I could see some models getting "Evasive" as a skill, which allows them to 'dodge' a template attack by making a successful CC attack. Probably at a penalty because 20+ CC values. By extension some more thrown weapons would be cool, but I feel CB is married to the 8" standardized rangebands and as we've seen with Guard 8" CC can be scary. That said, I feel the best answer is as usual a thorough going over of all the profiles and like, not giving every second model a template weapon. Thats probably the best solution for any number of issues (or percieved issues) in the game. Isn't this just a number shuffling path to the same outcome that dodge+X gives? Outside of B1 in reactive I guess.
I might be misunderstanding what you mean in your initial post. I meant to say that if you want to combine CC Attack and Dodge, then a single roll using PH may be the most sane option (if you Dodge better than your target, you also slash them with the sword) since CC scores tend to get really high and that Dodge is a fairly strong mechanic in this situation. I did not mean that Shikami would do a BS Attack here. Successful CC Attack would also include simply being faster, no? I believe in Kendo there's this idea that no fight should take longer than 3 cuts.
It would allow models to move out into LOF of enemy models and have a decent chance of being able to pass a dodge roll to move further. Ie essentially making it a B2 Dodge in the active turn against a B1 ARO. This would essentially allow models to keep dodging through AROs and avoiding enemy fire, by having to win the FTF roll. It would just increase their odds as they would be rolling 2 dice in for active turn dodging.
Haha yeah I think you misread or read someone else's comment. I suggested performing a single BS Attack roll and a dodge roll. The intent would be for the a tive turn, that much I did not specify before. But yeah that video of Neo in the Matrix dodging and shooting is exactly what I had in mind.
TL DR As much as I like this idea, the changes of the ftf roles are a no go. It’s a complete estrangement of the rules and therefore impractical.
In the past, the best I've come up with for struggling close-in LI/MI with high price tags (like Bao, old Bolts and old Wildcats) in this situation was a "Quickdraw" skill that would cause a Template to fail (as if illegally declared) if the user hit the trooper that caused the Template with a BS Attack. It's closer to current resolution sequence, but not perfect (only other situation that can cancel other actions is death) and interacts weirdly with Mines.
It's not actually, it works just fine and in the same fashion as other skills and mechanics in the game.
Prove it. All the discussion contradicts your claim that it works the same. Also, I don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve with this idea; what game situation does this resolve that existing skills don’t?
So imagine two players keeping track of a situation involving a model trying to intuitively attack 2 other models in smoke. One of the two shoots back the other dodges. There is no more work involved than that interaction. Now if multiple units are responding to someone with the ability I'm suggesting. The dodge applies to everyone and the single attack roll applies to their chosen target. Which means everything functions the same as it did before. There's other interactions in the game that function with that much work as well. And likenI said, Berserk is essentially 3 short skills in an order, Mov+Mov+CC Attack, and it makes the Attacks in that Order Normal rolls. Even if the CC Troop attacks a linked troop in sight of the rest of the team. Or if Musashi moves into base contact with 2 troops, and they ARO in any way... not any more difficult than those situation or manipulating the current system anymore. The only question is cost.
Two points: A. This thread has a lot of "Why doesn't anyone think that this proposal, of which I haven't really bothered to think of the various implications, is a good idea?" And also haven't really specified enough the idea (in specific game terms) to avoid having people arguing past each other (and you) likely talking about completely different ideas of what the proposal is. B. Being able to dodge -and- make a BS Attack (even just at B1) is pretty much a zero downside situation. Are you standing near an enemy mine and want to shoot someone? Dodge+BS Attack. Are you standing near an enemy model that wants to shoot you, but you want to shoot someone else? Dodge+BS Attack. And that goes double if this proposal is for "Allow a trooper to declare Dodge and BS Attack in the same order" and not "Allow the trooper to declare a complete order skill which performs both the Dodge and BS Attack skills (thus declared at the same time, before AROs)."
The question is not "how much work is it to process an interaction", it is "show us an example in game where your proposed idea is already being done." Two models performing seperate F2F ARO using two different skills against the same attack is not the same as one model performing two simultaneous and different ARO against the same attack. I can't think of one but if you can I'd love to see it. Even so, if I have your idea right then this case would not be an effective example of it regardless. Are you wanting the BS roll to be a shot and the simultaneous dodge to be against the template? (If thats not accurate, please elaborate) In this case, the two seperate F2F ARO of shoot and dodge will both will nullify a less successful or failed Intuitive attack in the same fashion as a dodge - so essentially two dodges. Re; berserk 'being essentially three skills' it clearly isn't because it's simple a double length move and a punch. Sure you get to move twice as far, but nothing outside of our imaginations makes that 'essentially' two movement skills.
Well, I dont think anyone suggested it for ARO, I know I certainly didnt, and And though indidnt specify whether it would be a whole order Declaration or not, I would wholly support it be a whole order skill. That would definitely make it easier for people. For the argument of their being no down sides. There are plenty of troops who pay premium points to have no down side. And Dodge is still a single die roll on a number that is usually no higher than 14. Where has most troops using BS rely on burst just as much as any other modifier. If a person cant see how the only question is cost, after we've made it this far then I can't say anymore to persuade someone. I'm also not looking for argument. So I guess good luck gentleman on finding something you guys all like, by enough of you, that CB tests it out.
In this case I think a multi-Burst (as in, Dodging with 2, 3 or more dice) Dodge would be still a better solution. It also seems to fit more neatly into the existing rules: we have multi-Burst on BS attacks basically everywhere, and we have multi-Burst on some CC attacks (due to either multiple combatants, or Martial Arts). So the way it works - mechanically - is pretty obvious for everyone by now. Merely apply it elsewhere. What would require consideration is: Should multi-Burst Dodge work in ARO, or only in Active Turn? What probability of a successful Dodge do we want on the models? As you've mentioned, high-PH models would massively benefit from such a skill. This of course might be regulated by giving them fixed Dodge values rather than letting them dodge on their PH, or by nerfing their PH. But we're getting into fine details, much dependant on which model exactly we're talking about. That being said, I consider the rules as they are to be adequate, and feel no need to boost certain units' capability of getting into CC.
I think multi burst dodge (if it was allowed, should work in both phases but should be an exceptionally rare skill. Like Dodge+6) The Namurr comes to mind for a unit that wouldn't be too exploitative of that. But I'm in the seemingly collective opinion that allowing two seperate ftf skills to be used at once is a little to radical break from the regular rules. And to give a great example of where this would be horrendously exploitable is on just about any warband, especially the ones in the Phys 14+ range. Bearpodes and all of the Dogwarriors would be nightmares if they could move, dodge, and shoot all at the same time. I think skills that let you use alternate stats, or modify the ones you would use are usually the most effective way of accomplishing these sorts of situations. An example could be a Combat Reflexes skill allowing a (CC -6/-9/-12) roll as an attack that also would also avoid templates if successful. There have been some really good suggestions so far. I do really like the idea of a B1 quickdraw skill on some elite units or medium infantry that would let you have a chance to negate templates. I've always thought martial arts should apply to ftf dodge rolls, though probably only in zone of control. In sort of vein as the shot to counter a template. I've always been for minesweepers and deactivators should be allowed to ftf mines. Physically getting into CC has become a lot easier this edition since most CC units get extra dodge move, can move in an active dodge, and move on a reactive dodge -3 now that Change Face has been rolled into Dodge. I don't think those units need any more huge buffs to help close the distance. But the mass proliferation of templates has mostly balanced out those gains.
I see. Then again, have you tried playtesting it? Still, for me it seems to be more logical and conforming with the exsting rules than having 2 FtF skills being executed simultaneously. People, as you can see, aren't happy with that either (whether this counts as a hissy fit, I do not know. But I'm certain this one goes against the grain of the rules, if you forgive me my carpentrish ;)).
It's interesting that you use the worst possible example for my suggestion say it'll go on a bearpode when I specifically said it would be a rare skill for some specific troops. Then you turn around and say B2+ Dodge on a few units is fine as if I didnt say the same thing before. Thanks for the strawman, guy What just happened above is part of the problem. People only say and acknowledge what they want to. And no I hadnt tested it, but if someone were going to test it they would have to have some idea of how to properly price it. What I can acknowledge is just increasing burst orntarget number for some troops isn't easier change. But I do recall people complaining about the usual mods to target numbers are all repetitive, especially mimetism, this shakes up the game in a new angle of play. But we've all seen that no one on these forums agrees with me about anything yet alone each other, and I've suggested a fuck ton of ideas of which some admittedly arent the best but many have been sound and the final question is always cost. And honestly the only sound argument I've heard from anyone is that would be another later of complexity that the game may not need if theirs a simpler solution. But the false argument that its OP is garbage because it's only OP on some troops. Like dude above saying what if it goes on a bearpode, anything better than pistol going on a bearpode is gonna be OP. That's an asshole-ish extreme exaggeration to win an argument.
You referenced two ARO as your example of your rule existing in game. Thats the only suggestion of ARO here. Yes, two kinds of cost. One is points and sure, a model can have whatever rule if it costs the right amount. But you are not factoring the cost to complexity in the game and have not been able to argue sofar that adding your unique exception to the rules is worth its weight in complexity to the game. +B Dodge is mathematically the same as simply having dodge+_ in most ways. Using the dice calculator I found that Musashi (PH14) vs a BS11 combi is almost identical odds using either B2 dodge or Dodge+4. The meaningful differences come from a) +B Dodge giving you a strong active turn dodger only and b) +B dodge does not allow you to reach PH20 and 100% template immunity. Everything else is just a mathematical shuffle. I really like the idea of certain aggressive models being active turn dodgers and I think this is where dodge+B is a meaningful addition to the game. Otherwise, I'd strongly argue sticking to dodge+_ and not adding complexity when you can achieve much the same thing within existing rules. Honestly I think both of these skills need a huge buff. IMO minesweeper should either be a sensor style effect or even a passive effect converting all deployables within ZoC. Deactivator should render a model completely immune to mines and koalas etc and delete them when they trigger. Something along those lines. I see no problem with deployables having a silver bullet counter given how good and cheap they are.
There's no minesweeper skill to buff in game as of N4 ;) If I'm not mistaken, B2 on Dodge would mean that a unit, say a Tanko style HI with 6-2 MOV, would have a more reliable mean chance of dodging than having a significant flat bonus in order to gain movement distance on the second skill. I'd also posit that such a skill would probably end up somewhere in Aleph, Haqq and/or Combined more naturally.
This is the pattern of your rule suggestion threads @wuji. You make a post about a rule proposal you have, without clearly explaining the rule nor the game situation it is intended to address. You haven’t tested it. You haven’t considered the interaction with other rules. You don’t identify the niche for the skill. Suggestions of flaws in the proposal or even requests for clarification are responded to with goalpost shifting. Anything other than total agreement and applause is met with accusations of being an asshole. This is not good faith discussion. This is the behaviour of a troll.
