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.

Why should he? it is not like a single autogun shot can place your character into the grave... Actually, in the 2.0 Beta book there are only four weapons (krak missile, inferno pistol, meltagun, autocannon) that can insta-gib a character with an average damage roll. That's hardly Character Death Heaven if you ask me.

Do you think the game should have unavoidable attacks due to the luck of the attacker? Y/N

That is ultimately the question people need to answer here. Luck. Not skill, not planning, not striking at the opportune moment. Luck.

My answer is no.

That is ultimately the question people need to answer here. Luck. Not skill, not planning, not striking at the opportune moment. Luck.

But... In order to acquire enough DoS you do need to play smartly, plan ahead with Aim and strike at the opportune moment (when you opponent is not sneaky) and have a good situation awareness (Like, should you even bother with taking the shot instead of waiting for your buddy to deplete your target's Reaction?). You also need at least average skills and proper equipment to maximize the effect of the unavoidable shot. Lacking any of this, all you can do is to counter a second grade defense measure with a one-in-a-hundred roll. And even then, the result of the hit can be still questionable as even a failed Dodge attempt (but successful Dodge test) reduces the efficiency of your shot.

On the other hand, if your character has spent all his life with honing his shooting skills and has his overpowered Christmas tree sniper rifle then ain't no lowly Grot will evade his shots just because it happens to have the Dodge skill and Agility 30.

In order to get enough DoS, all you need is an Accurate weapon, RDS, and be at short range (which for most Accurate weapons is pretty far). All of that is starting equipment. Aiming and firing that weapon is not playing smartly with a plan - it's a basic gameplay situation.

You haven't answered the question.

Side note: is there a rule anywhere about a negative TN? Like if you're rolling against a 30 with -60 in modifiers, are you even allowed to roll?

I notice people bring up accurate weapons a lot in these arguments; maybe it'd be a good idea to re-assess if the accurate quality is balanced, rather than instantly tearing down the opposed dodge rules.

Introducing more positive modifiers for evasions would help a ton, too.

I bring it up not for the extra damage but for the +10 when aiming and ease of getting +10 for short range. Others have posted how the math works out without Accurate weapons and the point stands.

You haven't answered the question.

Pfff... Of course it is a good thing! You can even reverse your question to find out why: is it good to have a defense mechanic that is impossible to counter or even mitigate (unopposed Dodge)? Is it a good thing that your target can simply ignore your perfectly lined up shot just because of sheer luck?

Also, LOL, but are we now concerned with the health of the NPCs? Because Accurate weapons and the RDS is a starting equipment for the PCs who will be at the better end of the gun .

I notice people bring up accurate weapons a lot in these arguments; maybe it'd be a good idea to re-assess if the accurate quality is balanced, rather than instantly tearing down the opposed dodge rules.

Introducing more positive modifiers for evasions would help a ton, too.

Absolutely this. I'm all for opposed dodges, as I think the skill of both parties should matter (in fact the whole game should be opposed to allow for better high level play).

However, I'm not blind to the fact that opposed dodges can't just be added to the system without changing anything else, as it's not balanced for them.

So, as a starter, what can be done to balance opposed dodges. It sounds like single shot weapons are too powerful and there isn't enough chance of a dodge at lower levels. Therefore we could try the following changes:-

• Make single shot a +0 attack rather than +10.
• Make dodges in general combat always at +10.

It's worth remembering that DH1 already had opposed dodges, it was just full auto weapons, so we could use those as a base line for balancing against.

And how likely is it that a sniper is in short range? The second they take their shot, bad guys wouldn't be far away and would significantly degrade their chances of getting away.

I notice people bring up accurate weapons a lot in these arguments; maybe it'd be a good idea to re-assess if the accurate quality is balanced, rather than instantly tearing down the opposed dodge rules.

Introducing more positive modifiers for evasions would help a ton, too.

The modifiers from the dodge skill section should be transfered to the combat section; they help a lot:

- Bonus when in cover

- Bonus when 1 round to anticipate (i.e. against full aim if you see the shooter)

Furthermore, the short range bonus could just be granted, if the range is within Perception value meters - otherwise your eyes are not good enough to make use of it.

Eh, that doesn't seem to make a ton of sense to me. It's less about your perception and more the fact that a close up target is a big target.

I'd be more in favour of stripping down range modifiers entirely if anything.

I notice people bring up accurate weapons a lot in these arguments; maybe it'd be a good idea to re-assess if the accurate quality is balanced, rather than instantly tearing down the opposed dodge rules.

Introducing more positive modifiers for evasions would help a ton, too.

Absolutely this. I'm all for opposed dodges, as I think the skill of both parties should matter (in fact the whole game should be opposed to allow for better high level play).

However, I'm not blind to the fact that opposed dodges can't just be added to the system without changing anything else, as it's not balanced for them.

So, as a starter, what can be done to balance opposed dodges. It sounds like single shot weapons are too powerful and there isn't enough chance of a dodge at lower levels. Therefore we could try the following changes:-

• Make single shot a +0 attack rather than +10.
• Make dodges in general combat always at +10.

It's worth remembering that DH1 already had opposed dodges, it was just full auto weapons, so we could use those as a base line for balancing against.

A +0 would make it unbalanced against semi-auto and auto. The +10 are fine.

Its the short range modifier that is granted on a way too far distance, that makes the problems imo.

Limit it or grant it only until 25% of the regular range.

Eh, that doesn't seem to make a ton of sense to me. It's less about your perception and more the fact that a close up target is a big target.

I'd be more in favour of stripping down range modifiers entirely if anything.

That doesnt make sense physically.

A target thats 1 step bigger is +10 easier to hit.

Short range though can totally differ from weapon to weapon.

If you want to tie it to the size-thing, you need to limit it to a certain distance, like lets say 30m.

I'd say it has much more to do with the distance where you can use the weapon at a more effective accuracy.

But as accuracy in general is also a matter how well you perceive the target (e.g. in fog it is more difficult), I'd limit the possible bonus for short ranges by perception somehow.

A +0 would make it unbalanced against semi-auto and auto. The +10 are fine.

I guess if we made Single Fire +0 then Burst Fire would be -10 and Auto Fire would be -20.

A +0 would make it unbalanced against semi-auto and auto. The +10 are fine.

I guess if we made Single Fire +0 then Burst Fire would be -10 and Auto Fire would be -20.

I am no fan of such grading down of attacks...

To be honest, sniper rifles shouldn't even be used in short range. Perhaps if they are too close, they should get a -10. It's completely unreasonable to use a bulky sniper rifle at ranges that other smaller weaponry would be more appropriate.

What if range increments were fixed, and instead of variable ranges, weapons had varying modifiers for each increment? Much more interesting, I think. And lends itself better to combat without a map.

You could use a new weapon trait for such weapons.

Suboptimal (short): -10 on short ranges instead of a bonus

What if range increments were fixed, and instead of variable ranges, weapons had varying modifiers for each increment? Much more interesting, I think. And lends itself better to combat without a map.

You could say, short range is 20m in general, but never more than half your regular range.

Hey all, just to start the new year off properly and really get the fires going higher, we're changing Evasion back in Update #5 (which should go up later today). We wanted to try things out with like we did in Update #4, and we got a lot of great feedback and detailed reports with this change (big thanks for those BTW). When we looked over all this, plus our internal games and the comments here too, we decided the overall game works better with Dodge/Parry working as they did in the original beta.

–Tim

:(

The original original beta or the original OW clone beta?

The original original beta or the original OW clone beta?

I think he meant the original OW clone beta

I'm hoping he mean't Beta 1.0

Hey all, just to start the new year off properly and really get the fires going higher, we're changing Evasion back in Update #5 (which should go up later today). We wanted to try things out with like we did in Update #4, and we got a lot of great feedback and detailed reports with this change (big thanks for those BTW). When we looked over all this, plus our internal games and the comments here too, we decided the overall game works better with Dodge/Parry working as they did in the original beta.

–Tim

Awesome news, Sanity prevails after all.