Hmm. This implies that for riskier endeavors that involve fallback actions, a hero unit with solid stats in both relevant abilities might be preferable to one with a really outstanding score in just the first one. Which makes sense, if things going wrong is a serious concern then you'll want someone more adaptable.
If a crit success on the fallback action always means succeeding at what you were attempting, it also might be worthwhile to send someone who's unlikely to manage a success but is very likely to crit succeed on the fallback action (especially if you're hurting for suitable hero units). For example, Genghis Khan isn't too likely to manage a DC 100 Intrigue check to steal Granny Crockett's cookies, but he can very reliably knock the DC 50 fallback action out of the park.
It also occurs to me that in the show, a lot of David Xanatos's schemes relied more on succeeding at the fallback action than the main action to use this terminology. I wonder if he's going to get a trait reflecting this?
If a crit success on the fallback action always means succeeding at what you were attempting, it also might be worthwhile to send someone who's unlikely to manage a success but is very likely to crit succeed on the fallback action (especially if you're hurting for suitable hero units). For example, Genghis Khan isn't too likely to manage a DC 100 Intrigue check to steal Granny Crockett's cookies, but he can very reliably knock the DC 50 fallback action out of the park.
It also occurs to me that in the show, a lot of David Xanatos's schemes relied more on succeeding at the fallback action than the main action to use this terminology. I wonder if he's going to get a trait reflecting this?