Btw - I read in the skill section that there are some positive "Parry/Dodge modifiers" listed...are they official combat modifiers ? Or just by GM good will ?

+30: Character can easily detect the attack and has at least a Round
to avoid it.
+20: Character has full cover between him and an attack.
+10: Character has half cover between him and an attack.

If this are official modifiers for combat, shouldnt they all be listed there ?

Parry is mostly just for very melee characters, in which case it is MUCH better. A best quality shield with custom handle offers you +30 to parry tests, and combined with Counter attack, which can't be dodged, Parry is extremely useful for melee focused characters.

Add in that shields add +2 AP to chest and arm, and buy yourself Hard Target, and you never need to worry about dodge

My Black Crusade Space Marine (which is probably a terrible example) started the game with WS 63, a Legacy sword with duellists grip that bumped WS up +5, and gave +25 to parry, and then I bought Parry +10, for a total of 103 parry. Nothing better then being attacked in melee, counter attacking, killing them, and then using Assassin Strike to leap into combat with the next guy just in time for the start of your turn.

Btw - I read in the skill section that there are some positive "Parry/Dodge modifiers" listed...are they official combat modifiers ? Or just by GM good will ?

+30: Character can easily detect the attack and has at least a Round

to avoid it.

+20: Character has full cover between him and an attack.

+10: Character has half cover between him and an attack.

If this are official modifiers for combat, shouldnt they all be listed there ?

I believe the idea is that they are example modifiers that you might apply to combat situations rather than an exhaustive list (which to be honest I'd be all for when it comes to combat stuff).

That said, since Only War came out we've been using these modifiers in the other 40k RPG games and they work pretty well.

Such modifiers belong in the combat sections to the other modifiers, not in a small example box at the skills section.

Such modifiers belong in the combat sections to the other modifiers, not in a small example box at the skills section.

Absolutely. Combat stuff should be an exhaustive list of all the modifiers, given how often they are used.

As opposed to a normal human swordfight on earth, where shooting one of the fighters would probably be at +20 because it's rather difficult to be zig-zagging or ducking into cover while trying to stab someone with a sword.

I have never read anything to support this view, and in fact the -20 penalty to hit targets in melee was present in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (v2). The whole "going on at lightning pace" is just hyperbole, and is used in Black Librarys WH Fantasy line as well (just read a Gotrex and Felix book).

40k rulebook, 6th ed, page 28; White Dwarf 98; Ravenor novel series; Dark Heresy rulebook: combat; Purge The Unclean: NPCs, etc.

A five second round time honestly speaks for itself though. Normal human swordfights tend not to end in 50-90 seconds.

These are not combatants of average earthly vigor, and you need only compare the statistic spread to that of a Space Marine to see that: Brother-Sergeant Agamorr is agility 45, without Unnatural Agility.

Although my main point in stating this is for the considerations of Dodge. It should not necessarily be treated as standard modern warfare evasive action. Your acolyte is noticing the faint traces of a lasgun's prefire and twitching out of the way in microseconds.

I like the idea that we made humans better in the dark age of teck.

But this is exactly the same as the rules were presented in WFRP. You know, medieval times. A few seconds to a round, representing frantic moving about and waving swords about.

And fights in WFRP tends to end in a few rounds, just like in DH. In fact, it plays pretty much exactly the same, just with less guns

As for Dodge, it has been stated that you're not Neo, you're not dodging bullets. You are responding to someone pointing their gun at you, and move out of the way BEFORE they pull the trigger. Dodge is not a superhuman skill.

But this is exactly the same as the rules were presented in WFRP. You know, medieval times. A few seconds to a round, representing frantic moving about and waving swords about.

And fights in WFRP tends to end in a few rounds, just like in DH. In fact, it plays pretty much exactly the same, just with less guns

As for Dodge, it has been stated that you're not Neo, you're not dodging bullets. You are responding to someone pointing their gun at you, and move out of the way BEFORE they pull the trigger. Dodge is not a superhuman skill.

Now I'm not as familiar with Warhammer Fantasy, but presumably being a fantasy setting with magic and superhuman abilities makes it slightly different from medieval earth. (Although the rule appears absent from WFRP 1st Edition, 1986, which is pre-40k.) Regardless, the lore of why things work the way they do in a different universe from 40k and Earth is perhaps somewhat irrelevant to Dark Heresy. You may as well be referencing Star Wars. You can read the 40k lore as cited.

As for dodge, you are avoiding a bullet or laser in place, without moving more than a single meter, using your own agility in under five seconds with no penalty to that whatsoever for having someone trying to knife you at the same time. You don't gain fatigue or end up prone. Normal humans simply don't work that way.

An immobile swordfight across the space of 2 meters on an open field in no way reduces a sniper's chance to hit in reality. That's why there are all those references about 40k melee being extremely fast paced, and the combatants twirling around eachother in a flurry of blades.

If you have any doubt of this, you can do an easy test: Try to dodge someone clicking a flashlight beam on you in place.

The flashlight beam was a good example ;D

But seriously - I think dodge is more a way to show that you actively try to move unpredictable, if you know someone is trying to shoot you.

It is NOT dodging the bullet directly matrix-style.

It is, move fast and strange to make it harder to hit you in general.

But then, I think more attacker DoS means that he did a very good job hitting his target, even if it tries to make it difficult for him with "dodging".

And thats why I think an opposed test would be best.

The flashlight beam was a good example ;D

But seriously - I think dodge is more a way to show that you actively try to move unpredictable, if you know someone is trying to shoot you.

It is NOT dodging the bullet directly matrix-style.

It is, move fast and strange to make it harder to hit you in general.

But then, I think more attacker DoS means that he did a very good job hitting his target, even if it tries to make it difficult for him with "dodging".

And thats why I think an opposed test would be best.

There may be some overlap in the abstraction, or a combination of effects. But it can't be purely general evasive action, or everyone aiming at you would be subject to unlimited 'dodges'. And as the lore goes, a Farseer's 'dodge' probably is exactly him matrixing the bullet to a tee.

Although in mechanics, I believe they could easily make DoS matter through imposing penalty per degree to the dodge, perhaps talent gated.

Like the talent 'Precise Shots' giving -5 per DoS, 'Surgical Shots' giving -10 per DoS, or similar.

Allow critical success at 01-05, and you can still have Hero Adepts.

Alternatively, there could be some Half Action like "Make Sure He Dies" to impose a dodge penalty.

I think one of the biggest problems is indeed the boni that Dodge/Parry can get.

This becomes especially problematic if the test is non-opposed.

Like Parry +30 with a defensive weapon (+10) and WS 50+ makes you almost invincible in 1:1 melee.

Yes, a feint is a possibility, but it is sad if this is the only possibility to be able to hit such a guy.

And for ranged, you have nothing like a feint to use.

So the Ag 50, Doge+30 guy dodges in 80% of all cases. Thats too much.

Opposed evasion is an elegant way to help with this problem.

One one hand, that's good for those high-skill attackers.

On the other hand, that's bad news for the not-combat-optimized Adept trying to get out of harms way. And it adds to the calculation complexity during combat, which is not good.

All in all... haven't made up my mind yet

One of the changes I liked about the previous beta was that evasion skills (dodge/parry) were opposed rolls against the attack. This meant that at higher levels the skill of the attacker still mattered as it'd made it that much harder for the opponent to dodge. It would also stop high level games being just about removing all the evasions from a skilful opponent before you could hurt them.

Changing this in the current system would lead to more brutal fights (as without giving dodge an additional bonus characters would dodge less than they currently do) and would make cover more important, but I don't see these as necessarily bad things.

Do people here think this would be a positive change to the rules?

I agree with Naviward; opposed evasions would be very good for the game. Dodge/Parry being all or nothing has a negative impact on both the attacker and the defender. If an evasion fails the defender is flapping in the wind, if it is successful the attacker has the rug pulled from underneath. Neither scenario is a pleasant experience.

I don't believe the calculations would have as severe an impact on combat play speed as Darth Smeg indicates. Players and gms know how to calculate DoS and DoF, or should by now, at a glance.

GM- Vincent MacDastard yells "Say hello to my little friend!" and shoots at you with an autopistol (rolls)...he has 3 DoS.

Player- I dodge (rolls)...I have 2 DoS.

As DoS and DoF are likely ever to be single digits, calculating will take an eye blink.

GM- So, 1 DoS mean you're only hit once. Damage is...

And let's be serious with ourselves for just a moment, okay? A "not-combat-optimized Adept" excels elsewhere in the game, and should be elsewhere than in the middle of a brawl or shootout. The player making that Adept knows that, and should play the character accordingly. Sure, the Adept may get caught back-footed once in a while, but not every time, unless the player is habitually inattentive or has the PC behave incautiously.

I read through this entire thread, but I think these two contributions are the most important when considering opposed tests: yes or no.

I like the idea that dodge be for evading gun shots and parry be for close quarters fighting, but not for willpower evading psychics. Dodge and parry are skills, and can be raised to levels above their associated characteristics, but willpower gets no such benefit. Shouldn't PCs have the option to spend xp on something similar to dodge and parry that boosts the level of their willpower-based evasions? I have no idea what to call it; "dodge" and "parry" are pretty succinct- "I dodge!" "I parry!" "I...deny the witch?"

If the system does move toward an opposed roll system I'd suggest adding a "Dive for Cover" option for Dodging similar to the optional rule presented in the 1st Ed Inquisitor's Handbook.

If the system does move toward an opposed roll system I'd suggest adding a "Dive for Cover" option for Dodging similar to the optional rule presented in the 1st Ed Inquisitor's Handbook.

I was looking for that just the other day and couldn't find it. Could you give me a page number for it?

If the system does move toward an opposed roll system I'd suggest adding a "Dive for Cover" option for Dodging similar to the optional rule presented in the 1st Ed Inquisitor's Handbook.

I was looking for that just the other day and couldn't find it. Could you give me a page number for it?

It's under "Expanded Skills", pg. 224; Dodge, pg. 230, 3rd column.

It allows you to, instead of a regular Dodge Action, take a Dodge Skill Test at -10 to jump behind cover. If you succeed, you not only dodge the shot, but you also move into the designated cover. The Cover must be within 2 meters of you.

And I completely agree that that is completely reasonable, as-is, when it comes to Opposed Evasion Tests, too. Just add a -10 penalty to the Opposed Test for the one trying to do the Dive For Cover Action.

I was looking for that just the other day and couldn't find it. Could you give me a page number for it?

It's under "Expanded Skills", pg. 224; Dodge, pg. 230, 3rd column.

Thank you! I was sure I'd seen it but just couldn't find it!

Good to know I wasn't just imagining things.

I was looking for that just the other day and couldn't find it. Could you give me a page number for it?

It's under "Expanded Skills", pg. 224; Dodge, pg. 230, 3rd column.

Thank you! I was sure I'd seen it but just couldn't find it!

Good to know I wasn't just imagining things.

Who knows...if you imagined it BEFORE they added it, it would be called precognition

Under an opposed evasion test system, would the defender receive a cumulative penalty for each attack beyond the first in a round of combat? I haven't noticed any mention of this. It makes sense that a defender would have a harder time evading attacks if he was flanked and taking fire from multiple sources.

Under an opposed evasion test system, would the defender receive a cumulative penalty for each attack beyond the first in a round of combat? I haven't noticed any mention of this. It makes sense that a defender would have a harder time evading attacks if he was flanked and taking fire from multiple sources.

Well if there's still only one dodge per round, presumably he would either get hit by those attacks, or they'd miss.

Most likely penalties from volume of fire would take the form of a pinning test.

There is Step Aside, yes? I disagree with the proposal for a -10 penalty to a second evasion attempt, it minimizes the investment in Step Aside.

I agree, penalizing Evasion tests against multiple attacks is unnecessary. For some reason I was assuming that the proposal to make evasion opposed meant making every attack roll opposed as well. I have no idea why I thought that.

While I'm not entirely sure it's necessary, I'm fine with making Evasion an opposed test.

So the Ag 50, Doge+30 guy dodges in 80% of all cases. Thats too much.

Opposed evasion is an elegant way to help with this problem.

Agreed 100%

Now I'm not as familiar with Warhammer Fantasy, but presumably being a fantasy setting with magic and superhuman abilities makes it slightly different from medieval earth. (Although the rule appears absent from WFRP 1st Edition, 1986, which is pre-40k.) Regardless, the lore of why things work the way they do in a different universe from 40k and Earth is perhaps somewhat irrelevant to Dark Heresy. You may as well be referencing Star Wars. You can read the 40k lore as cited.

It's called Dodge Blow, but its a talent, not a skill. It allows the user a flat 25% chance to avoid an attack in melee but specifically cannot be used to dogde missles or magic. It has existed since the first printing.

Sorry for the necromancy

Under an opposed evasion test system, would the defender receive a cumulative penalty for each attack beyond the first in a round of combat? I haven't noticed any mention of this. It makes sense that a defender would have a harder time evading attacks if he was flanked and taking fire from multiple sources.

Thats SHadowrun