While this is a healthy doubt to have, just consider how much the game's lingo have to change in order to facilitate a change to where a failed save is not a wound taken. What you're suggesting would actually mean quite significant change to the game's rules because everything, in a quite literal sense, has to be re-written. Your reasoning is fairly sound, but you're attributing far too much to HMG crits while at the same time hand-waving the impact that a crit can have on a key unit. A HI may have 20% riskor lower, when in cover, of going taking two wounds, but over the course of a game it is my experience that you're likely to see around 5 to 10 crits meaning that on average you're fairly likely to see one unit take two wounds from crits on average during a game. If that one unit is a REM who won't care much one way or another, a 1-wound NWI who'll just die, or a TAG is a bit up to the dice, but it's important to realise that while a typical HI eating a crit is going to have only, let's say, 15% risk versus a 1-wounder's 30% risk, the 1-wounder failing that 30% is not going to make a difference (unless you're Haqq or Pan-O with a Doc in the fireteam) while it's going to actually matter a lot to the HI. In pure points investment as well as in tactical investment. It's this reason why I think the biggest benefits from this change is for 1-wound troops who suddenly have 30% chance of not being affected at all by a crit and for Super Heavies, while it has the potential of making crits even more game-deciding for NWI and 2-wounders, particularly those with ARM 2 to 4 who aren't already well fortified against a normal hit. In my experience and considering how people play around here, a 2-wounder getting leap frogged is going to be maybe as uncommon as a unit being killed due to melee crits and certainly more common than people using Sensor and/or Triangulated Fire Now, as for the HMG. Yes, this is going to make a crit from a HMG potentially more severe, but specifically from that weapon it's not going to be as common as would merit lowering the DAM. The changes to crit may increase their damage potential against a specific category of units (ARM 0-2, NWI/Dogged/2W/near-a-doctor) by around 2%, but it's also going to lower their damage against another specific category of units (ARM 5+, 2+W/pokemon) by around as much, and make crits spikey for two types of units (ARM 0-2, 1W and ARM 3-4, NWI/2W) - and I don't find that to be a good reason to lower the weapon's damage by 5%. Unless the weapon needs to be nerfed regardless of crit mechanic, but I don't agree with that either because the game has more or less built itself into a corner with the HMG where increasingly hard AROs mean that in order to gain a sufficient advantage you need the HMG. I would more rather see SWC scale be more lenient on low burst high damage guns like Missile Launchers. It's nuts that a HMG has lower SWC cost for a light line infantry than the much worse Missile Launcher or Multi Sniper. Particularly now that we may go into a meta shift where they're going to be needed a lot more to threaten Multi HMGs (not counter, because their burst is far too low to counter a TAG).