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

It is 30% on bare minimum (40-50 most of the time) and it isn't really that dumb. Or at least not dumber than taking any other Skill test on Challenging level (when you have roughly the same chance to succeed)...

It is different if a fail has a chance of killing your character there and then. If I fail a knowledge test I don't keel over with a hole in my head. It's not really comparative. If an attack is going to kill you do you want to just rely on a 40% chance of survival.

If you make opposed dodge a talent you also will still have to consider it a possibility for every new enemy and if your the GM you can just give it to almost everyone. I also don't have the same experience with people relying on low dodge chances to survive.

It is different if a fail has a chance of killing your character there and then.

A single attack won't kill you most of the time (unless it is a heavy weapon or you are wounded) either. The problem with non-opposed Dodge is its massive "booster value" when it comes to defense. It is like totally compulsory because it can shut down an enemy attack completely with a single dice roll. And as soon as the players get into this mentality you will have brainless combats with YOLO!Dodge flying left, right and center. Like, who cares if you put a Vindicare Assassin against them? Even the noobiest PC will have a 30% chance to Dodge his attacks... So why would anyone bother with tactics? Just rush the guy and beat the crap out of him, YOLO!Dodge will take care for the rest!

There are also other opposed tests that can end up in lethal situations:

E.g.:

Opposed Stealth VS awareness --> lethal surprise attack (no dodge, attacker +30)

Opposed Willpower test with psy powers

Also wanna make them binary ?

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..

This has become a rant.

The Sniper in your example will be striking from surprise (If he's got time for a full round aim) So not only is your math wrong, (+30 for surprise) And the sniper will likely NOT be at short range (Why would he be? He only loses +10 for short range but gains +30 for surprise [Net +20] and is out of range for many other weapons!) the shot would be unavoidable anyway! For that matter, The Sniper could get all the way out to extreme range, still have a 89% chance of hit with no dodge possible and likely max damage ( That is: BS 49 + Aim [+20] + Range [-20] + Surprise [+30] + Laser scope [+10] =89%). Actually I could forego the laser scope and go with a standard telescopic scope and be back to 109% chance and STILL be unevadable! So, what's your point?

What I said earlier is that using examples like yours misses the point. It is an extreme example where the shooter has all the advantages and the defender has no benefits (most importantly) cover or concealment. Even simply having the target run changes the math by 20% If there is cover or concealment your sniper won't get a second shot against halfway savvy players! I guarantee it!

Again, The above is not your average CQB style combat that the system represents when the modifiers come down. IE: Shooter rounds doorway and unloads (Semi-auto) with lasgun at opponent heretic with auto pistol and spikey mace.

All skills roughly 35 (For simplicity) Shooter has short range but no surprise (+10) and half action aim (+10) . Total to-hit chance: 55% Given that mean average on a d10 is 5.5 (5 or 6 on a roll) on average he will only hit once with one degree of success. Not to hard to dodge even with an opposed roll! If Shooter had used a single shot for greater control, our heretic would still only need two degrees of success to dodge and probably would not be put down permanently by the single hit if he failed (Unless using mook rules)!

The idea of stacking modifiers is to improve your situational chance of success while (Ostensibly) limiting your opponents chance of escape. Since the system works equally both ways (PC vs. NPC), I do not see a problem with this! Why do you?

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..

This has become a rant.

The Sniper in your example will be striking from surprise (If he's got time for a full round aim) So not only is your math wrong, (+30 for surprise) And the sniper will likely NOT be at short range (Why would he be? He only loses +10 for short range but gains +30 for surprise [Net +20] and is out of range for many other weapons!) the shot would be unavoidable anyway! For that matter, The Sniper could get all the way out to extreme range, still have a 89% chance of hit with no dodge possible and likely max damage ( That is: BS 49 + Aim [+20] + Range [-20] + Surprise [+30] + Laser scope [+10] =89%). Actually I could forego the laser scope and go with a standard telescopic scope and be back to 109% chance and STILL be unevadable! So, what's your point?

What I said earlier is that using examples like yours misses the point. It is an extreme example where the shooter has all the advantages and the defender has no benefits (most importantly) cover or concealment. Even simply having the target run changes the math by 20% If there is cover or concealment your sniper won't get a second shot against halfway savvy players! I guarantee it!

Again, The above is not your average CQB style combat that the system represents when the modifiers come down. IE: Shooter rounds doorway and unloads (Semi-auto) with lasgun at opponent heretic with auto pistol and spikey mace.

All skills roughly 35 (For simplicity) Shooter has short range but no surprise (+10) and half action aim (+10) . Total to-hit chance: 55% Given that mean average on a d10 is 5.5 (5 or 6 on a roll) on average he will only hit once with one degree of success. Not to hard to dodge even with an opposed roll! If Shooter had used a single shot for greater control, our heretic would still only need two degrees of success to dodge and probably would not be put down permanently by the single hit if he failed (Unless using mook rules)!

The idea of stacking modifiers is to improve your situational chance of success while (Ostensibly) limiting your opponents chance of escape. Since the system works equally both ways (PC vs. NPC), I do not see a problem with this! Why do you?

Getting a +60 modifier with an accurate weapon is not an extreme example; I just gave one way of doing it. You have a +40 just from standard attack + full-action aim + accurate. BS40 guy with + 40 = 80% = 4 degrees of success on a 50 or less = fully half of the time, his attack cannot be dodged, at all, by somebody with a Dodge of 40. 10% of the time, his attack cannot be dodged by somebody with a Dodge of 70. In fact Mr. Calculator tells me that Mr. 70 Dodge has a 40% chance, total, of evading an attack by mr. accurate weapon dude, who has a 48% chance to hit, total. Goodbye Genestealers, good-bye Howling Banshees.

I do not believe NPCs should have to suffer through unavoidable attacks either.

Try this on for size.

WS 20 attacker

All-Out Attack

Total 50%

20% of the time that he hits (10% of his attacks) his attack will be unevadable by somebody with a Dodge of 50. It will be physically impossible to dodge the ninja-like skillz of this Administratum Adept.

If you see the one who aims a full round on you, you get +30 on dodge (see dodge skill example modifiers).

Yes, 10% of the All-Out-Attacker will not be evadeable. But 100% of his round after that, he cannot evade either - thats the price he pays for going all out.

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..

This has become a rant.

The Sniper in your example will be striking from surprise (If he's got time for a full round aim) So not only is your math wrong, (+30 for surprise) And the sniper will likely NOT be at short range (Why would he be? He only loses +10 for short range but gains +30 for surprise [Net +20] and is out of range for many other weapons!) the shot would be unavoidable anyway! For that matter, The Sniper could get all the way out to extreme range, still have a 89% chance of hit with no dodge possible and likely max damage ( That is: BS 49 + Aim [+20] + Range [-20] + Surprise [+30] + Laser scope [+10] =89%). Actually I could forego the laser scope and go with a standard telescopic scope and be back to 109% chance and STILL be unevadable! So, what's your point?

What I said earlier is that using examples like yours misses the point. It is an extreme example where the shooter has all the advantages and the defender has no benefits (most importantly) cover or concealment. Even simply having the target run changes the math by 20% If there is cover or concealment your sniper won't get a second shot against halfway savvy players! I guarantee it!

Again, The above is not your average CQB style combat that the system represents when the modifiers come down. IE: Shooter rounds doorway and unloads (Semi-auto) with lasgun at opponent heretic with auto pistol and spikey mace.

All skills roughly 35 (For simplicity) Shooter has short range but no surprise (+10) and half action aim (+10) . Total to-hit chance: 55% Given that mean average on a d10 is 5.5 (5 or 6 on a roll) on average he will only hit once with one degree of success. Not to hard to dodge even with an opposed roll! If Shooter had used a single shot for greater control, our heretic would still only need two degrees of success to dodge and probably would not be put down permanently by the single hit if he failed (Unless using mook rules)!

The idea of stacking modifiers is to improve your situational chance of success while (Ostensibly) limiting your opponents chance of escape. Since the system works equally both ways (PC vs. NPC), I do not see a problem with this! Why do you?

Getting a +60 modifier with an accurate weapon is not an extreme example; I just gave one way of doing it. You have a +40 just from standard attack + full-action aim + accurate. BS40 guy with + 40 = 80% = 4 degrees of success on a 50 or less = fully half of the time, his attack cannot be dodged, at all, by somebody with a Dodge of 40. 10% of the time, his attack cannot be dodged by somebody with a Dodge of 70. In fact Mr. Calculator tells me that Mr. 70 Dodge has a 40% chance, total, of evading an attack by mr. accurate weapon dude, who has a 48% chance to hit, total. Goodbye Genestealers, good-bye Howling Banshees.

I do not believe NPCs should have to suffer through unavoidable attacks either.

Try this on for size.

WS 20 attacker

All-Out Attack

Total 50%

20% of the time that he hits (10% of his attacks) his attack will be unevadable by somebody with a Dodge of 50. It will be physically impossible to dodge the ninja-like skillz of this Administratum Adept.

You keep mentioning all-out attack and Full-round Aim. In my experience these are rarely anything other than first round attacks! So what? In one case, If you don't have surprise you have completely nullified your advantage and sacrificed an attack in doing so. In the other, You have charged into combat and completely foregone the ability to defend yourself! And again... You are using the most extreme possible modifiers to justify your position.

I can play too! If my target is running or in a defensive stance your shooter is at -20% thus fully nullifying your aim action. If there is mist or smoke or darkness in the area that's a -20% If both it's -40% That means Mr BS is right back where he started from and still able to be dodged! Mr Calculator says that Mr BS will miss 60% of the time and if he does hit, statistically it will only be with on degree of success. This means that a target with a 40 dodge will dodge Mr BS 4 out of 10 times! Mr Calculator also says that Mr. BS will only hit 1 in 5 attempts under these conditions.

But here again my example is using the extreme end of modifiers to counter yours! Thus proving that the system remains balanced!

The original premise of this update was that in the extreme end of DoS the target should not be able to evade the "perfect" attack! I agree with this! If it really bothers you, You can always rule that a roll of 01 on a dodge is automatically a success no matter what and still be within the rules (Dh2 beta pg. 10). Again, I really don't see the problem!

You can always rule that a roll of 01 on a dodge is automatically a success no matter what and still be within the rules (Dh2 beta pg. 10). Again, I really don't see the problem!

Please read the bolded bit in the post you quoted and responded to and let us know if that sounds like a sound system to you.

I'm genuinely curious.

You can always rule that a roll of 01 on a dodge is automatically a success no matter what and still be within the rules (Dh2 beta pg. 10). Again, I really don't see the problem!

Please read the bolded bit in the post you quoted and responded to and let us know if that sounds like a sound system to you.

I'm genuinely curious.

At this point, I'm more interested about why it is only a problem with Dodge. I mean, the WH40K RPG system is anything but lethal (see the "Oh, well, I took a heavy stubber round in the face... Doesn't matter I still have some 8 Wounds left!" case) and there are many-many more cases where someone can auto-screw the characters with an opposed test (GauntZero has already mentioned the two biggest: Stealth/Awareness and Psychic Powers).

But by some weird reason, Dodge is like a Holy Cow here ...

You can always rule that a roll of 01 on a dodge is automatically a success no matter what and still be within the rules (Dh2 beta pg. 10). Again, I really don't see the problem!

Please read the bolded bit in the post you quoted and responded to and let us know if that sounds like a sound system to you.

I'm genuinely curious.

I don't understand your question CPS. I thought I was pretty clear. The system is balanced between attack and defensive modifiers. There is a rule that allows for the "one in a million" dodge of the "One in a million shot" (Basically, tie goes to the defender.) I think I've been pretty clear that I think this IS a pretty sound system! Perfect..No! But definitely sound!

You can always rule that a roll of 01 on a dodge is automatically a success no matter what and still be within the rules (Dh2 beta pg. 10). Again, I really don't see the problem!

Please read the bolded bit in the post you quoted and responded to and let us know if that sounds like a sound system to you.

I'm genuinely curious.

At this point, I'm more interested about why it is only a problem with Dodge. I mean, the WH40K RPG system is anything but lethal (see the "Oh, well, I took a heavy stubber round in the face... Doesn't matter I still have some 8 Wounds left!" case) and there are many-many more cases where someone can auto-screw the characters with an opposed test (GauntZero has already mentioned the two biggest: Stealth/Awareness and Psychic Powers).

But by some weird reason, Dodge is like a Holy Cow here ...

These have problems, yes. Especially psychic powers due to the utter inability for non-psyker, non-untouchable characters to even hope of keeping up with the psychic attacker.

We're not discussing those now, because there's no indication FFG plans to change the basic dynamics of opposed rolls any time soon. We're discussing evasion, because it got changed, and the change brings it up to par with those two in terms of how many problems they cause.

We're not discussing those now, because there's no indication FFG plans to change the basic dynamics of opposed rolls any time soon. We're discussing evasion, because it got changed, and the change brings it up to par with those two in terms of how many problems they cause.

Yeah, but unopposed Dodge had its own problems (mostly its binary nature that caused many hilarious results), so it is now effectively all about who favors what. For one, I favor opposed Dodge because it increases lethality, something this system needs (IMHO, but I guess my standards are a little stricter than normal ). Unopposed Dodge has its own merits, but it is bleak and boring. Though, I must add, maybe it fits the current Action/Reaction system better...

We're not discussing those now, because there's no indication FFG plans to change the basic dynamics of opposed rolls any time soon. We're discussing evasion, because it got changed, and the change brings it up to par with those two in terms of how many problems they cause.

Yeah, but unopposed Dodge had its own problems (mostly its binary nature that caused many hilarious results), so it is now effectively all about who favors what. For one, I favor opposed Dodge because it increases lethality, something this system needs (IMHO, but I guess my standards are a little stricter than normal ). Unopposed Dodge has its own merits, but it is bleak and boring. Though, I must add, maybe it fits the current Action/Reaction system better...

I agree with the system needing "lethality". However, How is unopposed dodge a better fit? It is by definition an Opposed roll of the most critical kind simply by reason of what it does! I think the opposed dodge solves a lot more problems than it causes!

We're not discussing those now, because there's no indication FFG plans to change the basic dynamics of opposed rolls any time soon. We're discussing evasion, because it got changed, and the change brings it up to par with those two in terms of how many problems they cause.

Yeah, but unopposed Dodge had its own problems (mostly its binary nature that caused many hilarious results), so it is now effectively all about who favors what. For one, I favor opposed Dodge because it increases lethality, something this system needs (IMHO, but I guess my standards are a little stricter than normal ). Unopposed Dodge has its own merits, but it is bleak and boring. Though, I must add, maybe it fits the current Action/Reaction system better...

I agree with the system needing "lethality". However, How is unopposed dodge a better fit? It is by definition an Opposed roll of the most critical kind simply by reason of what it does! I think the opposed dodge solves a lot more problems than it causes!

The nice part of opposed dodge is that it actually measures the skill of the shooter vs. the evasive skill of the intended target. It's more realistic and more fair to both sides than unopposed dodge ever was.

The nice part of opposed dodge is that it actually measures the skill of the shooter vs. the evasive skill of the intended target. It's more realistic and more fair to both sides than unopposed dodge ever was.

It's patently unfair, because even assuming both sides have roughly the same chance to succeed (i.e. the TN of the shooter's attack roll is the same as the TN of the attacked person's dodge roll, theoretically giving them the same chance to generate the same number of DoS), the consequences of failure are stacked against the defending party.

For the shooter, the consequence of failure is spending ammo and wasting whatever actions he spent setting up the shot - both marginal.

For the defender, the consequence of failure is taking damage and possibly dying/burning Fate as a result, which is as serious as consequences can be.

How the ten thousand Chinese hells does that spell "fair" to you?

Back to the comparison with other "save or die" opposed rolls, the situation is the same as with opposed psychic powers, where the psyker simply expends an action (once again, the very definition of a renewable resource) and maybe risks phenomena, while the target of the attack has to win or his mind gets fried. It's not that comparable to the Stealth vs Awareness rolloff, because in the case of the Awareness roll winning, the Stealth guy may suffer consequences beyond simply failing to set up a sneak attack - such as being stuck in a tight spot that was only a good place to be as long as the enemies didn't know you were there, or generally failing his mission due to being exposed/recognized or raising an alarm and rendering further infiltration impossible.

As for realism, it makes some sense for melee attacks, but that was always represented adequately with the Feint action. For ranged attacks, not so much, because dodging a bullet is a matter of a split-second reaction where the dodger only has time to drop down/jump behind nearest piece of cover and hope for the best, but at the same time the shooter has no possibility of making a last ditch aim correction, making his skill much less relevant than it seems to you.

Is anyone else actually play-testing this? Do we have any game play feedback, or just a bunch of theoretical math?

Is anyone else actually play-testing this? Do we have any game play feedback, or just a bunch of theoretical math?

Several people said they'll be playtesting it in this very thread, and I'm sure many people who didn't even see this topic are turning in playtest results as we speak.

This doesn't in any way invalidate the attempts to dissect the math behind the process, because a)playtest results will be within the bounds of the mathematical model anyway, and b)playtesting involves a large number of subjective, circumstantial factors that obfuscate the problem.

For half the round you're the shooter. For the other half you're the target! Seems pretty fair to me!

On the subject of Untouchables , I'd like to say that this update is, imo, the best one we've seen thus far. Including a "Deny the Witch" feature isn't exactly the completely nullification of psychic powers that many of us were hoping for, but I think that it combined with the bonuses you get to it make the talent a decent compromise.

Regarding Warp Anathema, I think there should be a hardcap to the level of psy-rating you can reduce a target by. Something like only being able to purchase the talent once per every 3 levels, or some such. Being capped at reducing a psyker's psy-rating by, say, 4 points would still make you extremely powerful against the majority of psykers, without outright castrating the very powerful, high-end boss types.

Regarding their social skills, I think the nerfs to their fellowship still aren't enough. Their fellowship can be 0, for all it matters. That still won't actually affect an Untouchable who simply never initiates any fellowship tests. It's not uncommon, most savvy RPG parties will have the "face characters" with the high FS do all the talking while the low-FS warriors and mages say nothing. That's how it's always been. So just throwing FS penalties at an Untouchable isn't going to do a whole lot to emphasize that particular downside of being an Untouchable.

If I was a Tech-Priest Untouchable for example, my FS is going to already be crap because I'm a Tech-Priest. So how exactly is being an Untouchable making my life any harder? I'm basically getting all the strengths of the advance with none of the risks.

Is anyone else actually play-testing this? Do we have any game play feedback, or just a bunch of theoretical math?

My gaming group has been using opposed Dodge since the 1.0 Beta. In a system without Fate Points, crazy-high BS modifiers and extreme weapon damages. We have yet to have serious problems with it. Pretty much this is the reason why I'm with the opposed dodge .

However, How is unopposed dodge a better fit? It is by definition an Opposed roll of the most critical kind simply by reason of what it does! I think the opposed dodge solves a lot more problems than it causes!

Unopposed Dodge is a better fit because the players are limited with the number of Reactions they could take. Opposed Dodge is actually a pretty big nerf, IMHO, a little bit too big to take without some counterbalancing. Like allowing the players to take multiple Reactions (as in the AP system): Dodge is nerfed in effect but can be used against multiple attacks - a much more balanced situation.

Then make Step Aside a Tier2 Talent, so it can earlier and cheaper be bought.

This and the removal of Inescapeable attack should do the job.

I know I really shouldn't poke this thread with a power stick, seeing as how long it's been happening, with some pretty heated discussions and both reasonable and over the top arguments, but, after reading all this thread (again) I believe I can give at least some feedback on the subject.

I have been GMing Wh40K in it's many iterations for a few years now and have always, no matter the system, used opposed defences. I have talked many times with my players and discussed the pros and cons of each system and tested both. Me and my players have, without any disagreement or discussion, elected to use opposed defences in every Wh40K game we've played.

This happens because the - and I use the term loosely - WH40K "system" is based, on it's large majority, on DoS results, particularly opposed ones. DoSs give players the feeling that their rolls matter, encouraging cool effects and customization of the results of their actions.

This system has been used by many of the best RPGs I've seen, and very popular ones, lime L5R's raises, WoD exceptional successes and even in Numenera. and it works.

With opposed attacks and defences, players will not only feel less discouraged when attacking, as a great success on their part will not be "lost" if an opponent has a single success and they have five, but will encourage them to look for cover, human shields (that brings back some memories...) and play it safe, in general, reminding them that, as a wise man said, they can't just "YOLO! dodge".

At least from my point of view, WH40K is not a Hollywood game in the sense that players can just waltz through a room while mooks will unavoidably miss their shots against them. This kind of feat is reserved for the best of the best the "ninja" assassin with uncanny levels in agility and dodge.

And I can't help but notice that, whenever someone here posts examples of how opposed defences does not work, they use the most exaggerated possible results, like snipers against unaware combatants using laser sights and the blessing of the Emperor.

Let me remind all that: a) the system always breaks when you go to the most extreme examples and b) ****, that guy put all this effort in this shot, he SHOULDN'T miss.

I know I really shouldn't poke this thread with a power stick, seeing as how long it's been happening, with some pretty heated discussions and both reasonable and over the top arguments, but, after reading all this thread (again) I believe I can give at least some feedback on the subject.

I have been GMing Wh40K in it's many iterations for a few years now and have always, no matter the system, used opposed defences. I have talked many times with my players and discussed the pros and cons of each system and tested both. Me and my players have, without any disagreement or discussion, elected to use opposed defences in every Wh40K game we've played.

This happens because the - and I use the term loosely - WH40K "system" is based, on it's large majority, on DoS results, particularly opposed ones. DoSs give players the feeling that their rolls matter, encouraging cool effects and customization of the results of their actions.

This system has been used by many of the best RPGs I've seen, and very popular ones, lime L5R's raises, WoD exceptional successes and even in Numenera. and it works.

With opposed attacks and defences, players will not only feel less discouraged when attacking, as a great success on their part will not be "lost" if an opponent has a single success and they have five, but will encourage them to look for cover, human shields (that brings back some memories...) and play it safe, in general, reminding them that, as a wise man said, they can't just "YOLO! dodge".

At least from my point of view, WH40K is not a Hollywood game in the sense that players can just waltz through a room while mooks will unavoidably miss their shots against them. This kind of feat is reserved for the best of the best the "ninja" assassin with uncanny levels in agility and dodge.

And I can't help but notice that, whenever someone here posts examples of how opposed defences does not work, they use the most exaggerated possible results, like snipers against unaware combatants using laser sights and the blessing of the Emperor.

Let me remind all that: a) the system always breaks when you go to the most extreme examples and b) ****, that guy put all this effort in this shot, he SHOULDN'T miss.

Yes ! Listen to that man !

And I can't help but notice that, whenever someone here posts examples of how opposed defences does not work, they use the most exaggerated possible results, like snipers against unaware combatants using laser sights and the blessing of the Emperor.

Let me remind all that: a) the system always breaks when you go to the most extreme examples and b) ****, that guy put all this effort in this shot, he SHOULDN'T miss.

A half action aim and shoot is a very standard thing to do, it is not some weird edge case that some people keep suggesting it is. The issue is that an NPC only needs to get lucky once, if he dies in an encounter it's not too big a deal, the player on the other hand has to be lucky every time.