1. Let's say that P1 has 3 units while P2 only has a single unit left. Is the following possible:
2. P1 activates a unit. It's P2's turn. P2 passes, does not do anything at all with her unit.
3. P2 activates his second unit, It's P2's turn, P2 passes again.
4. P2 activates his last and third unit. It's P2:s turn, and now P2 chooses to activate her unit.

Question is, in short: Can you pass on activation and then still be offered to activate the unit(s) you passed on, given it is during the same turn? I know it's possible to pass , but am not certain if the situation in the list above is legal (although I would prefer it is).

Ulrike Meinhof said:

I would say no, otherwise if you roll initiative and want me to go first, I will just say PASS. Then you would say PASS, then I would say PASS.....

True that there could arise a pass-loop. (It could however be dealt with as in chess - you play a draw if you keep repeating something, in this instance that would be both players passing 2 times in a row maybe. Since this is not in the rules however it seems that passing like I suggested in the scenario above isn't meant to happen at all.)

Absolutely not. That's the whole principle behind "out-activating" an opponent. If you have more units than he does, you have the advantage of still having more activations after your opponent has already done everything he's allowed to do that round. During your turn you HAVE to activate a unit, even if you decide to do nothing with it.

NO! This would kill the whole chess with a punder feelng of the game;)

Ulrike Meinhof said:

When you activate a unit, you have the option to "pass", but "passing" still counts as that unit's activation. It is "pass" more in the "I choose not to do anything with this unit" sense, rather than the, "I pass on activating a unit".

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

Well put.

Just a clarification:

1. I have to activate a unit every turn.
2. Even if activated, I can choose to do nothing with it.
3. I can't use reactive fire with a unit that was activated but did nothing? (Since it was activated. It doesn't matter that it wasted no AP:s)

It seems 3 is the case.

If so, it renders the Reactive Fire even more impossible to use in the game: It is already limited to a measly 33% rate of success in the sense that it may be executed at all (on top of that there is still 66% chance that you will miss the attack anyways). It also activates your unit no matter if you managed to perform the Reactive Fire attack or not. In essence, this would lead to Reactive Fire being very sparsely used unless in a desperate situation or used by a specialized unit with Superior Reactive Fire-ability or something like it.

That is the case. Reactive fire gives a nice way of having overwatch without having to specifically put units into an overwatch state. Rules light but tactically sound is a nice way to go.

Sometimes, the 33% chance is worth the risk, and I've seen it pay off a lot of times.

Sometimes, it costs an activation for nothing when the roll fails, so it should be used with that understanding.

The units with Advanced or Superior Reactive Fire are gems that should be treasured, though even they are far from a sure thing.

The threat of Reactive Fire is sometimes sufficient to force an opponent's options, which is rather appropriate, as no unit is perfect in overwatch.

Yes, your 3 clarifying points are correct.

But don't discount Reactive Fire, sure, it's not something you should be doing every round, but it is a very viable and game-changing strategy when employed at the right time.

There are basically 3 situations where you should seriously consider trying reactive fire:

1- If the opponent attacks in full force, your unit is sure to be destroyed, so you might as well risk your activation to weaken him to soften his blow, which might save your life, or at least soften him up before you die, so that others can finish him off.

2- If the opponent completes his move, you'll be left with no-one to shoot at this round, so you should try to intercept him mid-move and take a potshot at him. It'll cost you nothing, since you wouldn't be able to do much with your activation that round anyway.

3- Another unit who's already been activated is being attacked, and is sure to be killed. However if you can soften the attacker up, there's a chance he'll survive. You should only do this if your attack has a good chance of actually diminishing the attacking power of the opponent. Just taking away health points from a hero would be a waste.

I think the Reactive Rules are pretty much spot on. It's used sparingly and only when needed. If it were any better then it will be used all the time which would spoil the gameplay.

Major Mishap said:

I play with someone who is 18 of 22 sucesses with reactive fire checks... During the reinforcement scenario, he used reactive fire to one-shot my Pounder with his Ludwig two turns in a row... On the third turn, he succeeded in his reactive fire check, but "only" did three points of damage to my Pounder. Needless to say, I didn't kill him with my shot back... I've passed on playing that scenario since then.

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

BTw, what do you guys think about using the new rules in the old core set? I mostly play only using units from the OCS, sometimes Markus or Ozz comes in with their squads. Then we change the charge ability, but let's say only old units, schoudl we use the new rules? What are your thoughs?

Thing is, there's really not much in terms of "new rules". Charge got curtailed a bit, as did Jump, and Reactive Fire was introduced. If you're playing only with the core set units, the change to Jump is irrelevant, and I think there's no reason not to have Reactive Fire. The only thing is Charge, which some axis players would like to retain for use with the Loth and Luther, which is not as broken as it becomes with the apes.

All in all, though, I'd sayto go with the full revised rules. It works perfectly well for playing Blue Thunder, and you won't have to re-learn anything afterwards.

Now, as to using new units for Blue Thunder, that's another issue. Jump troopers can break several scenarios...

Loophole Master said:

Yeach that's a fact, but we try not to use them in "inside base" part;)

No, you can't pass. The player with 3 units to your one had the advantage. He SHOULD be able to outmaneuver you.

I just had a game where I rolled two out of three successful Reactive Fire rounds. I was getting pounded and the units didn't have a prayer of surviving much longer. Did some serious damage, including knocking out a flamethrower with a sniper and killing Joe as he tried to run away.

You lie! Joe doesn't run, he just used his legs to push the world the other direction.

Psykostevo said:

He was advancing to the rear.

Exactly.

Jiltedtoo said:

"Like zhe little chicken zhat he izz!!" said Sigrid. ;-)

We use a house rule where you can go on OVERWATCH. That unit can only use reactive fire after that, but since it is stated as doing just that, it gets a bonus die to the roll to activate. We found this solves the "PASS" issue and makes my group happier with reactive fire, but it also gives a little extra strategy to both sides. 1) it allows the OVERWATCH player to set up a "kill zone" and 2) it gives the other player a need to use strategy to avoid overwatch units. If the unit that is on overwatch doesnt get a chance to use reactive fire by the time all the cards are used on both sides, it goes away and the new round begins.

Like I said, we use it, it works well, we enjoy it and it works for us. Your use or opinion may be different, I merely posted this to let you kow that some people use this option and it doenst break the game and adds a thin extra layer of flexibility and complication.

Im sorry if you dont like it.

Peacekeeper_b said:

No reason to be sorry for having a valid opinion.

It's an interesting idea. My only worry would be the statistical impact it adds to Reactive Fire (33 to 55% for normal, 55 to 70% for Advanced, and 70 to 80% for Superior). If your group doesn't use improved Reactive Fire units, or uses them rarely, it becomes far less of an issue. If your group simply doesn't mind the odds it creates, it's again a non-issue.

If I were to do something like this, I'd keep the Reactive Fire odds the same, and simply allow a unit to forego activation for a possible Reactive Fire attack, but your group's decision to improve the odds is not so statistically significant that it breaks the game.