Well, to begin with, I'll go with GauntZero here and congratulate you on the Opposed Dodge and Parry!

This by itself would be worth the update.

On page 101, Weapon Training, you had a very good idea, with using Low Tech skills for weapons such as power swords. However, I think it still sounds a little murky...

Well, to begin with, I'll go with GauntZero here and congratulate you on the Opposed Dodge and Parry!

This by itself would be worth the update.

On page 101, Weapon Training, you had a very good idea, with using Low Tech skills for weapons such as power swords. However, I think it still sounds a little murky...

I still think that everybody who has a "higher" melee ability than Low-Tech automatically is able to wield Low-Tech melee weapons.

On page 101, Weapon Training, you had a very good idea, with using Low Tech skills for weapons such as power swords. However, I think it still sounds a little murky...

It basically says "Don't ever bother wasting XP on WT(Low-Tech)" because you can start with Chain and Shock weapons.

What this says about the weapon training system in this game I'll leave as an open question.

It is worth noting that since Accurate weapons rely on DoS to generate extra damage, a good Evade roll will still negate some of their extra dice.

I wholeheartedly support the Opposed Tests. I'm hoping that the note about "considering psychic phenomena" means you might be considering bringing back the invidualized charts! Individualuized charts would also be a good way to "nerf" psykers, simply by making them more relevant to what the psyker is trying to achieve.

EDIT: What does everyone think of the new Fatigue system?

This whole update had me grinning. A few more like this and Dark Heresy 2.0 will be amazing! Thanks FFG

That example is less a flaw of opposed evasions and more a flaw of the hilariously broken psychic power system.

That's just the first example that springs to mind. The new version of the Inescapable Attack Talent makes everyone having it similarly impossible to evade.

This change kills evasion as a viable defensive option, and invalidates all tactical choices that it brought to the table in favor of stacking modifiers through the roof whenever possible. Notably, it makes sniper rifles and other single shot weapons with good damage output vastly superior to rapid fire weapons. Before, it was a gamble - you could fire one devastating shot and hope the enemy won't be able to avoid it or spray him with weaker bullets, having a good chance that he won't be able to avoid all of them. Right now, that +10 to hit from single shot is already better than scoring two hits on a full auto weapon.

I've never considered the possible one on one invincibility of evasion a bug, but rather a feature - if enemies are stupid enough to not pile up on a master dodger, they deserve to die. Same goes to the PC who somehow thinks it's a good idea to challenge an Incubus to a one on one duel rather than gang up on him with the rest of the team. If two master dodgers face off with no one present to tip the scales, it's down to a Feint roll-off, and everything works perfectly fine.

Opposed evading is absolutely the right way to go.

This coming from the same guy who says he hates the old system for stacking modifiers? 'Cause now stacking modifiers is the name of the game. With binary evasion, it was tactics instead.

It can be discussed if the additional "Inescapable attack" talent is needed in addition (especially as there is also Killing Strike). I think this talent could be exchanged against another, non-combat oriented talent (Nerves of steel please to have a better chance against pinning).

Inescapable Attack makes evasion useless in the long run, and turns Feint into a joke. It was a decent Talent with binary evasion checks, now it's just heaping another penalty on an already nerfed option.

Automatic fire has ever since been far too strong - now standard attacks (and called shots) make more sense (although I still thing a half action would be better for a called shot). Now single shots have the same treat - nothing more nothing less.

The binary stuff for single-shot only was odd.

Autofire was only too strong before BC/OW. In those two, it was an option that yielded better gain for greater risk. Opposed evasion makes it into a high risk, low reward option when the most damaging weapons are single shot or low RoF anyway (plasma, melta, sniper rifles). We're basically back to pre-BC days when it comes to weapons, only now the single shot stuff is vastly superior to autofire rather than the other way around. Trading one glaring imbalance for another is no way to advance the system, and especially baffling when it was much better handled by a previous incarnation of the system.

Evading single attacks only seemed binary when you didn't think it through - I even made a table once that clearly demonstrated your chance to hit with a single attack was proportionally influenced by both your skill with the weapon and the enemy's skill at evading, which is basically the very same principle that you're arguing for right now, except it didn't vastly favor the stronger party like opposed evasion does.

Opposed evasion is one more step towards "you must be this tall to ride" tiering that really sucks for a system about a bunch of guys given laspistols and expected to go against ridiculously advanced aliens and eldritch abominations. Not to mention, it slows down combat resolution. I'm only glad that whatever FFG comes up with doesn't have to end up at my table, because it's clearly a change for the worse.

I cannot disagree more.

Opposed evasion is the next logical step - bringing a mechanism to single-shot that already existed at other shots.

And yes, I think autofire still was better because of that up to now. Now its very balanced.

The talent however, is indeed a little too much and should disappear.

I'm unconvinced. I'll be playtesting opposed evasions thoroughly over the next few days. At first glance Morangias makes some good points.

I also sorta agree with Morianias. I think opposed would have been better if it remained as the inescapable attack talent.

I don't think I've seen anyone ever use a full auto weapon since my group moved onto BC/OW. They just aren't worth it at all. Maybe they should give a -10 to evade tests due to the hail of bullets?

How does opposed evasion play with single reaction/turn logic? It seems that if you're allowed a single reaction, and even a success on that single dodge/parry can still result in being hit, that it negates the balancing put in place with a single reaction/turn in the first place.

That being said, eliminating it wouldn't necessarily help either, since then the aforementioned dodge monkeys become -the- class to play, unless you then throw in declining evade ability per attack, which is just the beginning of a chain reaction of adding rules to fix imbalnced fixes of imbalanced rules.

Without opposed evading, evade is way too strong.

It is easy to get agility 50-60 in this game and dodge +30.

If you focus on this, you can get it really fast.

In an 1:1 encounter, this can very soon be ridiculous, as you evade in 80-90% of all cases (if you use defensive weapons in melee or balanced ones, the number is even higher).

Automatic is not weak at all. It provides the chance to make several hits with 1 attack. Thats a bringer of doom within 1 turn that can outright kill someone without any chance to make own moves to get away. Especially deadly when surprised.

So dont call that weak.

It is the standard attack that was a dumb action since, even if it gave you +10 - because any succesful dodge action could negate it easily - and usually a character skills dodge quite fast, and agility rarely low.

I'm with Gaunt on this one! Opposed evasion improves game balance by removing the bias toward the evading character. It's a projectile that is moving faster than you can see for the emperor's sake! If you're lined up dead on center mass on your target (4-5 degrees of success) it should take a **** site more than tripping over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle (Bonus points for any who recognize the reference!) to save your butt! (One lucky DoS). Besides: All the "burst" attacks already work this way! Why shouldn't a single shot?

I should also note that this update reflects the FACT that Tim and the other devs are listening to our feedback. The vast majority of it are things I have commented on both here and by E-mail. I'm sure I wasn't the only one!

Yeah ! The toxin delay was also suggested by me ! I was both surprised and happy they added it, as it both makes sense and detox a really good investment.

I'm with Gaunt on this one! Opposed evasion improves game balance by removing the bias toward the evading character.

The whole combat system is heavily biased in favor of the attacker, with about two subsystems providing ways to actually survive: evasion and cover. One is a limited resource, the other is situational.

How is it not balanced that these two options are good at what they do?

How is it more balanced if the only subsystem in the game explicitly biased towards the defender gets turned around to favor the attacker instead?

It's a projectile that is moving faster than you can see for the emperor's sake! If you're lined up dead on center mass on your target (4-5 degrees of success) it should take a **** site more than tripping over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle (Bonus points for any who recognize the reference!) to save your butt! (One lucky DoS).

It should also be much harder to hit that **** Eldar who's moving faster than the eye can see compared to that sluggish combat servitor, but all external factors being the same, you roll against the same target number to hit both of them. That's how the abstraction works.

Also, insert standard response about inserting physics into a world of sorcery and plasma rifles.

Besides: All the "burst" attacks already work this way! Why shouldn't a single shot?

Just because two things look similar doesn't mean it's better if the system handles them in the same way, because there may be extra circumstances warranting different approach.

In this case, there is one simple circumstance: generally the stronger the weapon, the worse it's RoF. Generally speaking, rare is a weapon above bolter level that does better than semi auto, truly devastating things like melta and sniper rifles are stuck with single fire, and big melee weapons cannot be used with Lightning Attack.

This creates a conundrum: generally, you want to deal as much damage in as little time as possible. Spraying the enemy with lots of bullets is the intuitive way to achieve this, but with fast-firing weapons often lacking in damage, this stratagem may prove less useful than it seemed if the enemy proves able to just shrug off your bursts. Heavy hitters, on the other hand, are a sure-fire way to significantly reduce the enemy's "health bar" - there's nothing in 40k that can't be damaged significantly by a Multi-Melta or a Lascannon.

So, are heavy hitting weapons the no-brainer choice? Up 'till recently, they weren't, because the way evasion worked, they were the easiest to avoid, which forced you to think a bit if you wanted to put them to good use. And sometimes, it was better to instead pepper the enemy with more of something objectively less lethal - as long as it was lethal to the given enemy at all, quantity was a quality of it's own.

After the errata, the heavy hitters aren't the hardest to land anymore - on the contrary, they become the hardest to evade "thanks" to the +10 bonus inherent in firing single shot now contributing to how difficult it is to avoid the attack, and because unlike with autofire weapons, you only need to retain one DoS above the enemy to deliver the full payload. Due to this, you will never again see a situation where firing that lascannon might not be the best choice - at the very worst, you'll want it manned by a better shot than you have currently, but the same guy won't be better off switching to a storm bolter. Ever.

So, your adherence to what is demonstrably a false analogy creates a poorer metagame, one biased towards stronger builds and better weapon choices rather than any semblance of tactics, thinking or equipment choice.

With this opposed evasion update, you'll see kill teams armed only with long lases or other sniper rifles.

Here's the tactic - half action aim, half action standard attack. If the enemy is at point blank range, he's totaly screwed.

Without opposed evading, evade is way too strong.

It is easy to get agility 50-60 in this game and dodge +30.

If you focus on this, you can get it really fast.

At the expense of being able to do much of anything else. Such a one-note character might unstoppable in combat but would likely be useless in other circumstances.

Frankly, I find your example absurd in the extreme. You're supporting a rule change based on the fact that someone at the extreme end of the curve is overly advantaged... while ignoring that you are looking at the extreme end of the curve. A normal character does not Agility 60 and Dodge +30 and therefore is not overly advantaged.

Without opposed evading, evade is way too strong.

It is easy to get agility 50-60 in this game and dodge +30.

If you focus on this, you can get it really fast.

At the expense of being able to do much of anything else. Such a one-note character might unstoppable in combat but would likely be useless in other circumstances.

Frankly, I find your example absurd in the extreme. You're supporting a rule change based on the fact that someone at the extreme end of the curve is overly advantaged... while ignoring that you are looking at the extreme end of the curve. A normal character does not Agility 60 and Dodge +30 and therefore is not overly advantaged.

Never mind that that Master of the Art of Dodge is likely incapable of hurting you very much (based on xp expenditure). I'm more worried about the balanced characters who can shoot, stab AND dodge with reasonable competence all-round. Not just the olympic gymnasts.

By a ‘make sense’ account a successful Dodge should always reduces the number hits by 1 (after all it IS a successful roll after all, not a failure).

I think this is a "psychological problem" of how these mechanics may be perceived. Opposed Tests always come with the risk of one success negating another - that is their very nature, after all, and you argument about successful rolls applies to the attack just as much as it does to evasion.

Or, in other words, there is an inherent conflict here:

You imply that a successful Dodge test negated by a high attack DoS is a "success that means nothing".

Yet the very same could be said about a successful BS Test negated by a Dodge.

If a successful Dodge should always reduce the number of hits by 1 "because it is a successful roll", then so should a successful attack always cause at least 1 undodgeable hit "because it is a successful roll".

Now, I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of this rule, but the basics do seem sound. And for what it's worth, it doesn't feel too unrealistic that a single shot with seven(!) Degrees of Success is not evaded by a two DoS Dodge.

Psychologically, it would help if the DoS from the attack would be used as a penalty to the Dodge test, because then you would simply not succeed on the roll, so it doesn't "feel weird" - but as this doesn't work as well with resolving multiple hits from a single attack, I can see why the current approach has been chosen. And I don't have much of a problem seeing how this is supposed to make sense.

More DoS in the attack = Less chance of dodging a bullet. In Opposed Tests, "success" is not just determined by you rolling under your characteristic, but by how well you roll under it, because the difficulty of your test is directly affected by how well your opponent rolled. That's just how it works. It may just take some time getting used to see this mechanic in combat situations.

Personally, I'm rather impressed by this rule. It's a neat addition.

I tend to agree here, but not because the Dodge rules seem weird, but because I don't agree with the penalty that Full Auto receives.

I suggested a different approach some weeks ago:

Without opposed evading, evade is way too strong.

It is easy to get agility 50-60 in this game and dodge +30.

If you focus on this, you can get it really fast.

At the expense of being able to do much of anything else. Such a one-note character might unstoppable in combat but would likely be useless in other circumstances.

Frankly, I find your example absurd in the extreme. You're supporting a rule change based on the fact that someone at the extreme end of the curve is overly advantaged... while ignoring that you are looking at the extreme end of the curve. A normal character does not Agility 60 and Dodge +30 and therefore is not overly advantaged.

Not to mention, a master of evasion can be about invincible... against two attacks per turn at most. One dual-wielding character strong enough to force you to dodge his attacks can utterly deplete your invincibility each round, leaving you an easy target for any remaining opponents. At worst, it takes three enemies ganging up on you to start draining your health. That's not very impressive as far as invincibility comes, compared to the experience spent on achieving it.

Two attacks in a round only matter, if BOTH hit. Otherwise you dont need 2 dodges.

Regarding the example with accurate weapons:

If an accurate weapon that has been well aimed shoots at you from point blank, you should be a dead man. No 60%+ matrix dodging here !

Two attacks in a round only matter, if BOTH hit. Otherwise you dont need 2 dodges.

Hence I said, a dual-wielder strong enough to force you to dodge. Which isn't hard at all to accomplish at mid-high exp values.

Regarding the example with accurate weapons:

If an accurate weapon that has been well aimed shoots at you from point blank, you should be a dead man. No 60%+ matrix dodging here !

Dodging firearms is inherently unrealistic. I'm fine with accepting that or demanding it removed altogether, but inserting realism considerations at an arbitrary point is a very weak position to maintain.

Ironically, if you want to consider realism, the kinds of weapons the system tags as Accurate are actually horribly ineffective at point blank range, because the mass and bulk of the firearm make it ill-suited to last-second aim adjustments. Yet, with opposed evasion, a sniper rifle will always deliver full payload when firing an aimed shot at point blank range, while the realistically more solid option of unloading a full auto burst will more often than not have reduced effectiveness.

In other words, you're perfectly fine with the sniper pulling ridiculous action movie trick shots at three meters, but demand realism from the guy defending against them. Hypocrisy much?

After a lot of thinking about a lot I’m going to throw my hat in Morrigan and Kaihlik’s corner and agree with them.

As it is now there is an over emphasis on Agility and the Dodge skill, resulting as Morrigan calls it “the you must be this tall be play” problem.

Another thing to add to Morrigans list is that unlike Semi/Full-Auto attacks which Degrees of Success on both offense and defense matter, Single Shot (Standard Attack) does not. This leads to the flip-side of Opposed-checks argument that its totally unfair that the defender rolled 6 successes and got nothing for the effort.

Lets say that an attacker with an Autogun makes an successful attack with 5 extra degrees of success on full-auto against a defender with 2 extra degrees of success, see how they look under this system with the other RoF show alongside it. NOTE: the bonus DoS for Rate of Fire are due to the difference between Autofires (-10) and their modifier (+0. +10 respectively), so if the character rolled the same for each attack this shows the difference.

Full Auto:

Attacker- Extra Degrees of Successes 5: Hits 6 (1 Base +5 DoS)

Defender- Degrees of Successes 2: Hits Reduced 3

Results- Hits taken 3

Semi Auto:

Attacker- Extra Degrees of Successes 6 (5 Base +1 for Semi-autos modifier): Hits 3 (1 Base +1 per 2 DoS; max +2 hits)

Defender- Degrees of Successes 2: Hits Reduced 1

Results- Hits taken 2

Standard:

Attacker- Extra Degrees of Successes 7 (5 Base +2 for Standards modifier): Hits 1

Defender- Degrees of Successes 2: Hits Reduced 0

Results- Hits taken 1

As can be seen those Degrees of Success on you Dodge migrate the number of hits taken for Semi and Fully automatic attacks but do ABSOLTELY NOTHING for Standard, there was no difference between Dodging and Not-Dodging; it didn’t matter whether the defender had 1 success or 6 six degrees of success (how they would possibly get that many) they would still take a hit at full damage.

You now have a situation were its almost impossible to dodge 1 bullet in Standard in comparison to trying to dodge 6 bullets (that WILL hit you if you don’t dodge) in Full-Auto. That’s just absurd, and by the point of view of the defender extremely unfair.

This means that trying to dodge a single shot from Standard attack is extremely-high risk and meager rewards, its effectively Save or Die with the Attacker having the advantage (possibly an overwhelming one). In the previous rulings a Single-Shot vs. Dodge could be seen as both parties succeeding (Attacker: “I successfully hit” Defender: “I successfully dodged“). In the new rulings its obviously unfairly favored to the Attacker (Attacker: “I successfully hit” Defender: “I successfully dodged…but totally failed to Dodge?”).

Its one thing to say you succeed but so does your opponent…its another thing to say that you succeed, but your success means nothing.

Gaunt your example is a poor one. Saying this system makes sense when you compare it to characters that have dumped at least 2600 experience (at the least) into Agility and the Dodge Skill is a bad example of how this ‘makes sense’. By a ‘make sense’ account a successful Dodge should always reduces the number hits by 1 (after all it IS a successful roll after all, not a failure).

It might be a succesful dodge, but not a good enough one. Same goes with ANY opposed test.

If you test stealth VS awareness, you also compare DoS and dont just say:

"Well, he has 1 DoS at awareness. I guess he heard enough"

And about my "poor example":

- take 45 as starting agility

- chose a character with agility, defence and finesse as aptitudes (Desperado)

- get Dodge +20 for 600 XP (from your 900 starting XP)

- increase Ag by +5 for 100

- keep 200 XP left, already having Dodge 50+20=70 --> after your first mission, buy Ag +5 and dodge +30 (depending on XOP received), to get 85% [ thats 450 XP more than your starting XP]

Learn to understand the powergamer first before you insult me for poor examples.

If you get dodge as a starting skill, you can even start with 75% Dodge right from the start.

Two attacks in a round only matter, if BOTH hit. Otherwise you dont need 2 dodges.

Hence I said, a dual-wielder strong enough to force you to dodge. Which isn't hard at all to accomplish at mid-high exp values.

Regarding the example with accurate weapons:

If an accurate weapon that has been well aimed shoots at you from point blank, you should be a dead man. No 60%+ matrix dodging here !

Dodging firearms is inherently unrealistic. I'm fine with accepting that or demanding it removed altogether, but inserting realism considerations at an arbitrary point is a very weak position to maintain.

Ironically, if you want to consider realism, the kinds of weapons the system tags as Accurate are actually horribly ineffective at point blank range, because the mass and bulk of the firearm make it ill-suited to last-second aim adjustments. Yet, with opposed evasion, a sniper rifle will always deliver full payload when firing an aimed shot at point blank range, while the realistically more solid option of unloading a full auto burst will more often than not have reduced effectiveness.

In other words, you're perfectly fine with the sniper pulling ridiculous action movie trick shots at three meters, but demand realism from the guy defending against them. Hypocrisy much?

I'd prefer to force sniper weapons to be braced tbh. But thats another issue.

If you agree on dodging bullets should be difficult if not impossible, I dont understand your problem.

In melee, parrying is still easier, as you can use balanced or defensive weapons.