Hi all, Update #5 is up!

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4574

–Tim

does this update actually go back to the non-opposed evasion, or i misread something?

Yes, it does.

Nowhere to hide:

Shouldnt this be useable only for Standard attacks ?

Doesnt this make called shots even more obsolete than they already are ?

I'd be okay with successful called shots inflicting a 1 pt critical in addition to any additional damage. The 1 pt crit wouldn't stack with exisiting critical damage, but it would represent the sort of status effects you'd expect from a called shot.

a 1pt crit as additional effect sounds like a nice idea indeed.

Also, I think it could be a good idea to impose a penalty to evading called shots. Kind of a bridge between opposede evading and non-opposed evading (-30 or -20).

Dive for Cover doesn't make much sense. It you really want to use cove while you Dodge, then why not use Tactical Advance instead? If you can't use Tactical Advance because there is no cover in reach, then you won't use Dive for Cover either for the same reason.

And how does it look like from the attacker's side? The bullet magically follows the target's movement? The attacker fired a shot at the exact location of the target but the bullet still hits 3-4 meters away because the target used Dive for Cover?

With opposed evading, dive for cover might be a good option.

But with binary dodge AND the option for dive for cover, it favours defenders even more.

Given that you now even get a bonus on dodge when being in cover (see dodge skill examples), binary dodge is a killer.

Ag 50, Dodge+20 and medium cover is enough to get 90% evasion probability.

Add Step Aside and you have even two evasions.

Dive for Cover is a pretty bad option IMHO. For a meager +10 to the Dodge roll, you lose a half-action in your next turn (unless you have Leap Up) and all you gain is some cover. And it is highly possible that your opponent hit you in a location that is not even protected by said cover!

Wouldn't it have been grand if all these buffs to Dodge were brought up while we still had opposed evasions? ffs!

Wouldn't it have been grand if all these buffs to Dodge were brought up while we still had opposed evasions? ffs!

I also think so.

Keep evasion opposed and give the option to dive for cover.

"Nowhere to hide" and "Inescapable attack" only applies to normal single attacks right?

With opposed evading, dive for cover might be a good option.

But with binary dodge AND the option for dive for cover, it favours defenders even more.

Given that you now even get a bonus on dodge when being in cover (see dodge skill examples), binary dodge is a killer.

Ag 50, Dodge+20 and medium cover is enough to get 90% evasion probability.

Add Step Aside and you have even two evasions.

I run games for some pretty power gamey players, and our group has never had dodge be a problem. TB soak and armour seem to be the preferred damage mitigation, along with cover. Throw some flamers and grenades in, and suddenly players are losing their reactions like crazy.

I was for opposed dodging too, but someone pointed out how unfair it is a low levels, and after a bit of testing, I totally agree. A starting character with a single shot weapon absolutely ruins a starting characters chance to dodge, and that's hardly fun or fair.

With opposed evading, dive for cover might be a good option.

But with binary dodge AND the option for dive for cover, it favours defenders even more.

Given that you now even get a bonus on dodge when being in cover (see dodge skill examples), binary dodge is a killer.

Ag 50, Dodge+20 and medium cover is enough to get 90% evasion probability.

Add Step Aside and you have even two evasions.

But the attackers can easily build up just as great a hit chance or more,. And a player can still only dodge twice per round ever. One decent duel wielding enemy can remove both those reactions, and with inescapable attack they will probably still hit. Dodge needs to be good.

I run games for some pretty power gamey players, and our group has never had dodge be a problem. TB soak and armour seem to be the preferred damage mitigation, along with cover. Throw some flamers and grenades in, and suddenly players are losing their reactions like crazy.

I was for opposed dodging too, but someone pointed out how unfair it is a low levels, and after a bit of testing, I totally agree. A starting character with a single shot weapon absolutely ruins a starting characters chance to dodge, and that's hardly fun or fair.

How many NPCS do have DUal Wielding and/or Inescapeable attack.

This whole rules are always only seen from a PCs point of view.

If a PC levels up dodge, most regular NPCs have no chance at all hitting him.

They dont have so much fancy talents usually like PCs have.

If they are lucky, they get "Quick draw" or "Rapid Reload".

Even if you have an attack value of 99%, as long as your enemy has even only dodge 50% (Ag 40, Dodge +10), you only hit in 50% of the cases. Even if he makes the perfect 10DoS shot - same 50% to hit. Thats ridiculous.

If you really wanna give dodge a better stand, give it a modifier against standard attacks that are not called shots of +10.

Thats all it needs to make opposed evading a good thing. ANd remove inescapable attack of course.

Dodge already gets a benefit in cover, so what more do you need ?

And the best thing is: its only unopposed for single shots ?!?! How weird is that !

I shoot a salvo and the enemy has to make opposed.

Is that really the reason ? To make everyone just use autofire ?

With autofire, as a good shooter, I can make sure that at least 1 of my bullets hits, as it is opposed.

As a single shooter, thats not in my hands.

Any news on the expanded crafting rules? I know they said it would be a few weeks but i think thats' passed.

They haven't had a decent crafting system since the inquisitors handbook...

Dive for Cover doesn't make much sense. It you really want to use cove while you Dodge, then why not use Tactical Advance instead? If you can't use Tactical Advance because there is no cover in reach, then you won't use Dive for Cover either for the same reason.

And how does it look like from the attacker's side? The bullet magically follows the target's movement? The attacker fired a shot at the exact location of the target but the bullet still hits 3-4 meters away because the target used Dive for Cover?

Because only idiots walk down a street Tactically Advancing everywhere. Sometimes when you're carefully advancing you don't want to look like you're carefully advancing. I've used this rule in DH 1.0 with considerable success for years. It has its place.

Dive for Cover is a pretty bad option IMHO. For a meager +10 to the Dodge roll, you lose a half-action in your next turn (unless you have Leap Up) and all you gain is some cover. And it is highly possible that your opponent hit you in a location that is not even protected by said cover!

You're also prone, which gives a penalty to further incoming ranged attacks. Also, presumably you would be diving behind adequate cover or you'd just risk a dodge. If you dive behind a flower pot or a small child, you deserve what's coming to you.

Is the "character start with a score of 20 in each characteristic..." a typo for the Allocating Points system. It would seem that 25 is the wanted number, which is then reduced to 20 for "-" Home world changes or increased to 30 for "+" Homeworld changes.

And how does it look like from the attacker's side? The bullet magically follows the target's movement? The attacker fired a shot at the exact location of the target but the bullet still hits 3-4 meters away because the target used Dive for Cover?

It's up to the GM to rationalize it. I'd assume it would appear as though you were tracking your target, leading him with your shot until he faked left and jumped into cover. You were able to compensate enough to follow him, but ended up hitting cover.

Gaunt, if my players all bought ridiculous dodge levels, then my NPCs WOULD start carrying inescapable attack and dual weapon wielder. Not to invalidate their choices, but to scale the challenge as they level up. If your high level acolytes are still fighting squads of dudes with robes and swords, then you might want to consider giving their enemies something new.

And it's not all about ridiculous minmaxes.

At low exp levels with opposed tests, dodge is horrifically bad, and at high levels there's no reason to buy it if you aren't an agility character

I have to say, it's rare that I can understand both sides of an argument, but in this case, I really do...opposed dodge feels more satisfying to the players, because now NPCs can't dodge their 6 DoS shot, but on the other hand, the system also gets a lot deadlier.

I think maybe a capped dodge penalty would be a way to solve this without making dodge horrifiyingly bad, something along the lines of "-10 to dodge per 2 DoS, maximum -20", similar to the extra damage accurate weapons receive (might need to be balanced when actually used with accurate weapons, as they might get too good otherwise. Maybe only allow one use for DoS, so either extra damage or lower chance of dodging). Also, as has been said by a couple of people before, give called shot an option to penalize dodge (maybe -20) instead of hitting a specific area (focus on tracking instead of careful aim).

That way, DoS on single shots would actually matter, but dodging would still be possible and dive for cover would be a valid option when faced with skilled shooters. Inescapable attack should be deleted (or at least toned down, maybe giving double the normal penalty) when using this system, however, as it would be too strong.

I like inescapable attack, but maybe it could go back to being PerBx5 penalty instead of -10 per success.

Gaunt, if my players all bought ridiculous dodge levels, then my NPCs WOULD start carrying inescapable attack and dual weapon wielder. Not to invalidate their choices, but to scale the challenge as they level up. If your high level acolytes are still fighting squads of dudes with robes and swords, then you might want to consider giving their enemies something new.

And it's not all about ridiculous minmaxes.

At low exp levels with opposed tests, dodge is horrifically bad, and at high levels there's no reason to buy it if you aren't an agility character

But thats

I have to say, it's rare that I can understand both sides of an argument, but in this case, I really do...opposed dodge feels more satisfying to the players, because now NPCs can't dodge their 6 DoS shot, but on the other hand, the system also gets a lot deadlier.

I think maybe a capped dodge penalty would be a way to solve this without making dodge horrifiyingly bad, something along the lines of "-10 to dodge per 2 DoS, maximum -20", similar to the extra damage accurate weapons receive (might need to be balanced when actually used with accurate weapons, as they might get too good otherwise. Maybe only allow one use for DoS, so either extra damage or lower chance of dodging). Also, as has been said by a couple of people before, give called shot an option to penalize dodge (maybe -20) instead of hitting a specific area (focus on tracking instead of careful aim).

That way, DoS on single shots would actually matter, but dodging would still be possible and dive for cover would be a valid option when faced with skilled shooters. Inescapable attack should be deleted (or at least toned down, maybe giving double the normal penalty) when using this system, however, as it would be too strong.

-10 per 2 DoS would be fully acceptable !

I will go with the -10 per 2 DoS as well. It makes inescapable attack go away.

I will go with the -10 per 2 DoS as well. It makes inescapable attack go away.

It would be a good middle ground.

Giving attacker DoS some importance, but still giving evading a chance.

And if the attacker scored too good, you still might have the chance for a dive for cover.

And if the attacker scored too good, you still might have the chance for a dive for cover.

Exactly, although you're technically not supposed to know whether or not your opponent rolled well or not (and your character definitely isn't) ^^