Wait maneuver - differences from 3rd Edition

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Looking at the 4th Edition RAW on B366, it says you can step or even All Out Attack, but there is denies stepping before reacting. It also has bizarre declaration of conditions, which seems plainly wrong/unworkable/too-constraining to me, especially in hearing of an opponent player.

Well, conditions can be quite broad as long as they're sufficiently specific and binary.

Originally Posted by Skarg

From a reality perspective, you need to be able to Step and Wait, stepping before the Wait (and of course there is no second step when you take your action).

From a rules complexity perspective though, I can see why this might have unfortunately been omitted, because it requires remembering who has taken the Step part of their Wait already or not. (Not hard for people who are experienced GURPS players with good memory, though.) I can also see it being a mistake by people who hadn't used Tactical Combat for too long, and/or didn't think they cared about the situations it messes up.

The reason for removing the 3e QC on Waits seems to differ:

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

GURPS chooses to hand the advantage to the Waiting fighter, since he's given up a lot of options in order to attack first if someone sets off his trigger and moves within the range he can attack within. I think that's fair.

3e made it a contest of skills, which had the effect of making Wait useless against highly-skilled opponents because they went first anyway, so you really gave up your advantage by trying it. You could go back to that, but to me that's going back to a less accurate and more inherently unfair rule, which says "skill trumps all" instead of "Wait trumps the person you're waiting for."

Allowing someone to Step-and-Wait-while-Stepping would essentially bring back the issue TKD posted about. The 4e waiting change is similar to the En Passant rulespatch in chess, come to think of it.

Originally Posted by Skarg

As someone interested in realism and who mastered GURPS complexity a long time ago, my house rule would actually add another level of complexity, to address the next problem that comes up: the next action, i.e.:

Greg: I stay behind the chair and Wait, aiming my pistol at the doorway.

Bob: I Step & Wait, slowly moving into the doorway, watching the new space I can see and shooting the first armed foe that comes into view as I move.

Each uses their Wait action to shoot at the other. Each rolls a quick contest to see who gets to shoot first. Suppose both miss or do minimal damage.

Greg's turn comes next, so he automatically gets the next shot. Why, from a realism point of view? No good realism reason; it's just to make the game simpler to play, and/or possibly an artificial "balance" against the person advancing.

So, I would say that when someone's waiting, their place on the turn sequence _slides_ down to when they take their action. That way, actions will always alternate and no one will get two actions in a row due to waiting (which is important when using up parries and blocks, and more elegantly prevents waiters from overloading others' defenses without the weird Q&A they used to have to give where the Waiter went against the defenses of the moving player's previous turn...) So for the overlapping waits in the situation above:

If Bob shoots first, it's just like he took Step & Attack, so his turn sequence stays put, but Greg's turn now has slid to start after Bob's. So Bob shoots, then Greg shoots, then Bob will shoot next on his next turn.

If Greg shoots first, then Greg's turn sequence slides to start right before Bob's, and again Bob's turn sequence stays put because his Wait triggered immediately when he stepped.

This is risking to turn into a long highly technical discussion, but basically, GURPS 4e was not meant to be used with a Sliding Sequence, and adding slides will break some amount of things, such as durations of grenades and spells, which are tied to sequence, complicate durations/delays between unconsciousness checks, stun recovery, regeneration rates etc.

[QUOTE=Skarg;1897399]However, in a "Mexican stand-off", where Ken and Mack are and Fred are all Waiting to shoot only when something violent happens (and yes, combat is going on elsewhere, so we _are_ using the turn sequence), and then Eloise on her turn sets off some firecrackers, Ken, Mack and Fred would all roll to see what order they go in, and then they would all slide their turn sequences down to after Eloise's turn sequence.

[Skarg]

@sjard - I agree there are many non-problems in this long thread, but there are problems of fairness, realism, and rules consistency with Tactical Shooting, unless you have a way to handle carefully going around a corner with a gun during combat, that gives some chance for the mover to shoot before the waiter. Also there is a problem if you can't have two fighters slowly approach each other during combat and have something other than turn sequence determine who swings first.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Skarg

@sjard - I agree there are many non-problems in this long thread, but there are problems of fairness, realism, and rules consistency with Tactical Shooting, unless you have a way to handle carefully going around a corner with a gun during combat, that gives some chance for the mover to shoot before the waiter. Also there is a problem if you can't have two fighters slowly approach each other during combat and have something other than turn sequence determine who swings first.

And those are both things I consider to be non problems. Remember, Tactical Shooting is an Optional rule, as are the Tactical Combat rules. Along with 99% of GURPS. Pick the parts you want, ignore the parts you don't want. And one of the rules in the RAW is that if you don't like how a rule works, change it. End of all problems.

Edit: as has been pointed out before, it's not like the Gaming Police will show up and take away your dice if you alter things, or get things wrong from time to time.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, conditions can be quite broad as long as they're sufficiently specific and binary.

If you face three different men with melee weapons, and want to wait to react to what they do when they do it, it seems to me having to program your reaction in advance with conditions is not going to work well in several possible cases, especially if the opposing player(s) get to hear what your conditions are. So what, I'm supposed to write a note to the GM? Why not just let me say what I do when they move, as in all previous editions of GURPS which I never saw a problem with?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This is risking to turn into a long highly technical discussion, but basically, GURPS 4e was not meant to be used with a Sliding Sequence, and adding slides will break some amount of things, such as durations of grenades and spells, which are tied to sequence, complicate durations/delays between unconsciousness checks, stun recovery, regeneration rates etc.

I know it wasn't meant to have sliding sequences, which is why I said I do it as a house rule. For grenades, I would simply have any events timed to previous actions use the previous place in the turn/event sequence. You're right about the other events tied to the character itself, though, for unconscious checks and whatever. Still I'd probably rather do the extra bookkeeping and house ruling to handle those messy cases, than have turn sequence effects give people two attacks in a row for no reason that exists in the situation. I'm not sure what the best way to handle those is without giving it more thought, but having it be impossible to advance cautiously without having turn sequence determine who attacks first, would be my last choice.

[Skarg]

@sjard Yes, of course we can ignore all rules and all discussions and use what rules we each like. This is a thread about how Wait used to work and handle these sorts of things well enough, and what 4E seems to say about it, the issues with that, and so on.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sjard

Seems pretty clear to me that none of those options apply. When you are slicing the pie you are not actually in combat yet, and so combat maneuvers are not used.

The quick contest used to start the combat is the equivalent of an initiative roll in other games, but only for purposes of the first turn.

Pretty much everything else in this thread seems to be moot with that understanding. Everyone seems to be arguing a problem that does not exist.

But that's just my viewpoint.

I respectfully disagree.

Suppose you already are in a combat scene, with hex board and shootout going on, and a terrorist might be sneaking in the next room. A covered player hears something strange and decides to investigate a suspect doorway, that leads to the room where the terrorist might be hiding in. The terrorist is aware of this possibility and is approaching the door with extreme caustion. Both will perform the same Contest explained in Slicing the pie. What maneuvers do they need to take?

Edit: This tread IS about rules, testing their consistency in hypothetical scenarios and so on. No one wants to patrol anyone else's game. It is just a matter of discussing the options in RAW and through house rules.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Skarg

If you face three different men with melee weapons, and want to wait to react to what they do when they do it, it seems to me having to program your reaction in advance with conditions is not going to work well in several possible cases, especially if the opposing player(s) get to hear what your conditions are. So what, I'm supposed to write a note to the GM? Why not just let me say what I do when they move, as in all previous editions of GURPS which I never saw a problem with?

If you're playing PvP, yes, you should write notes, and also use TKD's secret (delayed) Feint resolution, and keep some other things secret; not just with Waits. If it's PvE, then why bother at all?

[sjard]

Originally Posted by marcusgurpsmaster

I respectfully disagree.

Suppose you already are in a combat scene, with hex board and shootout going on, and a terrorist might be sneaking in the next room. A covered player hears something strange and decides to investigate a suspect doorway, that leads to the room where the terrorist might be hiding in. The terrorist is aware of this possibility and is approaching the door with extreme caustion. Both will perform the same Contest explained in Slicing the pie. What maneuvers do they need to take?

Edit: This tread IS about rules, testing their consistency in hypothetical scenarios and so on. No one wants to patrol anyone else's game. It is just a matter of discussing the options in RAW and through house rules.

At this point, the slicing the pie rules are set aside as they're not intended for active turn by turn combat. If you're in turn by turn combat, you use normal combat maneuvers. They cannot act simultaneously, as they are now in sequence order. The rule conflict you envision does not seem to exist. To make it exist you have to house rule it.

Neither perform the quick contest because their Sequence determines when they act. The quick contact is only used, in that situation, before combat actually starts. Once it starts, you move to normal combat rules.

Remember, wait only prevents you from moving until the triggered action happens. Then you have the movement included in that action. So if you are waiting, thinking something is coming around the corner, and you want to attack if it's a badguy, at the point when you determine it is a badguy, your wait event triggers, and you then take a Attack maneuver.

Edit: Attack Maneuver allows you to take a Step, moving 1 yard. Your choice on when to take the step, before, or after you actually attack.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Skarg

The confusion I see with suggesting that cornering/slicing with guns be handled by Ready, or Concentrate, or Move, is that none of those mention/allow attacking specifically, nor reacting during other people's turns except with defenses.

Yeah, the old rules seemed perfect. So perfect that, as I have already said, most people I know (including myself) did not realize the change over years. The question is: are these new ones (as they seem to be) better?

If both are walking, you solve it through the Slicing the pie rules. In this case, despite you cannot react in the same turn, since no one else can do the same anymore, it is pretty much the same thing treating the Slice the Pie maneuver either as a series of Concentrate, Ready or Wait maneuvers. But, suppose you are approaching a corner and a cat screeches by your side. You WILL be distracted, and in this case, Concentrate could reflect it better, since you need to make an IQ-3 roll to keep focused.

If someone is taking Opportunity fire, again, it is pretty much the same solve it through a stack of Wait maneuvers (who waited first acts first, probably the guy walking will act later), or assuming that the guy walking is Concentrating (he acts later, anyway).

On the side, however, Wait is more rigid now than in 3th ed - you must act once you think the event is happening. This is very realistic if we think in two guys approaching a possible enemy lurking behind a corner. They DO fire at anything, including screeching cats.

[condor]

Originally Posted by sjard

If you're in turn by turn combat, you use normal combat maneuvers. They cannot act simultaneously, as they are now in sequence order. The rule conflict you envision does not seem to exist. To make it exist you have to house rule it.

Ok, no big deal here, since you are covered by a good optional rule or combat rules.

But and the situation where someone is trying to corner a foe in a three to five yard alley wide during combat? This is a pretty common situation in castles.

How to represent his slow apprach through maneuvers in combat?

Edited grammatical mistakes.