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

10% is a very big difference, that's the difference between Ag30 and Ag40, more than half the spread of standard starting characteristics.

Anyway, the point is: the guy with Dodge 50% (not something to sneeze at) only has a 30% chance to evade a guy with BS40 (note: lower than your Dodge!). I would feel pretty gipped if I were Mr. Dodgy seeing more chance to dodge almost halved.

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.

A guy who scores 6 DoS at his lascannon shot an you should kill you outright. He took his time, anticipated your movement like a pro and placed his shot exactly.

And on the other side, a heavy bolter with 4 DoS scores 4 hits in full auto.

Why does he deserve 3 hits in the same situation, where you wouldnt give the perfect lascanon shot its hit ?

On average the heavy bolter scores 3* 13,5 damage with 5 Pen and tearing (usually this could mean around 3*12=36 wounds, not really much less than your lascannon example - and a lascannon is is probably the rarer and more scary weapon).

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...

If you dodge binary, you are not much more easily hit.

Your chance to hit BEFORE dodge improves by 5%, the chance if the character tried to dodge is not touched with binary dodging.

So this factor is very very low, not to say almost insignificant.

All-Out Attack also becomes nigh-undodgeable.

In fact! You can make a nigh-undodgeable All-Out Attack with a WS of 20.

OMG Furious Assault.

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...

If you dodge binary, you are not much more easily hit.

Your chance to hit BEFORE dodge improves by 5%, the chance if the character tried to dodge is not touched with binary dodging.

So this factor is very very low, not to say almost insignificant.

If you think these differences are so insignificant, why are so pushing for them so hard? If the 10% difference doesn't matter -- then, why do you want it there?

Anyway -- making this an Opposed Test will NOT just give Accurate weapons a slight accuracy boost. They will make them literally unevadable quite frequently.

All-Out Attack also becomes nigh-undodgeable.

In fact! You can make a nigh-undodgeable All-Out Attack with a WS of 20.

OMG Furious Assault.

As you cannot aim with All-Out attacks, I dont really get your point.

All-Out: +30

Standard + Aim: +20

It is +10 better, but you lose your evading.

But - OMG - defending characters with a shield get +15 on their parrying (defensive!) ! Thats nearly un-hitable !

This has been really interesting and a good example of what happens when you tinker with mechanics in isolation. I really wish these math posts had been written before the update.

However, I can't help but feel this whole thing is illustrative of a flaw in the base system. Under non-opposed rolls, it feels sh*tty for a mook to dodge your expertly placed blow by barely passing his dodge roll, but under the new opposed roll system the balance has been heavily shifted toward the attacker and the chances of hitting and dodging are obfuscated behind the DoS system.

Both methods have their pros and cons, but this whole thing speaks of an underlying issue with the d100 system and makes me wish even more so that DH2 was a new game instead of a change of OW.

If you dodge binary, you are not much more easily hit.

5% is half a degree of

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...

If you dodge binary, you are not much more easily hit.

Your chance to hit BEFORE dodge improves by 5%, the chance if the character tried to dodge is not touched with binary dodging.

So this factor is very very low, not to say almost insignificant.

If you think these differences are so insignificant, why are so pushing for them so hard? If the 10% difference doesn't matter -- then, why do you want it there?

Anyway -- making this an Opposed Test will NOT just give Accurate weapons a slight accuracy boost. They will make them literally unevadable quite frequently.

I want that boost because in my opinion standard attacks are a rather uninteresting option currently, and this improves it a bit.

Furthermore its the fairness that I want (same opposed treatment as other attack types).

Furthermore its the realism I want (a 6DoS hit should be better in some way than a 1 DoS hit).

And it helps to put dodge into a proper place - not being an evasion-guarantee, but a chance (not more not less) to get away.

I really dont see half a degree of success as an unevadeable boost. Really.not.at.all.

And as the DOS are subtracted, a succesful dodge, while not avoiding the hit, still helps to neutralize the potential bonus damage from accurate.

But it IS an unevadable boost.

BS 40 + 10 (half-action aim) + 10 (accurate) + 10 (standard attack) + 10 (short range) = 80% chance to hit.

This will score 5+ DoS 40% of the time. This means that 40% of the time someone with a Dodge of 40% will have no chance to avoid it.

Similarly, the heavy bolter and lascannon are not in the same situation, because a heavy bolter with 4 DoS can be Dodged by someone with a Dodge of 40. A lascannot with 6 DoS CANNOT BE DODGED BY SOMEONE WITH A DODGE OF 40, at all.

A lascannot with 6 DoS CANNOT BE DODGED BY SOMEONE WITH A DODGE OF 40, at all.

So? I can't see the problem here... This is the case with every Opposed Tests. If I get 6 DoS on my Stealth test then ain't no Awareness 40 sentry will spot me.

Again: whats wrong with that ?

Do you really expect to dodge a perfect shot on short range with an accurate weapon ?

Dont run around in the open when such a weapon is searching for you.

If a sniper gets to aim at you close enough, you have no chance to dodge if he makes a perfect shot (5+ DoS).

Its a matter of what feeling you want to have.

If you want to be the super-hero who avoids the sniper bullet in bullet-time-mode, run up to him and kick his ass, binary dodging is better for you.

I want a more grimdark feeling, a more realistic one in this particular case.

It can be discussed, if accurate weapons should need to be braced to get their full benefits, but my opinion regarding opposed evasion is unchanged.

Btw - I play that way since a year, and for my group it played out better than binary.

A lascannot with 6 DoS CANNOT BE DODGED BY SOMEONE WITH A DODGE OF 40, at all.

So? I can't see the problem here... This is the case with every Opposed Tests. If I get 6 DoS on my Stealth test then ain't no Awareness 40 sentry will spot me.

In which case the sentry might not dodge at all and you get a bonus to kill him from behind !

GZ I think the issue is that under the new rules if an attacker is skilled enough (defined as moderately skilled or with equipment to make up for only being proficient) it becomes literally impossible to dodge attacks. Literally impossible is not something I like in my games.

I understand your point.

But the cases that were brought, adressed quite specific situations:

> accurate weapons

> short range
> time to aim

> no cover

> defender has no high dodge

My opinion is, that under such circumstances, the character should not be able to dodge such a hit, if it scores enough DoS.

If a regular hit might be dodged at 40%, I am fully ok, that a very well placed hit might only be dodged by 10-20% and a perfect hit might not be dodged at all.

I think its more a question of game philosophy and taste, than of math itself.

My recommendation would be to take Inescapeable attack out and force accurate weapons to brace for their full beneift, but other than that I am fully ok with the changes that opposed evasion brings.

GZ I think the issue is that under the new rules if an attacker is skilled enough (defined as moderately skilled or with equipment to make up for only being proficient) it becomes literally impossible to dodge attacks.

But it wouldn't be always impossible, only if the attacker rolled low enough to generate more DoS the defender could possibly get.

As I already posted elsewhere,

This is a terrible change, because everything is offensively designed, skills, talents, traits, you get dodge and parry to offset all them pages and pages and pages and pages of nasty ability's and weapons.

All you needed to do to make accurate weapons harder to dodge and make the sniper more equal mid to late game with multi attack characters was simply this :

Accurate basic weapons gain 1d10 bonus damage and -10 dodge per 2 degrees of success, damage is capped at bonus 2d10

thats it, so at best a super sniper who has got 8 DOS gives his Opponent a -40 to dodge the attack.

And leave dodging the way it was, because opposed is terrible.

Also called shots : -20 to dodge.

That ties in with the maximum negative value of -60 to a skill test.

Simple changes that do not break the system.

a good sniper isnt seen at all before he places his shot anyway --> no dodge allowed.

To prevent running around and snipering on the run, force them to brace, thats all it needs.

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.

A guy who scores 6 DoS at his lascannon shot an you should kill you outright. He took his time, anticipated your movement like a pro and placed his shot exactly.

No, he didn't. He rolled a dice and lucked into a result that yielded him 6 DoS.

The minimum necessary to get this result is a guy with BS 31 (a completely average shot, little below your usual IG Joe) doing a Half Action Aim, benefiting from short range (150m or less for a lascannon - piece of cake) and rolling 01. Granted, this is literally a one in a hundred occurrence, but it's still completely random luck on the shooter's luck, and why should his luck matter more than mine?

And on the other side, a heavy bolter with 4 DoS scores 4 hits in full auto.

Why does he deserve 3 hits in the same situation, where you wouldnt give the perfect lascanon shot its hit ?

On average the heavy bolter scores 3* 13,5 damage with 5 Pen and tearing (usually this could mean around 3*12=36 wounds, not really much less than your lascannon example - and a lascannon is is probably the rarer and more scary weapon).

If he shoots me with a heavy bolter, I don't have to dodge all his attacks to make a difference. I can maybe soak enough damage from each shot to not die from the whole series, and each DoS on my dodge roll increases my survival chance by a large fraction. It's not a binary situation, and all kinds of investments I made into making my char survivable are yielding proportional returns.

With opposed dodge, the bolter remains about where it was, but the lascannon goes from "save or die" to "just die".

a good sniper isnt seen at all before he places his shot anyway --> no dodge allowed.

Not anymore, he isn't. This was a reasonable thing to do when your 6 DoS sniper shot could be dodged with a basic success, but now your stacked modifiers for firing an Accurate weapon allow you to not give a **** about such subtlety and just overwhelm the enemy with accumulated DoS.

To prevent running around and snipering on the run, force them to brace, thats all it needs.

The fact that you need to aim to benefit from Accurate prevents you from 360 no scope headshots well enough. It doesn't make sense for all Accurate weapons to be braced. Some, yes, but the 40k equivalent of the Barrett is the lascannon, not the long las or the hunting rifle.

The minimum necessary to get this result is a guy with BS 31 (a completely average shot, little below your usual IG Joe) doing a Half Action Aim, benefiting from short range (150m or less for a lascannon - piece of cake) and rolling 01. Granted, this is literally a one in a hundred occurrence, but it's still completely random luck on the shooter's luck, and why should his luck matter more than mine?

Why does it matter? You are the one running towards a lascannon... You have taken your chances now it is time to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to rely on Dodge. You can use smoke/blind grenades or find an alternative route where you don't have to risk a blast from an anti-tank weapon.

I'm not running toward a lascannon. I'm crossing open ground to get to my fellow acolyte who is dying of bloodloss and needs medical attention. Not every situation where you are in the open is because you are being stupid or you want to be there. Or what if my only available cover is really flimsy. Or if the enemy had people behind the players that they didn't know about and now their cover only helps against some opponents.

The minimum necessary to get this result is a guy with BS 31 (a completely average shot, little below your usual IG Joe) doing a Half Action Aim, benefiting from short range (150m or less for a lascannon - piece of cake) and rolling 01. Granted, this is literally a one in a hundred occurrence, but it's still completely random luck on the shooter's luck, and why should his luck matter more than mine?

Why does it matter? You are the one running towards a lascannon... You have taken your chances now it is time to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to rely on Dodge. You can use smoke/blind grenades or find an alternative route where you don't have to risk a blast from an anti-tank weapon.

It's hardly "running towards a lascannon" when I'm holed up behind cover 120m from the shooter and he still lucks into hitting me with several DoS, his ridiculous damage and penetration making short work of my cover. Totally a viable combat scenario. It's hardly good game design if the only reasonable approach to a guy manning the lascannon is not to approach him at all.

The minimum necessary to get this result is a guy with BS 31 (a completely average shot, little below your usual IG Joe) doing a Half Action Aim, benefiting from short range (150m or less for a lascannon - piece of cake) and rolling 01. Granted, this is literally a one in a hundred occurrence, but it's still completely random luck on the shooter's luck, and why should his luck matter more than mine?

Why does it matter? You are the one running towards a lascannon... You have taken your chances now it is time to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to rely on Dodge. You can use smoke/blind grenades or find an alternative route where you don't have to risk a blast from an anti-tank weapon.

It's hardly "running towards a lascannon" when I'm holed up behind cover 120m from the shooter and he still lucks into hitting me with several DoS, his ridiculous damage and penetration making short work of my cover.

Okay, then you chose to sit in front of a lascannon. That's actually an even worse idea than running towards it ...

AtoMaki is countering Morangius et al.'s mathematical critique of the new rules change with "lol dumbass don't get shot."

Not exactly helpful feedback and doesn't exactly convey an understanding of what the problem is.

I'm not running toward a lascannon. I'm crossing open ground to get to my fellow acolyte who is dying of bloodloss and needs medical attention. Not every situation where you are in the open is because you are being stupid or you want to be there. Or what if my only available cover is really flimsy. Or if the enemy had people behind the players that they didn't know about and now their cover only helps against some opponents.

I'm not running toward a lascannon. I'm crossing open ground to get to my fellow acolyte who is dying of bloodloss and needs medical attention. Not every situation where you are in the open is because you are being stupid or you want to be there. Or what if my only available cover is really flimsy. Or if the enemy had people behind the players that they didn't know about and now their cover only helps against some opponents.

In this situation, you rather should have thought a moment...thinking about why your comrade is lying there in the open, dieing of blood loss.

AtoMaki is countering Morangius et al.'s mathematical critique of the new rules change with "lol dumbass don't get shot."

Not exactly helpful feedback and doesn't exactly convey an understanding of what the problem is.

Hehe... This one went over your head ...

I'm just saying that Morangius' example is internally flawed because solely relying on your Dodge to counter a lascannon is bad idea period. IMHO, you can't base an argument on something that doesn't make sense in the first place.