I'm hoping he mean't Beta 1.0

He said "changing it back "

I guess we'll find out for sure later today

I guess we'll find out for sure later today

Fingers crossed it's still opposed although I get the feeling it won't be....

One step forward - one step back. I am getting tired of this constant non-progression.

It will certainly stay opposed in my house rules unless they got something even better up their sleeve.

Yes, for me too. No going back here.

I dont wanna let attacker DoS (and evaders DoS btw) go into nothingness again.

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.

I usually like your posts, but this one is absurd. You are talking about a game where the core mechanic on which everything is based is the roll of a dice. Literally everything in this game is affected by luck, and as long as it uses a dice pool, it always will. "Luck" is not an intelligent argument.

Some points:

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.

I do very much like how you deform the wording in order to pose a question that supposedly intends to sum up the whole argument without actually dealing with what is being discussed and attempt to eliminate arguments with a simple Y/N answer.

That is actually a harder dialectic technique than it looks like!

To answer what should have been the questions, "Do I think the game should have attacks that are, on occasion, unavoidable? Very much yes.

and not to put salt on the wound, we have Sunhammer's answer to improve it.

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

This is, I assume, a joke, as this discussion has not, at all, provided any argument as to why simple dodges, instead of opposed defense, works best, either in a mechanical or, much more importantly, dramatic sense in the game.

I don't like to rant, particularly here in such esteemed company, but this is just mind boggling.

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.

I usually like your posts, but this one is absurd. You are talking about a game where the core mechanic on which everything is based is the roll of a dice. Literally everything in this game is affected by luck, and as long as it uses a dice pool, it always will. "Luck" is not an intelligent argument.

This should have been the quote above.

****, I'm bad with this quoting system...

Huh. Well, if nothing else, it was a neat idea (subjectively speaking, of course) - and that's all that is needed for people to adopt it as a houserule. I already have so many "adapted uses" (5) just from following the DH2 beta threads that I could almost write a new ruleset from it.

On a sidenote, yesterday I briefly thought about just dropping (*gasp*) Dodge altogether and simply replace the test with a penalty applied to the attacker's WS/BS (kind of like the Defense score in the Dragon Age RPG) to save yet another roll of the dice and thus time, but I take it that this agency on part of the defender has a sort of "tradition" here and thus would be a very unpopular move? Some of the previous posts at least strongly suggest this.

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.

Personally, I'd say this depends on what exactly makes the sniper rifle a sniper rifle, as the category is extremely broad and not all sniper rifles need to conform to the ubersized M82 Barrett cliché: http://www.deserttacticalarms.com/guns/dta-srs-covert-sniper-rifle-chassis.html

Perhaps it would be beneficial to just "lock out" the use of certain accessories such as the targeter, as you cannot accurately track the target with a scope at such a short range. You could even declare that the Accurate trait does nothing at this range, claiming it's meant to compensate for long distance deviation?

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.

I usually like your posts, but this one is absurd. You are talking about a game where the core mechanic on which everything is based is the roll of a dice. Literally everything in this game is affected by luck, and as long as it uses a dice pool, it always will. "Luck" is not an intelligent argument.

No, everything in the game is based on probability. Luck is not the same as probability. In fact, Luck is more the manifestation of improbability and is hardly the basis of the game.

This is, I assume, a joke, as this discussion has not, at all, provided any argument as to why simple dodges, instead of opposed defense, works best, either in a mechanical or, much more importantly, dramatic sense in the game.

I don't like to rant, particularly here in such esteemed company, but this is just mind boggling.

You assume the only discussion the Devs have been observing is here in the forums. I submitted my own thoughts on opposed rolls directly to the Developers.

This is, I assume, a joke, as this discussion has not, at all, provided any argument as to why simple dodges, instead of opposed defense, works best, either in a mechanical or, much more importantly, dramatic sense in the game.

I don't like to rant, particularly here in such esteemed company, but this is just mind boggling.

You assume the only discussion the Devs have been observing is here in the forums. I submitted my own thoughts on opposed rolls directly to the Developers.

How about providing us with some feedback on why it's been dropped, then?

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.

I like this suggestion. Can we get someone(s) working on this in a dedicated Game Mechanics thread?

I kind of like this suggestion too, but my players wouldn't be crazy about the idea of a whole new set of modifiers to look up. There are already a lot of variables in combat, I'm concerned that adding more might slow things down even further.

This is, I assume, a joke, as this discussion has not, at all, provided any argument as to why simple dodges, instead of opposed defense, works best, either in a mechanical or, much more importantly, dramatic sense in the game.

I don't like to rant, particularly here in such esteemed company, but this is just mind boggling.

You assume the only discussion the Devs have been observing is here in the forums. I submitted my own thoughts on opposed rolls directly to the Developers.

How about providing us with some feedback on why it's been dropped, then?

He did:

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

They got feedback, they debated the issue internally and decided to change it back. That's all we need to know, because providing feedback is the limit of our competence as external playtesters.

Also, great decision, Tim et al.!

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.

I like this suggestion. Can we get someone(s) working on this in a dedicated Game Mechanics thread?

I've met with this proposition before, and I must point out that it makes things a little bit messy as you need to list each range increment for each weapon separately with the range and BS modifiers. This can produce some pretty hUUUUge weapon stat tables.

On the return of Unopposed Dodge:

Whatever, it looked like a weirdo in the Action/Reaction system anyway. It was a good idea, but maybe not for the current super-forgiving combat mechanics.

I'm a bit relieved, and hope opposed goes back to being a talent.

Also what Lynata just said about Accurate only working at like long range or further is a great idea. I've never actually had sniper PCs, but rather people who tote hunting rifles around at close range bashing off 3d10 shots all over the place

I've never had a problem slaughtering my PCs under the current systems. If my PCs have ever had a problem with slaughtering heretics, it's more because they're slavering, warp-hardened monstrosities and less because of the binary evasion mechanic.

I've never had a problem slaughtering my PCs under the current systems. If my PCs have ever had a problem with slaughtering heretics, it's more because they're slavering, warp-hardened monstrosities and less because of the binary evasion mechanic.

The problem is not if you can slaughter PCs or NPCs or not (you can do it even the most forgiving systems) but the effort you (the GM) have to put into it. And hell, it takes quite a lot of DPS to take out a PC and unopposed Dodge increases the damage required to take out a PC by 30, 40 or even 50% (as this is how much damage will go into waste thankfully to a successful Dodge test).

Yes, and in 1:1 the Ag 60, Dodge +30 & Master (Dodge) character evades at 100%. Good luck.

Huh. Well, if nothing else, it was a neat idea (subjectively speaking, of course) - and that's all that is needed for people to adopt it as a houserule. I already have so many "adapted uses" (5) just from following the DH2 beta threads that I could almost write a new ruleset from it.

On a sidenote, yesterday I briefly thought about just dropping (*gasp*) Dodge altogether and simply replace the test with a penalty applied to the attacker's WS/BS (kind of like the Defense score in the Dragon Age RPG) to save yet another roll of the dice and thus time, but I take it that this agency on part of the defender has a sort of "tradition" here and thus would be a very unpopular move? Some of the previous posts at least strongly suggest this.

Opposed Dodge could work, but the game would need further modification before the differences between Dodge and Attack are balanced against each other. As it is now, Opposed Defenses are flawed because it's easier to get a bonus for attacking than it is to get a bonus for defending. It would work much better if the AP system still existed, where there was an actual cost for dodging, and if you weren't limited to 1 dodge per turn. 1 AP spent for a dodge would allow the player a lot more choice on what they want to use their AP for, defense or offense. In other words, you can spend all of your actions to avoid damage, or you can spend them on other things. In addition to that, attacking with a weapon would need to be a Skill Test, not a Characteristic Test, and that would require new skills while also invalidating BS and WS.

Opposed Dodge could work, but the game would need further modification before the differences between Dodge and Attack are balanced against each other. As it is now, Opposed Defenses are flawed because it's easier to get a bonus for attacking than it is to get a bonus for defending.

Hmm, on the other hand, it's also easier to get penalties for attacking than for defending.

But I get what you're saying, and as I've mentioned way back in this thread, I'm not entirely sure about the specifics myself - I just really like the general idea, as it does away with "wasted" attack DoS, or specifically the anticlimatic experience of a flawless attack being negated by the defender barely succeeding on a normal Dodge.

I guess people will some day come up with houserules for some of the points you raised. For example, I could imagine a rule allowing a 2nd Dodge at the cost of your next turn's Full Action or something like that... Either way, regardless of the back-and-forth, I'm kind of grateful for the inspiration and exchange of thoughts between people, as it really is an interesting topic.

Half and Full Actions make me feel dirty. The AP System really was much better than the old system.

I'm planning on a house rule that's going to force people to either dive into cover or hit the ground. I'm not saying dodge is a perfect mechanic. I just didn't like simply changing it to opposed and leaving nothing else.

I suggested something similar, the Devs seemed to approve:
From: Dark Heresy Beta <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Beta First Impressions

I like this. How would this look for wording?