Oh. Now that's interesting. Particularly since you can make U-Turn FTF the WIP roll. But without running the maths. Probably. It's because of how FTFs work: by eliminating the -6 to hit you reduce the range where a Dodge beats the Speculative Fire and both succeed. This difference is usually the primary determining factor of who is more likely to win a B1 vs B1 FTF.
Speculative Fire is specifically meant to be able to place the template without centring it on an enemy while Guided is not. I think they're specifically meant to be two different alterations on the same (direct shot) attack. I also really really hope we don't get more instances of double FTF rolls like Discover-Shoot. Rolls that are conditional on other rolls are the worst for time efficiency.
Now that it will be much more common for models to go straight into the dead state with this new critical mechanic, there is no need for doctor and paramedic rolls to also be a test of lethality. They should no longer inflict damage on failure. The damaging effect of failing doctor, paramedic and engineer rolls should be removed. If people are worried it might be too much of a buff to doctors, make it so that if an attempt fails fails, the attempting trooper can't try again that turn, similar to discover, although I do not think this is necessary.
It's a neat idea, but we don't know yet if the new critical mechanic will cause additional damage (most likely), or just add another dice. Such change to healing would also buff NWI, which is nerfed right now by proliferation of shock and would be slightly nerfed by new critical mechanics. I like this.
The discussion on Mayacast when it was confirmed made it sound a lot like each failed dice causes a wound, they used the example of a heavy infantry that knew it could tank at least one ARO when crossing an ally now being threatened.
It all depends on the unit, its ARM/BTS, weapon being shot, etc. On the whole it'll make NWI slightly worse, so allowing to heal such units without risk of killing them would probably fit into the balance. But I do like the idea of failed roll working like Discover, no further attempts that turn. edit: and I fully understand that it's not as simple to change as it sounds. As Bostria said in Mayacast interview, you touch one thing, and it affects three others. Coders know that one: "You have 27 bugs in the code. You fixed one bug. You now have 45 bugs in the code".
Based on the latest Code 1 video, MI might become 4-4 standard and HI might become 6-2 standard. With the change to crits and MI no longer being so slow, do you think that will "fix" MI?
This will certainly be a boost for my Daoying who are now going to be much more likely to be able to rush objectives late game, but I don't think it'll change much for Tigers or Deltas who will either be in a position where the second MOV is never used or they will scatter to where they won't ever Move from. It'll also be a small boost to Epsilon for those moments when they need to get down from their high tower and move around among the commoners. From what I can tell, they already have one (though it's tiny). I think what you're seeing as expensive has more to do with MI tending to have (more) expensive stats (pronounced "/ˈɑː(r)mə(r)/") than their LI counter-parts. Now, if some of those stats got cheaper or better...
the MI that needed a fix, will still need it. Mov was an overall problem, but was not the big problem for the most unused ones.
ARM/BTS will definitely get better with change to critical hits. PH will also be more useful with Dodge allowing for move regardless of turn. Rest remains to be seen.
There are plenty of good MI, off the top of my head there's Grunts, Marauders, Mavericks, Nisse, Akali, Hellcat, Briscards, Yadu, etc. It's not that MI in general need a fix, it's that a higher proportion of MI are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as sub-par. What's needed is a case by case examination and adjustment of the individual troops, rather than a broad patch. Which, for reference, is exactly what they've stated that they're doing.
And while the ITS seasonal buff to MI may have helped some of the under performing ones, it also pushed several of the already-good ones over the top a bit.
Honestly, I think MI's issue has been a lack of a cohesive design philosophy. You know what a HI is, we know what an LI is but what is an MI? 4-2 Move stopped being a defining feature a while ago, ARM 2-3 LI exist as do Non-hackable ARM3 HI. Making 4-4 the standard just emphasises that. Overall, I like 4-2 Move MI: it's an interesting point of difference to play around. That was never their problem. They just inevitably got hit with added bloat that counteracted any advantage they could get out of the (very slight) price discount for the 2" second move. My POV was that 4-2 Move was roughly equivalent to 1-2pts of ARM for free. But usually it was 1-2pts of CC. I've always thought that the simplest solution was simply repricing the cost of 4-2 Move to better reflect experienced performance. If 4-4 Move MI become the norm, I'm left asking why even have MI? Why not just have LI and HI? What do they do that's different to LI?
