This 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!)
To build on your comment, I too was particularly puzzled by the details and timing of the new Dive For Cover defensive option.
At the same time they switched back to the very pro-defense binary Dodge, they pile it on by giving the defense this option of Diver for Cover. At the sole discretion of the target, if heavy cover is close (corner of a building say), why not take the +10 Dodge to get behind it?
I think Dive For Cover has real possibilities for contributing to a grand compromise on the most contentious issue of Beta2. I'd like to see typical Dodge be an Opposed Dodge. But in lieu of their next turn, a target can choose to Dive For Cover - affording them a Binary Dodge, benefit of cover if there's any within their Ag Bonus in meters & the Prone condition. Full explanation of the idea here: