At least they are looking at it. That's an immense improvement over either 1) no communication one way or the other; or 2) denying there is a problem. The scary thing is that they could still come back and say, "Yes, we really did want the rule to work that way." I still think CB doesn't have a "Designated Game-Breaker" in their internal playtest group. Someone whose entire job is to try to break the game, given all the various rules interactions. They may have a couple in their external playtest groups, but CB doesn't seem to listen to their external playtesters as much as they should.
There are three big problems with Fat2. 1) Mechanics should reward good play and punish bad play. Fatality 2 does not do this. It rewards bad play while giving a minimal benefit for good play. 2) There's also a "play feel" problem, in that it makes the player on the receiving end feel like they have very little impact on the outcome, which is not as important in terms of game balance, but is definitely a problem in terms of design. 3) There's the costing issue, in that it makes a piece significantly more deadly for no cost. So yes, there's definitely a problem. Or three.
No problem with Fatality L2? Where you have a 41% chance of winning the FTF when you are at -9 (with Tariq or Khawarij Spitfire) or even -12 (with Sheskin)? I very strongly disagree, for the points @Mahtamori gave. If you thought we were talking about Full Auto L2, I agree with you. Full Auto is fine, though I really think the Raicho should have at least Full Auto L1 for the +1 Burst, given the TAG's fluff of half it's combat weight being ammo. I'd prefer the Raicho actually having Full Auto L2 so it has a permanent -3 to-hit due to all the bullets coming from it. Let the model's game rules match it's fluff, please!
Nah I knew what we were talking about. Do you want me to bold my text so you can understand it better?
The reason people reacted the way they did is because you wrote it with no further explanation. It's a very controversial claim. There's no need to be rude when people react the way that they should to that statement (i.e., incredulously.)
Small nitpick: it's a 39% chance to win the roll. 41% chance to roll a crit, sure, but the opposing troop still has a 5% chance to roll a crit themselves to cancel it. That said, there is another thread for this discussion and I think this one has run its course.
