Reactions for 40k

[Blindhamster]

Anyone else noticed we have a second game to use the reaction mechanics with warcry now? Wondering if it might be an implication that its an approach we might see appear in the next iteration of 40k perhaps? Thoughts?

[Gederas]

Honestly, if they get rid of stratagem bloat and just give Reactions (which, let's be honest, are just AoS' Command Abilities in a different name) it'd be great

[MARK0SIAN]

Reactions might be a good way to remove some of the stratagem bloat but stratagems are such a massive part of everything now that I can’t see them removing them in time for 10th edition and reactions on top of stratagems would be horrendous. It might be something for 11th edition. 

I’m also not sure if they’d be a good idea. They still have the same issue that a lot of the strats do in that they’re powerful abilities you get for free with no downside. Yes strats cost CP and reactions use allotments but those are resources specifically for their use. In heresy, getting a free shooting attack is very strong, imagine how bad it would be in 40K. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It’ll just make the game even more complex.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I like the idea, and I think they were executed well in Horus Heresy given that it has no strategems. We may see it, but it'd require a significant overhaul to work, removing strategems to add them in, so it'd be a massive change to the game.

That said, just because that studio can make them work doesn't necessarily mean the 40k studio can restrain themselves with faction-specific reactions.

[Schlitzaf]

From what I’ve seen of reactions, its basically just strategems. (Or specifically 2 CP interrupt strategem). So I feel like we already have them tbf

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

Seems like it would be adding bloat to what people seem to think is an already bloated game system.

[MARK0SIAN]

6 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I like the idea, and I think they were executed well in Horus Heresy given that it has no strategems. We may see it, but it'd require a significant overhaul to work, removing strategems to add them in, so it'd be a massive change to the game.

That said, just because that studio can make them work doesn't necessarily mean the 40k studio can restrain themselves with faction-specific reactions.

This is the other issue, this team has proven they have absolutely zero self discipline or restraint when it comes handing out powerful abilities or avoiding power creep. 

It wouldn’t be long before we’d be seeing reactions like ‘when a unit is shot at your entire army gets a free turn before the attacks are resolved’

[Valkyrion]

We'd need (and we do need) another hard reset, really. 
I think 10th will play out with ever increasing lethality and bloat, there'll only be a few 10th edition Codexes, and 2026 will see the launch of the Best Ever New And Improved We Listened To You Bloat Free Super Streamlined Warhammer 40,000. Again. 

[Halandaar]

8 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

From what I’ve seen of reactions, its basically just strategems. (Or specifically 2 CP interrupt strategem). So I feel like we already have them tbf

Agreed - stratagems like Auspex Scan (i.e. when your opponent does one thing, you can do this other thing even though it's not your turn) already exist and occupy the same design space. The only reason for Reactions to exist in 40k as a thing in their own right is if the stratagem system gets scrapped completely, which seems unlikely.

[Emperor Ming]

Is that really a can of worms people want to open for 40k

There would be a over encompassing rule, that looked pretty fair and balanced

Then there would be stratagems that affected it, codex rules that changed it, get around faqs 

You know, stuff that would look broken, well this strat lets my unit react twice in a round!, this datasheet lets me....and so on

 

[Marshal Rohr]

Reactions are a lot of fun and would go a long way towards cutting down on player inactivity during opponents turn. 

[Lexington]

Like a lot of people here, I feel like Reactions are a nice mechanic, but wouldn’t be a helpful addition to the festering landfill of bloat that 9th has turned into.

That said, I think they could be a good addition to a future “major” version of the game that invalidated all current Codexes and started again. Hell, I’d welcome a 10th, 11th or whatever Edition that just used HH 2.0 as a base.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Lexington

[sairence]

We already have the mechanic for this kind of stuff in the form of strategems...why add another mechanic that is functionally going to do the same thing?

[SkimaskMohawk]

4 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Reactions are a lot of fun and would go a long way towards cutting down on player inactivity during opponents turn. 

I see this all the time, about how strats and alternate activation mechanics help to not be bored and inactive.

I never understood this. In the older editions (pre 8th and heresy) you'd use your opponents turn to plan your own. Like you'd see where they're moving stuff, see how their shooting is going and come up with the plan for your own turn accordingly. The most boredom and inactivity I've felt are during 8th+ edition games where I have to wait for them to rattle off their whole combo and roll tons of dice to remove multiple units at once. 

[Focslain]

As others have said, Reactives are basically Strategems by other name. If you want to make it so that it becomes a system you use in your opponent's phase only, a good playtest would be to take all your defensive or 'reactive' strats and just use those. See if you opponent would do the same only no limit of the CP, just once per turn. See how that flows.

But in the end GW would need to scrap the current strategem system for reactives to not bloat the rules set.

[Lord Marshal]

Just rip the bandaid off and go full Alternating Activations. It's clear they want to, but presumably somebody is telling them "No, if they're still paying for it don't fix it."

Edited July 28, 2022 by Lord Marshal

[Emperor Ming]

Alternating activations comes with its own set of problems

 

 

[Sherrypie]

8 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Alternating activations comes with its own set of problems

 

 

Massively smaller ones than we get with the traditional IGOUGO, though. There are many varied ways to implement AA, depending on the desired game dynamic (units, detachments, tokens, roles, impulses, random groupings, phases etc.). Almost all such ideas are, personally, hands down superior for an enjoyable game as far as any claim to tactics is made. The most amusing part of it all is that 40k is pretty simple to transition to such a system as is. I play it that way with pals and its all round just more fun and engaging.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

1 hour ago, Lord Marshal said:

Just rip the bandaid off and go full Alternating Activations. It's clear they want to, but presumably somebody is telling them "No, if they're still paying for it don't fix it."

Considering they have stratagems in their alternating activation games like AT, I don't think that it's an indicator of wanting to transition turn styles. 

Stratagems are just easy "feel good" moments for the people using them, as are the combos that they enable. They raked in a boatload of cash and new players from 8th, and they basically decided to make stratagems part of their core design for all their game systems.

[spessmarine]

as with many things, the down side is GW lacks restraint