[TS] Slicing the pie, a question?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I took a look at this at some length on my blog.

Tactical Shooting and Slicing the Pie

Originally Posted by McAllister

Mr. Cole suggests step'n'wait has a -2 to everything, and that the person who sees first (Perception or Per-based skill QC) shoots first. I think it's elegant and simple and I support it. There is no free lunch. Lunch costs -2.

Originally Posted by Langy

*shrug* Works for me.

.......and me

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I took a look at this at some length on my blog.

Tactical Shooting and Slicing the Pie

-2 to all DX/IQ-derived rolls seems like the closest thing for paying for this lunch so far, because it provides a modest penalty to things other than the newly-gained QC: rolls to IFF, rolls to avoid misstepping while you're not looking where you're going*, Per rolls of all sorts etc. (Normally, penalties aren't inherited by secondary attributes, but it seems like in this case there should be an exception-rule.)

However, this solution still retains the following issue:

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."

And this very much produces the situation quoted above.

Oh, I also realised that my idea of saying the tradeoff is giving up the right to make Active Defences is silly, because it has absolutely zero effect if the Waiter-B is ready to make an All-Out Attack. Just like when designing AoA Techniques, you may not apply a defence penalty to them.

Which made me think: perhaps the proper way to make Slicing the Pie mechanic available is a Rules Exemption and/or Unique Technique?

* == Is this the first time when I'm considering the floor to be something other than a featureless plane? It quite well might be.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Langy

Sure sure sure, Vicky - you don't like the idea of Step-and-Wait being able to challenge other Waits - but then that just makes Slicing the Pie have no benefits whatsoever. So do you have any ideas on how to make it so Wait isn't the auto-kill-the-cops rule vs someone trying to perform a maneuver specifically designed for taking out foes Waiting to shoot at you while you're breaching a door?

I vaguely recall Kromm offering the idea of describing a successful Dodge against a Wait-triggered Attack as being able to pre-empt the attack, with the caveat that doing it successfully means the opponent still didn't waste the bullet during the trigger moment, and you have to account for it after you resolve your own attack. Interestingly, this gives a new, more literal meaning to the mechanic of Deceptive Attacks (in this case, by Waiter) representing sheer speed!

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But you can make you trigger condition not one based on a closing target.

Ultimately my issue is I can see no reason why the action of trying to pre-empt your target or some specific action should mean you lose the ability to move your feet.

Well other than share game balance one, but as I sai the reality of that in play will very much come down to how you treat waits

You can, but then you're not able to trigger it yourself. As for not moving your feet, the Wait seems to assume that you're as primed for a lightning-fast execution of your waiting attack as possible. If you're stepping, your condition might be triggered while you're off-balance.

Maybe make it layered like the ETS resolution:
Those with ETS doing static Waits resolve order amongst themeselves,
then
Those with ETS doing Stepping Waits and Stepping Attacks act after them and resolve the order among themselves
then
Those without ETS doing Static Waits act after them and resolve order amongst themselves
then
Those without ETS doing Stepping Waits and Stepping Attacks act after them and resolve the order among themselves.
(Note: very rough idea; not cooked; not suitable for ready use unless further prepared.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Ok but that limits the relevancy for actual play. Especially as you say mainly in these standoffs. However its these standoffs that are likely going to be cascading waits, which is precisely when the step and wait is penalised. You said earlier "a mere -2" well ok rachet it up. But either way -2 on a test where only the Speed stat kicks in is quiet a lot.

Well of course only in this standoffs. Cascading Waits only ever happens when someone is in a Wait standoff.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

What I don't like about those stand offs is that you're both standing like statues while all else goes on around you, or one of you gets shot.

It does look like the only game mechanic that naturally produces situational lulls in combat, as opposed to resource-consumption-based ones.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Also if nothing else if set and wait truly did just replace attack, then it would balance out as by that argument everyone would be step and waiting. TBH this would only really occur (if it occurred at all) in melee, and the benefit then is reduced as the overwhelming benefit of attacking first is less in melee than it is in gun fights, especially with the various options.

It seems to depend on what are the chances of doing a Stun-or-worse outcome with an attack, which depends on damage and DR, not on whether the situation is mêlée or ranged. In fact, the 21ft rule (i.e. mêlée vs. firearm) seems like it might show up here too!

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

However I agree if that did happen it would be a lb of cure for a oz of probelm!

To quote the allegedly correct translation of Machiavelli: before doing something, think through all the possible consequences.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True but the normal conditions don't make a lot of sense.

As it stands there is no way a someone passing the doorway can do so in way that doesn't involve automatically getting shot at first by some one with a wait. Which is exactly the situation that slicing the pie is designed to mitigate in real life.*

Wait is ultimately a way to seize the initiative later by choosing not to take go earlier. The prescription that you can only do that while standing still is odder each time I look at it

However to restate again I would certainly play up the limitations of wait as previously described.

*that said while i dislike hyper specific single situation only rules adaptations, I also don't like changing an entire system to allow one single specific tactic to work as intended.

A good compromise point might be to restrict step and wait to just this or very similar situations. This might make certain sense as teh steps in slicing the pie are actually very short, way shorter than a GURPS step. It really is just about staring down you gun's narrow field of fire that takes in a tiny slice of the room. Some of this might actually be below the resolution of GURPS.

And as I said earlier it could just be done my playing up the disadvantages of wait.

Indeed, this is one of those situations where if you want a change, you have to go through all the ripple-changes too, calling in the mythical 'G5e'. Allowing such Steps in just Pie-Slicing seems convoluted and un-GenericUniversal.
Allowing something like 'spend five turns, get the right to Step while still Waiting on turn 5' . . . well, maybe, but it still looks clumsy and very unlike the rest of GURPS (well, the rules from Swimming speeds are calculated in hexes travelled per 10 seconds, but that's about it).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You can, but then you're not able to trigger it yourself. As for not moving your feet, the Wait seems to assume that you're as primed for a lightning-fast execution of your waiting attack as possible. If you're stepping, your condition might be triggered while you're off-balance.

Maybe make it layered like the ETS resolution:
Those with ETS doing static Waits resolve order amongst themeselves,
then
Those with ETS doing Stepping Waits and Stepping Attacks act after them and resolve the order among themselves
then
Those without ETS doing Static Waits act after them and resolve order amongst themselves
then
Those without ETS doing Stepping Waits and Stepping Attacks act after them and resolve the order among themselves.
(Note: very rough idea; not cooked; not suitable for ready use unless further prepared.)

Thing is you can word a wait's trigger to an extant that you can actually dictate when it will go off (this very much depends on what you allow for wait, wait more than most has the opportunity to be abused, but well see my basic point about all this).

Also as to the point about being triggered while stepping, I think that's the nub and crux of Douglas Coles's -2 to everything, you are ultimately doing two things at once and your concentration is divided.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well of course only in this standoffs. Cascading Waits only ever happens when someone is in a Wait standoff.

So not much scope for step and wait to render attack completely useless then?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It does look like the only game mechanic that naturally produces situational lulls in combat, as opposed to resource-consumption-based ones.

Only if both take it up, and there's difference between encouraging lulls in combat (something I'm all for and I use the AP system to do so as well) and rooting everyones feet to the spot.

I also tend to make evaluate and wait indistinguishable to the observer as well.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It seems to depend on what are the chances of doing a Stun-or-worse outcome with an attack, which depends on damage and DR, not on whether the situation is mêlée or ranged.

Only that's more a question of TL, TL3 is not going to have to Mexican stand off with missile weapons. TL6+ firearms first to shoot at close range is a big advantage.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

In fact, the 21ft rule (i.e. mêlée vs. firearm) seems like it might show up here too!

Only if there's un-readied firearms involved (much as in real life, that 21' rule from FBI research is based on guns being holstered and/or safetied*). But again TL is your key thing here.

*the fact its occasionally been morphed into something else since is probably a matter for another thread.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

To quote the allegedly correct translation of Machiavelli: before doing something, think through all the possible consequences.

True but I'm pretty sure most here would of have done that.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Indeed, this is one of those situations where if you want a change, you have to go through all the ripple-changes too, calling in the mythical 'G5e'. Allowing such Steps in just Pie-Slicing seems convoluted and un-GenericUniversal.
Allowing something like 'spend five turns, get the right to Step while still Waiting on turn 5' . . . well, maybe, but it still looks clumsy and very unlike the rest of GURPS (well, the rules from Swimming speeds are calculated in hexes travelled per 10 seconds, but that's about it).

Yes that why I'd favour a more abstract reduced effect wait if it was being used in these kind of situations. But would think carefully about when are where i'd use it. As previously said would play up the disadvantages of waits, if I thought it was being misused.

Ultimately slicing the pie is a tool to be used, and tools work best when applied to the problem they are designed for. So while I get your point about the danger of super tool that trumps all other in all other situations I think it would be possible to compensate.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Thing is you can word a wait's trigger to an extant that you can can actually dictate when it will go off (this very much depend son what you allow for wait, wait more than most has the opportunity to be abused, but wlel see my basic point about all this).

That seems much harder to arrange unless you can Step-while-Waiting.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Also as to the point about being triggered while stepping, I think thats the nub and crux of Douglas Coles's -2 to everything, you are ultimately doing two things at once and your concentration is divided.

It seems like a step in the right direction; it somewhat reduces, but not eliminates, the problem that was sighted back in 3e and fixed with 4e - namely, sufficiently high skill level being enough to trump tactics.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So no much scope for step and wait to render attack completely useless then?

A non-penalised Step-While-Waiting definitely makes Attack useless in these stand-offs, and the big thing being that if S-w-W is available, almost everything turns into this kind of standoff.
E.g. it used to be that when you both have Reach 1 weapons, and there is one or two empty hexes between you, you have to choose whether to Wait (retaining initiative, but not closing in if the attacker e.g. decides to Evaluate from a distance instead of stepping forward). But with S-w-W, you can just keep advancing while Waiting - if there are two empty hexes between you, you just step, leaving one empty hex between, and Wait. And then do it again. And the worse you get for that is a -2 to your skills, while still able to steal the initiative from someone who took a static Wait. So basically, this creates an incentive for everyone to always Wait instead of Attacking while closing, every single time - at worst you're at -2 to DX. Think about it this way: would you allow someone to attack out of sequence, earlier than normal (e.g. two times in a row) in exchange for a -2 to DX?

Sure, S-w-W is no better than regular Attack in a flurry. But unless it applies -2 DX, it's not worse either. And before a flurry, it's golden.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only if both take it up, and there's difference between encouraging lulls in combat (sheathing I'm all for add I use the AP system to do so as well) and rooting everyone feet to the spot.

You don't have to be rooted. You get a meaningful choice between staying ready to spring on the attacker (retaining initiative), or advancing on the enemy who is ready to 'ambush' you (and if you have good Active Defences, and you should, it's not even a tragedy).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I also tend to make evaluate and wait indistinguishable to the observer as well.

This is actually something I considered. But I think secret manoeuvres are a complication (and, ironically, a grounds for bringing back in the usefulness of Body Language in combat).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only that a more a question of TL, TL3 is not going to have to Mexican stand off with missile weapons. TL6+ firearms first to shoot at close range is a big advantage.

It's not just a TL thing. DR also matters. If the opponent is in a battlesuit that has a 90% chance of stopping a burst from your beam rifle, things are different than if the opponent is in a flak vest that can barely slow your .30-06.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only if there's un-readied firearms involved (much as in real life, that 21' rule from FBI research is based on guns being holstered and/or safetied*). But again TL is your key thing here.

*the fact its occasionally been morphed into something else since is probably a matter for another thread.

That's definitely an interesting topic, but I agree that it's a branch too far.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yes that why I'd favour a more abstract reduced effect wait if it was being used in these kind of situations. But would think carefully about when are where i'd use it. As previously said would play up the disadvantages of waits, if I thought it was being misused.

Ultimately slicing the pie is a tool to be used, and tools work best when applied to the problem they are designed for. So while I get your point about the danger of super tool that trumps all other in all other situations I think it would be possible to compensate.

Well, as a tool, it cuts deeply into fundamental assumptions about initiative in GURPS. It tries to rewrite the answer to the question 'what Movement does a Wait allow'. We've had this tool in 3e, and it was discarded as inappropriate. I wouldn't bring back it lightly, even as a foot-in-the-door.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That seems much harder to arrange unless you can Step-while-Waiting.

Not sure why? I'm mean I can see they are different in certain circumstances, but I think they are not as generally different as you seem to.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It seems like a step in the right direction; it somewhat reduces, but not eliminates, the problem that was sighted back in 3e and fixed with 4e - namely, sufficiently high skill level being enough to trump tactics.

Well I've never played 3e so this could be you talking with the voice of experience and me not. However I'd say high skill already trumps tactic to an extent anyway (the point being it's not an either or thing, and in some cases high skill makes available some tactics.).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

A non-penalised Step-While-Waiting definitely makes Attack useless in these stand-offs, and the big thing being that if S-w-W is available, almost everything turns into this kind of standoff.
E.g. it used to be that when you both have Reach 1 weapons, and there is one or two empty hexes between you, you have to choose whether to Wait (retaining initiative, but not closing in if the attacker e.g. decides to Evaluate from a distance instead of stepping forward). But with S-w-W, you can just keep advancing while Waiting - if there are two empty hexes between you, you just step, leaving one empty hex between, and Wait. And then do it again. And the worse you get for that is a -2 to your skills, while still able to steal the initiative from someone who took a static Wait. So basically, this creates an incentive for everyone to always Wait instead of Attacking while closing, every single time - at worst you're at -2 to DX. Think about it this way: would you allow someone to attack out of sequence, earlier than normal (e.g. two times in a row) in exchange for a -2 to DX?

Only that option will be open to both. It would balance out (but see whet I earlier posted about that). don't forget a S&W is penalised against a normal W.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Sure, S-w-W is no better than regular Attack in a flurry. But unless it applies -2 DX, it's not worse either. And before a flurry, it's golden.

well again that will depend on how you treat Waits.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You don't have to be rooted. You get a meaningful choice between staying ready to spring on the attacker (retaining initiative), or advancing on the enemy who is ready to 'ambush' you (and if you have good Active Defences, and you should, it's not even a tragedy).

Maybe in a TL3 melee orientated setting, by in TL8 gun play one your risking getting you head shot off.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This is actually something I considered. But I secret manoeuvres are a complication (and, ironically, a grounds for bringing back in the usefulness of Body Language in combat).

Ah well I've been running secret manoeuvres since I've been running games (and that way before I started playing GURPS). For me it's a must in running combat.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's not just a TL thing. DR also matters. If the opponent is in a battlesuit that has a 90% chance of stopping a burst from your beam rifle, things are different than if the opponent is in a flak vest that can barely slow your .30-06..

Well yes that's mainly a factor of TL, but yes I agree it directly manifested through DR vs. damage out put.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That's definitely an interesting topic, but I agree that it's a branch too far

fair enough maybe next time it comes up

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, as a tool, it cuts deeply into fundamental assumptions about initiative in GURPS. It tries to rewrite the answer to the question 'what Movement does a Wait allow'. We've had this tool in 3e, and it was discarded as inappropriate. I wouldn't bring back it lightly, even as a foot-in-the-door.

Maybe, as I said I never played 3e so it may not appreciate the reality of this change. However I can't help but think how we treat wait's in general will be a bigger deciding factor when it come to the scope of the impact on the wider system.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not sure why? I'm mean I can see they are different in certain circumstances, but I think they are not as generally different as you seem to.

Well I've never played 3e so this could be you talking with the voice of experience and me not. However I'd say high skill already trumps tactic to an extent anyway (the point being it's not an either or thing, and in some cases high skill makes available some tactics.).

Well, normally, when you Wait, something external has to happen for it to be triggered. If it doesn't happen, you don't get to use your conditional action. If you say you want to chop the enemy when the enemy starts swinging his sword, and the enemy just freezes, you wasted a Wait. That's the price of being pre-emptive, among other things. And normally, you can't do anything while Waiting that would set the trigger condition to 'true'. But with a Step that can be used while the trigger-checker is already primed, you can set up a condition that you yourself can fulfill, e.g. become in Reach 1 from an enemy (which suddenly brings back the ability to trump an enemy Wait that existed in 3e).

BTW, ability to arbitrarily trigger one's Waits is also something that was done away with. Here's a quote from 3e so that you see for yourself what I'm comparing to:

Originally Posted by B106, 3e

Step and Wait
This maneuver lets you move one hex in any direction, change facing or stand still,
and wait for a foe to approach. At any time before your next turn, if a foe is close
enough, you may attack. If you stood still on your turn, you may step one hex forward
and then attack. If the foe is moving to attack you, the longer weapon strikes first. If they are
the same length, roll a Contest of Weapon Skills. With high skill, this allows a "stop thrust"
strategy.
You do not have to attack the first foe that comes within reach; you may ignore one
enemy and wait for another. You do not have to attack at all.
If more than one fighter is Waiting, and one announces an attack, then that attack
(and the target's reaction, if it was the target's move) are both played out before another
Waiting fighter can attack.
If no enemy comes within step-and-attack range, or if you choose not to attack. your
turn is simply lost; you stood there waiting, and did nothing.
You may choose any legal defense on the turn you Wait.
This maneuver is also used for opportunity fire with a ranged weapon (see sidebar, p.
118).

You also force Waiters to take the extremely situational and optional gamble offered in Martial Arts (for 4e):

Originally Posted by MA108

For
game purposes, the collective term for these moves is Stop
Hit – if only to distinguish them from the “stop thrust” on p. -
B366.
To try a Stop Hit, take a Wait and declare that you intend
to attack your foe. Instead of simply attacking first, which
allows him to parry and continue with his attack, you attack
into his attack in an effort to hit him while he’s on the offen-
sive and less able to defend. Since you’re on the offensive, too,
this is a gamble: your skill against his.
You and your opponent both roll to hit normally. If you
both miss, nothing happens. If one of you hits and the other
doesn’t, the struck fighter defends at -1 . . . or at -3 if he tries
to parry with the weapon he used to attack. If you both hit,
the one with the largest margin of success defends normally
while the other has the penalty above – but in a tie, you both
suffer this penalty!
You can do this with an unbalanced weapon (one with a
“U” in its Parry statistic) or even one that becomes unready
after an attack – and if you do, you can try to parry your foe’s
weapon. This is because your Stop Hit and parry are a single
move, not two distinct actions. You cannot parry after your
Stop Hit, however.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only that option will be open to both. It would balance out (but see whet I earlier posted about that). don't forget a S&W is penalised against a normal W.

The tradeoffs betwen Step-while-Waiting, Step-then-Wait, and normal Wait do not compare to the tradeoffs between a normal Wait and a normal Attack.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Maybe in a TL3 melee orientated setting, by in TL8 gun play one your risking getting you head shot off.

If the bullet connects. You can also risk having one's head chopped off in a TL3 mêlée. If the ax connects.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Langy

*shrug* Works for me.

The thing that surprised me most in going through it again - and I'd forgotten how old this thread was - is that Step and Wait wasn't mentioned explicitly. Mostly, the TS description seems to be written around Step and All-Out Attack (Determined), but there's enough wiggle in it that it's not clear.