I'll leave this out there for us to salivate over ...

Expect to see previews next week ;)

 

That and at least I feel bad when I roll a lot of crits. It also takes away the the feeling that I won through my skill and decisions.
And Triumph is right, when he is talking about the bad decisions that suddenly become more viable with that rule.
That is bad game design because it takes away player agency.

 

You guys are right – it has a higher chance in otherwise disastrous gun fights. You guys are ignoring the fact that the ORC is slated to win in those examples. A bad gunfight is still a bad gunfight, it doesn't magically make shooting out of range suddenly better than shooting in range.

 

It's still a reasonably winnable fight is the point, far too reasonable for the BS4 vs BS17. You should not have rules enabling BS4 to have any real hope in hell of tackling that fight and yet we do. As has been pointed out, people do take these stupid fights on the back of FAT2 and win them because of it.

Players should feel compelled to expend more orders to safely approach and fight from a rangeband that favours them. They shouldn't feel like saying "to hell with it I can crit this" and actually roll on a 1/3 to win.

Linked Tarik has a 39-42% chance vs an MSR Dakini link. That's almost a coinflip and you're firing at BS4. I'm sorry, that's utterly ridiculous to expect someone not to get annoyed playing against that kind of brain dead roulette game when you can totally screw up deployment get pinned down and then just say "screw it, I actually have decent odds of shooting my way out of this" and then do just that instead of taking the longer but safer route of maneuvering smoke or pitchers to hack the sniper and spending more orders. Just raw, dumb, luck because it's basically a coinflip and they feel like they can get away with it without being punished, and about half the time they probably will get away scott free.

It's not an overpowered rule, but it's a brain dead and stupid rule that should be fixed so its not having the greatest effect when a player is playing badly or being totally outplayed by their opponet. Right now it's just an annoying and frustrating rule to play against, and that's not a good thing.

Alternatively it should just be restricted to profiles with low burst weapons, and Tarik/Khawarij should just be given something else instead

 

Because, again, you are firing in the good range band. The complaint about FAT2 has nothing to do with taking good firefights, it's about how it totally warps taking bad ones and heavily lowers the punishment for doing so.

Take the Bulleteer and put it in the -3 or -6 range bands and watch its killing power drop off a cliff. It doesn't do what the FAT2 models do, which is stand a pretty decent shot of straight up winning a terrible BS fight.

As I have stated, you should not go into a firefight with a core defensive link like Dakinis, firing in your worst possible range band, and in the case of core link a FAT2 Khawarij or Tarik, basically be neck and neck to win the damn roll with the defender firing at you with every possible advantage.

If you spend extra orders to close the gap, throw smoke etc, get a good firefight happening. Then there is no problem. But the fact that FAT2 allows you to "SCREW IT SHOOT AT -6 RANGEBANDS I'LL TAKE THE COIN FLIP" is what's terrible about the rule. What it needs is to be fixed so it's valuable, but doesn't scale better towards bad firefights. And before you say nobody does that, multiple people have told you in this thread that people do indeed go ahead and do this.

 

You are not reading these posts. The coinflip is has nothing to do with your example of an ORC fireteam, but a Dakini link vs a potentially linked Tarik firing at BS4 that I mentioned in a previous post. The coinflip referring to that despite firing at BS4 vs BS14, they are almost equally likely to win the firefight.

Which is frankly ridiculous.

 

The thing is - we don't have linked Tarik. Nor any guarantee it will end up looking like what you envision: Khawarijs might be as well restricted to Haris. Or Duo.

 

A big part of infintiy is that AROing is bad. You dont usually want to do it. Even with really good gunfighters. The units you want AROing are either disposable have a special rule or just have a ton of to hit modifiers against opponents.

While Dakini are good a Dakini link being shot by someone in the reactive turn should probably not be winning all the time.

Tarik might have a chance against a Dakini link in the active turn but so will a Nisses or a Riot Grrl.

 

this is very true. I expect Khawarij will be able to core/mix core, but Tarik will be limited to special haris/duo.
Greg is also right in the aspect that Ramah and haqq as a whole lacks any type of definitive attack piece – for the most part Khawarij are pretty flimsy, I see FAT2 as a type of defense for them.

Regardless of what you say about engaging in gunfights out of your odds and trying to rely on FAT2 to inflict wounds, spending the orders to get into range and engaging that way is always going to be better, mathematically and tactically.

 

Because you should not be in a good position to win a firefight at BS4 vs BS14. That is the problem with the rule is it enables a player to take stupid firefights and win them instead of having to expend orders to make tactical moves to set up a good engagement.

Expending orders to play tactically to create favourable engagements = good gameplay

Brute forcing your way through terrible engagements with critical hits = bad gameplay

I've been saying FAT2 is a stupid rule since day dot.

The wishlisting for Tarik/Khawarij cores in this thread is what spawned the whole discussion on FAT2.

You are also missing the point. The point is not that the ARO piece is losing a fight, the point is the ARO piece has an abnormally large chance to lose the firefight despite being 10+ BS ahead of the active piece. That's the problem here.

 

~30% chance to win a gun fight isn't "a good position". just because it isn't as bad as you want doesn't make it good – or worthwhile – or somehow better than moving into a proper position.

 

Like Gregg you're not reading posts. The example was with a 39-41% odds for a different scenario not the ORC one. But that's besides the point. The point is it is good enough that as multiple people have stated in this thread, they and their opponents do just that. They take these engagements and brute force their way through it because they're good enough odds they'll roll on them.

They're good enough odds because FAT2 makes them abnormally good in comparison to other models trying to take those fights.

 

why do you keep insisting that a roll in which the Dakini is slated to win is somehow "good odds" or somehow in your favor. or somehow worth throwing your 30 point model away? Because other people told you they did it before?

 

Because shooting AT BS4 and having a grand total of a 3% difference is good odds for what you are doing, when most other models would probably be facing 20% difference or higher. It is essentially a low skill equaliser, you do something really dumb, and then don't get punished for it effectively because a decent chunk of the time according to those odds, you win. So you just keep doing it.

And yes, people here in this thread have said they do these kinds of things. I know they happen because I witness a particular player in person do these things all the time. When faced with a Hac Tao in suppressive fire, does he spend 3 orders bringing a Ghazi up to try and force it out of SF mode first? Not if he has Tarik. He'll just go straight for the crits on BS4. Every, damn, time. Sometimes he loses, sometimes he wins. The point is FAT2 makes him win alot more than he should, which creates unfun, braindead gameplay.

FAT2 reduces the amount players who just gamble get punished. It does not promote good gameplay. It promotes, and causes braindead gameplay which isn't much fun to be on the receiving end of.