In my game we have Evade (an agility test, useful in melee, but is only ever half the Evade skill when used against non-primitive ranged weapons). Then we have Dive for Cover (a -10 Evade Test if you have cover within 1 meter), all successfully negated hits strike the cover. Finally we have Hit the Deck (a -20 Evade Test) in which you gain the prone condition. All these are opposed. My players have taken to calling "Dive for Cover" Duck for when they are behind cover, but have body parts exposed due to shooting, and then attempt to avoid incoming fire. It works pretty well.

It's weird how so many people interpret Dodge as "There is a bullet in the air headed in my direction and I'm now going to move out of the way" and not "That guy over there is leveling his gun at me. I better move!"

The "I'm going to get out of the way" reaction to guns being leveled at you is to get behind cover - which is different than a "Dodge Action" in Dark Heresy. Getting behind cover is a general move in reaction to guns being leveled at you and affords you the protection of that cover.

In contrast, Dodging follows a specific attack and only when that attack is successful . If the attack isn't successful the character doesn't perform a Dodge Action. Dodging is very specific to a successful attack.

So it's not weird to think that Dodging is in reaction to a specific ranged attack successfully about to strike you...because that's exactly what mechanically happens. But since matrix-like dodging of ranged attacks is obviously absurd, we all suspend belief and choose to "re-interpret" that something else happened.

What point are you trying to make here? Because to me it looks like you're trying to argue some reality as extrapolated from the rules. Dodge roll happens after a successful attack roll, therefore in the game world the character ducks out of the way after the bullet is fired but before it hits him.

Do you want a playable game or a near-perfect simulation of realistic combat?

LuciusT brought up an interesting suggestion in another thread: what if Dodge and Parry weren't even purchasable as skills? To evade attacks, you would simply make a Weapon Skill/Agility test to avoid melee/ranged attacks, respectively. If you want to boost your Dodge/Parry chance, just improve the relevant ability scores. This would allow binary evasion to remain while keeping PC Dodge chances at sane levels.

LuciusT brought up an interesting suggestion in another thread: what if Dodge and Parry weren't even purchasable as skills? To evade attacks, you would simply make a Weapon Skill/Agility test to avoid melee/ranged attacks, respectively. If you want to boost your Dodge/Parry chance, just improve the relevant ability scores. This would allow binary evasion to remain while keeping PC Dodge chances at sane levels.

Oh... for love of the God-Emperor...I'm not writing a monster post just to point out the epic number of flaws in that idea. Can someone else please explain it instead?

====

As a question to those that prefer Opposed Dodge, What is the average ratio of enemies to Players do you run in your games?

Part of the issue for the 'super dodgers' may be entirely due to there being fewer enemies than one might expect form a game were being outnumber is part an parcel of the theme.

Oh... for love of the God-Emperor...I'm not writing a monster post just to point out the epic number of flaws in that idea. Can someone else please explain it instead?

I don't follow what you mean. What exactly are the numerous flaws in this idea?

Oh... for love of the God-Emperor...I'm not writing a monster post just to point out the epic number of flaws in that idea. Can someone else please explain it instead?

I don't follow what you mean. What exactly are the numerous flaws in this idea?

I believe his point is that there are so many bonuses an attacker can get (standard attack +10, aim, red dot laser, etc.), that if you can't get bonuses on your dodge you will be FUBAR'ed.

It is clear that two super dodges vanished if the number of attacks tends to infinity...

The problem I have with dodge is the disparity between players when they meet a bad ass opponent that has one big hammer strike or melta shot every round. Those with 80+ dodge doesn't feel the danger in that combat, while those with low dodge are clearly worried. If the opponent is smart he can figure out he cant hit the high dodge players so he at least tries to take out the others before the inevitable loss. I do think that some advanced talent or trait for NPC could be in play for these situations.

It's weird how so many people interpret Dodge as "There is a bullet in the air headed in my direction and I'm now going to move out of the way" and not "That guy over there is leveling his gun at me. I better move!"

The "I'm going to get out of the way" reaction to guns being leveled at you is to get behind cover - which is different than a "Dodge Action" in Dark Heresy. Getting behind cover is a general move in reaction to guns being leveled at you and affords you the protection of that cover.

In contrast, Dodging follows a specific attack and only when that attack is successful . If the attack isn't successful the character doesn't perform a Dodge Action. Dodging is very specific to a successful attack.

So it's not weird to think that Dodging is in reaction to a specific ranged attack successfully about to strike you...because that's exactly what mechanically happens. But since matrix-like dodging of ranged attacks is obviously absurd, we all suspend belief and choose to "re-interpret" that something else happened.

What point are you trying to make here? Because to me it looks like you're trying to argue some reality as extrapolated from the rules. Dodge roll happens after a successful attack roll, therefore in the game world the character ducks out of the way after the bullet is fired but before it hits him.

Do you want a playable game or a near-perfect simulation of realistic combat?

I think Seanpp made a valid point.

As you only evade successful attacks, it indeed indicates that you are matrix-style evading the bullet/hit.

It would be different if you would have to decide to evade before the attacker made his roll.

Therefore - in the current RAW - you are obviously evading a successful attack matrix-style.

LuciusT brought up an interesting suggestion in another thread: what if Dodge and Parry weren't even purchasable as skills? To evade attacks, you would simply make a Weapon Skill/Agility test to avoid melee/ranged attacks, respectively. If you want to boost your Dodge/Parry chance, just improve the relevant ability scores. This would allow binary evasion to remain while keeping PC Dodge chances at sane levels.

Oh... for love of the God-Emperor...I'm not writing a monster post just to point out the epic number of flaws in that idea. Can someone else please explain it instead?

====

As a question to those that prefer Opposed Dodge, What is the average ratio of enemies to Players do you run in your games?

Part of the issue for the 'super dodgers' may be entirely due to there being fewer enemies than one might expect form a game were being outnumber is part an parcel of the theme.

On average ? I'd say it is about equal.

Sometimes there are more NPCs (but then they are weaker anyway), sometimes it is a one-creature threat.

Oh... for love of the God-Emperor...I'm not writing a monster post just to point out the epic number of flaws in that idea. Can someone else please explain it instead?

Did you read the thread that was mentioned?

If not, no hissy fit for you.

LuciusT brought up an interesting suggestion in another thread: what if Dodge and Parry weren't even purchasable as skills? To evade attacks, you would simply make a Weapon Skill/Agility test to avoid melee/ranged attacks, respectively. If you want to boost your Dodge/Parry chance, just improve the relevant ability scores. This would allow binary evasion to remain while keeping PC Dodge chances at sane levels.

Oh... for love of the God-Emperor...I'm not writing a monster post just to point out the epic number of flaws in that idea. Can someone else please explain it instead?

====

As a question to those that prefer Opposed Dodge, What is the average ratio of enemies to Players do you run in your games?

Part of the issue for the 'super dodgers' may be entirely due to there being fewer enemies than one might expect form a game were being outnumber is part an parcel of the theme.

On average ? I'd say it is about equal.

Sometimes there are more NPCs (but then they are weaker anyway), sometimes it is a one-creature threat.

To support GauntZero, you only have to look at the printed adventures to see that single powerful enemies turn up all the time, so it's certainly expected from the developers that fighting one opponent works within the system just as well as the same number as the party or a horde of enemies.

I believe his point is that there are so many bonuses an attacker can get (standard attack +10, aim, red dot laser, etc.), that if you can't get bonuses on your dodge you will be FUBAR'ed.

It is clear that two super dodges vanished if the number of attacks tends to infinity...

The problem I have with dodge is the disparity between players when they meet a bad ass opponent that has one big hammer strike or melta shot every round. Those with 80+ dodge doesn't feel the danger in that combat, while those with low dodge are clearly worried. If the opponent is smart he can figure out he cant hit the high dodge players so he at least tries to take out the others before the inevitable loss. I do think that some advanced talent or trait for NPC could be in play for these situations.

To support GauntZero, you only have to look at the printed adventures to see that single powerful enemies turn up all the time, so it's certainly expected from the developers that fighting one opponent works within the system just as well as the same number as the party or a horde of enemies.

This illustrates the problem with the current system nicely. On one hand, high-Dodge characters can be defeated by attacking them with many enemies at once (three at the very least to overcome the two dodges from Step Aside). On the other hand, published adventures often throw single "boss" enemies at the players, sometimes with one sidekick to make things more interesting. In situations like this, the super-dodger is nigh invulnerable, while the rest of the party is seriously worried by the boss enemy's plasma pistol/powerfist/daemonic tentacle.

By removing Dodge/Parry as purchasable skills, you can allow players to boost their Dodge chance through Agility/Weapon Skill but keep the Dodge chance from getting out of hand.

Why not make dodge opposed, but make a talent with a special dodge rule against enemies that outnumber you ?

Like:

Eyes everywhere:

As a free action you may spend a fate point to evade one time against any attack that targets you until your next turn. This also spends your reaction.

Add +10 to evasions against standard attacks (not called shots) and you are fine.

This has been beaten to death, but this change penalizes the defender by making the attacker benefit _twice_ for his weapon skill.

If you really want to do this, get rid of Dodge/Parry entirely and make the whole thing a single Opposed WS/BS vs. Agility/WS Test. It will have the same effect.

This is being discussed so much as it isnt really solved yet.

Neither of the 2 ways to do it so far is good. I think it is important to find a good middle ground.

Oh it has been solved.

No, it has been shifted from one side to the other.

Inescapable attack is a pretty decent compromise, no?

Inescapable attack is a pretty decent compromise, no?

It would be if it was worded better. Sadly as it is, it effectively doubles the potency of full auto/lightning attacks. Personally I think they should just use the wording from the original beta (where the DoS on the dodge/parry remove the DoS from the attack then you calculate the number of hits) for a cleaner system.

Inescapable attack is a pretty decent compromise, no?

Naviward said it well.

Furthermore, this talent is usually limited to a chosen few - not something that is part of the general ruleset for everyone.

I agree that the wording is poor and needs to be improved, much like what Naviward suggests.

Maybe the route that needs to be taken is to look at the NPC and say that "Troop" type (minions) never hits with more than 1 degree of success when doing a standard attack.... but not sure...

Maybe the route that needs to be taken is to look at the NPC and say that "Troop" type (minions) never hits with more than 1 degree of success when doing a standard attack.... but not sure...

This is what TT codexes do. Rules become muddled and break down when you start adding too many exceptions to the rules.

Binary evasion IS an exception to the rule.

I'm currently three session into our DH2nd ed game. My GM is my room-mate so we talk about this stuff extensively. We are not using binary dodge and were more than likely going to change dodge to be more of a range evasion rather than close combat.

Our groop playtested for 3 days binary dodge with penalties for absence of cover (see first post). Worked well.

Binary evasion IS an exception to the rule.

I'll point out something here.

If you make evasion opposed, you're going to have to rework the multiple attacks system.

Why? Because while against MAs evasion functions somewhat like an opposed test insofar as successes (2 or 1) neutralize hits, it is not insofar as the base chance to hit is not affected.

If you DO make them full-fledged opposed tests, how is this going to work? Will the number of DoS on the evasion test BOTH reduce the chance to hit AND reduce number of hits? If yes to the former and no the latter, how are you going to determine number of hits? If yes to both, it is going to make the chance to hit with a multiple attack go through the floor.