he has taken Wait maneuver, he has the upper hand. The disadvantage of a Move and Attack maneuver here is obvious, because you get -2 in the Perception roll and the worse of -2 and the Bulk in the Attack roll.

In the case of closing in a foe, the only solution I see is Evaluating him from, say, five yards, and then approach taking Step and Evaluate (keeping the bonus of +3). If he tries to go around, you Move and Attack, and have an adjusted skill of 9, his back towards you. But this is not enough...

Pie-slicing is specifically phrased in terms of combat maneuvers. It definitely requires a step-and-wait. It'd also be really awkward for it to only be possible to perform a basic tactical evolution if you are not in combat time!


Generally I see no problem with step-and-wait except for the puzzling way it been (not) addressed in published rules.

[Grouchy Chris]

Here is what Kromm had to say about it. The gist: RAW does not allow a Step with Wait, but it's entirely reasonable to allow it anyway.

[condor]

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"?