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.

I am less interested in the powergamer than everyone else in the party. The power gamer will always have the advantage. I'd rather not disadvantage everyone else to accommodate that one person. You seem overly concerned with this one person dodging everything but as Brother Orpheo has pointed out as a GM you control your game. It should be really easy to deal with the powergamer. Especially with the Inescapable attack talent.

I already have someone who can do this in my current Dark Heresy game. If I really wanted to hit him he would get hit. I don't like opposed tests as I just have generally less control of my encounters doing that (please don't tell me to house rule it, I am well aware I can do that and I will but we are discussing the mechanic here).

I expect that high strength single shot weapons are going to be the main stay now. I really don't see the point of an Autogun any more, hunting rifle is by far the superior option.

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.

You missed my point. I agree that realistically, dodging bullets should be impossible, or at least hellishly hard.

I don't agree with this realism concern being important for the well-being of the game, and I take issue with drawing the line at an arbitrary point as to when realism should become a concern.

I specifically don't agree with opposed dodge as something that's supposed to improve the game, and I take issue with arguing it from the standpoint of realism, when in fact it has nothing to do with it (whether you think bullets should be hard to dodge or not).

You mean, playing against the power player makes you a better GM ? Really ?

As long as he plays by the rules, he did nothing wrong. Why should I punish him for that ?

The rules should try to block the worst possibilities of power gaming, not the GM should be the one focussing on optimizers which play along with RAW.

Thats my opinion.

Of course, in general the GM can decide anything.

I can just say "you die" if I dont like ones face.

But is that fun ? Not really.

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.

You missed my point. I agree that realistically, dodging bullets should be impossible, or at least hellishly hard.

I don't agree with this realism concern being important for the well-being of the game, and I take issue with drawing the line at an arbitrary point as to when realism should become a concern.

I specifically don't agree with opposed dodge as something that's supposed to improve the game, and I take issue with arguing it from the standpoint of realism, when in fact it has nothing to do with it (whether you think bullets should be hard to dodge or not).

I guess you are the kind that never changes its mind anyway.

And so am I.

You have your opinion - I have mine. Such a thing as the "truth" doesnt exist in such issues.

So lets stop wasting our time.

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.

You missed my point. I agree that realistically, dodging bullets should be impossible, or at least hellishly hard.

I don't agree with this realism concern being important for the well-being of the game, and I take issue with drawing the line at an arbitrary point as to when realism should become a concern.

I specifically don't agree with opposed dodge as something that's supposed to improve the game, and I take issue with arguing it from the standpoint of realism, when in fact it has nothing to do with it (whether you think bullets should be hard to dodge or not).

Far be it for me to defend GZ, but I'm not sure he did miss the point. Making sniper rifles Heavy would make it all but impossible to get a braced, aimed shot off at point blank range. I'm not a gun-type, but in my favorite hyper-realistic first person shooter, Red Orchestra, sniper rifles have both a scope AND iron sights, making it possible to use one or the other. It's a lot easier to aim at near-ranges through the iron sights.

Also your posts read like you're interpreting the use of Dodge against ranged attacks as Matrix-style silliness when it should be interpreted as a quick reaction of noticing a guy aiming a gun at you and ducking for cover at the last second.

...and the guy who had 6 DoS at his standard attack anticipated your movements too good to dodge.

I guess you are the kind that never changes its mind anyway.

And so am I.

You have your opinion - I have mine. Such a thing as the "truth" doesnt exist in such issues.

So lets stop wasting our time.

I hope this doesn't come across as needlessly offensive, but I never really cared about changing your mind because you're not responsible for the final state of the game I like. I'm arguing with you because you make points that I believe are to the detriment of the game I'd like to play, and I hope by rebutting them I'll be able to at least make the people responsible reconsider their decisions.

Far be it for me to defend GZ, but I'm not sure he did miss the point. Making sniper rifles Heavy would make it all but impossible to get a braced, aimed shot off at point blank range. I'm not a gun-type, but in my favorite hyper-realistic first person shooter, Red Orchestra, sniper rifles have both a scope AND iron sights, making it possible to use one or the other. It's a lot easier to aim at near-ranges through the iron sights.

See, that's exactly the point you both missed - I don't want to argue realism at all. I merely pointed out the weirdness of suddenly arguing one very specific part of the system from realism's standpoint, and the weakness of rebutting that point by proposing further realism-enhancing house rules.

What I care about is the state of the metagame, and changing evasion to opposed does really bad things to it.

Also your posts read like you're interpreting the use of Dodge against ranged attacks as Matrix-style silliness when it should be interpreted as a quick reaction of noticing a guy aiming a gun at you and ducking for cover at the last second.

I've seen both approaches in game, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Again, all I care about is how making evasion opposed devalues it as a tactical option while offering nothing to make up for the demerit, and how it runs roughshod over whatever semblance of balance weapon choices offered under the previous paradigm.

You say you think it has an impact on the metagame that is bad.

I say it has an impact that is good.

And furthermore - people like it, when their good rolls with high DoS do have a meaning.

Its not like:

"GM ! I rolled 7 DoS with my attack !!! What happens ?!?!" - "Oh well...mh...he dodged with a 37 against a 38...so I guess...you missed."

And thats a really really good thing.

You mean, playing against the power player makes you a better GM ? Really ?

As long as he plays by the rules, he did nothing wrong. Why should I punish him for that ?

The rules should try to block the worst possibilities of power gaming, not the GM should be the one focussing on optimizers which play along with RAW.

Thats my opinion.

Of course, in general the GM can decide anything.

I can just say "you die" if I dont like ones face.

But is that fun ? Not really.

I never said that but if you want to willfully misinterpret then I can't stop you. I don't play against the power gamer its pretty unnecessary, I rarely even write combat encounters into my scenarios I just let them evolve from the story. My point is that this is a big nerf to regular players to nerf a problem with power gamers that isn't that big of a problem. The thing about a character being played by a power gamer is that it will become apparent IC that they are the most powerful combatant and thus you can justifiably scale combat towards that person and away from others, they naturally become the magnets for some of the most powerful enemies and thus their dodges become less of a factor as they are having to avoid more and bigger hits. This makes a high dodge not a massive issue in game. I don't like it that much but the alternative is to make dodging almost impossible for people who aren't putting their xp into dodge (say people who don't have the right aptitudes). As it is now they can get away with some dodge and judicious use of cover/staying out of the way but with opposed dodges one good hit at short range from an average opponent and they wont even be making a dodge roll.

In this new system the power gamer is just going to stack modifiers and build for initiative making sure he kills any difficult enemies before they get him and he is still going to have the best dodge chance of anyone. You have just shifted the area being abused from defense to attack except you haven't hit the power gamer that hard compared to everyone else as his dodge is in the 70s and others are in the 30s and 40s. The power gamer is then going to save Fate Points to give him rerolls on his dodge rolls that will usually stay around 30-40 which others wont be able to do because their dodge will drop down to 00s-10s. I am predicting this change is going to turn the game into a slaughter fest for anyone who isn't a power gamer who happens to be out in the open for any reason. You may like that but tbh I am less interested in killing my players that quickly.

You have yet to convince me that this change is one that is going to hurt power gaming more than it will regular gamers.

On the topic of preference one of the reasons I would much prefer the talent system to the opposed system is that adding in a talent is actually more awkward than houseruling to remove that talent and making a check opposed. Opposed checks are already part of the game whereas you would have to write and add a talent.

You say you think it has an impact on the metagame that is bad.

I say it has an impact that is good.

You can see my arguments for how exactly it affects the metagame and what it removes from it in the previous page.

What arguments do you have to support your stance, again?

And furthermore - people like it, when their good rolls with high DoS do have a meaning.

Its not like:

"GM ! I rolled 7 DoS with my attack !!! What happens ?!?!" - "Oh well...mh...he dodged with a 37 against a 38...so I guess...you missed."

And thats a really really good thing.

You know what else people like? Not getting insta-gibbed with no possibility to avoid such gruesome fate.

For every story of someone in my group getting pissed at his high powered shot getting dodged, I have at least one story of someone barely making the dodge roll against a really nasty attack.

The difference is, frustration from having your attack dodged can be brought into play and forged into a memorable scene, while the frustration of not being able to avoid death cannot be played out, because your avatar is dead at this point.

And whats the difference between beeing insta-gibbed by a standard attack and being insta-gibbed by an automatic shot that has 7 DoS (like it ever was) ? Nothing at all ! The automatic shot is possibly even more lethal.

So I could just try to understand your point if you wanted dodge in general to be binary (also against auto-fire).

What now happened just puts standard single-shots on the same fair level as auto-fire. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am saying it is good for the meta-game as it increases the number of hits-per-turn on both sides (PC and NPC). It makes combat faster and more lethal. Thats both thrilling and saving time for other kinds of encounters (social ones, investigations...)

And whats the difference between beeing insta-gibbed by a standard attack and being insta-gibbed by an automatic shot that has 7 DoS (like it ever was) ? Nothing at all ! The automatic shot is possibly even more lethal.

So I could just try to understand your point if you wanted dodge in general to be binary (also against auto-fire).

I've seen characters survive automated bolter fire. Nobody survives a lascannon shot to the face, or a blast from the Multi-Melta.

What now happened just puts standard single-shots on the same fair level as auto-fire. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, what happened is, now you're an idiot for not using the heaviest hitting single-shot weapon you can get your hands on, as it maximizes both your chance to hit without being evaded and your chance to do significant damage to the enemy. What happened is, Lascannon is objectively the best weapon in the game. What happened is, entire layers of tactics get dismissed in favor of just hitting stronger.

Also, what's inherently unfair in the simple symmetry of "it takes one DoS to evade one hit"?

I am saying it is good for the meta-game as it increases the number of hits-per-turn on both sides (PC and NPC). It makes combat faster and more lethal. Thats both thrilling and saving time for other kinds of encounters (social ones, investigations...)

The extra time spent on calculating and comparing DoS on both attack and defence each time it comes up will easily negate any speeding up the combat might have gained.

Also, the system was lethal enough as it was. This change makes the system more random and less tactical, which is the exact opposite of "thrilling" if you ask me.

No, what happened is, now you're an idiot for not using the heaviest hitting single-shot weapon you can get your hands on, as it maximizes both your chance to hit without being evaded and your chance to do significant damage to the enemy. What happened is, Lascannon is objectively the best weapon in the game.

Welcome in Makes Sense World. We have cheap hamburgers.

What happened is, entire layers of tactics get dismissed in favor of just hitting stronger.

You mean the "tactics" of running headlong towards the enemy because YOLO!Dodge? Well, all I can say is good riddance!

I have also seen people survive auto-bolter fire.

I have also seen many many people die in automatic bolter fire.

And I have seen people survive a lascannon shot.

Your example is of no real relevance here...

I also think that singular Dodge rather gave the feeling of being invincible than really adding to a real 40k feeling.

In my opinion, Fate Points are for heroic deeds and real second chances. Not dodge.

Dodge is a very usefull skill that can save you from hits from time to time - not something preventing 70%+ of all damage from midgame onwards.

You realise not every player has a 70% dodge chance. Most people do not take it to the extreme and they are the ones that are getting the raw deal here.

And most NPCs will have particularly low hit chances, so it tends to balance out.

If my player Katie was about to take a multimelta to the face and passed her dodge roll, but didn't quite pass it hard enough, I'd probably just say she dodged it.

Give a basic bs 35 guy a hunting rifle and he can half aim for 75 at short range. Hardly an unlikely enemy or a low hit chance. Even without accurate he would still hit on a 65 or less. It's too easy to get +s to hit compared to bonus to dodge.

Give a basic bs 35 guy a hunting rifle and he can half aim for 75 at short range. Hardly an unlikely enemy or a low hit chance. Even without accurate he would still hit on a 65 or less. It's too easy to get +s to hit compared to bonus to dodge.

Uhm... Time to take cover instead of running around in the open I guess?

Cover is situational. It can't be taken advantage of in every situation. Are you saying any time a player can't make use of cover they should be taken out the fight?

I was countering the assertion that enemies will have a low hit chance. Encounter design can't really play a part because you can end up in any number of situations.

Obviously you can argue that it's more realistic to get cut down if you are caught in the open but sometimes the situation forces it on the players and it's pretty naff if they all get killed every time it happens.

Cover is situational. It can't be taken advantage of in every situation. Are you saying any time a player can't make use of cover they should be taken out the fight?

Well, if you are caught in the middle of a huge, completely flat desert then maybe the problem is with the encounter and not the rules .

Cover is essential. You should think VERY WELL about starting a firefight in the open.

Especially starting a firefight where your enemy is in short range from you with an accurate weapon.

Thats suicide. And yes - it should be ! And you still do have the chance to dodge - you just need to have as many DoS as he had.

Furthermore, I dont think that Dodge 70 is unrealistic in midgame.

A starting character on average has 36 I usually play +25 games).

The first 2 increases are rather cheap, so they surely will be taken until midgame, maybe even 3, but lets just say 2 in this example --> 36+10=46 on average.

Dodge will be something everybody buys, and here also Dodge+10 or dodge +20 is not unrealistic in midgame. Lets say +15 to use an average. --> 46+15 = 61

And thats for an average character without a special focus on dodge.

If you use a balanced or defensive weapon with parry, you get +10/+15 and have your 70+ quite easily.

Cover is situational. It can't be taken advantage of in every situation. Are you saying any time a player can't make use of cover they should be taken out the fight?

Well, if you are caught in the middle of a huge, completely flat desert then maybe the problem is with the encounter and not the rules .

I could say the same about the GM who can't challenge a character with 70% dodge chance.

By challenging this one guy, the whole group suffers.

You either be directly unfair and only attack the 70% dodge man, or you attack everybody equally with the potent attacker and kill the other players first.

Cover is situational. It can't be taken advantage of in every situation. Are you saying any time a player can't make use of cover they should be taken out the fight?

Well, if you are caught in the middle of a huge, completely flat desert then maybe the problem is with the encounter and not the rules .

I could say the same about the GM who can't challenge a character with 70% dodge chance.

Yeah, but one is a beneficial change (everyone will be happy if you throw some cover into their general direction) while the other is a punitive change (see GZ's post above). Should I tell you which one of these is going to kill the fun of the players (I help: not the beneficial one)?

There is only one problem with the opposed Dodge roll: in the 1.0 Beta dodge was better because you could make multiple dodge attempts in the same round thankfully to the AP system. The opposed Dodge was supposed to counterbalance this by making dodging harder. In the 2.0 Beta you have only one dodge attempt (as you have Reaction) so we the counterbalance is now a straight-out nerf. I'm actually a little bit conflicted if this is good news or bad.