Author Topic: IRE - Inquisitor Revised Edition project  (Read 60119 times)

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #120 on: July 12, 2016, 03:02:25 PM »
Ok quick comment on the psyker thing ypu say that some psykers may not be able to control their power draw because of injury/ability how will that be represented?
As far as injury, I'm considering adding a "concussed" effect or the like to the head injury tables. Being concussed might hinder a character's mental stats as well as causing them to lose control of their PR.

As far as abilities, it's just going to be simple negative traits. One psyker's powers might be so instinctual that he lacks any ability to restrain them, and thus have a trait that forces him to always use his full PR. Another psyker might lack any training and thus have a trait that forces him to randomise his casting PR.

Quote
I know adding more rolling is going to ruin the flow somewhat BUT would something like a 'channelling' mechanic work either the psyker makes a control test and eother gets the desired power or full power or on a failure gets less than what they desired potentially with some modification based on in game events.
Given the psychic test and Perils test already represent a specific psyker's ability to control his powers, that sounds like more tests than necessary. (But a psychic test could certainly be modified if a psyker has elected to drape himself in hexagrammic wards, particularly as IRE no longer penalises test failure with Wp loss).

When it comes to PR, I want it to be kept very low maintenance for the sake of game flow. Mostly, either a character will have full control over his PR or no control over his PR (although that may mean "max PR" or "random PR" depending on circumstances).
Any psyker with a shattered skull or standing on the cusp of a warp tear is going to lack full control but, due to the Perils test if he should suffer a Hazard, the more skilled ones are less likely to suffer catastropically under those circumstances.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #121 on: August 07, 2016, 12:36:56 AM »
I am, when I can, still trying to push on with the IRE project.

Cortez (not so) recently suggested I release an Alpha version... which is probably a reasonable suggestion; I may well be trying to refine the V0.2 release too much. That's not to say that I imminently have a ruleset to release, as the fullest version of the IRE rules exists partly in my head, several poorly annotated spreadsheets and two scrawled notebooks, but it should allow me to cut some corners.
Some corners, mind - the really big task is still making sure that what I'm writing is what I want people to read. (And then usually realising that I have no idea how to clearly explain what I have in my head, which often means having to change the rule until I can explain it).

This is meaning a need to expand the terminology a bit in order to avoid ambiguity.
For an example of one problematic term: "successful action". The original rules use the term to refer to actions that pass their action roll, risky actions that have been completed without going wrong, actions that also pass their hit roll/psychic test/etc... it's a minefield.

For the sake of rules clarity, I want to clean this up. I'm not expecting such things to enter the player's vocabulary, but it's just a good idea for it to be less murky.

There's a few terms I'm currently using that I'd appreciate feedback on. I'm not yet certain I'll need to use all of them and these are not going to be the final wordings of the definitions in the rules, but it'll give you an idea.

Confirmed action: An action/reaction which has passed an action roll (or otherwise didn't require one).
Initiated action: The action/reaction which is in the process of being carried out.
Resolved action: An action/reaction that has been carried through to completion.
Fumbled action: A "failed" hazardous action. (I'm not entirely happy with the word "fumbled", but I've yet to think of anything better).

Initating and Resolving are fairly important to the reaction mechanics, as reactions have to be declared after initation of an action, but before it starts being resolved. (Reactive players are expected to be quick on the draw when declaring. They'll already have had the chance to consider whether they want to react during the other player's action declaration).

Turn Character: The character whose turn it currently is.
Non-turn character: A character whose turn it currently isn't.
Active character:A character using an action.
Reactive character:A character responding to an action.

These two categories are distinct. For a 1st edition example: A character using a counter-attack is a non-turn character (usually) but would also be  an active character (as a counter-attack is an action).

Sorting out some of this stuff will help me screw all IRE's core mechanics in place, get something to you guys and then we can argue about what does work, what doesn't and quibble over specifics like exactly what modifiers are needed for an attempt to grapple or something*.

~~~~~

*On the note of grappling though, it's one of the things I've said I've wanted to add to the repetoire of skills in close combat (in order to avoid the notorious "attack, attack, attack").

I want to avoid it falling into the same pit of horrendous overcomplexity that some grapple rulesets do; making it a system of relative simplicity that the GM can throw modifiers at if needed. A summary of my current thoughts are as follows:

Initiating a grapple requires physical contact - an unarmed attack, but it grapples rather than doing damage.

Grappling is an opposed strength test. The first grapple grabs a location, which "disables" it. (If an arm is grabbed, the character can't attack with it; if their leg is grabbed, they can't walk; if their opponent gets them in a headlock, they can't look around). Breaking out of a grab is itself a grapple test.
Once a location is grabbed, then a further grapple action against it allows it to be "used". (If you have control of his arm, you could attempt to pull the important artefact from his hand, or try to shoot him with his own gun; if you have his leg, you can trip him up; if you have his head, you can strangle him; if you have a grip on his torso, you can drag him around or throw him).

While that's not mechanically very complicated, I'm hoping that there's enough substance there to open up new options in close quarters; in some cases, physically manhandling a character could become a serious alternative to trying to beat him into unconsciousness.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline TallulahBelle

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #122 on: August 09, 2016, 02:03:29 PM »
With grappling how are ypu going to balance it so it doesn't become the best option and thus it being first to grapple wins in close combat or mean that a character with the right build will grapple and be completely unbeatable?

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #123 on: August 09, 2016, 05:59:16 PM »
Personally, I think the problem could potentially be the other way around.

The initial grab requires hitting with a "Touch" attack (which, with Reach 0, is only effective if you can get close) and winning an opposed strength roll. That hit can potentially be parried, dodged or "taken".

The thing is, a reactive character doesn't have to use a defensive skill (such as a parry, psychic nullification or evasion - skills which roll-off to oppose the incoming attack), and can instead attempt to wait until after the triggering action* and hope that he's still in a state to perform a counter-action of his own.
* To be clear, in the current drafts of IRE, reactions that don't have the defensive trait are resolved after the action that triggers them. While the V0.1 Alpha had reflex roll-offs between active and reactive characters, the playtests showed they were far too much of a nuisance and took the initiative away from the turn character. Also, it was a mess to explain.
The reflex roll has been reduced to an optional rule that the GM can use for suitably dramatic moments. (A stand-off between characters is one possible example).


If the first grapple doesn't hit and successfully grab a location that suitably inconveniences the target, said target is potentially standing there with a chainsword in a free hand and a poorly armed muppet (as you obviously cant grapple with a hand that's holding anything) floundering in front of him.

I'm suspecting that grappling may actually need to give characters the option to heavily modify the location roll such that characters who want to try and grapple for control of a weapon aren't hopelessly grabbing each other's ankles all the time.

Of course, someone like an Astartes is going to be pretty unbeatable when it comes to a grapple (given their huge strength, but their large target modifier is also applied as a bonus), but to be honest, if they're doing that rather than actually hitting you, it would probably be an improvement...
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline TallulahBelle

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #124 on: August 10, 2016, 04:19:08 AM »
It's just I can see nasty uses for the grapple rules and done in such a way that it becomes dominant. Grapple hold in place someone else takes the killshot or similar. I am interested in seeing it work in mathhammer and actual practice however.

Question have you thought about some variation of sub damage in H2H?

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #125 on: August 13, 2016, 01:44:36 AM »
It's just I can see nasty uses for the grapple rules and done in such a way that it becomes dominant. Grapple hold in place someone else takes the killshot or similar. I am interested in seeing it work in mathhammer and actual practice however.
I don't see any particular problem with grapple rules being used that way. It's certainly feasible to do such a thing in real life, but it'll take the efforts of two characters and quite a lot of actions; you've got to move two characters close, attempt to grapple the target and then shoot him, all the while hoping that no step in the plan goes wrong or that another character shows up to help your target.

(And frankly, if help doesn't arrive, two characters against one is never likely to be pretty with or without grapple rules.).

Quote
Question have you thought about some variation of sub damage in H2H?
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

That said, as far as damage in general, I don't intend on doing much to change the damage rules. I think they're one of the game's best and cleverest* mechanics, but they're already one of the more time-consuming elements of the game.

I've discussed the broad details before; Trying to redress the balance of system shock tests (which vary far too much with toughness), capping stunned results (hits that stun for 4 or more turns are excessive and practically eliminate characters), making persistent results cumulative (which makes more sense and is how many people play it anyway) and throwing in some of the RIA damage effects as core mechanics.

~~~~~

* Although what was intentionally clever about Inquisitor's rules and what was accidentally clever, I don't know; I'd love the chance to one day talk to Gav Thorpe about some of the design processes behind the game, although I suspect I'd probably bore him to tears.

Very often, these parts of the game are those that detractors cite as issues. I had a discussion not that long ago with someone who disliked the randomness of the action mechanic.

To me though, the action mechanic is broadly similar to what you get in many RPGs. Most RPGs tend to slice things up so a turn is how long it takes a character to do about two "things" - two moves, a move and an attack, that kind of thing. It stops characters getting to do too much before anyone can respond. Inquisitor does much the same - an average Speed 4 character will do about two actions per turn.

However, a problem with a completely predictable two actions per turn mechanic is that it means that a player *knows* he can make it across the street before the sniper gets to shoot again, or he *knows* he definitely can't draw his pistol and shoot the two men in front of him before they react. That leads players and characters to act unlike people would in real life.

The randomness Inquisitor has in its action mechanic means that players can't make unrealistic predictions about how much their characters can do with their turns. Sometimes they will be punished for making assumptions, sometimes they will be rewarded for taking risks. To me, that's far more interesting.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline TallulahBelle

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #126 on: August 13, 2016, 05:34:32 PM »
I like the action mechanic requires a little luck that things don't always work out you can't get everything off perfect like in training it brings out some of the randomness of conflict perhaps the target ducked mid move or you didn't get the right angle to snap a shot off reflected in the rules

Sorry Sub is used as a call in allot of the larps I have played in over the years it uses the same damage mechanic as standard damage (so with an 8 hits character it takes 8 blows to reduce to 0hp or 4 double call blows) however the keyword Sub means rather than doing lethal damage and the character entering bleedout/death on 0hp Sub means the character has been knocked out or in limb Hp systems rather than that arm being mangled and bleeding/crushed it's been deadened and can't be used.

Thought it might be an interesting idea we have shock weapons which kind of do something similar but there isn't really an option for a knockout/stun effectbeyond drugging someone with a needler or beating them to the state their Out Of Action. I could see it being useful for dealing with NPC sentries or characters that players want to interrogate.

The grapple rules made me think of it really the idea of getting behind someone and choking them with a grapple trying to remain undetected.

Offline Drubbels

  • Interrogator
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #127 on: December 29, 2016, 09:34:51 PM »
Those grappling rules are truly a stroke of genius. I've often thought about how to make grappling more interesting (specifically in DH), but not once has it crossed my mind to simply use hit locations.

I'm having visions of characters using one another's pistols to fire wildly at their enemies, or better yet, bashing each other's heads into walls.

I haven't actually played Inquisitor for nearly two years now, but damn this makes me want to play again.
Previously "Adeptus Noob"

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2016, 04:58:17 AM »
I've often thought about how to make grappling more interesting (specifically in DH), but not once has it crossed my mind to simply use hit locations.
To be honest, I'm taking long enough over this that I now entirely forget how I originally got the idea.

It's perhaps more guidelines than actual rules, but I kind of know I'm going to have to go that way with some areas of IRE* - at least if I don't want them to get buried under ridiculous complexity that GMs would probably wing anyway.

* For example, I'm also planning on relying on that for the indirect fire rules. Given I'm changing the scatter weapon rules slightly (Scatter will be D3 for failure and each degree of failure, which makes the failure margin more important than with the D10+degrees method), I want to just make indirect fire a GM defined penalty depending on the difficulty, rather than having it be its own separate rules.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Drubbels

  • Interrogator
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2016, 09:31:37 PM »
On top of the basic mechanic, the rules for grappling probably just need to list:

  • the penalty for actually hitting anyone with the opponent's weapon, while they are still holding it
  • the distance the opponent can be forcibly moved in one action
  • sample damage values for bashing the enemy's body parts into walls or floors

I'm trying to get back into playing Inquisitor (I haven't actually had the opportunity since the playtest for reaction mechanics, mentioned in this thread nearly two years ago now) so I might be able to contribute to this project more regularly from February onwards.

Any other specific things you would like input on?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 10:14:48 PM by Adeptus Noob »
Previously "Adeptus Noob"

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #130 on: February 22, 2017, 01:15:55 AM »
Right. While this is not yet a complete beta version, it is getting close, so I've decided to stop telling myself "I'll release a version once I've just sorted X", and just release an Alpha version.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/17th71fs0zbhdf1/Inquisitor+Revised+Edition+Alpha+V0-2-0-2.pdf

This is most of the core IRE rules. The only significant absence at the moment that can't be filled in with bits from the LRB or common community house rules is the rules for manoeuvring in melee. (Updated abilities and the armoury are not included here, but obviously the core rules need to be at least broadly in place before that can be dealt with).

While I realise it's quite a lot of text to review, it is broadly colour-coded in order to hopefully make it easier to absorb.
- Black text is new or otherwise changed rules. (Many of which may have been common house rules, but it's different to the LRB one way or another).
- Grey text, while pretty much everything has been rewritten to some degree or another, broadly says the same thing as LRB text. While you probably shouldn't just skip over it, there shouldn't be any big surprises here.
- Green text is variously design notes, incomplete sections, stuff I want to rework, or things that I'm not completely certain I want to put in the core book. Basically, areas I know or think I need to work on.

(Polite) feedback on the project so far is, of course, highly appreciated.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Cortez

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #131 on: February 22, 2017, 11:47:20 AM »
Looking forward to playtesting this. Good job so far though.

Some typos:

Page 9: Certain superhuman characters may have very high Characteristic bonuses that are very large the die roll they are modifying.

Page 37: Characters may choose to end a close combat a (unfinished sentence).

Questions.

Regarding parrying: Do we still have the half WS for successive parry/dodge reactions? Needs to be made clear if that rule has changed (I'm assuming it has at the moment).

Prepared reactions: Can characters save actions if they're expecting to get charged? If so what benefit would the character get?

Suggestions

Attack: Feint: A successful feint should do no damage but should reduce the opponents WS for their next parry/dodge attempt. I would suggest the reduction should be the same as the margin of success. I think the feint attempt shouldn't allow for a reaction but if it is failed the opposing player gets an immediate counter attack.

Attack: Precision Strike: Allows the attacker to choose the location struck with an appropriate WS penalty (would -20 be too high?).

More feedback/suggestions to come.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 11:49:15 AM by Cortez »

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #132 on: February 22, 2017, 04:19:52 PM »
Looking forward to playtesting this. Good job so far though.
Hopefully, if I can get at least very preliminary melee manoeuvring rules in place (as well as core parts of the armoury - the melee weapon profiles will need some sprucing up in order to fit the changed rules), it might even be possible to do some testing at Golden Aegis if it goes ahead and a couple of willing victims volunteers can be found.

While there are a few other holes in there, most of the rest of them can be patched with 1st edition or the tried and tested method of "winging it". (Doubtless, it'll need some on the fly adjustments anyway).

Quote
Some typos:
Page 9: Certain superhuman characters may have very high Characteristic bonuses that are very large the die roll they are modifying.
Page 37: Characters may choose to end a close combat a (unfinished sentence).
Duly noted.
p9 is supposed to read "very large compared to the die roll". p37 is... well, a goof. I needed a passage somewhere to emphasize that close combat is much more open than before.

As IRE doesn't have any "locked" close combat state (turning your back on your opponent and running is going to be difficult/dangerous more than it is forbidden), a close combat will ends in much the same way as as a gunfight might - that is, by the characters deciding to stop hitting each other with swords.

Quote
Regarding parrying: Do we still have the half WS for successive parry/dodge reactions? Needs to be made clear if that rule has changed (I'm assuming it has at the moment).
There is no penalty for successive reactions. I've long found the halving WS mechanic to be an awkward mechanic, as it was more stuff to keep track of and fairly slow mathematically. (It wasn't a straight penalty, meaning it required completely recalculating the WS and then applying modifiers every time). I had considered a -10 penalty per parry, but even that's (currently) been dropped.

This aspect of parrying/dodging now comes from the opposed rolling mechanics, where the defender is expected to beat his opponent's attack roll (or at least hope for a critical parry*).
This in a way does a similar job - theoretically, before, more skilled attackers were more likely to hit, would therefore likely hit more times, therefore making their hits harder to parry. Now it's handled by more skilled attackers being more likely to hit well, and therefore being harder to parry.
*Mostly put in so that there is always that slim chance of parrying, like in 1st edition. Before, characters could always pray for 01-05, but in IRE's opposed mechanics, 01-05 rolls are easily beaten. Hence why "Critical" parries automatically win (a percentage broadly in the 4-8% range), meaning defenders always have a slim chance, even against the most skilled opponents.

I feel it has several other advantages:

- It opens the doors for slow, but skilled, swordsmen.

- Before certain characters became more effective against more skilled opponents. Because the LRB only allowed a parry/counter-attack if the opponent first hit, characters with a high enough counter-attack chance (particularly if they had reduced successive parry modifiers, such as a buckler or shield) could easily get more attacks per turn.

- And because it's now important to not just hit, but hit well (aside from a narrow hit being easier to parry, a missed attack is pretty easy to counter-attack), hopefully characters will instead try to work on positioning rather than just relying on "attack, attack, attack".

Quote
Prepared reactions: Can characters save actions if they're expecting to get charged? If so what benefit would the character get?
As far as prepared reactions, they either automatically confirm, or provide a +20 bonus to any defensive reactions. A prepared parry reaction, for example, would give the character a pretty good counter-attack chance.

I have wondered if I do want to provide characters with the option to use stored reserved actions to re-roll parry tests or something (in order that there is still a dynamic with keeping back actions), but I need to think of a rulesy way to word that.

Quote
Attack: Feint: A successful feint should do no damage but should reduce the opponents WS for their next parry/dodge attempt. I would suggest the reduction should be the same as the margin of success. I think the feint attempt shouldn't allow for a reaction but if it is failed the opposing player gets an immediate counter attack.
I had similar thoughts. On some level, I feel a more skilled swordsman should be less likely to fall for a feint, but just keeping it as a very simple "passive" action would certainly be a quicker way to handle it.

One thing I'd note is that I want to open up feints to all characters (although only those with the skill will be particularly good at it).

Quote
Attack: Precision Strike: Allows the attacker to choose the location struck with an appropriate WS penalty (would -20 be too high?).
Precision Strike is intended to be broadly the same as the "Sure Strike" ability from 1st edition, allowing characters to aim for weak spots in their opponent's armour.

"Calling" melee location has been (perhaps too quietly) added as an optional modifier, where the character can choose to take a -20 to hit penalty in order to get a +/-20 on their hit location roll. The exact numbers there are still up in the air; the hit penalty should perhaps be only -10, but right now I'm more interested in broad mechanics than precise modifiers (which will need to be refined through playtesting).
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Cortez

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #133 on: February 22, 2017, 06:14:56 PM »
I'm more than happy to help out with playtesting at Golden Aegis (or whenever if that doesn't go ahead). I don't think I'm going to get a Space Marine ready in time for that event anyway.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5064
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #134 on: February 28, 2017, 07:22:18 PM »
I'm still tackling the missing close combat movement rules.

As suggested before, I quite like the idea that successful attacks/parries grant the character a free yard of movement. This would be even if beaten on an opposed roll, but the winning character would get to decide who moved first. (Although depending on whether that's found to hold things up, I might force an order on it).

Normal movement will remain an option, but this will allow the opponent free capacity to react, and as you can already see from the "Reach during combined movement" section, trying to close in this way carries a fairly high risk of being impaled.

However, I also think there need to be proper manoeuvring actions, to do similar things to "step back", "close" and "circle" in the LRB. I think I'll consolidate these to one skill that can be used to move in any direction (now that the rules allow freer positioning), with the special element to the skill being that it restricts or otherwise hinders the opponent's options to react.

In IRE, something to remember is that a character can now react to any action in melee, including movement. This means that there has to be some mechanism to just stop manoeuvre actions just being immediately countered (or just giving the defending character an easy opportunity to try getting a stab wound in).

What comes to mind is that manoeuvring will involve be a WS test, and the opponent will be unable to use a turn or move as a reaction to this manoeuvre skill unless he actually beats this roll. (Or, possibly, as above, will be forced to let the attacker decides who moves first, making it difficult for him to react).

This I think could even tie into the existing reactions, with the same risk/rewards for dodging/parrying/taking the hit.

A dodge has the best odds of matching the opponent's footwork, but cannot get a counter attack
A parry has worse odds (usually), but can.
And taking the hit has the best odds of a counter-attack, but as a non-defensive reaction cannot beat the roll (as it's not opposing it), meaning the character cannot turn if he takes this option. (And attacking might even give the opponent the chance to dodge or parry, flanking you further!)

I'm quite happy with this option, because it's comparatively simple and very much ties in with existing mechanics.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles