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.

Yes, you are right in this case.

But the following can be said: if you sit behind cover, hiding, the attacker gets at least -30 for firing blindly, and as a GM I wouldnt let him aim in such a situation. That will limit his DoS very much.

If you of course use the cover to shoot back at him and dont just fully hide...he just needs to wait for the right moment

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.

The weapon involved is mostly irrelevant to the underlying issue - that it becomes mathematically impossible to evade getting shot even by attackers of average skill, even if you're pretty good at dodging. The lascannon just points out that this problem can lead to situations where you're just dead if the attacker gets lucky enough.

You and GZ are completely missing the point by focusing on the particulars of where the attacker and defender are sitting in relation to each other and how they got where they are and why they feel the need to kill each other in the first place. ALL of that is irrelevant in a discussion on the mathematical implications of character A attacking character B.

It is not irrelevant.

To avoid certain lethal constelations should be part of a characters thoughts.

The question is not IF situations may occur where dodging is unlikely or even impossible, but rather, IF this is acceptable or not.

Thats where I say it is a question of philosophy.

For me, that is totally okay.

If attacker and defender have similar char values, it is modificators against dodge-skill-level.

If the attacker gets to aim or gets into short range, the defender is in the worse position.

What I am saying is, how odd is it to have no benefit from 6 DoS at single shots, but having a massive benefit from auto-shooting ?

The weapon involved is mostly irrelevant to the underlying issue - that it becomes mathematically impossible to evade getting shot even by attackers of average skill, even if you're pretty good at dodging.

Okay, Dodge was nerfed. But so what? You still have other options to avoid harm, nobody forces you to rely solely on the Dodge skill. And if you don't do it, then we can throw all the math out of the window.

Dodge is still a good skill. Not as OP as before, but so what.

It still is better than Navigate or Linguistics in most cases.

If the attacker gets to aim or gets into short range, the defender is in the worse position.

What I am saying is, how odd is it to have no benefit from 6 DoS at single shots, but having a massive benefit from auto-shooting ?

I actually agree with you on this. There should be some benefit for taking the Single Shot action.

However, save-or-die, or worse, other-guy-got-lucky-so-you-die are not good game mechanics. And that's what we're talking about here - the mechanics of the game. The foundation on which characters are built. We can discuss the foundation without discussing what's built on top of it, so I reiterate my point that the specifics of the situation are not relevant to a discussion of the act of making an attack.

As I said, both methods have their problems. Ideally we could have opposed rolls without them being literally impossible to dodge, but I fear DH2 is past the point where that kind of system change is doable.

The weapon involved is mostly irrelevant to the underlying issue - that it becomes mathematically impossible to evade getting shot even by attackers of average skill, even if you're pretty good at dodging.

Okay, Dodge was nerfed. But so what? You still have other options to avoid harm, nobody forces you to rely solely on the Dodge skill. And if you don't do it, then we can throw all the math out of the window.

See above. Save or die is bad.

The weapon involved is mostly irrelevant to the underlying issue - that it becomes mathematically impossible to evade getting shot even by attackers of average skill, even if you're pretty good at dodging.

Okay, Dodge was nerfed. But so what? You still have other options to avoid harm, nobody forces you to rely solely on the Dodge skill. And if you don't do it, then we can throw all the math out of the window.

See above. Save or die is bad.

So you have a problem with the whole Dodge system ? Because the non-opposed Dodge was quite "save or die".

But why does it differ if the guy is lucky and scores a lot of DoS, or you being unlucky failing to dodge (even in a binary system). Its luck / unluck in both cases, just the probabilities shifted for some percent (a number that I think is still ok).

If you dont make another benefit occur with DoS for single shots (like damage increase), opposing evading is the best thing in my opinion.

So you have a problem with the whole Dodge system ? Because the non-opposed Dodge was quite "save or die".

Umm, no. In the case of the lascannon, under either system it's save or die - a fault only mitigated by the ability for a player to burn a fate point. It's a devastating blow, but survivable. Non-opposed dodge is not by definition save or die because most of the time failing a dodge roll doesn't result in death.

But why does it differ if the guy is lucky and scores a lot of DoS, or you being unlucky failing to dodge (even in a binary system). Its luck / unluck in both cases, just the probabilities shifted for some percent (a number that I think is still ok).

If you dont make another benefit occur with DoS for single shots (like damage increase), opposing evading is the best thing in my opinion.

The problem is that this number can shift to zero.

So you have a problem with the whole Dodge system ? Because the non-opposed Dodge was quite "save or die".

Umm, no. In the case of the lascannon, under either system it's save or die - a fault only mitigated by the ability for a player to burn a fate point. It's a devastating blow, but survivable. Non-opposed dodge is not by definition save or die because most of the time failing a dodge roll doesn't result in death.

Uhm... Why would a failed opposed Dodge attempt result in more damage? Actually, opposed Dodge reduces damage even if the dodge attempt fails because you decrease the number of DoS your opponent has in his attack roll so you will take less hits from Burst/Auto Fire, lower the one-dice-Proven damage and maybe even kill some Accurate damage bonus too.

And if you fail the test then it doesn't matter either way because you take the full damage in both cases.

Okay apparently the waters got muddied somewhere along the way because you're taking something from my post that's not written or intended, so let me be very clear what my issue here is.

Under the new system, it becomes impossible to dodge an attack with enough DoS behind it (the 6 DoS lascannon shot, in someone else's example). Furthermore, in cases of less extreme luck where the attacker has only a moderate amount of DoS even succeeding a dodge won't result in any lower damage thanks to the way the new change interacts with Single Shot - i.e. the defender must meet or exceed the attack's DoS to have any effect at all . And again, this is just the base case, leaving aside any special rules or weapon qualities.

Ultimately the question is whether you think it's a good idea to engineer a system under which lucky attacks are completely unavoidable. That's what was given to us.

Okay apparently the waters got muddied somewhere along the way because you're taking something from my post that's not written or intended, so let me be very clear what my issue here is.

The source of my confusion is this:

Non-opposed dodge is not by definition save or die because most of the time failing a dodge roll doesn't result in death.

Like... Okay, failing an opposed Dodge doesn't result in death most of the time either. The difference is that you have a higher chance to fail because you can fail even when you have passed the test. And the extreme of this case is when you can't succeed at all, but welcome in Opposed Tests Land, now let's talk about the "undetectable" Stealth character (my Stealth 75 character is completely broken because if I roll well I can ambush anyone?)...

At the start of this thread I could see the merit in opposed evasion. I think, having read this debate and seen both sides of the argument, I am firmly against opposed evasion.

As an aside: Not every fight has cover. Ambushes and surprise rounds can happen, often with NPCs who won't strike until they feel the odds are in their favour. Handling this sort of encounter is a test of any GM, but don't pretend that it is the sign of a bad encounter. This famous scene was pretty compelling from a storytelling perspective, and the point was that no one had any cover! -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6MRR8IRvDQ

Edit: Although someone dodging in that scene would be a hilarious anti climax.

What about softening the effect somehow - could that be a middle ground ?

1 DoS of evading neutralizes 2 DoS of the attacker at standard attacks?

In case of called shots, it could neutralize only 1 DoS per DoS.

As an aside: Not every fight has cover. Ambushes and surprise rounds can happen, often with NPCs who won't strike until they feel the odds are in their favour. Handling this sort of encounter is a test of any GM, but don't pretend that it is the sign of a bad encounter. This famous scene was pretty compelling from a storytelling perspective, and the point was that no one had any cover! -

You do know that surprised characters cannot Dodge either, right ?

As an aside: Not every fight has cover. Ambushes and surprise rounds can happen, often with NPCs who won't strike until they feel the odds are in their favour. Handling this sort of encounter is a test of any GM, but don't pretend that it is the sign of a bad encounter. This famous scene was pretty compelling from a storytelling perspective, and the point was that no one had any cover! -

You do know that surprised characters cannot Dodge either, right ?

The attacker even gets +30.

I'd say surprises are much more of a killer than opposed evading.

And can easily happen by losing an opposed test of awareness against stealth.

As an aside: Not every fight has cover. Ambushes and surprise rounds can happen, often with NPCs who won't strike until they feel the odds are in their favour. Handling this sort of encounter is a test of any GM, but don't pretend that it is the sign of a bad encounter. This famous scene was pretty compelling from a storytelling perspective, and the point was that no one had any cover! -

You do know that surprised characters cannot Dodge either, right ?

I know that - I only put it in there because I wanted to emphasize that sometimes you can be shot at TWICE whilst out of cover and it stil isn't your character's fault. That isn't inherently bad GMing, either. Sometimes neither GM mistakes nor gung-ho player characters are to blame for bad things happening to the party. In a good game the bad guys should be getting that credit more often than not.

Edit: I made this point in the context of someone else suggesting that a fight which takes place with no opportunity for cover is bad GMing and shouldn't be considered when it comes to combat balance. That's not a valid argument in favour of Opposed Evasion, IMO, and I wanted to put that across.

As an aside: Not every fight has cover. Ambushes and surprise rounds can happen, often with NPCs who won't strike until they feel the odds are in their favour. Handling this sort of encounter is a test of any GM, but don't pretend that it is the sign of a bad encounter. This famous scene was pretty compelling from a storytelling perspective, and the point was that no one had any cover! -

You do know that surprised characters cannot Dodge either, right ?

The attacker even gets +30.

I'd say surprises are much more of a killer than opposed evading.

And can easily happen by losing an opposed test of awareness against stealth.

They can be. I think handling encounters like that is a real test for a GM; you don't want to one shot the players without them getting a chance to counter it, but you want to make sure they feel suitably imperiled.

Currently, a surprise is so lethal, that even I am very careful with using this instrument.

I'd prefer to at least grant players their reaction, like a sixth sense.

Nothing worse than a surprise-storm-bolter in your back on auto-fire

WOW! I go offline for a couple of days and the thread becomes a brawl!

Couple of comments: Opposed evading did not occur in a vaccuum! (As one poster suggested) It came about as one of the largest complaints from the beta1's crowd that they wanted the b1 dodge (Along with everything else b1 )back and seconded by a lot of players from the b2 side agreeing that the original DH1-OW dodge was too powerful. Turns out, a lot of dh1 players were houseruling the system this way anyway! When FFG comes out with an update they reasonably thought we all agreed on, suddenly there are some VERY LOUD naysayers!

Here's some truths that I perceive:

Given average rolls on attack and defense, opposed evasion does not necessarily favor the attacker or the defender.

Given Extreme rolls binary evasion VERY unfairly favors the defender!

The Base mechanic of the system (Opposed rolls) makes more sense with an opposed attack/defense and is more in keeping with the rest of the system than the binary dodge.

Any character playing an assassin will be seeking every opportunity to surprise an opponent thus denying them ANY sort of evasion! Since this is the only situation where I have seen as many as six degrees of success, and no defense would be allowed anyway, We must more likely consider the average roll than the extremis. Given an average roll on both sides the opposed defense system, to me at least, to make more sense. Unlike Gaunt, I don't grant my players reactions when they are surprised! Any more than I would grant the "Master level" enemy said defense if our heroic assassin managed to get the drop on him! That's what fate points are for!

Gaunt and I have sparred many times on thes forums. The fact that we agree here is something I take as a definite sign of 'progress' in the system.

Agreed! Very much agreed!

Something I had also noticed was edge cases tend to be substituted for everyday occurrences mechanically. An unhelpful presumption as it (amongst other things) always presumes a power-gaming player and/or an incompetent GM.

WOW! I go offline for a couple of days and the thread becomes a brawl!

Couple of comments: Opposed evading did not occur in a vaccuum! (As one poster suggested) It came about as one of the largest complaints from the beta1's crowd that they wanted the b1 dodge (Along with everything else b1 )back and seconded by a lot of players from the b2 side agreeing that the original DH1-OW dodge was too powerful. Turns out, a lot of dh1 players were houseruling the system this way anyway! When FFG comes out with an update they reasonably thought we all agreed on, suddenly there are some VERY LOUD naysayers!

Here's some truths that I perceive:

Given average rolls on attack and defense, opposed evasion does not necessarily favor the attacker or the defender.

Given Extreme rolls binary evasion VERY unfairly favors the defender!

The Base mechanic of the system (Opposed rolls) makes more sense with an opposed attack/defense and is more in keeping with the rest of the system than the binary dodge.

Any character playing an assassin will be seeking every opportunity to surprise an opponent thus denying them ANY sort of evasion! Since this is the only situation where I have seen as many as six degrees of success, and no defense would be allowed anyway, We must more likely consider the average roll than the extremis. Given an average roll on both sides the opposed defense system, to me at least, to make more sense. Unlike Gaunt, I don't grant my players reactions when they are surprised! Any more than I would grant the "Master level" enemy said defense if our heroic assassin managed to get the drop on him! That's what fate points are for!

Gaunt and I have sparred many times on thes forums. The fact that we agree here is something I take as a definite sign of 'progress' in the system.

The reference to a change in a vacuum I believe was made because all that happened was that a test that was binary went to opposed with no other changes or considerations on how it affected other things. In the old beta the numbers went way higher meaning your dodge could be 80s and 90s. In the new beta an early character will often have dodges between 25 and 40 and without the right aptitudes probably wont boost it up that much.

On the topic of degrees of success. A person with BS 35 (not exactly a high level opponent) using a basic weapon like an lasgun can be 45m away (not exactly outside the bounds of a Dark Heresy fight, I tend to find they are much closer than this but YMMV) take a half action aim (the default thing to do if you don't need to move) and then take a standard attack. This nets him a 65% chance to hit. It also gives him a 9% chance of getting 6 degrees because of the change in the way that is calculated and a 10% chance of 5 and 4 degrees of success each. If your dodge is less than 40 that's a 29% chance of no dodge and it applies to any single shot weapon that you can get within half range for of which there is a lot. I don't consider it a fringe scenario because when I run games it is the most common one I come across.

We made characters yesterday for a run through of the beta mission from the back of the book. 1 person had a dodge over 50 one person one had a dodge of 35 and the other didn't even have dodge. If he did get it later he would be rolling in the 20s and he has none of the aptitudes for cheap dodge or agility. Because the chance of 2 degrees or higher on a lot of attack rolls is going to be 40-50% then there is not even a reason to really buy dodge now unless you can boost it up to 50s and 60s. The prerequisite for dodge should not be good agility and dodge +20. People should be able to get at least some use out of it even if they buy it low. For dodge to work as opposed it needs the system to be rewritten to include plenty of situational dodge modifiers to boost up the chances of successful tests, that it was one change and no other is the reason it was a change in a vacuum.

I still am going to say that it should be reserved for a talent. That way players who want it can buy it. They also have to bare in mind that their opponents might have it so they cant act recklessly. Also if you wanted opposed tests to be standard it would be easy to say, everyone has this talent. And if you didn't want it at all you can ban the talent. I don't see the downside to it as a talent tbh. It achieves what the people wanting dodge to be nerfed want in terms of player actions as they have to consider it a possibility that the enemies have it. It means that players don't have to be disappointed when their single shots miss because they can take the talent. It also mitigates early game players getting smacked down by lucky rolls from the GM which is something this system is already prone to and really doesn't really need help with.

I find that the people asking for this change are too worried about unhitable players in mid to late game, they are the edge cases, I am concerned about the characters at the early of the game that haven't got a lot of defenses and the ones who don't want to spend all their experience to keep up late game. Also part of testing a system is looking at edge cases and seeing if it breaks things, that is a major part of testing so to claim its stupid. In my DH 1 game the assassin hits on like 109 with his sniper rifle, that would be an edge case to you but an every day occurrence to me. Also the edge cases were slightly unusual weapons and above average BS, not really edge cases more not standard foes but if you are a GM who only puts your player up against mooks with autoguns in flack jackets then I'm going to be the one accusing people of incompetent GMing.

I find that the people asking for this change are too worried about unhitable players in mid to late game, they are the edge cases

No, I'm worried about the effect I just call YOLO!Dodge: to simply put, Dodge is a be-all-end-all defense method instead of an interesting choice. And when people realize that they can completely ignore an enemy attack with a 30+% chance, odd things can happen. Like everyone running around like headless chickens, disregarding tactics, cover and even common sense, solely relying on Dodge and "second line of defense" (TB and armor) to get out of harm's way.

I would better like to see smart play and tactics instead of the Magic Luck Shield of Invulnerability. The players will learn the lesson after the first few combat encounters (unless the GM opens with heavy weapons, in which case their characters will die too in the process) and realize that there is life beyond Dodge Land.

The only thing that still worries me is that Opposed Dodge was perfect in the AP system but in the Action/Reaction system... well... not so much. Also, some of the defensive talents (like Evasive) should see a comeback.

I find that the people asking for this change are too worried about unhitable players in mid to late game, they are the edge cases, I am concerned about the characters at the early of the game that haven't got a lot of defenses and the ones who don't want to spend all their experience to keep up late game. Also part of testing a system is looking at edge cases and seeing if it breaks things, that is a major part of testing so to claim its stupid. In my DH 1 game the assassin hits on like 109 with his sniper rifle, that would be an edge case to you but an every day occurrence to me. Also the edge cases were slightly unusual weapons and above average BS, not really edge cases more not standard foes but if you are a GM who only puts your player up against mooks with autoguns in flack jackets then I'm going to be the one accusing people of incompetent GMing.

The sniper with the 109% isn't even an extreme case. If he has a laser sight, he needs a BS of 49 high but not incredibly so -- in Deathwatch it wouldn't be unusual) in not very extreme circumstances.

109 - 10 (standard attack) - 20 (full-action aim) - 10 (accurate) - 10 (short range) - 10 (laser sight) = 49

Which is 5 degrees of success over half of the time, making his stacks unevadable by somebody with a Dodge that is the same has his BS..

I find that the people asking for this change are too worried about unhitable players in mid to late game, they are the edge cases

No, I'm worried about the effect I just call YOLO!Dodge: to simply put, Dodge is a be-all-end-all defense method instead of an interesting choice. And when people realize that they can completely ignore an enemy attack with a 30+% chance, odd things can happen. Like everyone running around like headless chickens, disregarding tactics, cover and even common sense, solely relying on Dodge and "second line of defense" (TB and armor) to get out of harm's way.

Relying on a 30% chance to avoid an attack is really, well, dumb in itself and I think this says more about the players.