This actually applies to nearly all RPGs. With the sustained scrutiny of players looking for flaws, you'll eventually find more and more of them.

Nope, on a threshold you only have to meet the threshold for the test to succeed - unless it is a spellcasting test. Those require a net hit.

Also, I forgot to mention:

Look no farther than the driving / chase rules for 'double dipping'. The demarcation between conditions and complexity of action are clearly made. Roads, weather etc. drop your dice pool. Difficulty of maneuver sets a threshold. Even when doing head-to-head tests, a threshold can be (and often is!) present, with net hits compared at resolution.

Terra firma indeed.

Ah, so it is.
I stand humbly corrected.

I still can't shake the impression you're not getting the point of opposed tests.

Opposed tests are used in situations where the two opponents are in direct competition in such a way that their efforts have a direct impact on the other usually (perhaps even always) on a continuous basis (like in basketball) rather than a discrete one (like in chess). In these circumstances it makes little to no sense thematically or mechanically to play out the conflict blow-by-blow so instead it's handled with one roll each to see who gains the upper hand as a result. This test is based on their relative proficiences augmented by situational modifiers leading to a direct comparison in strength of the two sides. There is no need for thresholds as well, nor IMO room for them.

Going back to Con as a case study - what would it mean to give the con artist a threshold of 4 and the target a threshold of 2? I can only think that it would mean the target is difficult to deceive relative to other targets whilst the con artist is easy to see through relative to other con artists. But these things are already represented in the stats of the two characters. Throwing in an extra rating for each side that is not derived from their stats would be pure shennanigans on the GM's part.

Oh, you mean like opposed vehicle tests in Chase combat where there can be variable thresholds for each driver but net hits are still compared? That kind of opposed test?

I understand pretty well what the point of opposed tests are. SR4 already has mechanics in place and in use that have all or a combination of: dice pool mods, variable thresholds, opposed dice pool tests, success tests and degrees of success.

As I was saying earlier: if you are having huge problems with a face rolling 30 dice and essentially getting carte blanche to do whatever they want, there are ways around that. Having someone con somebody into something simple is not nearly as difficult as conning someone into a much more complex trap. Hell, a long con could even be represented by using build/repair style rules with an interval and large threshold. Point is, SR4 has a lot of mechanical components that work with decent interchangeability. If a player gets butthurt over not being able to roll a fistfull of dice and smash through whatever barriers of verisimilitude exist, that is up to them. Huge dice pools do not necessarily mean that a player just gets to do whatever it is that they want, however it is that they want it, end of story. There are still ways that mechanics can be meaningfully leveraged to add granularity to a challenge. If a game is suffering at the hands of absurd events coming out of absurd dice pools, then something has to give. SR4 has a few ways to give back built right into the game.

double post

Huh? Where are the different thresholds in opposed driving tests?

There aren't any. The thresholds relate to the difficulty of a particular maneuver or situation. They don't apply to the opposed vehicle test. RAW doesn't specifically say they don't apply, but given the level of abstraction, the absence of a maneuver/tricky situation stipulation, the fact that it's driver v driver and the fact that it's an opposed test all implies that thresholds are not used.

I have always said that the Opposed Test has two verifications to it. You roll the test, Driver vs Driver and see who obtains net success (to gain advantage)... Then you compare the Total successes of each driver against the environment to see if you need to perform a Crash Test. If you are driving in an environment that needs 6 Hits to succeed at any driving test, you still need to check for success for each driving test.

This.

The opposed Pilot test is simply a matter of determining who gets to decide on relative distance alterations between the vehicles involved. Nothing else. There is no crash test resulting from a lack of successes, and there is no effect from critical successes beside being able to decide relative distance alteration. (Though a generous GM might allow you to do so twice or whatnot. Not much bearing to the discussion, anyhow)
This is an opposed test, straight up you rolling off against your opponent(s) with any applicable dice pool modifiers, like from the two tires they shot out last round, or going way over your vehicle's safe speed, or driving in VR. Since it's an opposed test, and opposed tests never have a threshold, there is no threshold. (read up on different kinds of tests on page 63 of SR4A)

Then, the turns start, and you get to do your thing in Initiative order.
If you'd want to perform risky maneuvers, like staling your car at a right angle to the road, performing a high speed U-turn, high speed parallel parking, or driving into the back end of that truck you use to park your AI's black sportscar homenode in, you're going to need to make a separate Handling test, which might well result in you crashing if you flunk it. This is either a success test, (with all applicable modifiers, and a threshold set by the difficulty of the task you want to perform, and the environment you're in) or an opposed test, in case you want to ram or cut off your opponent. (with modifiers, without a threshold, because again, this is an oppposed test).

"You chase your opponent at high speed around a hard right turn."

What do the rules say for resolving this?

Assume that this is an ongoing chase and initiate has already been rolled.

By RAW:

Precise maneuvering is not a factor in chase combat. The only maneuvers available to chase combat are Break Off, Cut Off, Maneuver (to get a dice bonus on next turn's initial opposed roll, fully abstract) and Ram. And yes -unless anything has been published since to add to this- this list is exhaustive, as indicated by

If initiative had already been rolled, the case you present would likely be a narrative resolution of the Maneuver stunt, the 'high speed' being indicative of "hey, you get some extra dice on your roll next turn." This would have required a success test. Setting the Threshold for which depends on your reading of the rules.
I would probably handwave the specific action taken as irrelevant 9to the crunch) narrative detail, due to the abstract nature of chase combat. This would make the Threshold equal to (appropriate terrain modifiers). Dice pool modifiers to the Vehicle test apply as normal. Alternatively, you might wish to call for specific actions, which would make the Threshold (Action + terrain modifiers) or in this case, (2 + terrain modifiers). I allow this route, but allow for bonusses when people handicap themselves thus.

Note that conditions of traffic, street width, etc only have a bearing on chase combat for the Break Off and Maneuver stunts, which both require a success test. The other two require only an opposed test.

The precise maneuvering stuff is the domain of tactical combat, which does away with the abstract nature of chase combat, and the opposed vehicle roll to start 60-seconds turns off, to replace them with specific and precise maneuvering in normal 3-second turns. In tactical combat, this would definitely be a success test with a Threshold of (2 + terrain modifiers).