Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hairesy wrote:
Did 7th Ed really need reactions?

No, stratagems are the worst part of the game and I hate that they're adding a similar system to HH. It's a gotcha mechanic that causes 40k to function more like a CCG than a tabletop wargame. It also destroys any chance a casual player has to beat an experienced player unless the casual is using Harlequins and the better player is using AM. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to remember all the stratagems for every opposing army, what phase they can be played in, and how to play around them unless you go to tournaments every weekend and play practice games during the week. I might go to a RTT once a month, I have no interest in spending more time learning 40k stratagems than I spent learning conversational Spanish...

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.

The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.

No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken

I couldn't agree or exalt this more.


For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.

I'm not sure if the ability to completely disengage from a game, and go eat a snack/run some errands before it is your turn again is a selling point. I think interaction is a good thing. Active participation is a good thing.

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.

The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.

No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken

I couldn't agree or exalt this more.


For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.

I'm not sure if the ability to completely disengage from a game, and go eat a snack/run some errands before it is your turn again is a selling point. I think interaction is a good thing. Active participation is a good thing.

So is being able to take a pee or buy some beers without completely stopping the game, there are entire movement phases requiring zero rolling or tests, that's also a good thing because the pleyer whose movement phase it is isn't constantly arrested by decision making for fear each time they move a unit they'll trigger some sort of reaction or gotcha.

If if turn based has inherent issues, im not sure how hyper turn based alternating activation helps that at all. I honestly like the simple turn based nature of 30k, And honestly not every game needs to be catered to both sides, when it's not one's turn a good opponent can help check los or look up rules or answer questions, bad ones often distract or try and engage with the person whose turn it is only to distract them and honestly alternating activation games can be a brutal slog if one side is always much slower to make decision that the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
Did 7th Ed really need reactions?

No, stratagems are the worst part of the game and I hate that they're adding a similar system to HH. It's a gotcha mechanic that causes 40k to function more like a CCG than a tabletop wargame. It also destroys any chance a casual player has to beat an experienced player unless the casual is using Harlequins and the better player is using AM. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to remember all the stratagems for every opposing army, what phase they can be played in, and how to play around them unless you go to tournaments every weekend and play practice games during the week. I might go to a RTT once a month, I have no interest in spending more time learning 40k stratagems than I spent learning conversational Spanish...

100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hairesy wrote:
I'll add that if GW wanted to mess with the way the game worked, why not save it for 10th Ed 40K?

It's clear that they don't mind making massive changes in 40K or AoS, but it was also understood that HH stayed with the old rules format for a reason. Did 7th Ed really need reactions? It makes one curious to see what else was changed.

I honestly just wish they hadn't touched the rules and just released more plastic. I have faith in their ability to write rules like I have t rust in casino management.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
this is kind of the first time I read that a game will lose on tactical depth if the players are able to make more decisions

and judging the quality of a game by how much profit a company makes is not even close to stupid as it ignores everything around

More/doesn't equal better. "Geez this is the first time I'm hearing expanding the chess board and creating new chess pieces risked ruining a classic game, more is always better" , worse yet having too many options in any one thing from clothing to food actually can arrest decision making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hairesy wrote:
7th Ed rules had plenty of tactical depth and nuance though. Players had lots of list building choices if they were being honest about it and not just chasing meta. Its real failing was formations and intentional power creep. HH reworked that into RoWs and that seems to have been pretty popular with HH players. Power creep was addressed by the fact that everyone was playing Marines and for the most part everyone was using the same list, with flavorful variations. So the idea that now we're adding something for the sake of tactical depth is sort of silly. And having more options does not always increase depth, in fact being forced to deal with a negative situation is what makes games fun. If you can simply react with a tool for everything, then gameplay actually becomes more bland since no one is really forced to deal with any challenges or consequences. If I make a bad move and I'm not punished for it, how am I supposed to learn how to make good moves? Conversely, if I make a good move to counter you, but you can just use more rules to pad your position and negate the effects of my decision, what was the point of making that decision? At that point we might as well not have complex rules and just stack modifiers to apply more damage. Which then begs the question, why isn't 40K a card game?

I couldn't agree more, war seems for more about classifications and concepts than stat fests and constant stat bumping. Like most armour after a point isn't really worth engaging with stuff that just can't hurt it, the tend in 40k was lets reward the idiot by letting lascannons hurt landraiders on enough 6's.

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.

The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.

No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken

I couldn't agree or exalt this more.


For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.

I'm not sure if the ability to completely disengage from a game, and go eat a snack/run some errands before it is your turn again is a selling point. I think interaction is a good thing. Active participation is a good thing.

I agree, people are already loking at this and screaming "OMG stratigums" but the devil is in the details. a once per turn ability to make a handful of once per game reactions it's going to ruin things, it won't automaticly make it better but it might add a new layer of tactics to it. "right so I know this world eaters unit can as a 1 time reaction charge a unit that moves into range of it... if I move this sacrifical unit here I may be able to bait him into charge range of a realy good unit. on the other hand if I move here, I'll earn a point I need but risk having my unit destroyed". personally I see Reactions as GW reacting to the flaws inherant in IGOUGO without doing the scale of re-write nesscary for alternating activation

But what were HH players wanting from GW/FW? Different rules or more accessible models?

I know I'm no HH expert, but it seems to me people were fairly pleased with how HH played but not about the price. I know that is standard fare for the hobby, but when a centerpiece model can be $300+ that definitely puts a limit on interest.

Having reactions in 40k was asked from a lot of people for a very long time now

and no, saying reactions are the same as stratagems
people don't like Stratagems and 9th should get the rant over in the topic for 10th Edition and not act like the changes to HH are the same as for 40k

But it is intresting that how people hyped Overwatch when it came to 40k, and now it is the worst rule ever made although a better version of it is added to HH

so having the choice between 2 reactions now instead of always taking Overwatch because it has no downside and there is no other option anyway
is removing tactical depth

I guess you should go over to the Fantasy Forum or talk to T9A people and tell them that their game has less tactical depth because they have charge reactions

We are not discussing what people wanted for 40K though, what people wanted for that game is irrelevant here. You even say as much in your next sentence.

Why should I go to another forum and complain about a game I don't play? Again, irrelevant to this discussion.

BrianDavion wrote:


I agree, people are already loking at this and screaming "OMG stratigums" but the devil is in the details. a once per turn ability to make a handful of once per game reactions it's going to ruin things, it won't automaticly make it better but it might add a new layer of tactics to it.

It's going to ruin things because it's not needed and occurring in your opponents turn. My decision making was never slowed by the concern that shooting the wrong target or moving too close to the wrong unit could incur immediate repercussions in my own turn. Going to ground when shot at is very different then moving all of a sudden or any number of stupid gotchas that each legio will get. The main pleasure of playing turn based instead of all the bastardizations of it lately is that my turn is fairly sovereign, it's my turn. There may be some causal links in terms of what to target first but the for the most part I'm in charge of how I go about moving. shooting and assaulting, I don't need micro causality to add depth to that as much as I need someone following me around and trying to make unbearable small talk as I try and just shop for groceries, it adds nothing.

BrianDavion wrote:

"right so I know this world eaters unit can as a 1 time reaction charge a unit that moves into range of it... if I move this sacrifical unit here I may be able to bait him into charge range of a realy good unit. on the other hand if I move here, I'll earn a point I need but risk having my unit destroyed".

I don't want progressive scoring either, I want end up game scoring. I also don't want to have to consider what action gets me special cookie points my opponent can't take away outside of warlord secondary. I don't want maelstrom of war crap, it does nothing for the game.

BrianDavion wrote:

personally I see Reactions as GW reacting to the flaws inherant in IGOUGO without doing the scale of re-write nesscary for alternating activation

Personally I don't see igougo as having inherent flaws solves by just doing igougo a couple thousand more times. Alternating activation is terrible, it's the other reason 30k is a refuge from modern terrible rulesets. 30k didn't need GW to save it from it's self, its rules are the primary attraction. If it needed anything from gw and forgeworld it was affordable access to models, they could have easily made a starter without feeling the need to insert themselves into the rules, they want so far as to invalidate a decades worth of books. That doesn't sit well with many.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Having reactions in 40k was asked from a lot of people for a very long time now

and no, saying reactions are the same as stratagems
people don't like Stratagems and 9th should get the rant over in the topic for 10th Edition and not act like the changes to HH are the same as for 40k

But it is intresting that how people hyped Overwatch when it came to 40k, and now it is the worst rule ever made although a better version of it is added to HH

so having the choice between 2 reactions now instead of always taking Overwatch because it has no downside and there is no other option anyway
is removing tactical depth

I guess you should go over to the Fantasy Forum or talk to T9A people and tell them that their game has less tactical depth because they have charge reactions

No one wanted reactions in 30k, no one who played 30k wanted anything more than more opponents or models that didn't require organ theft to afford.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hairesy wrote:
But what were HH players wanting from GW/FW? Different rules or more accessible models?

I know I'm no HH expert, but it seems to me people were fairly pleased with how HH played but not about the price. I know that is standard fare for the hobby, but when a centerpiece model can be $300+ that definitely puts a limit on interest.

Next he'll be telling you what all real 30k players wanted was the game be just as bad as 9th and also have maelstorm cards or something because anyone who plays wargaming must secretly want the game to turn even more into the lobe child of a collectible card game with the tactical depth of whack-a-mole.

 Hairesy wrote:
We are not discussing what people wanted for 40K though

well:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
Did 7th Ed really need reactions?

No, stratagems are the worst part of the game and I hate that they're adding a similar system to HH. It's a gotcha mechanic that causes 40k to function more like a CCG than a tabletop wargame. It also destroys any chance a casual player has to beat an experienced player unless the casual is using Harlequins and the better player is using AM. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to remember all the stratagems for every opposing army, what phase they can be played in, and how to play around them unless you go to tournaments every weekend and play practice games during the week. I might go to a RTT once a month, I have no interest in spending more time learning 40k stratagems than I spent learning conversational Spanish...

100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.

BrianDavion wrote:
No one wanted reactions in 30k, no one who played 30k wanted anything more than more opponents or models that didn't require organ theft to afford.

cool that you know all HH players, I guess those here must play something different than

Hang on, I think I have a solution for kodos.

So I had a look at the leaked Reactions rules and, honestly, they aren't really any different than the same kind of reactions that you'd get in historical games. I've had to deal with plenty of rules that allow you some flexibility in your opponent turns, whether it's just lighter units being able to potentially flee from heavier units when charged, or even interrupting your opponents turn to end it early.

The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).

 Crablezworth wrote:


100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.

In my recent Necromunda campaign, we just played without them. We were all learning the game together and agreed to leave them out until we knew the base rules. Once we learned the game and then looked at the stratagem cards, nobody wanted to add them

 infinite_array wrote:


The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).

The first point eats the second though, the moment I set eyes on the reactions my first thought was "they won't keep it simple or limited, every legions going to get their own" and that proved to be accurate, with each legion getting its own, in addition to that, you have characters that abused the hell out of it and add to the per turn reactions. I could buy the "it's a simple straightforward system that's fairly limited" if it remained limited, simple or straightforward. It quickly throws itself off a cliff. Can we at least agree its implementation doesn't seem to take much into account in terms of size of the game? Can we agree it's probably too much for a low point game and too much of a drag on a very high point on multiple player per side game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toofast wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.

In my recent Necromunda campaign, we just played without them. We were all learning the game together and agreed to leave them out until we knew the base rules. Once we learned the game and then looked at the stratagem cards, nobody wanted to add them

Nice, AT has seemed more enjoyable without them.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:


The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).

The first point eats the second though, the moment I set eyes on the reactions my first thought was "they won't keep it simple or limited, every legions going to get their own" and that proved to be accurate, with each legion getting its own, in addition to that, you have characters that abused the hell out of it and add to the per turn reactions. I could buy the "it's a simple straightforward system that's fairly limited" if it remained limited, simple or straightforward. It quickly throws itself off a cliff. Can we at least agree its implementation doesn't seem to take much into account in terms of size of the game? Can we agree it's probably too much for a low point game and too much of a drag on a very high point on multiple player per side game?

Ok, I did write without knowing about the Legion specific Reactions. I'd rather adopt a wait and see approach. If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad, and the Warlord traits seem to add a single Reaction to specific reaction type. As for points values, you're talking about extremes wherein other core aspects of the game may break down due to the assumed size of games when the designers were writing, but that's the same of any rules systems.

I do think it has the chance to get out of hand if the rules designers hand them out like candy.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:


The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).

The first point eats the second though, the moment I set eyes on the reactions my first thought was "they won't keep it simple or limited, every legions going to get their own" and that proved to be accurate, with each legion getting its own, in addition to that, you have characters that abused the hell out of it and add to the per turn reactions. I could buy the "it's a simple straightforward system that's fairly limited" if it remained limited, simple or straightforward. It quickly throws itself off a cliff. Can we at least agree its implementation doesn't seem to take much into account in terms of size of the game? Can we agree it's probably too much for a low point game and too much of a drag on a very high point on multiple player per side game?

Ok, I did write without knowing about the Legion specific Reactions. I'd rather adopt a wait and see approach. If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad, and the Warlord traits seem to add a single Reaction to specific reaction type. As for points values, you're talking about extremes wherein other core aspects of the game may break down due to the assumed size of games when the designers were writing, but that's the same of any rules systems.

I do think it has the chance to get out of hand if the rules designers hand them out like candy.

Wait and see is totally fair, there obviously could be something we're all missing or that hasn't been leaked.

The fear sort of is them handing out reactions like candy, they may not be that difficult to just agree to play without, but it's seemingly more with them being so embedded in each legio's special rules and characters.


Also in terms of game size, if it's still like 1750pts and up at least the reactions probably work ok in the 1750-2500 points range, the concern is just stuff like zone mortalis or lower point games could have issues. On the positive side, hopefully they'll have written a new zone mortalis scenario to take the reactions into account.

I doubt there will be a new Zone Mortalis as such. Just rules for Kill Team.

Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.

I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.

 infinite_array wrote:
If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad

Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.

We've already seen some other leaks that showed, iirc, only one special reaction for the Emperor's Children. Basically a countercharge if the EC unit rolls higher than your charge roll.

I've been away since 2018. I found out that a second edition is coming out, apparently with a ton of new plastic models.

It appears from what little has been released by GW that the intention is to move all the basic core units to plastic (Legionaries, Dreadnoughts, tanks, transports, etc.) but what about the specialized units, things like the primarchs and legion specific specail squads al a Justerian Terminators or Deathwing Companions, etc. Will these also get upped into snazzy new plastic kits, or will they remain forever in Resin?

Generic Legion units will be moved to plastic and all Legion specific units will remain as Resin (unless they are built on a plastic unit such as IF Huscarls or DG Mortus Poisoners).

Toofast wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad

Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.

based on what?
because each Legion also als 30 different Psionic Disciplins instead of limited access to the base ones?

there is nothing that hints that this will be the case

Toofast wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad

Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.

Yeah, probably. If the reactions were a set of universal ones, part of the core rules, I don't think that would be an issue.

But I tend to prefer that all players use the same fething rules to play the same fething game.

Pretty sure the leaked rules said there would be an allotment for reactions, so there will probably be lots.

 Hairesy wrote:
Pretty sure the leaked rules said there would be an allotment for reactions, so there will probably be lots.

Yes, and that allotment was specifically one per phase as a baseline.
Now will there be special characters/units/legions that can get extra reaction points? Almost certainly yes, but I also expect them to be limited to specific phases and/or reactions rather than being a blanket bonus across all phases.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
Pretty sure the leaked rules said there would be an allotment for reactions, so there will probably be lots.

Yes, and that allotment was specifically one per phase as a baseline.
Now will there be special characters/units/legions that can get extra reaction points? Almost certainly yes, but I also expect them to be limited to specific phases and/or reactions rather than being a blanket bonus across all phases.

One reaction per phase, or one instance of each specific reaction per phase? Because if it's the second, how is that different from stratagems?

Well, unless reactions have no CP cost, of course.

One reaction per phase, of at least a couple to pick from, with (so far) a specific Legion reaction per legion.

So that's a base 3 reactions per opponent turn; 1 Movement, 1 Shooting, 1 Assault.

Warlord traits look like they add specific reactions as well. Take the Imperial Fists leaks. Warlord Trait 1 gives you an additional reaction in any one phase. Trait 2 gives you an additional reaction in the Assault phase. Trait 3 gives you an additional reaction during the shooting phase.

And no costs, you can just do them if the specific criteria are met.

I see the Reactions similar to how "Decisive Move/Shoot/Fight" was in KT18. It was hardly game breaking. I expect the same from these reactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hairesy wrote:
Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.

I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.

What are you talking about? KT21 RULES! I love that game, well worth a try. Or are you talking about KT18?

 infinite_array wrote:
One reaction per phase, of at least a couple to pick from, with (so far) a specific Legion reaction per legion.

So that's a base 3 reactions per opponent turn; 1 Movement, 1 Shooting, 1 Assault.

Warlord traits look like they add specific reactions as well. Take the Imperial Fists leaks. Warlord Trait 1 gives you an additional reaction in any one phase. Trait 2 gives you an additional reaction in the Assault phase. Trait 3 gives you an additional reaction during the shooting phase.

And no costs, you can just do them if the specific criteria are met.

Now expand that out in a 2v2 game, or a 4v4 on 4x12 board. It's just now what I want out of 30k at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:
I see the Reactions similar to how "Decisive Move/Shoot/Fight" was in KT18. It was hardly game breaking. I expect the same from these reactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hairesy wrote:
Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.

I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.

What are you talking about? KT21 RULES! I love that game, well worth a try. Or are you talking about KT18?

I didn't like KT, really don't see how making 30k more like it would improve the game.

I didn't like KT18 at all, the activation sequence really let the game down.

KT21 is a class game though, it has a lot of modern game mechanics, granted not many other than the broad strokes like alternating activation would be appropriate to port over to 30k.

The comparison of these reactions to the Decisive Actions of KT18 is a good one though. Essentially they were strategems that let you act first in the appropriate sequence (rather than alternating like normal).

There are some major differences though.
Most importantly, they weren't anything "extra". They let you make your normal action marginally earlier than otherwise.
Whereas reactions in 30k are much more significant - they're wholly extra actions and they occur at a very different time to normal.

Also "oh you moved to attack me, lol I'll just shoot you first/move over here instead" is exactly why I hated KT18, it's such bs gameplay every single time I see it.