Half and Full Actions make me feel dirty. The AP System really was much better than the old system.
Now that Beta1 's RoF rules are dead, I'm all for bringing back Action Points. Think of how much clearer the wording would be: "Characters have 3 Action Points" instead of "Characters have 2 Half Actions, which can be combined into 1 Full Action [with some exceptions], plus 1 Reaction." Yes please. Extra tactical flexibility would be the cherry on top.
Those RoF rules are pretty easy to fix, though I wouldn't use the term RoF myself.
I guess its too late to bring AP back now...
I guess its too late to bring AP back now...
it isn't really that hard. They can just copy the AP section of the 1.0 Beta into the book, give every action an AP cost and pretty much that's it.
I don't know if they're stilling working with it, now that they're scrapping Opposed Evasion, but I might implement it as a house rule either way.
Not, by the way, the opposed evasion rules. Just the Diving for Cover stuff. I'm still not crazy about opposed evasion.
I don't know if they're stilling working with it, now that they're scrapping Opposed Evasion, but I might implement it as a house rule either way.
Not, by the way, the opposed evasion rules. Just the Diving for Cover stuff. I'm still not crazy about opposed evasion.
Wow - quoting yourself ;D
I don't know if they're stilling working with it, now that they're scrapping Opposed Evasion, but I might implement it as a house rule either way.
Not, by the way, the opposed evasion rules. Just the Diving for Cover stuff. I'm still not crazy about opposed evasion.
Wow - quoting yourself ;D
I know, right?!? That guy is so smart. That guy, who is me.
And if no one else is clever enough to realize that, something must be done ! ;D
*sigh* Well, I know what House Rule #2 is going to be.
With strong opinions on both sides, my mind is drawn to some kind of major compromise on the subject and I like this "Dive for Cover" to possibly facilitate it.
What about if a typical Dodge was an opposed roll. However, if their character was standing, the character would have the option of sacrificing their next Turn for the following benefits/results:
---Diving for Cover a number of meters up to their Ag Bonus
---Going prone
---An UNopposed Dodge Test
---Gain the benefit of cover, if there is cover close enough to reach
Losing your next Turn is big, but so is the combination of an UNopposed Dodge Test and gaining the benefit of cover (as well as now being prone, which makes them harder to hit vs the next ranged attack against them).
This keeps both Opposed and Unopposed Dodge Tests in the game and puts more emphasis on the characters tactical choices. Want to Dodge and Attack? Then the Dodge is opposed. Want to dedicate your character to defense? Then go leaping out of the way, hit the turf, gain the UNopposed Dodge & benefits of cover - but forgo your next Turn/attack.
It's a thought.
I'm not a huge fan of mechanics that take characters out of action for entire rounds. While that idea does sound good as far as tactics go, losing an entire turn isn't very fun.
Just repost it here
First make it clear that Dodge skill have bonus from cover (p. 74)
Second , to avoid/mitigate the most annoying thing of binary dodge (that when you are caught with a weapon pointing at your face you just say "hey bastard roll for initiative!" and dodge his attack), make Dodge skill have penalty for open ground. Something like:
- 30 for being caught open ground at point-blanck range of a weapon
- 20 for being caught open ground at short range of a weapon (flat 10 metres? x3 perception bonus of the attacker? x2 PER + BS bonus?)
- 10 for being caught open ground (new default for open ground, as with update #5 you can Dive for Cover)
+ 0 for having half/little cover
and so on
Third, option for Called Shot. Something like "you can impose -30 penalty for you BS attack and make it harder to dodge it imposing -20 penalty to Dodge of the defender.
Thoughts?
Half and Full Actions make me feel dirty. The AP System really was much better than the old system.
Couldn't put it better myself. AP gave the game tactical flexibility. As others have put it, it would be simple for FFG to reconsider and bring them back.
I also think we really need a kind of compromise here.
I can see a lot of people that like unopposed evading, and also a lot that like opposed evading.
We need a middle ground.
I'm not a huge fan of mechanics that take characters out of action for entire rounds. While that idea does sound good as far as tactics go, losing an entire turn isn't very fun.
I am. The "must be able to attack every round" mentality bothers me.
And if you can keep rounds going reasonably fast, it's not a big deal to miss a turn, as far as fun is concerned.
It's less 'must be able to attack every round' and more 'must be engaged in the game every round'.
But you are. You're diving for cover, saving you a$$. How is that not enganged?
You dived for cover last turn. This turn you're twiddling your thumbs while everyone else actually makes actions. And with how badly combat can drag in Dark Heresy, that can leave you doing nothing for a fair while.
Good point. Dive for cover = Full Action, but nothing next round?
As much as I like the idea of including a few more +/- modifiers to Dodge, I don't think it will be widely accepted.
We have forum posters here that adamantly believe adding another four or five modifier conditions would be "needless complexity".
I've suggested adding the Parry mods that were proposed by No_1 in his The Great Devourer project. I'm sure there are people out there using that bit of work, but no one chimed in favor of those Parry mods. I posted over on DH1's House Rules forum one, just one, example Dodge mod and got "needless complexity" and "is this in the interest of realism?" And, for the record, no, it wasn't in the interest of realism, it was in the interest of balancing the scales between attacker and defender.
Evidently, the accepted convention is to place the majority onus of hitting or missing on the attacker, with the defender getting but a peep in retort. There are many +/- mods to hit, why not even the "tactical" playing field for Dodge...and Parry for that matter?
I'd also like to say that nothing short of a complete overhaul of the core system is going to speed combat considerably, and if adding a half dozen more mod triggers is needlessly complex and would slow the game, how in hell did we get along this far with the bloat DH1 gave us?
Edited by Brother OrpheoI also think we really need a kind of compromise here.
I can see a lot of people that like unopposed evading, and also a lot that like opposed evading.
We need a middle ground.
I'm not sure there is really one though.
Both are workable systems in the abstract, but both require the combat system's modifiers to be balanced around them. The current system had modifiers created around the assumption of unopposed evasion. It could be changed, but it would really require re-evaluating and re-balancing every conceivable combat modifier if you like your combat to have more tactical depth than "who won initiative?" Beta is the appropriate time to consider such a wholesale revision to the combat system, but at some point you have to consider what is really there to be gained. In this case it looks to me like the primary benefits are increased system symmetry and preventing players/GMs from feeling like their really good rolls are "wasted" when a good roll is negated by a lesser roll from a defender. Against this you have real costs- lots of design/playtesting time and effort, retraining everyone on the new modifiers, the high likelihood of introducing new problems to the system, marginal increase in necessary combat math per round, etc. I don't know what the hybrid system would be, but it would likely face pretty much all of the same potential problems that a good implementation of opposed evasion tests in combat would. It seems like the designers would be much better either holding off entirely or making a complete plunge. And given the real costs and nebulous benefits (as I see them) I think this is definitely an area where parsimony is called for.
Oh also this is sort of dumb, but under the alternate character creation rules that add +5 attributes across the board, the point allocation limit is never raised from 40 to 45. I can't imagine anyone would have issues doing it correctly, but might as well correct RAW while you can. I'd suggest changing the last paragraph on the first column of the first page of the update document to read something like-
If desired and all players (especially the GM) agree, players
can instead start character generation with 25 instead of 20 toreflect more experienced Acolytes ready to face even greater threats.If so, adjust the values in the Allocating Points sidebar to start with25 points, raise the + and – Characteristics by 5, and increase limitto which starting characteristics can be raised to 45."
Unfortunately beta is not infinite. Developers have limited release dates. And sooner or later they will release it with minimal changes. They are unlikely to alter the basic mechanics again. So we need tweaks not reworking.
EDIT - Misread something
Edited by KaihlikThis is disappointing! I also had high hopes of this getting people together. I maintain I see no mechanical reason not to use an opposed dodge. The dive for cover makes no sense to me as written. (Although the new blood loss seems ok.) I suppose it will have to remain a house rule at many tables (And will become one at mine!)