It needs to be what CB would like it to be, and fit how they want it to in their game. Beyond that, who ought CB to give more weight to, caustically dismissive anonymous forum users or folks who they know well and who’ve been on the journey almost since the beginning?
Fatality is fluffed as a special instinct for where to hit a target to cause the most damage. Fatality L2's most frequent complaint is that it instead distorts the outcome of the more common and interactive BS Weapon Face-to-Face rolls, especially where an opponent has made great efforts to inflict negative modifiers, instead of having anything to do with damage or wounding. While I haven't had substantial time to playtest or even think through a solution, my current line of thought is that, rather than increasing the chance of a critical, improving their damage might be a usable change. Specifically, something along the lines of "A Critical result on a BS Weapon Attack with the bearer of the this skill, instead of applying the normal Critical result for its ammunition type, instead applies the Dead state." It causes such attacks to become more dangerous for the bearers, but also allows a rare fast method to bypass hardy defenders or targets, preventing their healing by a Doctor or Engineer, and doesn't punish investment into acquiring modifiers for the defender. If it's not against any manner of rule or contract, what kind of solutions were tried as an alternative to the current Fat2? Knowing would be a big help in avoiding solutions that the developers know to be impractical.
People who buy their stuff have ultimate vote. Those people don't like things people they trust came up with. Who do you think is right in this case ? In case you missed my last 2 posts where I quoted CB : "This piece of equipment has been redesigned to be more in line with how the rules work in N3, which always allows a player to have a roll associated with an action - making sure that there is a risk associated with the reward of a successful roll.SymbioMates are now a piece of Obligatory Equipment with only one use, and that gives ARM 9, BTS 9, and Total Immunity. " ( emphasis mine ) Give me roll associated with an action, make crit have a risk associated with the reward of a successful roll. It's all I ask. Doesn't have to be +3DAM on crits, I just feel that is safe change that requires almost no testing and is super simple. It can be something else. If someone is a gamedev that doesn't mean he knows what is best for the game. Ask all those nice people that used to work at Rackham. I would like CB to live longer than them. I do think this is best game out there. It just has some small flaws that are holding it back from becoming almost perfect. In the end, you post is practically pointless. You made no arguments whatsoever. I really don't see a point here.
What if Fat2 crit on your normal modded to-hit #, as well as that # -12 (and not at all if that was a number less than 1)? So it would then still be an incredibly potent skill, but would reward "better" play in making sure you were hitting on 13+, as opposed to critting 41% of the time every time. Ranges, visual mods, and negative mods in general would go back to mattering (granted not always, but more-so). Fat2 models become bad when they're bad and normal when they're normal. But when they're good, they're very good.
The crit mechanic borders on something similar to old symbiomates did in that they removed a dice roll mechanic. This isn't unique to just crits and a few things in the game produce similar results. Forcing ZoC ARO's, Smoke MSV2 + active unit out of smoke to a degree spec fire also create responses in the game that are less then optimal. The fundamental difference I think between these mechanics however is that crits/old mates removed an element of player agency. As opposed to being forced into a bad choice a player is essentially not given a choice. That isn't to say that there isn't a space for something like the crit mechanic. A chance, in some circumstances against all odds to have a significant and substantial impact on combat could be seen as a very interesting "chance mechanic". Fatality Lvl2 doesn't seem to be fit neatly into this category. It drastically changes offensive capabilities of these strike pieces to the point where they can be absolutely indiscriminate about potential gun fights they chose and come out with excellent odds. Someone had written the article showing that Fat lvl2 drastically increases the odds winning a ftf roll that you were otherwise going to lose but had little impact on ones you were winning already. I think this is a problematic trend in the game as it rewards power pieces as opposed to good strategy. Example below of Joan link (A) Vs Swiss ML (R) and Sheskiin Link (A) Vs Swiss ML (R) both at bad odds for the active team.
I quickly ran some numbers using the dice calculator on a 5 link Tarik Spitfire vs a 5 linked Rui Shi. The criteria were good but fairly typical conditions 23" Range, in cover, with marksmanship on the Rui Shi, and under smoke where it was relevant. Against the 6 high level ARO units I looked at, the Rui she was better against all but 1 (and then only marginally worse). Often the Rui Shi was significantly better. This especially interesting when you consider something like a Rui Shi can often prevent an opponent from shooting back at all, and is way cheaper than Tarik. FAT2 might make playing poorly better. And it might have some significant negative psychological impact. So it might not be the best rule. But it almost surely isn't the strongest thing in the game (by itself) for a player playing well. If it was you should see Tarik lists disproportionately dominating ITS, when apparently that is not the case. Intuitively Sheskiin does seem bonkers though, but that's only partially up to FAT2. Really we have to have a fuller picture (ie more play experience with it) to make definitive conclusions. Partially just so we're not identifying the wrong things as which problem. It seems to me though that the real issue here isn't just FAT2 in particular (though FAT2 might be a part of it), it's power creep in general.
Rui Shi is an interesting comparison because that unit has been mostly unchanged since combat REMs were introduced in Human Sphere in 2009. The only difference I can see offhand is that it got a 5 point drop in the edition change.
@Hachiman Taro While I agree that's a good unit for a comparison, do you get similar results running the dice calc at 31 or 47 inches? The core issue is not the engagement at good spitfire ranges, but rather engagements where a spitfire should be at a significant disadvantage.
Bear in mind I'm comparing the Rui Shi 5 linked (as I think you can now in Dahshat) and that's a significant difference to a few days back. I didn't compare the results at non good ranges (which I assume would comparatively favour Tarik) basically because I think that would generally reflect generally poorer play and I'm more interested in what is strong played well, not what is less weak played poorly. The latter could really be considered 'rubber banding' (ie a mechanism for allowing poorer play to not be as punished). Some games do that deliberately for various reasons (such as encouraging poorer players not to quit) so as long as the better players are still winning (which as far as I can see, they generally are) it's a fairly open and contextual question whether that's particularly a problem IMHO.
I can't recreate your numbers on the TR REM. I'm getting 69% chance to wound and 15% risk of damage for the Rui Shi. The closest I can get to your numbers is when I reduce burst on the REM to 1 and remove cover as well as Marksmanship (which eats an extra order) Similarly I'm getting 70% vs 12% for Tarik versus the same REM when I stick both in cover (and a corresponding increase in chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds) Against Yan Huo Neurocinetics Tarik checks out but the Rui Shi is once again weird. Somehow you're getting better odds than I cab recreate. Not even having the Rui Shi shoot through smoke I can get the same low risk chance, nor can I recreate your percentiles using the non-linked FTO ML. Rui Shi in cover with Assisted Fire vs Neuro Yan Huo in cover at 20" range should be in the range of 65% vs 9% (With all that said, the linkable Rui Shi is probably something that shouldn't exist in a sectorial with access to smoke, so while it is comparing apples to oranges, thems both look kind of rotten)
Are you accounting for Marksmanship supportware added to the REM and shooting through smoke where it makes a difference? I did mention those but perhaps i could have been clearer. I did also do it quickly so I'll re-check numbers when I get a chance.
So two to three extra orders spent on other units than the Rui Shi in preparation, and if Mowang vs Kriza comparison is anything to go by then Tarik should have pretty terrible comparative performance which he doesn't in neither my nor your numbers. In either case, using an Al'Fasid to provide smoke and the same Ghulam I used previously to add Assisted Fire, I'm getting 72% vs 8% on the Yan Huo and 77%vs14% on the TR REM.
Yeah. Those couple orders (and a hacker) are fairly easily paid for by the price difference though. If you're shooting a Rui Shi without marksmanship or smoke against an enemy those will affect, Id argue you're probably doing it wrong. Which as I said, is not really the question I was interested in considering.
They're not, though. Anyone who dismisses the additional costs involved in sticking smoke down and buffing the Rui Shi is not playing the game. Those two or more orders will have to come from somewhere. They take up spots in a combat group, they take up orders from the combat group, the smoke generator has to get to positions where they can put the smoke down. You simply can not equate the lower price of the Rui Shi to these costs. In most situations, a unit with ODD is going to be better, so when we get a Bulletteer in a Fireteam that's going to be much better than a Rui Shi at non-CH opponents (and against CH opponents it's vert reasonable that an MSV2 unit is better, even if it requires smoke to get there), which will be another performance spike. I'm not going to defend the idea that a Rui Shi in a fireteam is a good idea in a sectorial with access to smoke (especially not such reliable smoke as Dahshat can own) and cheap other fireteam members, however. IA, Ikari or JSA would have been significantly more reasonable, but that's a different debate entirely.
People who're right, regardless of nepotism. And honestly, if they're listening to you, the game is probably worse off for it. "People who've been on the journey almost since the beginning" is a terrible reason to justify someone's opinion. There are people who've been playing this game far longer than I have who don't understand it as well as I do. There are probably people who've played it for less time who understand it better. What you're encouraging is cliquishness and hugboxing; I'm guessing you mentioned that as a qualification as it includes you and thus is a justification for thinking that your opinion is inherently worth more.
Yea you just ignore the fact that RUI Shi need another 2 models (smoker+hacker) and a setup. And a single (lucky) crit puts Rui Shi down. But yes, everything else is same.
If they're people who think FAT2 is well designed CB should probably never seek their opinion about game mechanics ever again rofl.
Sorry for the slow reply, but this is simply untrue. The change affects high-ARM units differently than it affects low-ARM units. Whether that's a positive or negative change isn't relevant - it's still a change in comparative power of crits against different units so it automatically affects individual unit balance. It also has a different effect on ammo types that force multiple ARM/BTS Rolls, with a bigger impact on Crits with DA/EXP/Plasma/Fire etc. than on Crits with Normal ammo. In addition: What you propose requires re-writing the Critical rules and every ammo type in the game. It doesn't explain what happens for ammo types that don't depend on ARM/BTS Rolls like Adhesive, or Monofilament/K1 which have fixed DAM that can't be modified. Please note that I'm not arguing for or against the current Critical mechanic, or for or against Fatality L2, I'm pointing out that your 'minimal rules change' involves rewriting several pages that describe Criticals, several FAQs, around twenty ammo types, Intuitive Attack, all Hacking Programs that involve BTS, Pheroware Attack Tactics, other Skills/Weapons/Equipment that involve ARM/BTS Rolls (like Jammers) and all examples that include Criticals. Doing some quick checks, that's about 20% of the wiki content. Then add the Spanish wiki. Then add all rules PDFs in English, Spanish, German and French.
Yes, but current crit rules also affect different units differently. 1W models get instakilled, 2W don't. It's also not equally bad when you lose 35 point 1W model of off a lucky crit, or 6 point one. And yeah, its meant to affect high ARM units differently, it should make them better for reasons I mentioned already. Yes, same as current crit rules. So what's your point ? It's okay for current crit mechanic to affect different ammo types differently and not okay for my proposed change to do the same ? I don't follow your logic here. To quote adhesive ammo, what happens with crits : Critical hits with Adhesive Special Ammunition cause the target to enter the Immobilized-2 state directly, bypassing the PH-6 Roll. This wouldn't change. This stays completely the same. I said multiple times, I proposed change only on part that instakills/instawounds models. This is the problematic part for me. K1 and Mono would get +3DAM because they do kill models. Like every other ammo type that does wounds. Simple as that. Not rewriting. Don't start with doom and gloom please. Read what I wrote. Crit would still function largely the same as it is now. Mechanic itself wouldn't change, still 5% chance to crit, still negates enemy successful rolls, part that changes is the one that says : "cause the target to lose 1 point from his Wounds/STR Attribute directly, bypassing the usual ARM Roll" would change to something like : "cause the target to roll ARM/BTS save against weapon/ammo DAM attribute increased by +3DAM". As I am not a native English speaker I might've phrased that wrong, but you get the idea. Armor saves on crits. All I want. Of course, we can start a separate debate on what do we consider "minimal rules change" . But non wounding ammo types would not be affected at all, and for everything else there is basically 1 sentence change ( that you can copy/paste ) for each ammo type. And then translate that 1 sentence into 4 other languages. I will cover the cost of that willingly, it's like 50 cents here in my country to have a sentence translated by an University professor. I have 2 euros spare. I also want to say that I appreciate your reply, and if you have any further questions or if you find any holes in my logic here I would be grateful if you could point them out.
