I've found that making Dodge simply an Opposed Test is a pretty slippery slope considering the amount of bonuses a normal attacker can get in Range or Melee Combat. It makes it so that people need to be gods of dodging and parrying to even stand a chance of evading your common gangers and scum.

Take this example:
Attacker with WS 30 makes an Aimed Standard Attack with a Sword. That means he's rolling on a 50 and on average will hit.

Defender is an agile fighter with Ag 40 and Dodge +10. He has the same chance of dodging that attack as the attacker has to hit, and he is by those stats pretty far above the Attacker in terms of ability.

Once you go further and get into powerful characters the discrepancies increase.

Attacker with WS 50 making an All Out Attack rolls on an 80 meaning he has an average of 3 DoS.

Defender with Ag 50 and Dodge +20 will on average fail to dodge that attack.

In ranged combat its even worse.

Attacker with BS 30 making an Aimed Standard Attack with a Red-Dot Sight has a base of +30 to his roll.

Defender with 40 Ag and Dodge +10 will now fail to Dodge on average.

This is why for my game I implemented a system that imposes Dodge and Parry penalties to the defender, -5 per DoS, though then allowing Dodge and Parry against any attack per turn. Has worked well for me so far, though if you've had different experiences with Opposed Dodge then the rest of your combat changes seem quite nice.

I've found that making Dodge simply an Opposed Test is a pretty slippery slope considering the amount of bonuses a normal attacker can get in Range or Melee Combat. It makes it so that people need to be gods of dodging and parrying to even stand a chance of evading your common gangers and scum.

Take this example:

Attacker with WS 30 makes an Aimed Standard Attack with a Sword. That means he's rolling on a 50 and on average will hit.

Defender is an agile fighter with Ag 40 and Dodge +10. He has the same chance of dodging that attack as the attacker has to hit, and he is by those stats pretty far above the Attacker in terms of ability.

Once you go further and get into powerful characters the discrepancies increase.

Attacker with WS 50 making an All Out Attack rolls on an 80 meaning he has an average of 3 DoS.

Defender with Ag 50 and Dodge +20 will on average fail to dodge that attack.

In ranged combat its even worse.

Attacker with BS 30 making an Aimed Standard Attack with a Red-Dot Sight has a base of +30 to his roll.

Defender with 40 Ag and Dodge +10 will now fail to Dodge on average.

This is why for my game I implemented a system that imposes Dodge and Parry penalties to the defender, -5 per DoS, though then allowing Dodge and Parry against any attack per turn. Has worked well for me so far, though if you've had different experiences with Opposed Dodge then the rest of your combat changes seem quite nice.

A good point. I think I've got a possible solution to that but I'll sleep on it before I post.

Thanks!

To expand on what SCKoNi mentioned, I don't believe having Evasion being opposed tests is at all a good idea. Inescapable Attack already provides a decent boost when making standard attacks and then attacks with multiple hits (Semi-Auto, Swift Attack, etc) are already opposed tests to a certain degree.

Regarding All Out Attacks, technically you could still use a reaction to Fight Back in the same turn yas AOA specifically says you cannot use Evasion reactions when doing an AOA. If a character also had Furious Assault, then they would burn their reaction. Heck, by how you've described Fight Back I think it fits quite well for a character that makes AOAs to continue fighting as a reaction instead of the more cautious method of aim and then attack while retaining a reaction to evade.

...

Regarding All Out Attacks, technically you could still use a reaction to Fight Back in the same turn yas AOA specifically says you cannot use Evasion reactions when doing an AOA. If a character also had Furious Assault, then they would burn their reaction. Heck, by how you've described Fight Back I think it fits quite well for a character that makes AOAs to continue fighting as a reaction instead of the more cautious method of aim and then attack while retaining a reaction to evade.

Much simpler, revised edition below!

I like this suggestion, I think it will work well. Duly added.

Regarding evasion:

SCKoNI raises a good point, Evasion isn't balanced out against attacks for it to work well as an opposed test due to the bonuses applied in attacks. Possible solutions include:

1. Match the initial modifier of the evasion roll to that of the attack roll so it becomes more of a test of each respective character's skill (attacker's WS or BS versus defender's agility/dodging skill). You can probably make the argument that (when you know you're being shot at anyway) it's easier to evade a single, bolt-action style shot (+10 for the attacker to hit, +10 for the defender to dodge) than a full-auto burst that is peppering the area you're standing in (-10 for the attacker to hit, -10 for the defender to dodge). The exception to this is All Out Attack when the the attacker gains +30 to hit. It seems odd for this to be easier to dodge so I'd say that the intensity of the attack makes it harder to dodge, so the test is defaulted as challenging (+0 to dodge). At the moment, I think I prefer this option because it seems to fit better with the proposed changes.

Edit 1: Should Parry receive the same treatment?

2. Simply leave evasion as it is in the rulebook, which I feel doesn't flow as well with the proposed changes but remains as balanced against attacks as it normally is?

Popdart- you make a very good point regarding Inescapable Attack. Mea culpa, it's not a talent I've come across. I'm going to quickly go through the talent list now and post any changes I think need making.

Much simpler, revised version which doesn't require any of these additional changes to talents, below!

Decided to post the changes to talents as a seperate post, so the original post isn't such a huge block of text whilst I'm encouraging people to provide feedback

Changing the core of mechanics usually causes more trouble than it solves. If you really want to speed up the combat you should just prepare accordingly and keep it simple.

Changing the core of mechanics usually causes more trouble than it solves. If you really want to speed up the combat you should just prepare accordingly and keep it simple.

Something I agree with entirely. This is an unusual step for my group and I, but it's been done to make combat more entertaining as well as quicker. For the most part though, these changes seem compatible. I won't really know until I get to playtest them a lot which will happen soon enough. Right now I'm just looking for glaringly obvious issues I may have missed.

New clarification which should be made as grapple has been replaced as an action with Combat Maneuver:

If two characters are ever considered to be grappling with each other (defined as two characters in physical contact with at least one grabbing hold onto the other), each character may roll against either their Strength or Agility characteristics when rolling an opposed test. For example:

Acolyte Thaddeus has managed to surprise a cultist by sneaking up behind him and grabbing his arms to restrain him. On a subsequent round, Thaddeus decides he wants to knock the cultist out by smacking the cultist's face against a marble pillar. The GM decides that as Thaddeus isn't physically trying to strike the cultist but is in fact moving him into a position to smack his face against the pillar, Thaddeus is performing a Combat Maneuver and it will be an opposed Strength test against the squirming cultist. Not being a servant of Khorne, the cultist knows he has no chance of physically over-powering the muscular Thaddeus and tries to wriggle out of the acolyte's grip. The cultist will be rolling against his Agility in the opposed test.

Okay, I've now had a chance to play test these across two mini sessions designed just for that purpose and got some great feedback. Great in that it looks like I'm on to something, but also great in that some very good points came up. I'm quite lucky one of my players is an experienced roleplayer and actually has a lot of professional game-making experience, so his feed back was particularly useful.

Our impression of these changes as they are presented above.

The Good

1. Increased engagement : All the players agreed they found the combat a lot more entertaining and engaging, especially the one player who has a real issue with the clunkiness and length of 40kRPG combat in general .
2. Fight Back : The new fight back reaction was well liked. Whilst it makes close combat people a bit stronger, generally speaking enjoyed having the extra option of how to react in combat- especially if they weren't particularly trained in dodge or parry. They liked the fact they could still try and defend themselves rather than just take the hit as it were.
3. Combat Maneuvers : The new action, combat maneuver (which replaces grapple and allows for a lot more to be done with a simpler system) was the most favored change by far. It also helped the less confident roleplayers really get into a vivid description of what their characters were trying to do and it was done a minimum of fuss. One particularly cool bit was when my wife's arbitrator wanted to grab a distracted thug and push him up against the wall whilst simultaneously placing her handcannon underneath his jaw and pulling the trigger. Following the rules above, I declared this was a combat maneuver and she had to roll an opposed WS test against the thug, she did and won. I got her to roll for BS (just to see if her handcannon would jam, she would not have missed in this situation as she successfully placed her gun underneath the guy's jaw whilst pushing him up against the wall), and then for damage. The results were predictably messy.

The Bad

1. Encounter length : One of the things I was aiming for with the fightback action and the rules in general was a decrease in the time it took to run combat. This wasn't achieved nor was it any longer, it was about the same. On the plus side, player engagement was high so it didn't feel like it dragged as DH combats often can.
2. Opposed dodge tests and multiple reactions: As you guys successfully predicted above, these didn't work out so well, even with the modified improvement. I personally didn't think it was too bad, but none of the players really liked it. They pointed out that it was harder to win a dodge test versus weapon skill (although I still maintain that with the modifiers they were getting that shouldn't be the case, but they were on the receiving end more I suppose) and that being able to react multiple times a turn made superior close combat characters intro true monsters (if they were good enough the -20 modifier didn't matter too much) and the weaker close combat characters were even more disadvantaged against them (because not only are the superior characters also getting more attacks via the fight back action, the weaker characters would often not get the benefit of the multiple chances to dodge because the -20 handicapped them severely). All in all, probably all fair points.

The Ugly (things that worked but need a bit of tuning)

1. Combat Maneuvers: Whilst these were very well received, having these always as opposed WS tests didn't always make the most thematic sense. Thankfully this is an easy fix which I mention in my next post which will be the revised changes.
2. Getting the players to describe the results of their attack. Okay, granted I did not mention this change in my original post as its not really a mechanics change, but I decided to play actions the CoC way. I'll expand on this in my next post but basically, in combat (and generally in narrative time as well), the player describes narratively what they are aiming to, what their goal is. I'll then tell them the test they make. If they fail, I'll describe what happens to their character. If they pass, they get to describe, narratively, the outcome of their attack or action providing it makes sense with the scope of what they rolled (no decapitating a cultist if you merely knocked a few points of health off). This had the wonderful effect of getting people engaged with the story more as well as improving the roleplay of the inexperienced roleplayers, however it was a bit clunky when sometimes, even if they passed I would have to describe what happened because a critical was rolled and I needed to read out the effect on the critical hit table.

That's it for now. These rules were great fun, and I'm looking forward to incorporating some of the changes my players suggested following the play testing. They should actually make it a bit more streamlined as well as making it feel more like a natural part of the normal rules.

Thanks,

Gregor

Righto, here is the much simpler, revised version which as far as I can tell for now, omits the need for making additional changes to talents and actions etc and should just work nicely within the current rule set. I'm quite happy with these so far, I'm very much looking forward to play testing them!

Dark Heresy 2e: Revised Combat – WIP

Mechanical Changes

These are the changes to structured time in Dark Heresy. If a rule is not specifically changed here, it is played as written in the DH2e Rulebook.

1. Combat Round Length

Round length is now considered to be more fluid than before. Whilst it will still be approximately one full, or two half actions per round, it can and will vary slightly depending on what characters do. In essence, a player will describe what they want their character to do, and the GM will decide on the spot as to whether it can be done, or needs to be split up over several rounds. As part of this, certain, limited actions can be combined and performed simultaneously. The exact actions which can be combined are up to the GM’s discretion and are dependent on the actions being performed and the circumstances that they’re performed in. This has been deliberately left open, but the intention is to combine certain actions with movement. Reloading a simple weapon whilst moving up to your full move distance (basically, not sprinting) or drawing your sword as you charge are good examples of what should be allowable. Reloading a volatile plasma flask for your plasma gun whilst reciting the necessary rites and moving at a jog, probably should not be allowed.

Note that characters are still limited to single attack and concentration actions per round .

2. New Action: Fight Back ( Type: Reaction Subtype: Melee).

This is a new reaction that only applies to characters engaged in melee combat. Instead of reacting with an evasion such as Dodge or Parry, a character may Fight Back which grants the character a single attack with a challenging (+ 0) modifier. Doing this means it is possible that both the attacker and defender hit each other. Note the subtype is not ‘Attack’ as this is a reaction. This means a character may attack, and then later react with a Fight Back reaction in the same turn.

3. New Action : Combat Maneuver ( Type: Half or Full Action Subtype: Melee)

This new action completely replaces the grapple rules and can be used for much more. It covers any combat move when you are not trying to directly deal damage to your opponent ( e.g. restraining an individual, putting them in a headlock, pushing them to one side so you can chase your real target, throwing them off a platform etc. ). To perform a combat maneuver, the attacker announcers their intention such as trying to restrain their opponent. The opponent then announces their reaction such as evade or Fight Back. Note, if the opponent Fights Back, they may attempt to perform a combat maneuver of their own ( e.g. as you move to restrain the cultist, he decides to try and reverse your grip to grapple you and bring you down to the ground). The two characters then perform an opposed roll. The default characteristic to roll against is Weapon Skill, however other characteristics can be roll against if appropriate. For example, the acolyte is trying to restrain the cultist, who being a devotee of khorne is a hulking brute. He opts to use his weapon skill to represent using skill and technique to restrain a larger opponent. The cultist on the other hand is going to rely on his brute strength to overwhelm the pansy techniques of the acolyte and opts to roll against his strength). This follows all the standard rules for opposed tests, with the winner achieving their stated goal. For every point of size you have over your opponent, you add +10 modifier to your roll.

This is normally a half action. However, if using a combat maneuver to actually grapple someone and then hurt them in a way that is separate from striking them ( for example, grabbing your opponent by the back of the head and then slamming it into a wall), the combat maneuver becomes a full action and gains the subtype: attack.

Clarifications

1. With the new Combat Maneuver action, certain moves which required talents to be known by the character before they could be done, can now be technically done by any character. These talents are:

· Disarm

· Takedown

These talents still work exactly as described in the rulebook. However, if a character who does not have the requisite talent tries to either disarm their opponent or take them down to the ground and knock them prone, they do so with a -20 modifier. The rules for disarm in the rulebook are like combat maneuvers (they’re an opposed roll), however takedowns are listed as part of a standard attack or charge action. An acolyte can attempt the takedown either using the talent directly (and thus make it part of a standard attack or charge) or as a combat maneuver. Eitherway, if they do not have the talent, they suffer a -20 penalty.

2. Can I Fight Back against an Opponent’s Fight Back action?

No. The Fight Back action has the Subtype: Reaction. Mechanically you cannot react to reactions.

That is it for the proposed mechanic changes. Note that this should still achieve the same effect but is much simpler and every proposed rule change (other than perhaps the fluid combat length), is based on an already existing mechanic in Dark Heresy (namely, opposed rolls) so it’s a lot simpler, with a lot less exceptions. For those of you read the first proposed changes, note that we are back to one reaction per round and dodge works as stated in the rulebook. Also, with combat maneuvers as you can now roll against any appropriate characteristic in a given situation (such as the example given above where the cultist relies on his higher strength characteristic as it’s his natural advantage), I’ve dispelled with the idea of creating a new ‘Build Characteristic’ and purely put the modifier based on size (which already exists as a mechanic within the rules). I may even drop the modifier based on size in regards to combat maneuvers depending on how further playtests go.

Playstyle Changes

The changes below are not so much changes to the mechanics, but more changes to the way we do our rolls slightly to help everyone get more engaged in the story telling.

Whenever a character now does an action, (especially during structured time), state your characters intended goal in a narrative way. e.g. Player: I’m going to run at the cultist blocking our path and knock him to one side so I can keep chasing the one who’s escaping with the heretical texts!

The GM will then decide what actions that count as and then you what to roll against along with any modifiers (note- technically the action table is still used, but players shouldn’t feel restricted by it.T hey should state their intentions and the GM will instruct them what roll needs to be made, if any.). e.g. GM: That will count as a combat maneuver as you’re trying to knock the cultist aside and into the wall of the alley whilst he will try and stop you by grabbing on to you so his friend can escape. That will be an opposed WS test.

Rolls are made. If the player passes the test (and if applicable, any damage rolls the GM calls for), the player describes what happens narratively. If they fail, the GM will describe what happens. Keep the context of what happens within reason of what happens with the die result, if the player over describes the effect of the result by mistake, the GM will change it slightly and play can continue. e .g. After the opposed WS test, player wins by 1 Degree of Success. Player: I barge into the cultist impeding my path and send him sprawling prone on the ground whilst I keep running after my target. GM: Your barge does indeed knock the cultist back, but as it’s only 1 Degree of Success whilst you’ve got passed him, the cultist only gets knocked back slightly against the wall but is still on his feet. He reaches for his throwing knives…

Please let me know what you think!

All the best,

Gregor

Following a chat about "situational luck problems" with the professional game designer, a minor changed has been added that means the Fight Back reaction is no longer opposed. This will have the effect of actually making combat encounters (ones with melee in anyway) shorter, which is a good thing. This changes the balance of melee characters somewhat in that they can now effectively "strike" twice per turn if they attack and then react with a Fight Back action which means they're more effective. However, this is balanced that they are also exposed to potentially twice the number of hits in melee as they were before.

I think we're almost there now, I'm very happy with these. Looking forward to some further playtests.

Interesting point you made on how these new rules didn't really affect how long combats lasted. I think long combat is just part of the 40K system and you can't really avoid encounters dragging out unless the entire system gets changed. The three step combat mechanic (hit, react, damage) is already longer than D&D (hit, damage) and the only game that I can think of that resolves combat on a single roll is Star Wars but even that can get clunky when assembling the dice pool.

On a specific point regarding Combat Manoeuvre, is there any particular reason why it doesn't have the Attack subtype by default? I know Manoeuvre in the RAW doesn't have Attack as that's basically shoving your opponent but Combat Manoeuvre seems to be a bit broader to encompass Grapple and Knock Down and stuff like that. I'm concerned that you could Combat Manoeuvre to knock someone prone and then attack while gaining the bonuses for hitting a prone target.

Also your description of your wife's arbitrator shooting the handcannon while grappling her opponent all in the same round appear to be a case of two Attack actions. I have to admit that the limitation of one Attack action per round does slow things down in RAW but it does serve a purpose in not overwhelming a character's ability to react. Are you looking to remove the Attack action limitation to speed things up or is this going to be a melee only thing with Combat Manouevre? If you decide to remove the limitation, you could make it that performing two Attack actions in a single round imposes a -20 penalty to the second Attack action so as to keep things relatively balanced.

1. Interesting point you made on how these new rules didn't really affect how long combats lasted. I think long combat is just part of the 40K system and you can't really avoid encounters dragging out unless the entire system gets changed. The three step combat mechanic (hit, react, damage) is already longer than D&D (hit, damage) and the only game that I can think of that resolves combat on a single roll is Star Wars but even that can get clunky when assembling the dice pool.

2. On a specific point regarding Combat Manoeuvre, is there any particular reason why it doesn't have the Attack subtype by default? I know Manoeuvre in the RAW doesn't have Attack as that's basically shoving your opponent but Combat Manoeuvre seems to be a bit broader to encompass Grapple and Knock Down and stuff like that. I'm concerned that you could Combat Manoeuvre to knock someone prone and then attack while gaining the bonuses for hitting a prone target.

3. Also your description of your wife's arbitrator shooting the handcannon while grappling her opponent all in the same round appear to be a case of two Attack actions. I have to admit that the limitation of one Attack action per round does slow things down in RAW but it does serve a purpose in not overwhelming a character's ability to react. Are you looking to remove the Attack action limitation to speed things up or is this going to be a melee only thing with Combat Manouevre? If you decide to remove the limitation, you could make it that performing two Attack actions in a single round imposes a -20 penalty to the second Attack action so as to keep things relatively balanced.

Great questions Popdart, thank you for taking the time to post them! I'll try and answer each of your points to the best of my ability.

1. I thought the Fight Back reaction would mean more damage done in general per turn, so quicker combats. Alas with how it was originally conceived it didn't quite work out as with the opposed test system, one person would usually only be doing any damage and it was usually the attacker. However with the revision, it should be quicker. It's no longer opposed and it's possible for the attacker and defender to hit each other*. This is intentional and why Fight Back is not list as subtype: attack. This does change the balance of melee characters as in melee they can now do 2 strikes per turn if they opt to fight back with their reaction. However, so can their opponents so they're likely to be hit twice.

*Just realised I need to clarify what happens in this revision when people fight back with a combat maneuver. I'll do that soon.

2. It was to facilitate certain situations being able to occur such as grabbing your opponent and then strangling them (which would change it from a half action, to full and thus gain the sub type: attack) but you're absolutely right. In fact, that very thing happened in one my test sessions (specifically to try and curb stomp a cultist), but I didn't catch it (was trying to work out an appropriate damage roll for "curb stomping". There's no denying though, that is possibly open to abuse as it is. Having it as Subtype: Attack, Melee by default doesn't actually stop characters from being able to grab and hurt an individual in a single turn. Point well made (also, by making it subtype: attack, it will prevent people from debating whether to try and react to the initial maneuver, or the subsequent attack).

3. That's lack of proper description on my part. Narratively, she slammed herself into the thug with her gun already out in front of her so that the mere act of pushing up against him and pinning him against a wall put the gun underneath his jaw by default. In such a circumstance your WS is far more important than your BS so I declared it a combat maneuver opposed by the thug who would try and counter with a maneuver of his own. She passed and that point the attack had hit, I merely asked her to roll BS to ensure her gun didn't jam. In essence, how it was describe and how I ruled it, it was a single attack. In essence, despite the use of the handcannon, it was a single Combat Maneuver (thus a single test, not counting the roll to jam) in which her handcannon was used to roll for damage. The Combat Maneuver action allows for a character to both grab and if appropriate, injure an individual.

I'm going to make some minor ammendments, thank you for the feedback!