How are you liking Reactions? What would you change?

[Marshal Mittens]

Reactions seem to be among the most controversial changes in HH 2.0, and now we have all had a bit of time with them.

How do you all feel about them? Love them? Hate them?

 

Personally, they seem a bit powerful, to me, especially when they can "stack", at lower point levels, and still impactful, but not nearly so much, at higher point levels. 

 

I think that a few changes I would make would be this: 

No unit may make more than one reaction of any kind in the other players turn. 

More of a limit on them, in total, depending on points level. 

Overall, I mostly like them. But they do have some flaws.

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, Marshal Mittens said:

 

More of a limit on them, in total, depending on points level. 

 

Good idea.

I like the reactions but the way their rules are written is just horrible and unnecessary complicated without being clear at the same time. 

GW should take some time to clearify a lot of them and give an example (maybe even with pictures) to each and e ery one of them. Thos way people would understand it a lot better. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

I'm of the same opinion. I like them, but some further refinement and limits on them would be a good thing.

Although I think they need to be toned down some, they are still a fun mechanic to the game.

[kombatwombat]

I think limiting any given unit to making one reaction per turn, rather than per phase, is a very sensible limit. It doesn’t make reactions any less powerful, but it does stop say a 10-man Siege Tyrant squad firing 80 missiles in a turn.

Also, GW’s decision to errata the Return Fire reaction to trigger before the active unit rolls to hit was, umm, bold.

[Brother_Angelus]

Obviously the exact decision and execution timing of some reactions needs clarifying first up. Pre-fire per the FAQ makes no sense, but after saves causes problems with Evade and mixed saving throws. Some solution needs to be found.

Beyond that, I could see Return Fire and Overwatch both having a -1 to hit penalty, though I do wonder if Overwatch needs to remain fairly strong to counter charges out of Deepstrike being a thing now?

[Marshal Mittens]

1 hour ago, kombatwombat said:

I think limiting any given unit to making one reaction per turn, rather than per phase, is a very sensible limit. It doesn’t make reactions any less powerful, but it does stop say a 10-man Siege Tyrant squad firing 80 missiles in a turn.

Siege Tyrants are 100% the unit I had in mind whwn thinking 1 reaction per turn rather than phase! 

[arnesh88]

Reactions are very powerful in smaller point games, so I agree with adjustments based on points.

As a Salamanders player, Movement reactions make it much harder to be aggressive with flamers and meltas, so I am a bit salty on it, but I'm adjusting.

[bushman101]

Reactions have made the shooting game way too good. Overwatch and Return Fire combined with things like Pinning have really affected the balance of the game, especially for Legions that can make the most of them. The lists I have been building have really changed to reflect that 

It's also frustrating that there are no Reactions that trigger in the 'fight phase', it's all about affecting the charge. Something that affects combat would be welcome and would add to the melee game.

[Xenith]

I like them so far, they add another level of tactical nuance that you have to work through.

I agree the shooting ones are too strong - I think max 1 'shooting' reaction per unit per turn, otherwise 1 reaction total. Maybe bonus reactions from WLT's could be the only ones allowed to make a unit perform a second reaction? That would strengthen the 2nd assault phase reaction traits. 

Personally I think dread reactions are too strong - you can't take them down in one round, so whatever is shooting them will get pasted by return fire - my last game this was a twin gravis las contemptor. I'd like to see dreadnoughts limited to 'defensive' weapons on reaction fire also. It would take them down a notch.

[Petitioner's City]

I would limit the number of reactions by the size of the game; they honestly feel overpowered in a 1500 points game with maybe six units a side, and three of them at least (usually four) making reactions each turn. It makes shooting harder, it makes assaulting harder, and just pushes people to pick the most shooty (as these are generally better) and/or most tough units.

[Stitch5000]

The rulebook does say that the missions presented are for games between 1,750 and 3,500 points, but a bunch of people are playing games at lower levels than that, which does imbalance Reactions a little. 

[Valkyrion]

We like them because it offers engagement throughout the game, rather than true IGOUGO, and I personally also like how strong they are.
It offers interesting tactical dilemmas - in my last game a heavily depleted tactical squad shot at a lascannon squad, who didn't return fire because my terminators were also lined up to shoot at them, which I didn't do, instead relying on surviving Overwatch so only suffering 5 lascannon shots to the face instead of 10. I survived and killed the squad, which I wouldn't have done had I shot at them.  That tactical squad ultimately held the objective that contributed to me winning the game, something that might not have happened had he killed them with return fire, forcing morale tests and so on, instead gambling on shooting a unit that he then couldn't shoot at. 
It seems counterintuitive 'wasting' a turn of your own shooting, but its about drawing your opponent out into wasting their own reactions or minimising the damage they can do. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

The obvious stacking of shooting reactions can be very strong, and I feel the moment phase ones into transports will be equally frustrating to go against. Return fire gets you in this weird scenario of not shooting for chip damage for fear of getting gunned down in return (or advance now), and makes it worthless to take shots with units that have low output. You can sometimes use it to bait out a reaction, but sometimes your unit is the only one that can shoot that enemy and you get to mentally draw a line through their wargear because it's a liability.

The reaction economy is obviously pushed as the "new thing" they force you to use, and have designed the game around it rather heavily. Pinning is super prevalent not because some weapons would cause it (like in 5th with all snipers and barrage naturally causing it and the cause of the useless shell shock on the quad guns for years), but to counter reactions and get on with killing their units.

I remember being told that no one would ever get intercepted, into return fire, into overwatch back during the playtest leaks, but here we are. The games your pinning works turn after turn makes it feel trivial, while the games that their key units react with impunity feel like a chore and kind of bloat the play time.

I've played a fair amount of both 1st and 2nd since June, and 1st is definitely the faster system to play. It also just gives you the time to make a plan and follow it through; there's no worrying about using your reactions in the right sequence, or getting distracted by the interrupting shooting sequence. It's not as bad as AT or 40k, but the enemy turns aren't downtime to plan, and your turns aren't the execution of the plan any more.

[Gorgoff]

Y'all don't want to nerf reactions, y'all want to nerf the Augury Scanner. That thing is a steal for 10 points and makes additional interceptions possible. Without most armies could intercept with one unit. Same with other wargear and Warlord Traits which gives additional reactions. Return Fire is fine as long only one unit can make it. Same with Overwatch. 

[Valkyrion]

I'm in an odd position where I also agree with those arguing against reactions, because they are right too. 
Maybe a 1+2 system would do. You can do ONE SINGLE reaction per turn (not phase), plus one bonus reaction for your warlord in the appropriate phase, plus your Legion one use only reaction. 

 

[Spagunk]

I like them if only because the alternative would be Stratagems and that's a big cluster right now. Limited and globally available reactions that all legions have access to (but not all really benefit from) was the right move.

 

But obviously the devil is in the details and some are not written well which is leading to interaction issues. However the principal idea, if feel, is sound and make sense for adding dynamism. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

We literally could have just had the wargear function the same way it did in 1st and not need a stratagem/reaction system. Even keeping the current spread of augury scanners, they lose a lot of bite when they bar the unit from any shooting for a whole game turn. Jink/go to ground was also a way better mechanic than the Evade reaction (and once more, made you give something in return). I think overwatch on 6s would lessen the impact of sniper weapons choking a charge as well. Return fire is extremely unnecessary.

[Gorgoff]

52 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

. Return fire is extremely unnecessary.

 

I agree on a lot of things you said already here but can't on this.

In 1ed, which I loved and still really like, units often just vanished turn one without doing anything. The dice role which decided who went first was basically a death sentence for the other players best unit. And Return Fire fixes this. It isn't ideal I give you that but this way your unit at least can shoot once before just die. I think best way how Return Fire works would be if it just is simultaneously with the shooting unit. That's how I will play it anyway.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Gorgoff

[Petitioner's City]

4 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

I'm in an odd position where I also agree with those arguing against reactions, because they are right too. 
Maybe a 1+2 system would do. You can do ONE SINGLE reaction per turn (not phase), plus one bonus reaction for your warlord in the appropriate phase, plus your Legion one use only reaction. 

 

I do like this!

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

I agree on a lot of things you said already here but can't on this.

In 1ed, which I loved and still really like, units often just vanished turn one without doing anything. The dice role which decided who went first was basically a death sentence for the other players best unit. And Return Fire fixes this. It isn't ideal I give you that but this way your unit at least can shoot once before just die. I think best way how Return Fire works would be if it just is simultaneously with the shooting unit. That's how I will play it anyway.

The issue with return fire is that it doesn't actually help most units. The (thankfully) limited nature of shooting phase allotments means that return fire gets saved for the very best unit. Sometimes it'll function the way you described and allow them to do something before they had a chance to act; but, sometimes it'll allow them to shoot after already having inflicted damage in their own turn, or disincentives weaker units from even trying to shoot and chip them down.

Idk, removing your opponents main source of output before it can impact your forces has been how you win at 40k...always. In 5th and 6th, it was curtailed by the terrain recommendations to break up los and the ruin rules. You couldn't get bombed out by a medusa unless you deployed terribly; you couldn't get gunned down on turn 1 by a bunch of heavy weapons unless there was no terrain breaking up fire lanes. Giving one-ish, non-vehicle units the ability to shoot back doesn't mitigate that fundamental strategy; if you have 2 las supports and I have 6 Scorpii, then they're both still dying and one will have never shot. 

[Yodhrin]

Well things are a bit one-sided here so I'll weigh in on the "they're fine, git gud" side of things :P

To be serious though, it really does seem like often people's desire to "balance" Reactions is really a desire to minimize them to the extent they can stop thinking about them entirely as a major aspect of their battleplan - to return to a preference that the enemy turn is for planning and theirs is for executing the plan. Frankly if they ever neutered the system to the level some are proposing I'd rather they just remove them entirely; them being effective, and especially so when executed in sequence, is the only reason they add anything to the game. And it's not as if those sequences just happen out of nowhere, if your opponent has pulled one off it's because they planned for it and correctly anticipated how you'd respond to the tabletop situation and their actions. And despite the wee joke at the beginning I'm not trying to imply everyone who gets trapped like that is a bad player...but I do think a lot of people are still playing 1.0 in the back of their minds, and refusing to let go of that way of thinking is holding them back.

Personally I believe two of the criticisms have merit(well, three - the FAQ decision is dumb :cuss:, you should have to *choose* your reaction at the start of the sequence but any resulting attacks should be simultaneous); Augury Scanner is a comical oversight(or a genuinely braindead decision) so its impact on Intercept should be removed, and Reactions can be a *bit* too impactful in lower point value games. I don't often play games at low point values outside of ZM, but it might be worth taking some cues from there. So in the 1000-1750pt range you could keep the hard 1-per-Phase limit on Reactions from ZM with one exception - if you have a rule/trait that allows it you can make a second reaction, but it can only be used for your Legion reaction and only once per game(just in case they add Legion Reactions in future that can be used multiple times). If that's still a bit much, it could be worth limiting Core Reactions to once per turn and restricting people to using the ZM-specific Reactions for the other two Phases.

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Yodhrin

[bushman101]

I don't know. I'd feel like that would be more true if the melee game got the same treatment. As it is, it just seems like shooting and more shooting, and then sometimes melee happens.

They could have added the same 'depth' to the melee side of HH, but they doubled down on ranged instead. I'd just like to see more parity

[MARK0SIAN]

I do think they are generally too powerful  and would agree with the ‘1 per unit per turn limit’.

The other issue I have with them though is that they’re effectively free with no downside. For example, Being able to make a charge disordered is a powerful effect and you make it disordered simply by saying ‘that charge is now disordered’. You didn’t have to do anything, or position anything or give up anything to do so, you didn’t even pay any points for the reaction. 
 

I’d like to see reactions be much more of a trade-off for the player making them, similar to how interceptor used to work. So for example you could fire interceptor or you could return fire but that then prevents you firing again in your own turn. Likewise, if a unit moves as part of a reaction, it can’t then move in it’s next turn. That way, the player actually has to weigh it up rather than it being a no brainer. That would keep them as powerful abilities but would add a downside. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by MARK0SIAN
Spelling

[OttoVonAwesome]

1 reaction per unit per turn would clear up alot and another faq to clarify that GW obviously meant you had to declare return fire before the opponent rolls and not actually roll before them as the intent was to get the player to commit to the action even if his unit is nearly decimated.

Also totally yeah -1 to hit or snap shots only, I was actually blown away that this wasn't a condition of return fire and overwatch in the first place.

Edited October 3, 2022 by OttoVonAwesome

[Gorgoff]

17 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

Well things are a bit one-sided here so I'll weigh in on the "they're fine, git gud" side of things :P

To be serious though, it really does seem like often people's desire to "balance" Reactions is really a desire to minimize them to the extent they can stop thinking about them entirely as a major aspect of their battleplan - to return to a preference that the enemy turn is for planning and theirs is for executing the plan. Frankly if they ever neutered the system to the level some are proposing I'd rather they just remove them entirely;

I absolutely agree on this and I think you are spot on why people want it to be nerfed. I played yesterday and after 30 years I go you go my system is programmed to sit down and relax while my enemy does his movement phase. I had to force myself to stay besides the table and look what's happening. Force of habit is very powerful and people must learn how to play this game and accept it as a new game.

16 hours ago, bushman101 said:

I don't know. I'd feel like that would be more true if the melee game got the same treatment. As it is, it just seems like shooting and more shooting, and then sometimes melee happens.

They could have added the same 'depth' to the melee side of HH, but they doubled down on ranged instead. I'd just like to see more parity

Ten men Terminator Squad with WS5 and Thunderhammers deep strike in your lines and you've got onle one intercept. That's to powerful and would ruin the game. Think about how many extremely good cc units now have 2 wounds. You gotta stop them before they reach you. Otherwise it is over  

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I do think they are generally too powerful  and would agree with the ‘1 per unit per turn limit’.

The other issue I have with them though is that they’re effectively free with no downside. For example, Being able to make a charge disordered is a powerful effect and you make it disordered simply by saying ‘that charge is now disordered’. You didn’t have to do anything, or position anything or give up anything to do so, you didn’t even pay any points for the reaction. 
 

You have to succeed on a leadership test. Have tried it against a unit with fear (1) dueing nightfight? 

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I’d like to see reactions be much more of a trade-off for the player making them, similar to how interceptor used to work. So for example you could fire interceptor or you could return fire but that then prevents you firing again in your own turn. Likewise, if a unit moves as part of a reaction, it can’t then move in it’s next turn. That way, the player actually has to weigh it up rather than it being a no brainer. That would keep them as powerful abilities but would add a downside. 

See above. I think it is intentional to balance out deep strike/ flanking.

 

1 hour ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

1 reaction per unit per turn would clear up alot and another faq to clarify that GW obviously meant you had to declare return fire before the opponent rolls and not actually roll before them as the intent was to get the player to commit to the action even if his unit is nearly decimated.

Also totally yeah -1 to hit or snap shots only, I was actually blown away that this wasn't a condition of return fire and overwatch in the first place.

Old Overwatch was basically a lot of dice rolling with up to zero impact on the game.

Abd see above. 

On 9/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, SkimaskMohawk said:

The issue with return fire is that it doesn't actually help most units. The (thankfully) limited nature of shooting phase allotments means that return fire gets saved for the very best unit. Sometimes it'll function the way you described and allow them to do something before they had a chance to act; but, sometimes it'll allow them to shoot after already having inflicted damage in their own turn, or disincentives weaker units from even trying to shoot and chip them down.

Idk, removing your opponents main source of output before it can impact your forces has been how you win at 40k

Which is ok but let them shoot before they go.

Let units withdraw before the enemy smashes into them and advance to dtop them from running away from you.

I guess we all agree that the FAQ made Return fire weird and that here and there could be the number of reactions limited without ruining the game but it really seems like a lot of you are against reactions in general.