It's not about whether the current rules are balanced, or if the new rule is better or worse - what you proposed is a change that has a very wide scope of impact which affects different classes of units to varying degrees. As such it's not a small and easy fix.
@toadchild Exactly this. This is why I think it’s much more sensible to just change one problematic rule, rather than rewriting supposedly up to 20% of the wiki content.
I was explaining how current crit mechanic also favors/hurts different types of units/weapons, so in this regard my change is the same. This was my counter point to what he wrote. But yes, I agree that it affects them differently that current mechanic. More logically IMO. Expensive high ARM/BTS units should have better survival chances. @Zewrath I kinda piggybacked on the topic and derailed it a bit. There were suggestion on how to change crit mechanic before ( in Warcors subforum ), but Warcors that wanted that change the most were mass banned ( for unrelated reason ), so that initiative kinda died. I read this topic and felt reinvigorated to start it again :-D Sorry about that. Regarding FAT2 specifically, with how crit works currently, I would like it to be rewritten in a way that does not involve increased crit chance ( and also cost points ). This would please me and I think many other players, since most people cite 41% chance for Sheskiin to crit as their biggest gripe.
Which means it's affecting different units differently than now, so it's changing the relative value of units, which means looking at points costs. You can't have it both ways. Sorry, I wasn't clear. It changes the relative effectiveness of Crits with different ammo types compared to now. Which means that it changes the relative value of those ammo types. Which potentially means points changes. All I can find in this thread is: No mention of other types of Crit, no mention that it's only for ARM/BTS Rolls. You might have said something in other threads, but I haven't read every post in every thread about Crits. K1 and Monofilament would need rewriting for that proposal to work, because they ban Damage MODs. It wouldn't be a big rewrite, but it's still a rewrite. I think you missed the point completely. It's not about translation costs, it's that a change that alters the relative value of units and ammo types, and requires updating a substantial part of the wikis and rules PDFs. That's an edition-level change. Describing all that as 'needs couple of sentences to change on infinity wiki' is... weird. My assumption is that you are an intelligent player, this makes it look like you haven't thought about what effect your proposal has on the rules.
I'm not opposed to the crit mechanic getting re-evaluated, but that sort of core system change needs to be part of a new edition, not a one-sentence patch to a rule.
It would potentially mean it, if CB actually did balance weapons/ammo/rules based on their performance and crit interaction. Which FAT2 proves they don't. As well as SMG. Crit seems not to be part of the formula, as it is accessible to everyone equally ( ignoring FAT2 ). And this would continue to be the case. I mentioned here several times I want to change instawound/instakill part of the crit mechanic. I thought this automatically means I don't want to change how non-lethal weapons interact with this mechanic. No, you clearly used time investment as an example how this is not a simple change. And I think I proved to you that in this regard it is simple. This is what part you quoted was about. Of course I agree you can't just swap a few sentences just like that, you need to test it. So in this regard it is not as simple. But technical part of what would change in wiki is not 20% of everything as you said, it's more like 2%. So simple in this regard. I agree it changes relative value of weapons/ammo types compared to current rule, but not by that much of a margin IMO. And as I already said in this reply, if I thought CB actually takes crit into account when pricing weapons I would consider this a valid argument. But they clearly don't from what I can tell. Sheeskiin would then have separate profile that makes her linkable that costs more than non-linkable one if this was the case. And FAT2 wouldn't be free. I do admit I didn't thought about this in depth. Which is why I appreciate your replies. But I think CB would never listen. If someone from CB said, ok we are exploring changes to crit mechanic we would like to hear your idea, then 100% I would invest time and do a thorough analysis. I would gladly play test it as well. ( did play one game with this change, there weren't many crits so we couldn't really evaluate much so only conclusion we came from that one game was those few crits that did happen weren't as annoying, even tho everything that was critted died anyway ). One change Warcors ever managed to push for is with Tech-Bee, and that one was so minor ( and not really good IMO ) that I really don't see much point into investing time in this. I really just had some free time yesterday to write about one of literally 2 things I hate in this game. I love this game, as I said I think this is the best game out there right now. I just get kinda passionate when someone mentions crits or SMG's :-D
@LaughinGod What's wrong with SMGs? Honest question, I just don't know. High burst with Shock / AP options for cheap?
Yep. You are getting very potent SF platform (Ryikuen-9 is prime example of CB abusing their own formulas), not to mention all Hi-Tech/Expensvie stuff (high ARM, NWI) do not really want to face a Shock/AP that often and for that cheap. How much was SMG, -3 pts compared to Combi ?
I don't see the problem with SMGs. Perhaps they are stronger in some armies than others, but every army has their hardpoint units and their lackluster ones. As for the topic, I am not a fan of FAT2 because its seems like a crutch and easily the cheesiest ability in the game. I roll ALOT of 1s and I would take as many FAT2 units as I could without severely hampering my list's mission capability. Having a B5 FAT2 possible unit... with SSL2 as well, just seems a bit OP.
5 point cheaper than Combi rifle, while being better weapon overall. It should cost as much as combi or even more. Only that :-D @eciu I would go as far as to say it costs around 1 point. Which is crazy.
Streloks get a SMG, Chain-colt, and Mines for 16 points, or just a AP Marksman Rifle for 25 points. Maybe CB things that the sweet spot range of the SMG is a a big enough disadvantage in a firefight. I personally haven't seen SMGs win games by themselves, its not even close to the havoc BSGs, Sniper Rifles, HMGs/Spitfires, and template weapons create in a game.
If CB wants to keep FAT2 stupidly deadly for next to no points.... well we can't really do much about that other than complain. But it really should feel like a game mechanic, so add some limitations for the other player to work with. Something along the lines of it only working in positive Rangebands in the Active Turn.
I agree with FAT2 only working in positive ranged bands, and it could be on both active and reactive turns. It would take some of the silliness out of the ability and add some strategic gameplay into getting your unit in position.
