I can't take credit for that, but it was some brilliant math. Essentially, the amount of bonuses than can be added to an attack far exceed those that can be added to a dodge, thus making the probability of dodging an attack distressingly low if you use opposed dodge/attack.

Is that actually a bad thing?

I can't take credit for that, but it was some brilliant math. Essentially, the amount of bonuses than can be added to an attack far exceed those that can be added to a dodge, thus making the probability of dodging an attack distressingly low if you use opposed dodge/attack.

Aren't those mostly situational?

Sure, most mods are situational, but is still easy to get several boni like aim, RDS and half distance giving me +30%. Several/most light modifiers can be ignored with the right equipment, etc ara ....

In comparison what boni do i get to dodge?

And yet, one of the most common complaints about the system, pre-dating its 40K incarnation, is that Dodge is way too good, and does a particularly bad job of reflecting the differences between well-aimed attacks and highly skilled attackers vs. off-balance and poorly skilled defenders.

FWIW we've been using DoS based Defence Skills (dodge, parry, deny the witch) for quite a while now, and at least for us it works better than the old binary way of doing it.

Then again, we've also been using DoS based damage for a while, so with our way of doing things, even a partial dodge has a very real impact on how badly the target's hurt.

Except possibly in the case of Accurate weapons or otehr places where DoS come into play, there is no reason to think that a low to-hit roll somehow implies a well-aimed attack.

A 70% chance to his is a 70% chance to hit. There is absolutely no reason to conceive of a 01 as being somehow "better-aimed" than a 70.

A 70% chance to his is a 70% chance to hit. There is absolutely no reason to conceive of a 01 as being somehow "better-aimed" than a 70.

There's likewise absolutely no reason not to.

Some people - who include me, but unsurprisingly not you - think it would be preferable if Evasion was DoS/F based, because if it was, it would be more granular. And thus better able to reflect the difference between, say, a Cultist trying to punch an Arbitor in the face, and a Lictor trying to punch an Arbitor in the face.

Disregarding all modifiers, a Cult Initiate has a 25% chance of making a successful 'Punch the Arbitor' attack.

The Arbitor, meanwhile, has a 38% chance of Parrying the attack entirely.

A Lictor has a 65% chance of making a successful 'Punch the Arbitor' attack.

While the Arbitor still has a 38% chance of Parrying the attack entirely.

As far as the system is concerned, there is no difference between trying trying to Parry a very human enemy with little or no combat training, and trying to parry one of the most perfect organic close combat killing machines in the universe.

If you change Evasion Rolls into an Opposed Roll against the attacker's Attack Roll, Lictors suddenly become a lot harder to Parry than your average Cultist.

The problem is that the mods especially for ranged combat are far more numerous that those assigned to dodge therefore can easily lead to dodge becoming useless.

Worst case: Point blank, red-dot sight, aiming, accurate from something like a Duelling Las or such gets +60.

Half-range, aiming and RDS still get +30.

I asked before: What boni do i get to dodge to counter that?

I'm not really sure I see the problem. Why do you need any bonuses beyond the ones already available?

Damage in DH is divorced from the Attack Roll, so it's not like failing an Evasion Roll by 40,000 DoF is any worse than failing it by 1 DoF.

Further, assuming you stick with the intended game balance, PCs in particular find it next to impossible to die to the first damaging attack they suffer

Uh, this again...

Opposed evasion makes entire categories of weapons obsolete, as well as multiple combat actions, destroying the tactical aspects of the metagame in favor of "hit harder, not smarter". It also amps up the randomness of combat and thus increases character mortality, which isn't a feature I particularly enjoy.

A Lictor is already much more dangerous than some random schmuck of a cultist - he hits harder, more often, and from surprise. That you can dodge or parry his blows is small comfort for the acolyte who has to go toe to toe with this beast.

Except possibly in the case of Accurate weapons or otehr places where DoS come into play, there is no reason to think that a low to-hit roll somehow implies a well-aimed attack.

A 70% chance to his is a 70% chance to hit. There is absolutely no reason to conceive of a 01 as being somehow "better-aimed" than a 70.

Not quite true. The exchange-one-damage-die-for-DoS implies that it is about well-aimed attack... but in the sense of hitting a vulnerable body location. Not in the sense of hitting an opening in the enemy's defenses.

As far as the system is concerned, there is no difference between trying trying to Parry a very human enemy with little or no combat training, and trying to parry one of the most perfect organic close combat killing machines in the universe.

Which is why close combat killing machines have more than once chance to do damage per turn. Seriously. The Binary Dodge system is all about generating attacks and extra Reactions. This goes nowhere more so than in Deathwatch with its ultra-high WS and AG characteristics. When almost everything is an auto-hit/parry/dodge, the number of attacks/reactions count.

That you can dodge or parry his blows is small comfort for the acolyte who has to go toe to toe with this beast.

Normal folks can negate ONE of his attacks with a 15% or 30% chance. Way too powerful obviously.

Alex