It is useful in situations where a PC would not normally be tactically advancing though. Perhaps they are exploring or investigating a warehouse building when they start taking fire from a catwalk or from the top of some crates. This is when the rule would be very useful. It gives the PCs a chance to quickly dive for cover when they previously had no reason to tactically advance or hide.

The characters can always take cover in their own turn and then proceed to use Tactical Advance. maybe they lose a half action this way, but they also lose a half action with Dive for Cover too (unless they have Leap Up). There is, like, one tiny fraction of combat where this special use may come in play: if the character tries to dodge the attack of an enemy at higher initiative than him, in the very first turn of combat. But even then, the character is hard pressed to use a normal Dodge that will negate the attack completely instead of relying on cover and wasting a half action for a "mere" +10 bonus.

I think you're missing another use for it. A character in cover only gains the cover bonus to the areas that are concealed, so a guy behind a wall wall gets legs, and maybe body, while his arms and head are exposed.

Dive for cover makes the cover bonus apply to any area, so a character who is already in cover but gets shot in the head can use it to drop completely behind the wall and gain additional armour against a called shot or lucky shot.

Yes, and makes called shots even more useless than they already are.

I fully agree that called shots need to be changed back to how they were, but I think we need to be mindful that discussing 'Dive for cover' as a rule and the rules for 'called shots' are seperate issues. If called shots get moved back to how they were, I dont have a problem with Dive for Cover.

On a related note I actually had a similair (albiet harsh) house rule for this in most of my games. In keeping with the binary dodge, I ruled that ranged attacks could only be dodged it there was suitable cover to throw yourself behind. In the absense of cover the character could drop to prone, and a prone character could not dodge at all.

Dive for cover makes the cover bonus apply to any area, so a character who is already in cover but gets shot in the head can use it to drop completely behind the wall and gain additional armour against a called shot or lucky shot.

As I can read it, Dive for Cover doesn't make the cover bigger, so if half the character can't fit behind it an he uses Dive for Cover, and the attack hits him in the exposed areas then he won't benefit from cover. Unless he shrinks to small enough with the Prone condition.

I'm not sure how much beneficial defence you'd be getting from cover that isn't high enough to block you when you're prone. That's like, feet armour.

I'm not sure how much beneficial defence you'd be getting from cover that isn't high enough to block you when you're prone. That's like, feet armour.

The attacker can still have an angle to you from an elevated position or because the cover doesn't face towards him. Not to mention covers with holes and such.

Three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth.

Attacker, defender, GM. The GM decides if the cover is viable or not. The defender behaves accordingly. Same goes for Tactical Advance. Same goes for elevation, Swiss cheese cover, etc. Rules for attacker, rules for defender, the GM determines which rules apply in any given situation.

So in short :

Opposed evasion needs to come back.

Inescapable attack should be made redundant by opposed evasion.

If the combat system needs to be reworked to accommodate opposed evasion , it should be done.

Dive for cover makes the cover bonus apply to any area, so a character who is already in cover but gets shot in the head can use it to drop completely behind the wall and gain additional armour against a called shot or lucky shot.

As I can read it, Dive for Cover doesn't make the cover bigger, so if half the character can't fit behind it an he uses Dive for Cover, and the attack hits him in the exposed areas then he won't benefit from cover. Unless he shrinks to small enough with the Prone condition.

RAW it states that the defender gains the AP provided by the cover for the attack. You'd have to be really pedantic to argue that in a prone position that didn't mean 'gain the AP of the cover provided when calculating defence value for this attack'.

Dive for cover makes the cover bonus apply to any area, so a character who is already in cover but gets shot in the head can use it to drop completely behind the wall and gain additional armour against a called shot or lucky shot.

As I can read it, Dive for Cover doesn't make the cover bigger, so if half the character can't fit behind it an he uses Dive for Cover, and the attack hits him in the exposed areas then he won't benefit from cover. Unless he shrinks to small enough with the Prone condition.

RAW it states that the defender gains the AP provided by the cover for the attack. You'd have to be really pedantic to argue that in a prone position that didn't mean 'gain the AP of the cover provided when calculating defence value for this attack'.

Yeah, but RAW, it doesn't overwrite the normal rules for cover either. If the cover doesn't provide any AP for the location hit, then the character gains no benefit for using Dive for Cover. Simple as that.

Really, Dive for Cover is just a bad game mechanic. If you need mobility with your Dodge (because Dodge isn't OP enough I guess ) then simply allow the players to move X meters after Dodge, where X equals to the DoS they earned in the Dodge test (up to their AG bonus).

Is it as simple as that, because I read as being 'you get the AP of the cover for the attack', not 'you gain the AP of the cover on the next attack if the location in question falls behind said cover'. Wonderful thing the English language.

EDIT, the way I see it your interpretation should read "The defender counts as being behind the cover when determining defence values"

So in short :

Opposed evasion needs to come back.

Inescapable attack should be made redundant by opposed evasion.

If the combat system needs to be reworked to accommodate opposed evasion , it should be done.

Or, we can keep evasion working as it is, not gut the core engine in the process, and just remove one really bad Talent.

Is it as simple as that, because I read as being 'you get the AP of the cover for the attack', not 'you gain the AP of the cover on the next attack if the location in question falls behind said cover'. Wonderful thing the English language.

EDIT, the way I see it your interpretation should read "The defender counts as being behind the cover when determining defence values"

The problem is with "provided". Remove that word and we are at your interpretation.

Is it as simple as that, because I read as being 'you get the AP of the cover for the attack', not 'you gain the AP of the cover on the next attack if the location in question falls behind said cover'. Wonderful thing the English language.

EDIT, the way I see it your interpretation should read "The defender counts as being behind the cover when determining defence values"

The problem is with "provided". Remove that word and we are at your interpretation.

See, that's exactly what he meant by "overly pedantic".

Is it as simple as that, because I read as being 'you get the AP of the cover for the attack', not 'you gain the AP of the cover on the next attack if the location in question falls behind said cover'. Wonderful thing the English language.

EDIT, the way I see it your interpretation should read "The defender counts as being behind the cover when determining defence values"

The problem is with "provided". Remove that word and we are at your interpretation.

See, that's exactly what he meant by "overly pedantic".

Well, it is not my fault that we have rules for this game .

Dive for cover makes the cover bonus apply to any area, so a character who is already in cover but gets shot in the head can use it to drop completely behind the wall and gain additional armour against a called shot or lucky shot.

As I can read it, Dive for Cover doesn't make the cover bigger, so if half the character can't fit behind it an he uses Dive for Cover, and the attack hits him in the exposed areas then he won't benefit from cover. Unless he shrinks to small enough with the Prone condition.

RAW it states that the defender gains the AP provided by the cover for the attack. You'd have to be really pedantic to argue that in a prone position that didn't mean 'gain the AP of the cover provided when calculating defence value for this attack'.

Yeah, but RAW, it doesn't overwrite the normal rules for cover either. If the cover doesn't provide any AP for the location hit, then the character gains no benefit for using Dive for Cover. Simple as that.

Really, Dive for Cover is just a bad game mechanic. If you need mobility with your Dodge (because Dodge isn't OP enough I guess ) then simply allow the players to move X meters after Dodge, where X equals to the DoS they earned in the Dodge test (up to their AG bonus).

Just a thought: Dodge always inferred the ability to move up to your agility in meters during evasion. One need only look at the rules for evading blast weapons to realize this.

Just a thought: Dodge always inferred the ability to move up to your agility in meters during evasion. One need only look at the rules for evading blast weapons to realize this.

Yup. And I would like to see this kind of Dodge being the normal (so you actually have to move while Dodging). Instead of being against blast and other AoE stuff only.

Yes. Actually see it in print. But...would this mean that any successful Dodge made in melee is also fleeing combat? Or a Disengage move?

Yes. Actually see it in print. But...would this mean that any successful Dodge made in melee is also fleeing combat? Or a Disengage move?

A case could be made for this in melee but that would invalidate the Assassin strike talent. The Character would simply have to dodge (Rather than Parry) and they have disengaged from melee. This could have other ramifications for all combatants. I'm sort of conflicted on this so I'll have to think on it more!

You could have it that a successful dodge forces you to move in some manner that still leaves you engaged. Would represent sidestepping an attack pretty well. Not sure if it'd actually add any tactical depth, though.

True enough but I don't think it adds much! Dodging out of combat in DH1 made sense because you then necessitated moving to reingage. In the current incarnation of attacking (Swift and lightning attacks are all half actions), this isn't much of a penalty!

You could have it that a successful dodge forces you to move in some manner that still leaves you engaged. Would represent sidestepping an attack pretty well. Not sure if it'd actually add any tactical depth, though.

It doesn't; we tried that for a bit a few years ago.

Maybe this is why Dodge was a range-exclusive evasion, and Parry melee-exclusive?

Still run into a rules snag when dodging a hand flamer while in melee, though.

Making dodge range-exclusive could make sense from a balance point of view, but it would make no sense for realism...

Reality has to bend somewhere. Better to bend than to break.

*lol* thats true

I am open to that suggestion in general - as long as parrying would also be possible unarmed (with a penalty)

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.