This might be a copy and paste error from the older games, but looking at the Evasion rules on page 235 of the Black Crusade rule book it says that "When Evading Full Auto or Semi-Auto Bursts, each Degree of Success on the Test negates one additional hit". Technically, as now just passing a check (for example, with a dodge of 50, rolling 41-50) generates a degree of success (Page 36-37 - Degrees of Success and Failure), this means that just passing would dodge or parry two hits, one for passing the check and one for the degree of success generated by passing the check.

Is this the way other people understand it or is this a mistake that needs an errata?

It is copy and paste. Though in this case I guess it´s clear what they meant. Passing negates a hit, every additional DoS negates an additional hit.

Quite a few things are affected by this copy´n paste - DoS mess. Accurate weapon quality would be another example. There you do an additional d10 damage per 2 DoS. Same as ever, though in BC you get a DoS for passing. I don´t think they meant to change the weapon quality, though one doesn´t know for sure until FFG cleans up.

moepp said:

Cool, thanks for the heads up, thought that might be the case. Is there a central thread around for collecting mistakes like this or an email address at FFG?

The rules questions link at the very bottom of this page is the way to go as FFG about rule questions. There's been some debate on how "legitimate" said answers are in various topics and debates around here, but at the very least it's qualified advice.

Personally, I'd chalk this up to Copypasta error. The whole "success counts as one initial DoS" seemed intended to remove the whole "initial success causes X, every DoS causes Y" and make calculating stuff based on DoS easier.

Reverend mort said:

Wow, I've been reading these forums for a while, and I've never noticed that link, thanks. Yeah, it did seem strange that they'd change something that worked well in the other systems to dodging 2 hits each time.

Personally, I think its their attempt to integrate "passing the check" with the DoS system. In other words, passing the check counts as 1 DoS, with every 10 full points on the roll generating another DoS.

This is almost exactly like the current rules, and seems almost like a clarification or at least an attempt to make the system more unified, and that's the way I read it. It does mean you generate a DoS more then other games, but I don't think its to a gamebreaking extent, since both opponent and defender in theory benefit from it.

The place where I have a problem is more in the way dodge works in negating a hit. I find it more appropriate, especially against sniper shots, lascannons and other Accurate or high damage, single shot weapons, to make it work as an opposed check. In other words, the defender's DoS reduce the attackers DoS, and if it reduces it below 0, its a clean miss. Dodge can get really crazy with +30 skill, a decent agility attribute, fate/infamy points and the Step Aside talent if you keep the current rules. A 70-80% chance (with re-roll) to negate up to two (Or more versus multi-attacks) hits per round is just a bit too effective in my opinion.

While I think Dodge should be a valued defensive skill, I just don't feel it should be quite such a hard counter to snipers and single shot weapons. Obviously this goes both ways though, when my players are shooting at their opponents. So far though they have been happy with the houserule.

I'm probably going to make it an opposed check myself. It will make combat deadlier, but it will also make the game more "realistic" imo. A skilled fighter that lands a perfect blow should be harder to dodge than a lucky blow from someone who doesn't know what he's doing, but it's just as hard or easy under the current ruling.

Jackal_Strain said:

Exactly my thoughts as well.

We are using oposed ws/bs test in single shot and it works great not slowing game too much

A skilled fighter feints. And, with his higher WS, he delivers the pain.

Also, dodge isn't really a sniper negator. Snipers fire from concealment. If you don't see it coming... you don't get a dodge. As mentioned under evasion.

That said, the idea of turning evasion into Opposed tests is not half bad.

Although I can see the merit for for making it opposed tests, it does make feint far more useless. It only becomes viable when your opponent has low WS and high Agi really and beyond that its just a waste of a half action.

In defense of dodging the sniper shot, it could almost be easier to dodge if you know exactly where the person is going to shoot, but I suppose then it depends on how you define dodging (let's not go down that rabbit hole here at least )

Bladehate said:

With an opposed degree of success system, you are unbalancing those single-shot, high damage weapons when used by high BS characters.

Though I will admit I am not keen on +30 dodge (or +50 Parry either. +30 skill, Balanced and Best quality) from Black Crusade.

Regarding the +30 Dodge, etc., perhaps this can be offset on occasion by creative difficulty modifiers set by the GM ,especially for those characters who are pain in the ass with all their dodging.

Opposing tests seem like they would bog down combat, especially for less experienced gamers.

Dodge +30 already existed in previous 40k games, thanks to Talented (Dodge) Talent. Sky-high Parry, I wouldn't mind much, as Parry was always the red-headed stepchild of the Evasion family.

What I kinda don´t like though are the +10 and +20 bonuses for half and full cover. Cover is already greatly beneficial without these.

moepp said:

Thing is, the stuff you really need cover from - high-powered weapons - are typically the ones ignoring cover.

borithan said:

All right, let me rephrase it from sniper to designated marksman role then. Most of the combat in my campaign is brutally close range, meaning the "snipers" are more like fire support with their single shot weapons, and rarely have the option to sit at 500 meters in a gillie suit. It also means they are generally as heavily armored as they can get away with, and when a fire fight breaks out they are rarely inconspicuous.

You are right that a true sniper doesn't care about dodge.

However, for the designated marksman with his single shot, accurate weapon at close or medium range, Dodge is a nightmare. Your comment about the Lascannon just proves the point even more. Right now, the Lascannon is really not a strong weapon, despite its ridiculous stats, clearly intended to be anti-vehicle. Even worse, its possible to perform a Dodge action with a vehicle, so even against its intended prey there is a ridiculously high chance that the weapon does nothing. So basically, the most powerful weapon in the game is fairly toothless, especially at the level of play you're actually likely to see a lascannon.

If you want to balance the Lascannon with an opposed attack test (and other similar heavy weapons like the missile launcher), impose a -20 or -30 penalty to hit versus infantry targets. Along with cover bonuses (anyone who sees an enemy toting a lascannon really should be face down right away), it should still make for a reasonable defense for infantry targets.

As concerns Feint, its somewhat limited in use, and further limited by being melee only. It does nothing to address the problem areas above, which is why I use the Opposed Test system. In melee, Feint still has pretty much the same function, though the necessity of using it is slightly reduced, that's true.

@Bladehate

Regarding vehicles, notice that anything worth shooting with a lascannon suffers at least a -20 to its dodge for being Enormous in addition to any terrain modifiers, must be moving (thus likely hasn't got cover) and will probably suffer additional drawbacks for difficult terrain. Further, certain vehicles will not even attempt the dodge since a failure by 5 degrees makes the vehicle crash.

As for snipers... this is Black Crusade! You're not the ones reacting to the unforeseen tactics of an active enemy, you're the ones doing the acting. If you have a sniper, flush your target out of hiding and see to it that he gets his 500m-in-a-ghillie-suit shot!

Cifer said:

But, but... Red ones goes fastah! ... Right?

Nightsorrow said:

True, but blue ones are luckier. I've seen accounts of entire tribes of Ork Speed Freeks going to war over whether it was better to have red trukks to go faster, or blue ones which were lucky.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Rainbow orks... that sounds a little gay. In a very literal sense.

Cifer said:

So happy?

All the orks certainly would be happy to be both faster and luckier.

@Cifer, even with a -20 penalty a good vehicle driver should not be afraid to make a Dodge roll unless there are other penalties such as terrain or stormy weather for flyers. A decent pilot (35+ Agility) with an MIU and +10 or +20 in his operator skill still has a good chance to succeed and only a small chance to crash. If his vehicle has a maneuverability bonus that only increases his chances. In any event avoiding a lascannon shot is generally worth the risk of a crash. The penalty is there to make a tank driver think twice before Dodging, not to eliminate the option completely. In the case of skimmers, landspeeders, orc warbuggys and bikes the chance to dodge approaches near certainty. Similarly, a jeep would probably not be too difficult to dodge with. And these are, at least in my games, far more common vehicles then actual tanks and other war machines. Ironically, the smaller and less armored your vehicle is...the less fear you have of the lascannon...

In any event, this still doesn't change the fact that single shot weapons are at too great a disadvantage in the current system, in my opinion. And the most powerful weapon in the game in terms of raw damage is a weapon avoided by high level players that know the system, rather then sought out. Which brings me to the next paragraph...

@Reverent Mort

I changed my statement from sniper to designated marksman. Perhaps you're not aware of the difference. A sniper is a stealth specialist, attacking from long range. A DM is a part of a standard infantry unit, usually with additional training and a different weapon from the rest of his squad or platoon. The sniper operates largely alone, without support, and usually fades or at the least displaces after every shot. A DM is there with the regular infantry, primarily to add additional combat options to his unit. It means he usually operates at closer ranges, and is rarely as reliant as the sniper on stealth, since he can rely on his unit to support him.

Most RPG firefights are close range, making a "sniper" type character more of a DM.

And in the current system, a DM is at a severe disadvantage for the many reasons I've already stated.

Reverent Mort, I find it it surprising that you do not see the irony in all your suggestions. Ironic, because all your suggestions are work arounds for a short coming in the rules.

First off, stealth may not have a game rule range limitation but if your GM let's you get away with ducking behind some handy cover when a fight breaks out, twirling your cameleoline cloak around you and then getting a "stealth" shot off then he's a kinder GM then I am. Even in the event of a true sniper shot, any survivors are far, far more difficult to hit once alerted (and ducking for cover...). Once the surprise round is over(if there even is one), the chance of getting a "surprise" shot on an enemy is much, much more difficult...even for a stealther. Not impossible, but definitely rare.

For the heavy stubber/DM combo, that is clearly a case of making up for a short coming in the rules. In any case, my players already do this to maximize the damage gained from Accurate whenever they can. The difference is that the DM character(s) can choose to act on a good initiative roll instead of being forced to wait for their buddy in order to be effective. When the DM is alone or the only one firing at a target, he is also not at the mercy of a 40-70% dodge roll.

And for your tactics suggestion, I just want to point out that IF you can flank you SHOULD flank because it gives you an advantage or it overcomes an enemy advantage (like cover). You shouldn't do it because its the only way you can reliably do damage. Also, only the first shot is a surprise shot, after that you're most likely back to having to deal with dodge.

Oh and your comment about putting on a suit of power armor and wading into close combat is pure foolishness. We're not talking about using a sniper rifle as a bludgeon. However it does bring up yet another valid point about the lascannon (and single shot weapons). Space Marines suit up in power armor all the time, and wade into combat at all ranges. Want to venture a guess which heavy weapon is favored by Deathwatch Devastators? I'll give you a hint: Its not the lascannon. Your comment about the naked, unarmed close combat character is even less valid and exaggerated. Its also got nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion concerning the game mechanics of single shot versus SA/FA.

In short, I like giving my players options. I like it that the Lascannon is actually a dangerous weapon (Though that particular weapon has had a few revisions in my game, along with the missile launcher. An Anti-Vehicle trait for certain weapons would be appropriate imo). I like it that Accurate weapons can keep up with FA/SA weapons to a certain extent, and under the right conditions. I like it that an Accurate weapon can have its bonus damage reduced by a dodge roll, even if that dodge wasn't quite enough to negate the hit entirely.

And all of this and more was accomplished by adopting an already existing mechanic and applying it to single shot. Adopting it for single shot, and even for melee combat, is not difficult and brings with it no real balance problems compared to the short comings it addresses.