Reaction Question

[The Old Soldier]

^ Yea, the penality is the fact the reacting unit/units can only do so ONCE. A good player will take that in account and counter such reactive tactics. One fun tactic is to fire on a enemy unit outside of the reaction range, they then can take a reaction, locking them with that reaction for the rest of the turn. Then moving troops within the reaction range without fear of that unit being able to react to it. Of course a wily player will not fall for that ploy. But, manytimes now I have seen it work.

The MEA really has the most mobile force in the game. Also the weakest. He offsets his weakness by using such highly mobile tactics. I firmly believe that MP didn't overlook this tactic, but made the rules as is, for such things.

Now I have had my beefs with MP on certain rulings. Such as the LOS to com whips, and how terrain should be work in relationship to LOS, the way LMG have to take both a move and ready action to change facing after they already have set up, and the use of a KILL number for buildings. But, 95% of the rules are quite good in my opinion.

I even have been critical of other aspects, but after more games under my belt, I can see the reasoning and wisdom in the system, and since changed my mind in favor of MP.

 

[cordas]

If the reaction of the Shadow is to move then its gone, and the troups can't mount. As reactions happen simultainiusly and there is no such thing (yet) as delayed reaction, the shadow is either mounted and looses its reaction or it isn't. Once a unit has mounted a transport then the pair combined count as one unit.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Cordas, you makin this stuff up as you go? Where does it say anywhere that reactions happen all at the same time? If you want to make a house rule fine, but the rules as written allow such tactics. Do you fire all your units at the same time? Do you move all your units at the same time?

Like I said, make all the house rules you want, but you'll just in this case mess up a decent set of rules, why do you think MP made reactions that can only be done once per unit per turn? So, such legal tactics would not become too powerful. Like it was in SST.

 

[BuShips]

Where does it say anywhere that reactions happen all at the same time?

OK, I see your point. My mind may be 'smart is a whip', but it's more like the thick end rather than the thin end of that whip. :wink:

I wasn't looking at the entire "jerky" segment-based necessity of the turn but rather was focused on that within each segment two units (vehicle and troop units) would be reacting at the same time to a player Action that was common to both and thus would be limited in their choices. I'm saying that it could be a matter of scale. What is happening within the 10" range is a microcosm and is what is seen by those within that range and by definition those outside of that circle cannot react to it. It would be interesting though to have Matt chime in and give his perspective at least on this angle as it can be viewed in two ways. The absence of the rules covering this does not necessarily mean either perspective is "more correct". For example, I could describe that the individual and separate Actions in a turn are happening all together although somewhat staggered within an abstract period of time. I could then explain any apparent conflicts between actions and reactions as the "fog of war" and confusion that is always present in reality. It just seems to the players that they are moving in jumps and starts but it's all an illusion after all :wink:.

 

[The Old Soldier]

I agree. 8)

 

[Xorrandor]

^ Yea, the penality is the fact the reacting unit/units can only do so ONCE. A good player will take that in account and counter such reactive tactics. One fun tactic is to fire on a enemy unit outside of the reaction range, they then can take a reaction, locking them with that reaction for the rest of the turn. Then moving troops within the reaction range without fear of that unit being able to react to it. Of course a wily player will not fall for that ploy. But, manytimes now I have seen it work.

OK. And if you move twice on your turn, you're "locked in" to that movement for the rest of your turn, and can't do anything if your opponent uses reaction movement to jump out in front of you. I'm not sure that's a penalty, as much as simple causality translated to the gaming table.

If you load on your turn, though, you do pay an additional penalty: losing one of your two actions. You could have fired once, and then loaded onto the transport, but you don't have that option because of the penalty. That's a lost firing action. If you load in reaction, there's no lost action. Yes, you've used your reaction, but that would also be true if you just moved normally, or fired your weapons; both of these actions take only one of your two actions during your turn.

 

[The Old Soldier]

What ever, to me it works out the same. With the added penality that you can't unload as a reaction.

 

[cordas]

Cordas, you makin this stuff up as you go? Where does it say anywhere that reactions happen all at the same time? If you want to make a house rule fine, but the rules as written allow such tactics. Do you fire all your units at the same time? Do you move all your units at the same time?

Like I said, make all the house rules you want, but you'll just in this case mess up a decent set of rules, why do you think MP made reactions that can only be done once per unit per turn? So, such legal tactics would not become too powerful. Like it was in SST.

I dunno, maybe from the rule sheet.

Whenever an enemy unit completes an action with 10" of any model in one of your units, the entire unit may immediately make a free shoot or move unit.

Ok it is talking single unit, but the word immediatly seems to make it fairly plain that any reactions to an action all happen at the same time (even if you move the models individualy). So if you want troops to mount up, then the vehicle has to be there so it can't move as a reaction at the same time.

I would take the reading of the reactions section of the rules that these are instant snap actions, not carefully planned actions.

As for "do you move all and shoot all at the same time..." errr this ain't 40k TOS. Reading the reaction rules a bit deeper than they where printed as there is nothing there about multipul units reacting I have taken what I think is logical, your reading appears to me to be barking and deliberate rule lawyering reading the words but not the spirit. I would say your example 3B proves how broken your idea is, as this grants MEA units a 2nd reaction effectively.

 

[GhostWolf69]

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I have to say, reading the basic rules doesn't really answer the question at hand to my satisfaction.

I honestly don't know how to play this... and both sides here seem to have it's merits.

Why can't we get an official ruling allready?

Options available:

1. It can't be done at all
2. It can be done and "costs" nothing more than the Reaction of the Infantery unit.
3. It can be done and "costs" the Reaction of BOTH units (vehicle AND infantry) if the Vehicle has allready used it's reaction this will make the move impossible.
4. It can be done but "costs" ONE "real" action from both units once their turn starts. (Paying afterwards).
5. Any other variant...

I hear your different areguments but I cannot find enough support in the rules to make me choose one or the other...

HELP!

/wolf

 

[The Old Soldier]

Well all I know is all the examples I gave you guys are completely legal by the "rules as written".


Until the rules as written has this added: Also, only 1 unit may react when a enemy unit finishes a action within it's reaction range.

 

[BuShips]

The other day I added this as a question for the rulesmasters. This has come to light because of the discussion in this topic but I felt it needed a specific topic. I don't really care which way it goes, as long as there is some official direction given to us of which way to handle it. It may only happen rarely but it will indeed happen so we need a clarification. As I see it the current rules only hint at either resolution without stating whether common Reactions to a single Action are inclusive or exclusive.

 

[Paladin]

2. It can be done and "costs" nothing more than the Reaction of the Infantery unit.
3. It can be done and "costs" the Reaction of BOTH units (vehicle AND infantry) if the Vehicle has allready used it's reaction this will make the move impossible.

My vote is a combo of #2 & 3.
Infantry may use their action so long the vehicle has not moved during it's reaction. Most transports can't move during reactions anyway. But realistically you can't tell troops not to board a vehicle because the turret on top is shooting. On the other hand, you don't want to be getting into a Shadow while the CKEM is launching. However, the Shadow is the exception rather than the standard. There should be no reason infantry can't mount up.

 

[BuShips]

2. It can be done and "costs" nothing more than the Reaction of the Infantery unit.
3. It can be done and "costs" the Reaction of BOTH units (vehicle AND infantry) if the Vehicle has allready used it's reaction this will make the move impossible.

My vote is a combo of #2 & 3.
Infantry may use their action so long the vehicle has not moved during it's reaction. Most transports can't move during reactions anyway. But realistically you can't tell troops not to board a vehicle because the turret on top is shooting. On the other hand, you don't want to be getting into a Shadow while the CKEM is launching. However, the Shadow is the exception rather than the standard. There should be no reason infantry can't mount up.

The only way I'd allow the infantry to mount up is if the vehicle did not move or fire. To me that is in keeping with the cards the best. It's important to not diminish the vehicle Transport option description on the card. Think about this- It actually costs FOUR Actions between both the vehicle and a unit of infantry in order for the infantry to either mount or dismount. In other words, it takes both units' full attention over a Player Turn to accomplish this. Even allowing the loading to happen on a Reaction without any other action performed by the vehicle is twice as efficient as on a normal turn. At the very worst I'd make the vehicle non-moving and non-shooting if it was also assisting in the loading. After all, the attention of the crew must be retained in order to load-up. At least that is what the cards read to me regarding the Transport feature. I'd be trying to limit what can be done on Reactions as much as possible to what is possible during a normal Player Turn. I have reviewed the Transport rules across all of the cards I have and they all seem to say the same thing.

I'd say option 3. Using the cards as a guide, I'd have to limit it to that.

 

[GhostWolf69]

I agree with BuShips here... even though I'm not sure I would allow it at all, I would base that opinion using the same arguments.

Namely; why would mounting dsuring reaction be more effective (in game terms costs less "actions") than mounting during your regular turn? And how do you compensate for that discrepancy?

I've heard the argument that you only get one reaction in a round any way and that this could be said to limit the effectiveness, but I disagree. Taking a fire reaction is just as effective as taking a fire action, it's the same thing... Move Reaction vs Move Action... same thing... so why on erath should we allow people to "save" actions by mounting and dimounting at a discount during Reactions?

The way we played it during our games (before this theread started) was according to my own spontaneous reaction: "You can't mount as a reaction. Bullets are flying all over you, you are either going to a) fire back or b) move into cover. And if you are supressed you can only move into cover."

Speaking of suppression; would you guys allow mounting a vehicle even under suppression?

Then again... I lean towards this but I'm not sure... official ruling is needed.

/wolf

 

[BuShips]

Wolf, you're going to just love this one, lol.

[can-o-worms]
To prove that this really needs an official determination what happens if the unit of infantry just happens to be Suppressed, hmm? :wink:

The rules say

it will immediately lose its next action, and may Move as a reaction.

right? Since the unit may mount or leave using a Move action, it might be able to mount the vehicle as a Reaction or not, if Mongoose decides it. After all, getting itself Suppressed it theoretically lost one of the required two Actions needed in order to mount the vehicle. :idea: :roll:
[/can-o-worms]

 

[BuShips]

Wow, I wrote this up and hadn't seen your mention of suppression yet, lol. :lol:

 

[GhostWolf69]

The whole situation becomes stupid if you allow this move.

Example:

One infantry unit and one transport is taking fire.
The infantry unit is supressed and moves as a reaction to mount the vehicle.
The vehicle is NOT suppressed and moves away.

Next time it is my turn.... are my infantry INSIDE the transport still suppressed?
Do they have to take an action to remove suppression to dismount?

I hate it.

I will not allow such moves in my game.

/wolf

 

[BuShips]

The whole situation becomes stupid if you allow this move.

Example:

One infantry unit and one transport is taking fire.
The infantry unit is supressed and moves as a reaction to mount the vehicle.
The vehicle is NOT suppressed and moves away.

Next time it is my turn.... are my infantry INSIDE the transport still suppressed?
Do they have to take an action to remove suppression to dismount?

I hate it.

I will not allow such moves in my game.

/wolf

I was updating my rulesmasters question and now see that while we were seeming to be "tied", now you have leaped forward and stitched all of this together nicely :wink:. That sequence had occurred to me as well, but I sure don't need to duplicate it. You've stated it very well already. It really exposes the argument that anything that would normally take two sequential Actions should never be allowed in a Reaction. Maybe that will be the "light" that finally helps this issue to be resolved. Also, nothing need be added to the rules, as this conforms to the rules as they are now. Matt can have an easy time of it by just saying "read the rules as written" and it does work as-is. It's downright funny how the suppression topic helps this all out by pointing to clear inconsistencies.

 

[cordas]

It actually costs FOUR Actions between both the vehicle and a unit of infantry in order for the infantry to either mount or dismount. In other words, it takes both units' full attention over a Player Turn to accomplish this.

Huh? I am not sure about it taking four actions, the Warrior transport rule says

If models either enter or leave the warrior, than [sic] both the models and the Warrior can only take a single action in that turn

as it is a comma between the leave and the rule then stating that THEN both models and the warrior can only take a single action that turn, we have read that to mean that for example my warrior can move up the table then my infantry can jump out (with a move) then take one action such as shoot or move again. Each unit has taken 2 actions, one of which is being unloaded or getting out of the transport.

 

[GhostWolf69]

If models either enter or leave the warrior, than [sic] both the models and the Warrior can only take a single action in that turn

as it is a comma between the leave and the rule then stating that THEN both models and the warrior can only take a single action that turn, we have read that to mean that for example my warrior can move up the table then my infantry can jump out (with a move) then take one action such as shoot or move again. Each unit has taken 2 actions, one of which is being unloaded or getting out of the transport.

I disagree. Dismounting is a move action for the dismounting unit. And since the card rule says BOTH units (transport AND infantry) will only be allowed ONE action during the round it dismounts/mounts... that is all it can do.

i.e. No dismounting and shooting or moving again!

Why else would you have to specify this? The way you interpret the rules this line is redundant, since it cahnges nothing. Dismount= Move Action and then another action = 2 Actions, just like any other day. BUt in this case it is clearly stated that you can only take ONE action. So...

The transport on the other hand, still have its ONE action left, since it doesn't say anywhere (that I can find) that he will have to take a Move Action to mount/dismount units.

/wolf