How are you liking Reactions? What would you change?

[MARK0SIAN]

9 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

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.

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  

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

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

 

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

Abd see above. 

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.

I don’t mind admitting that if you gave me a choice between reactions as they are now and no reactions at all I would opt for no reactions at all but that doesn’t mean I’m against them in principal. I just think there needs to be a proper downside to them considering how powerful they are, or they need to require something more from the player than ‘I’m doing this because I can and there’s no downside’. Basically they are free, powerful abilities that don’t cost you anything and I don’t think that’s a good thing to have in any game. 
 

You mention that’s a counter to deep striking units but those deep striking units could face some serious interceptor reactions just arriving on the table and then have to contend with an overwatch reaction on top of that, or the guys they want to charge simply walking away, and that’s on top of the standard deep striking risks. Having to pass a leadership test is also not really a serious precondition for doing it either because it will be mostly passed apart from in specific circumstances and even if you fail the test it was hardly a gamble, you’ve lost nothing and are in the same position as you would’ve been anyway. Now if a failed leadership check meant you were then reduced in initiative or weapon skill for the following fight phase it would have a trade off which would be fine but it doesn’t.
 

This is the root of my issue with them. All the decision making for reactions is around which one to use and on/against which unit. There’s rarely any debate about using it all because they don’t have a downside. Yes there might be some exceptions where it’s better to not react if you have some other plan but that will be very limited.

Giving out something as powerful as 20 krak missile shots or 50 volkite shots to use in your opponents turn is simply too powerful to be free and/or without downside.

[TheTrans]

I don't mind reactions, but god damn the shooting ones need to stop your next ability to shoot in all honesty. You fire interceptor? You can't return fire. You Return Fire, Can't over watch etc... or something like that, the sheer amount of damage well armed infantry or dreads can put out is crazy.

Not to mention as a dude who has a lot of flyers, boy did they cop the short end of the stick. Interceptor is everywhere to help assist against deep striking face-puchers, which is fine, but when you have a lot of stuff that has to sit in reserves, that lost 90% of its defensive cababilities, that can be shot at at least once before it gets to shoot and can't do anything itself with the reaction mechanics outside of get a 5+ save, once a turn, that is ignored by a staggerinlyg large amount of shots is just bonkers.

Was at an event a couple of weekends ago and heard some interesting hubub from some peeps relativley in the know, but hearing that the guy that did the Legacy Ultramarine units is an ultramarine player and that apparently none, or that none of the 'play testers' actually had flyers, or actively disliked them, was crazy. 

I think reactions just allowed the 'strongest' phase of the game to get even stronger for shooting armies....and caused even more issues for assault armies in the process... and don't get me started on how they massacred my Mechanicum. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

@Gorgoff I've never hid what I thought of the implemented reaction system since I saw the rules for it in the playtest leaks; I fully would prefer the game without the current/pre faq reactions. They took broad-scope mechanics that had a suitable tradeoff and made them once per turn, no draw back power boosts, all to make a stratagem system because that's how they made all the money with 8th; Interceptor in 1st was a much more fair version, and it didn't need a resource attached to it.

And the thing is, 2nd isn't some evolved and rather different game compared to the previous edition. Other than reactions (and maybe night), a comprehensive balance pass would have had the same shakeup in unit selection. The reason people are playing it like it's 1st, is because it is 1st, but with paid fan-rules.

[kombatwombat]

I’m also in the camp of ‘reactions should be a tactical move with a cost attached’ rather than ‘a mindless buff where the question is which, not if’. I think the system would be much more interesting and palatable to more players with a small number of changes in an errata.

- Return Fire is declared before To Hit rolls are made, and executed after resolving the active unit’s shooting.

- Interceptor requires an Augury Scanner to be used, and does cost a reaction allotment.

- A unit may only make one reaction per player turn.

I think those are relatively uncontroversial, so the one that won’t be popular for fans of reactions in their current full, perhaps grotesque glory:

- A unit that uses a reaction may not take any action in the same phase on their following turn, except to Regroup. For example, a unit that uses the Evade reaction in their opponent’s turn may not shoot in their own subsequent Shooting Phase, but may move and charge as normal. Note that the Charge Sub-Phase is considered distinct from the Fight Sub-Phase for this rule.

Edited October 4, 2022 by kombatwombat

[Stitch5000]

10 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Giving out something as powerful as 20 krak missile shots or 50 volkite shots to use in your opponents turn is simply too powerful to be free and/or without downside.

The simple solution to this is to stop engaging in a shoot out with a unit that has vastly overmatching firepower... If you are taking potshots at a heavy support squad with a few guys with bolters, you probably deserve to get vapourised. Stop enabling that reaction! 

2 hours ago, kombatwombat said:

I- A unit that uses a reaction may not take any action in the same phase on their following turn, except to Regroup. For example, a unit that uses the Evade reaction in their opponent’s turn may not shoot in their own subsequent Shooting Phase, but may move and charge as normal. Note that the Charge Sub-Phase is considered distinct from the Fight Sub-Phase for this rule.

Can you imagine the book-keeping hell that would ensue?

"Wait, did I react with that unit last shooting phase or was it that one?

No... That was the turn before...

Can we get a VAR decision please?"

[MARK0SIAN]

6 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

The simple solution to this is to stop engaging in a shoot out with a unit that has vastly overmatching firepower... If you are taking potshots at a heavy support squad with a few guys with bolters, you probably deserve to get vapourised. Stop enabling that reaction! 

Can you imagine the book-keeping hell that would ensue?

"Wait, did I react with that unit last shooting phase or was it that one?

No... That was the turn before...

Can we get a VAR decision please?"

Saying something like a tactical squad just simply shouldn’t shoot at something like a heavy support squad is a ludicrous defence of reactions. Let’s set aside the fact that 2/3 of the possible shooting reactions aren’t even triggered by shooting at a unit, and concentrate on this one. If you have a weaker shooting squad whose only valid target is something with better firepower are you genuinely saying it’s a good design that they can’t shoot at that unit in their own shooting phase just because of the feared reaction? Even if they shoot at another tactical squad they’ve got to eat a full fury of the legion volley back. You’d be left with a situation where tactical squads basically can’t shoot anything. There’s already a rules system to prevent marines shooting at things they can’t hurt, why shouldn’t they be able to fire at other marines?

[General Zodd]

I like the tactical challenge of facing reactions, personally. I played 40k from Rogue Trader all the way through to 7th Ed, plus WFB until they blew it all up, so “you go, I go” is very ingrained for me. But having subsequently played many alternating activation games like Titanicus and various skirmish games, I’ve come to appreciate the strengths of that format too. I think reactions does a good job of creating an interesting framework which is almost a hybrid of those approaches.

I think, as has been discussed, many people who dislike the change (and I have every sympathy for people who have been long time players not liking their game being messed with, I also play(ed) X-Wing!) are treating it like an unwelcome addition rather than a core mechanic. It’s no more a “free, powerful ability with no downsides” than shooting in your own turn is as long as you regard it as an integral part of the rules. Similarly, people calling for a unit to skip their corresponding phase if they use a reaction are still referencing an old paradigm of the game that you get one turn each, and if you want to do anything outside that turn it comes at a “cost”. Reactions aren’t no-brainers, you still have a limited number, so you can’t do everything you want. And, importantly, both of you get the same base allocation, a lot of the above commentary sounds like it’s only ever being done *to* people, not by people.

[MARK0SIAN]

31 minutes ago, General Zodd said:

I like the tactical challenge of facing reactions, personally. I played 40k from Rogue Trader all the way through to 7th Ed, plus WFB until they blew it all up, so “you go, I go” is very ingrained for me. But having subsequently played many alternating activation games like Titanicus and various skirmish games, I’ve come to appreciate the strengths of that format too. I think reactions does a good job of creating an interesting framework which is almost a hybrid of those approaches.

I think, as has been discussed, many people who dislike the change (and I have every sympathy for people who have been long time players not liking their game being messed with, I also play(ed) X-Wing!) are treating it like an unwelcome addition rather than a core mechanic. It’s no more a “free, powerful ability with no downsides” than shooting in your own turn is as long as you regard it as an integral part of the rules. Similarly, people calling for a unit to skip their corresponding phase if they use a reaction are still referencing an old paradigm of the game that you get one turn each, and if you want to do anything outside that turn it comes at a “cost”. Reactions aren’t no-brainers, you still have a limited number, so you can’t do everything you want. And, importantly, both of you get the same base allocation, a lot of the above commentary sounds like it’s only ever being done *to* people, not by people.

The thing is, it is massively different to firing in my own turn. Let’s say I have a unit of 10 tyrant siege terminators. In my own turn they can fire a single time for a maximum of twenty missile shots. In my opponents turn I could feasibly fire three times for 60 missile shots. Granted it would have to be a turn where something arrived from reserves near enough, something fired at the tyrants and then something charged them but that confluence of events is not particularly far fetched enough to be an unreasonable scenario. 
 

You are right it’s a core mechanic but what sensible core mechanic allows any unit to perform 3 times better in their opponents turn than in their own? 
 

Aside from that the effects are so lopsided that people are reluctant to even try shooting a more powerful unit for fear of the return fire. That, IMO, is not a good place for any game to be in, particularly as the ones who’ll suffer most are tactical squads or smaller special/heavy weapons squads.

 

As for them being no brainer, you do need to think about which one to use but that’s it. You never have to think about whether to react. They’re just free shots or movements etc so why wouldn’t you take them?

As I said, I’m not against the principle of reactions being a core mechanic but the current power of them either needs toning down if they’re going to remain free buffs or keep their current power level but have a downside/cost added.

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, General Zodd said:

It's no more a “free, powerful ability with no downsides” than shooting in your own turn is as long as you regard it as an integral part of the rules.

Except we can look at the points of 1st and the points of 2nd and see that an integral option to shoot more times, or move, or layer an additional save, werent accounted for by any units points. And as mark0sian kindly pointed out, you can potentially triple the output a unit can do in your opponents turn compared to your own.

1 hour ago, General Zodd said:

Similarly, people calling for a unit to skip their corresponding phase if they use a reaction are still referencing an old paradigm of the game that you get one turn each, and if you want to do anything outside that turn it comes at a “cost”. 

Yes, imagine the thought of getting increased and/or pre-emptive damage having some sort of...downside. In titanicus, if you want to shoot more with 1 weapon you don't get to turn or move; there's a risk of missing out on both shooting attacks due to lack of range or poor positioning (like if they walk out of arc before the combat phase starts). If your machine spirit wakes up and you luckily roll the 6 to shoot out of sequence, you take heat and it's at worse ballistic skill. 

 

1 hour ago, General Zodd said:

Reactions aren’t no-brainers

Yes they are. It's pretty easy to see the targets you present your opponent and decide which will get the most use out of a reaction. And as also noted, you will always use all your reaction points every turn if given the opportunity. There's no reason not to.

[Noserenda]

Having not really experienced them in action (Thus not commenting so far) i do really like the way AoS' similar system works where you effectively get the whole pool at the start of a round and it has to last both player turns (This is a simplification obviously!) instead of constantly refreshing and it has some uses in your own turn too. That way its more of a resource to be marshalled rather than something you may as well spend or lose it in every phase. 

Ech, as i said ive barely touched the system in play.

 

[bushman101]

On 10/3/2022 at 5:02 PM, Gorgoff said:

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  

I agree.

But the opposite seems also true. My melee unit gets shot to pieces on my turn trying to get where they need to be. 

One of the shooting reactions need tuned down a bit to allow melee armies to function. Pistol weapons feel like a liability and pistol upgrades feel like a waste for fear of triggering Return Fire.

And yes, I'm a little bias as a Blood Angel player. But this is where I am at with a legion that wants to get up close

[Slips]

1 hour ago, bushman101 said:

I agree.

But the opposite seems also true. My melee unit gets shot to pieces on my turn trying to get where they need to be. 

One of the shooting reactions need tuned down a bit to allow melee armies to function. Pistol weapons feel like a liability and pistol upgrades feel like a waste for fear of triggering Return Fire.

And yes, I'm a little bias as a Blood Angel player. But this is where I am at with a legion that wants to get up close

I guess thats just a difference in perspective, then. To me, outside of units who's whole deal was using pistols (moritats, double-pistol destroyers), pistols were only ever there to primarily serve as a +1A in melee vehicle with the rarely-used-because-why-bother side benefit of being able to shoot them once-ish if at all.

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, bushman101 said:

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

But with the deep strike, you're arriving T2 at the earliest, and you've already invested significant other resources to give those termies deepstrike so it's maybe a little more balanced?

3 hours ago, bushman101 said:

pistol upgrades feel like a waste for fear of triggering Return Fire.

Maybe something like a unit firing pistol weapons only may never trigger a reaction? The enemy would surely focus on something else rather than a lone dude with a bolt pistol, or pistols would be thematically fired on the way into combat so the enermy would be preparing their melee reaction. 

[Stitch5000]

17 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Saying something like a tactical squad just simply shouldn’t shoot at something like a heavy support squad is a ludicrous defence of reactions. Let’s set aside the fact that 2/3 of the possible shooting reactions aren’t even triggered by shooting at a unit, and concentrate on this one. If you have a weaker shooting squad whose only valid target is something with better firepower are you genuinely saying it’s a good design that they can’t shoot at that unit in their own shooting phase just because of the feared reaction? Even if they shoot at another tactical squad they’ve got to eat a full fury of the legion volley back. You’d be left with a situation where tactical squads basically can’t shoot anything. There’s already a rules system to prevent marines shooting at things they can’t hurt, why shouldn’t they be able to fire at other marines?

Imagine a fire support group sitting in an entrenched position with multiple, mounted crew-served MG positions and plenty of ammo... (Which is what the 30k HSS is pretty much an analogue of.)

Then imagine a rifle platoon all with their individual weapons, loaded up with 7-8 30 round magazines each, and maybe a bit extra in their packs. (That's a tactical squad.)

Who will come out better in a protracted, ranged engagement?

In all of documented, modern military history, when has it been advisable to engage in a like-for-like exchange of fire with an outmatching opponent? Why are their countless stories of rifle platoons storming entrenched machine gun positions in order to engage them in close combat? 

Space marines are faster now and can close distance quickly... Maybe run at them and stab them with your bayonents?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I'll start by saying this, if you are a newer 2.0 player and are reading through this thread and are disheartened by the comments...don't be.

I've read through this thread thinking the same people complaining in other threads are complaining in this one too.

I'm not sure how many games some of these guys have actually played, but I have now logged over 20 games of 2.0.

Reactions, especially shooting ones, are not this mythological boogie man people are claiming to be broken. I feel as though the people who are complaining may need to re-think their tactics, and what they bring in their lists. Or...actually play more than a game or two to really understand how reactions work in actual practice. I'm sure the arbitrary example of 50 volkite charger shots from a heavy weapons team shot at a unit 3 times because it lined up perfectly could be a thing... but only that's because an opponent being an inexperienced player may come up. Experienced players aren't letting that happen.

I can honestly say there are so many ways to get around reactions, and then there are surprisingly good ways to use reactions. A lot of the tactical aspect of things comes from playing games and understanding when to do what, and when to avoid what.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Dont-Be-Haten

[MARK0SIAN]

48 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

Imagine a fire support group sitting in an entrenched position with multiple, mounted crew-served MG positions and plenty of ammo... (Which is what the 30k HSS is pretty much an analogue of.)

Then imagine a rifle platoon all with their individual weapons, loaded up with 7-8 30 round magazines each, and maybe a bit extra in their packs. (That's a tactical squad.)

Who will come out better in a protracted, ranged engagement?

In all of documented, modern military history, when has it been advisable to engage in a like-for-like exchange of fire with an outmatching opponent? Why are their countless stories of rifle platoons storming entrenched machine gun positions in order to engage them in close combat? 

Space marines are faster now and can close distance quickly... Maybe run at them and stab them with your bayonents?

Comparing a game of 30k to real modern warfare is not a useful analogy though. In modern warfare that entrenched position wouldn’t be assaulted by a force that only evenly matched the defenders. They’d have the usual 3:1 advantage needed when assaulting the position. So if you were saying I’d get 6000 points of stuff to attack my opponent’s 2000 points then it’d be fair enough but at the end of the day this is a game. The sides need to be evenly matched and as a result, you can’t have units that simply can’t shoot at valid targets for fear they’d be hit harder during their OWN turn. 

[Stitch5000]

48 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Comparing a game of 30k to real modern warfare is not a useful analogy though. In modern warfare that entrenched position wouldn’t be assaulted by a force that only evenly matched the defenders. They’d have the usual 3:1 advantage needed when assaulting the position. So if you were saying I’d get 6000 points of stuff to attack my opponent’s 2000 points then it’d be fair enough but at the end of the day this is a game. The sides need to be evenly matched and as a result, you can’t have units that simply can’t shoot at valid targets for fear they’d be hit harder during their OWN turn. 

When you say "evenly matched", if you are talking about a hypothetical and isolated game at 100 points, you get twice as many tactical marines as you do heavy bolter wielding marines. That's a 2:1 numerical advantage that isn't that far away from the 3:1 advatage you talk about when needing to assault a position. 

If you extrapolate this out into a normal gaming situation, you can probably take at least 2 independant tactical squads for every heavy support squad your opponent takes, of which only one can be reacted to in any one phase... So you have one advancing under the covering fire of the second...

It's quite obvious to me that HH2.0 isn't just a game of banging units into each other and instead relies on you to synergise multiple units to overwhelm your opponents key units. 

 

[Cleon]

Honestly, I've not played any Horus Heresy games yet, because I hate working with resin, so never pulled the trigger with a v 1.0 army and therefore am building a force from scratch (painting about a unit a month, might get to a small ZM force this year).

What's worrying me is that from the narrative I'm seeing is the game is a bit 'haves and have nots' that Legions with shooty traits, shooty specialist units and shooty special legion reactions get bonus piled on bonus, whereas the melee legions get their bonuses cancelled becuase they shooty legions can disorder their charges with reactions.

It may not be accurate, may not be fair, but that impression combined with the lack of any plastic jump troops has really killed any interest in my planned HH Blood Angels, and pushed me to work on the Emperors Children.

[Stitch5000]

39 minutes ago, Cleon said:

What's worrying me is that from the narrative I'm seeing is the game is a bit 'haves and have nots' that Legions with shooty traits, shooty specialist units and shooty special legion reactions get bonus piled on bonus, whereas the melee legions get their bonuses cancelled becuase they shooty legions can disorder their charges with reactions.

In most instances ONE unit can do one Hold the Line Reaction in any one assault phase, at the expense of Overwatch. Given that most melee units have far better melee weapons than shooty units, I would usually prefer this, as the active (charging) player. (I know you admitted this may not be accurate, so no worries there...)

I do tend to agree that a small number of people seem to be naysaying things and scaremongering about some theoretical math-hammerings that simply don't exist in actual gameplay. 

To keep on topic, I'm loving reactions in general and the only thing I would change were people being a bit more willing to give it a go. I've only found them to add depth and engagement to the game. 

[Gore Crow]

46 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Honestly, I've not played any Horus Heresy games yet, because I hate working with resin, so never pulled the trigger with a v 1.0 army and therefore am building a force from scratch (painting about a unit a month, might get to a small ZM force this year).

What's worrying me is that from the narrative I'm seeing is the game is a bit 'haves and have nots' that Legions with shooty traits, shooty specialist units and shooty special legion reactions get bonus piled on bonus, whereas the melee legions get their bonuses cancelled becuase they shooty legions can disorder their charges with reactions.

It may not be accurate, may not be fair, but that impression combined with the lack of any plastic jump troops has really killed any interest in my planned HH Blood Angels, and pushed me to work on the Emperors Children.

I, for one, can confirm that my shooty legion units are getting charged and swept as normal.

[SkimaskMohawk]

4 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

I'll start by saying this, if you are a newer 2.0 player and are reading through this thread and are disheartened by the comments...don't be.

I've read through this thread thinking the same people complaining in other threads are complaining in this one too.

I'm not sure how many games some of these guys have actually played, but I have now logged over 20 games of 2.0.

Reactions, especially shooting ones, are not this mythological boogie man people are claiming to be broken. I feel as though the people who are complaining may need to re-think their tactics, and what they bring in their lists. Or...actually play more than a game or two to really understand how reactions work in actual practice. I'm sure the arbitrary example of 50 volkite charger shots from a heavy weapons team shot at a unit 3 times because it lined up perfectly could be a thing... but only that's because an opponent being an inexperienced player may come up. Experienced players aren't letting that happen.

I can honestly say there are so many ways to get around reactions, and then there are surprisingly good ways to use reactions. A lot of the tactical aspect of things comes from playing games and understanding when to do what, and when to avoid what.

What a hilarious post.

"All the people who disagree with me shouldn't be listened to because I've played games of the new edition. Also they are, or play against, inexperienced players". 

I'll tell my BA friend whos played heresy for ~7 years that it's his inexperience that's leading to his day of revelation units getting reacted to twice on his turn. Obviously he's doing something wrong if he's getting intercepted by any of my 4 augury units with snipers and getting overwatched when he tries to charge. Should he have pinned them first? Kind of hard when I use los blocking terrain, shroud bombs and night fight to cut his ability to target my units or hit them with any barrage. Maybe just not charge them? Great, he can charge one of my two contemptors, the leviathan, or curze. Maybe he just needs to play a completely different list that relies on av 14 transports to shuttle his units up; exactly how he wanted to play his blood angels.

This is one of the things us complainers from 1st are able to do with our experience; we can limit our opponents choices with our lists and deployment, leaving them with a set of terrible options that work to our advantage. And to be clear, my list isn't fun to play as a result; I've used it 6 times since my initial outing, and the games have all been easy (even against those av14 lists). I haven't lost because of enemy reactions, but I certainly use them to win; pinning locks a unit until the end of its following turn, meaning you lose two turns from a unit when it gets pinned by reactions; the night lord advanced reaction let's me deny the key charge. 

But hey, Ive only gotten 17 games in instead of over 20. Guess I have a lot of learning to do.

@Cleon it's actually interesting that you mention hold the line. Its the only reaction that has a fail condition attached, and is broadly the incorrect option to choose on a shooting unit as it usually only strips 1 attack per model. On the balance of things overwatch will reduce more attacks than HTL, while also sometimes preventing the charge entirely with pinning. HTL is most valuable on melee units of your own, or tarpits that want to grind out a few rounds so you can counter charge.

Edited October 5, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[Stitch5000]

51 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

@Cleon it's actually interesting that you mention hold the line. Its the only reaction that has a fail condition attached, and is broadly the incorrect option to choose on a shooting unit as it usually only strips 1 attack per model. On the balance of things overwatch will reduce more attacks than HTL, while also sometimes preventing the charge entirely with pinning. HTL is most valuable on melee units of your own, or tarpits that want to grind out a few rounds so you can counter charge.

It's worth bearing in mind a fair few units get more than just one attack as a bonus for a successful charge. 

[Noserenda]

Haves and have nots is spot on, its harder to be motivated to try the new game when they still havent bothered to get around to my main army's rules.

To go back a little bit, the best way to deal with entrenched heavy weapons historically is to drop some High explosives on them. Of course in 30k high explosives arent very useful for clearing out anything but light infantry/vehicles :D 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

39 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

It's worth bearing in mind a fair few units get more than just one attack as a bonus for a successful charge. 

Some do for sure; it's why I said "broadly", "usually strips 1 attack" and "on the balance of things" instead of always.

[MARK0SIAN]

9 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

When you say "evenly matched", if you are talking about a hypothetical and isolated game at 100 points, you get twice as many tactical marines as you do heavy bolter wielding marines. That's a 2:1 numerical advantage that isn't that far away from the 3:1 advatage you talk about when needing to assault a position. 

If you extrapolate this out into a normal gaming situation, you can probably take at least 2 independant tactical squads for every heavy support squad your opponent takes, of which only one can be reacted to in any one phase... So you have one advancing under the covering fire of the second...

It's quite obvious to me that HH2.0 isn't just a game of banging units into each other and instead relies on you to synergise multiple units to overwhelm your opponents key units. 

 

It being a game of synergising units instead of banging them into each other would still be true if you completely removed reactions though. Everything you describe before is also true without reactions, trying to pin an enemy with one unit whilst another advances would also be true and its taking place in your own turn. The unit you're shooting against could return fire in their own turn at the unit that shot at them if they wanted to. Letting them shoot back at the unit when it's not their turn essentially removes any restrictions from them because they get to shoot at that unit then shoot at a target of their choice in their own turn. Instead of making the player make a tactical choice, they got to have their cake and eat it.

I understand this is making it sound like I'm completely against reactions but I'm not. They are, however, free buffs with no downside. I'd be fine with reactions if they came with a cost attached or a downside but they're simply too strong an ability and lead to too many "That sucks for you!" moments on your own turn as well as some downright wonky interactions like if your own tactical squad shoots at an identical tactical squad, they will very often have to eat more shots in return fire (thanks to fury of the legion) than they themselves put out in the first place.

To sum up, it feels like in any situation that can trigger a reaction, the reacting player is getting the better end of the deal in the exchange. Move onto the table from reserves? Yeah its a good bonus but a nasty shooting unit getting a free shot at them feels like the better end of the deal. Shoot at a unit? Yeah it's good but then having to eat often superior firepower in return is a better deal for the reacting player. Feels like the reactions are just punishing units for actually playing the game.

Edited October 5, 2022 by MARK0SIAN