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.

Aren't you the one saying everyone will have 70% dodge chance by early mid-game?

Also, Feint is a thing, and it doesn't take a murder-machine to Feint successfully, especially against a character who's good at dodging but not so good at swordplay (as most ranged assassin-types tend to be).

And I've rarely seen fights where the group wasn't outnumbered about three to one, so ganging up comes naturally. And there's nothing unfair with intelligent enemies ganging up on the guy they can't hit individually.

Thats where defensive stance comes into play and is a good option now besides the guarded action.

Finally we will actually see these actions be used, especially in situations, where no cover exists or is too far away.

Add Step Aside, which can be bought much earlier than in DH1 as there are no rank trees anymore, and you still can play a character thats rather strong in defense.

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.

Aren't you the one saying everyone will have 70% dodge chance by early mid-game?

Also, Feint is a thing, and it doesn't take a murder-machine to Feint successfully, especially against a character who's good at dodging but not so good at swordplay (as most ranged assassin-types tend to be).

And I've rarely seen fights where the group wasn't outnumbered about three to one, so ganging up comes naturally. And there's nothing unfair with intelligent enemies ganging up on the guy they can't hit individually.

There is no such thing as feint for ranged attacks, which still is an interesting melee option against dodge-heavy-weak-WS characters. I would suggest to give the feinting character a +10 on his WS-test though.

You should actively avoid to get into fights where people gang up to you 3:1 if they are seriously armed. Of course thats dangerous ! And it should be !

This is not the matrix, and the acolytes are no super heroes.

They are chosen by fate, shown by the fate points they have, but everyones luck fails some day, when he risks too much.

A Dive for Cover action, similar to the one introduced in the Inquisitor's Handbook, would go along way toward making Opposed Roles more palatable for me.
Basically, if you find yourself out in the open and about to eat a faceful of lascannon, you can make a Dodge test negate any hits and you end up Prone behind the nearest cover. It might make sense to change the rules so that you forgo any further actions for the turn as well, just to keep people from diving all over the place.

@MB:

First: if you use too many words to show what you mean, nobody will read through it (including me)

Second: as dodge is increase-able (+10, +20, +30), this makes up for the combat modifiers of standard attacks + the chance of aiming (that you also have with auto-shots by the way)

Third: using examples should just show what is easily possible with not much effort. Of course you CAN pay more (thats valid for most things in life in general ).

Fourth: don't waste one of your fate points by messing with Gaunt.

Second: as dodge is increase-able (+10, +20, +30), this makes up for the combat modifiers of standard attacks + the chance of aiming

So, base stat being the same, I need maximum investment in skill just to have a chance of generating the same number of DoS as the guy firing an Accurate weapon with a half action Aim?

How does my dodge stay relevant when he attaches the red dot sight and makes a full action Aim for another +20 modifier? Don't say "by increasing his base Agility" because he has every incentive to do the same to his Ballistic Skill. And even if he doesn't, I now have to buy four out of five possible stat advancements to keep even.

How does my dodge stay relevant when he buys the Inescapable Attack Talent to slap me with a -15 penalty on my roll without any investment (average PB of 3)?

And remember, we're just talking about evenly matching the target number between the attacker and the defender, which still leaves the attacker at an advantage - with the same potential to generate DoS, he just needs to roll one DoS more than the defender to completely negate the attempted defense.

(that you also have with auto-shots by the way)

A fully aimed Full Auto Burst matches the accuracy of an unaimed single shot.

With a single shot, the defender has to match or exceed your DoS to have any effect on your successful attack roll. Fail that and you get full damage from the attack.

With a full auto burst, unless the attacker rolls well over his RoF in DoS, each defending DoS mitigates one hit, reducing damage by an order of magnitude.

As it is now, we may as well get rid of evasion altogether, as it's an ineffective option that nevertheless manages to arbitrarily and unduly weaken entire categories of weapons.

I've done the math too.

Making Evasion Tests opposed will screw with the whole system. It's a bad idea unless you change around all the modifiers.

I think people are just attracted to it intuitively with the gut feeling that it "makes sense," but haven't really considered what would happen if it were implemented.

(I actually don't think it is realistic, but that's another story.)

If you full aim, and he sees you, he gets +30 on dodge (see dodge skill examples) - if he doesnt see you, he doesnt get to dodge at all anyway.

The counter to a regular aim is guarded action, where you get +10 on evading. Both costs a half action.

I already said, that I would be for taking Inescapable attack out.

It was a bridge when opposed evading didnt exist yet - now this bridge isnt needed anymore and is rather contra-productive indeed.

Modifiers by special equipment (like the laser dot) might be neutralized by other equipment like special defensive energy fields that distort vision, in the future.

I've done the math too.

Making Evasion Tests opposed will screw with the whole system. It's a bad idea unless you change around all the modifiers.

I think people are just attracted to it intuitively with the gut feeling that it "makes sense," but haven't really considered what would happen if it were implemented.

(I actually don't think it is realistic, but that's another story.)

All this panic-making is ridiculous.

"screw with the whole system" ? Really ? Ridiculous.

Evading is now no guarantee for safety - thats all.

A medium guy has BS 35, +10 for standard attack, makes 45%. Your average guy does neither have accurate, nor always aims, nor always uses laser dots, nor has inescapable attack.

So, if he hits at 45%, at an average roll, he doesnt hit at all.

The chance is about 1/3 that he has more than 1 DoS and the opposed evading really starts to get meaningful.

And there is also the chance that your dodging roll gets more than 1 DoS.

I dont have the wish to calculate it in detail, but I'd estimate, that the effect against the average enemy would be around 10-15%. Not really game breaking - just an important balancer to make standard attacks go in line with auto fire.

Really guys, calm down. The change in DoS/DoF calculation is a far bigger problem than this one.

I dont have the wish to calculate it in detail,

That's the problem.

Calculation in detail will show that it changes things considerably.

GZ, you should probably read what he wrote because it explains in detail the effects of this change on the system. What he wrote was an analysis of the system and if his numbers are right it doesn't speak well of the game.

I do have to wonder whether FFG noticed this when writing the original beta and that the action points mechanic helped mitigate the issue.

It doesn't have to do with bonusses or penalties to the base chance. It has to do with the fact that, if this is an Opposed Test, each DoS by the attacker is an effective -10 penalty to the Evasion Test in itself.

We have two guys, both with WS 40. The first guy makes a Standard Attack; the second guy has Parry trained and a Balanced weapon, so their chances of success are a nice 50% each..

With the system as it stands, the first guy hits half the time and the second guy will parry half the time = the first guy has a 25% chance to hit.

With an opposed test, on the other hand, the second guy, since he has to overcome the attacker's DoS, 10% of the time will have a 50% chance to evade, 10% of the time a 40%, 10% of the time a 30%, 10% of the time a 20%, and 10% of the time a 10%. Making his net chance to evade 30% rather than 50%.

I dont have the wish to calculate it in detail,

That's the problem.

Calculation in detail will show that it changes things considerably.

Behold the math:

Two characters. One has Swift Attack and Two-Weapon Wielder. He has WS40. He attacks using Swift Attack. His chance of getting 4 hits is 10%

Special modifers wont help in a system with lots of variables. You will find an exmple for proving anything.

If you take a BS35 VS Ag35 guy who has dodge+0, you get at a standard attack 45 VS 35

Thats with opposed:

no of DoS % to happen chance to not dodge opposed chance to hit

1DoS 0,1 0,65 0,065

2DoS 0,1 0,75 0,075

3DoS 0,1 0,85 0,085

4DoS 0,1 0,95 0,095

5DoS 0,05 1 0,05 0,37

Without opposed it is 0,45*0,65=29%

--> 8% difference --> not really game breaking

Remark: this is calculated with the old DoS calculation, not the new (as the new one is horrible and should be skipped)

This is a rather rough calculation, made in 1 min, so dont expect full accuracy.

And yes, the attacker could aim. But you could go guarded action.

He could have accurate or laser dots, you could level up dodge.

He could level up BS, you could level up Ag.

He could come closer, you can use cover.

So whats the big deal.

Yes, Inescapable attack has to go. But otherwise, everything is fine.

Edit: great - this forum kills tables...

It doesn't have to do with bonusses or penalties to the base chance. It has to do with the fact that, if this is an Opposed Test, each DoS by the attacker is an effective -10 penalty to the Evasion Test in itself.

We have two guys, both with WS 40. The first guy makes a Standard Attack; the second guy has Parry trained and a Balanced weapon, so their chances of success are a nice 50% each..

With the system as it stands, the first guy hits half the time and the second guy will parry half the time = the first guy has a 25% chance to hit.

With an opposed test, on the other hand, the second guy, since he has to overcome the attacker's DoS, 10% of the time will have a 50% chance to evade, 10% of the time a 40%, 10% of the time a 30%, 10% of the time a 20%, and 10% of the time a 10%. Making his net chance to evade 30% rather than 50%.

Second example (yours) - with opposed:

no of DoS % to happen chance to dodge opposed chance to hit

1DoS 0,1 0,5 0,05

2DoS 0,1 0,6 0,06

3DoS 0,1 0,7 0,07

4DoS 0,1 0,8 0,08

5DoS 0,1 0,9 0,09

--> 0,35

Binary is 25%, so a difference of 10%, still not game breaking, just fair.

You need to keep in mind that your enemy will not hit at all in 50% of the cases, which means 0 DoS and you won't need a dodge at all.

I am talking about general game-effectiveness, not about the "internal dodge effectiveness-if-a-dodge-takes-place-at-all".

It doesn't have to do with bonusses or penalties to the base chance. It has to do with the fact that, if this is an Opposed Test, each DoS by the attacker is an effective -10 penalty to the Evasion Test in itself.

We have two guys, both with WS 40. The first guy makes a Standard Attack; the second guy has Parry trained and a Balanced weapon, so their chances of success are a nice 50% each..

With the system as it stands, the first guy hits half the time and the second guy will parry half the time = the first guy has a 25% chance to hit.

With an opposed test, on the other hand, the second guy, since he has to overcome the attacker's DoS, 10% of the time will have a 50% chance to evade, 10% of the time a 40%, 10% of the time a 30%, 10% of the time a 20%, and 10% of the time a 10%. Making his net chance to evade 30% rather than 50%.

Second example (yours) - with opposed:

no of DoS % to happen chance to dodge opposed chance to hit 1DoS 0,1 0,5 0,05 2DoS 0,1 0,6 0,06 3DoS 0,1 0,7 0,07 4DoS 0,1 0,8 0,08 5DoS 0,1 0,9 0,09 0,35

Binary is 25%, so a difference of 10%, still not game breaking, just fair.

You need to keep in mind that your enemy will not hit at all in 50% of the cases, which means 0 DoS and you won't need a dodge at all.

I am talking about general game-effectiveness, not about the "internal dodge effectiveness-if-a-dodge-takes-place-at-all".

It's not game-breaking, it's just pointless.

The only effect of this change would be, as was pointed out before, to increase the number of hits. What for? That is what you want to look at -- the in-game effect.

To get rid of that 10%, BTW, the defender would I believe have to get Parry +20. His chance to evade is literally only slightly more than half what it is without an opposed test.

The in game effect is:

Make standard attacks (and called shots) more valid compared to auto-shots

It gives standard attacks a fair treatment (as I said - I know a lot of people who hate it that their 6 DoS attacks are just as spectacular as a 1 DoS attack) --> a well placed shot gets the attention it deserves, not only at autofire, but also at regular single shots.

The total effect is not game breaking but gives players a better feeling and quality shots a better light to shine (also for quality dodges by the way, as suddenly the DoS5 Dodge is something useful and spectacular).

It finally gets rid of the question "Why did he just simply dodge away when I had 7 DoS and he had only 1 DoS ??"

Its an feeling to be treated unfair - and, for this issue letting all math aside - subjective feelings can make a difference too for measurement of fun.

It is also more exciting for the dodging character, like "omg - he scored 4 DoS on his attack on me, this guy is really serious...will I be able to dodge THIS ???"

Furthermore, I think combat will be a little faster.

Yes, you need to calculate DoS, but most players I know calculate that automatically anyway, as in most tests it counts (its a habbit already).

The in game effect is:

Make standard attacks (and called shots) more valid compared to auto-shots

Weapons with low rate of fire already tend to do higher damage. That's what makes them more valid.

BTW this change would also make Accurate weapons basically undodgeable half the time, since they tend to have at least a bonus of +40 (half action aim + accurate + standard attack + short range usually). a BS40 guy shooting his accurate weapon would make an attack that cannot be dodged, at all, almost half the time by somebody with a Dodge of 50%.

It also makes it not only easier to hit with a standard attack, but harder for the attack to be evaded. Poor semi-auto.

So it comes down to you not liking it because it feels wrong and us not liking it because of math and reasoning. Your group might like getting stomped in by basic NPCs with basic weapons but it doesn't mean everyone does. The prerequisite to dodge should not be good Ag and dodge +20. It's not more exciting to be ohh he rolled 10, with a krak grenade well I just lost a fate point guys cause my dodge is only 42. It puts players at the mercy of luck to a rediculous degree that to my group certainly it will have the exact opposite effect that you say it will have. Forget putting dangerous NPCs in the game either, we have been talking about guys you could fight at the start of the game, not enemies that I might actually want to throw up against the players at mid game.

It doesn't put standard attacks on par because weapons that are single shot weapons are either more powerful than weapons designed for semi and full or representing more primitive versions that are meant to be worse. This means that they will do all of their damage with one hit which considering their better to hit chance, is going to put them on a pedistal compared to other weapons.

As for the feeling of "fairness":

A guy manning the lascannon shoots me, gets 6 DoS. A lascannon shot does 42,5 damage on average with a Pen of 10, which is enough to kill pretty much any DH character and ignoring all but the heaviest cover.

With non-opposed dodge, the guy can feel being treated unfairly when I barely make my dodge roll and avoid the whole thing.

With opposed dodge, I am feeling treated quite unfairly when my chances to avoid that shot go down the crapper.

BUT!

With non-opposed roll, the guy getting an unfair treatment loses a shot and a turn, whereas...

...with opposed roll, the guy being treated unfairly loses a Fate Point at best, chance to keep playing the same character at worst.

I don't think "fairness" really demands that I give up my character sheet just so your character doesn't get mildly inconvenienced after a completely random event.

The in game effect is:

Make standard attacks (and called shots) more valid compared to auto-shots

Weapons with low rate of fire already tend to do higher damage. That's what makes them more valid.

BTW this change would also make Accurate weapons basically undodgeable half the time, since they tend to have at least a bonus of +40 (half action aim + accurate + standard attack + short range usually). a BS40 guy shooting his accurate weapon would make an attack that cannot be dodged, at all, almost half the time by somebody with a Dodge of 50%.

It also makes it not only easier to hit with a standard attack, but harder for the attack to be evaded. Poor semi-auto.

So, it is unrealistic to be more easily hit with an accurate weapon on short range from a guy who takes his time to aim ?

I think it exactly is as it should be (the guy in your example has even "only" 75%, not much for a skilled shooter with a good weapon in such a situation).

Keeping in mind that the number of accurate weapons is rather low (mainly sniper weapons), I would like not to always go for this specific kind of weapon in the examples.

As I said. You can always find examples that prove ones theory. Why not take inaccurate weapons as the example ? You cannot aim with them at all.

I don't think "fairness" really demands that I give up my character sheet just so your character doesn't get mildly inconvenienced after a completely random event.

Fairness doesn't demand it but Darwin's law does . If you feel cool enough to run into a dedicated anti-tank weapon without some smoke grenades or other meaningful preparations then maybe you deserve to die...

So it comes down to you not liking it because it feels wrong and us not liking it because of math and reasoning. Your group might like getting stomped in by basic NPCs with basic weapons but it doesn't mean everyone does. The prerequisite to dodge should not be good Ag and dodge +20. It's not more exciting to be ohh he rolled 10, with a krak grenade well I just lost a fate point guys cause my dodge is only 42. It puts players at the mercy of luck to a rediculous degree that to my group certainly it will have the exact opposite effect that you say it will have. Forget putting dangerous NPCs in the game either, we have been talking about guys you could fight at the start of the game, not enemies that I might actually want to throw up against the players at mid game.

It doesn't put standard attacks on par because weapons that are single shot weapons are either more powerful than weapons designed for semi and full or representing more primitive versions that are meant to be worse. This means that they will do all of their damage with one hit which considering their better to hit chance, is going to put them on a pedistal compared to other weapons.

I brought you also math to show you that it makes no big difference.

Your "math" based on extreme examples is ridiculous.

You use "math" as a poor try to sell your examples.

Try to use your math on a guy with BS20 who shoots at extreme range with an inaccurate weapon while blinded.

How big is the mathematical impact in this situation ?

So stop acting like pseudo-scientists and come back to ground level.

So, it is unrealistic to be more easily hit with an accurate weapon on short range from a guy who takes his time to aim ?

You already are more easily hit with an accurate weapon...

That's why when he did the examples he didn't use accurate weapons. That was an addendum to his post to show what also happens when you use accurate weapons. As far as inaccurate weapons go, yes they will be far less dangerous, I mean I've never once used them as a GM and couldn't name one but whatever because it's irrelevant. What you just said is inaccurate weapons are ineffective but it doesn't change the fact that there is times the players will come up against accurate weapons which will remain as deadly regardless of how naff inaccurate weapons are.