WOW! This is a shocking answer!! Nothing in the rules would really indicate that lots of units could try reactive fire in a single turn, to the contrary, the rules would seem to indicate only ONE can do it.

It's a pity that Zach messed up his previous answer on Reactive Fire against Fast units, because now I'm not fully trusting this answer. I mean, this could be the rules, but the rulebook really doesn't point us in that direction.

Pity, thats not what the rules actually say though :/

Truly... I am raising my eyebrow more and more at these answers from FFG. I'll try asking the same question a different way and see if we can get a consistent answer. I guess if somebody wants to waste activations on trying to attempt Reactive Fire multiple times on an activation they have the right to do so, but doesn't make much sense from a strategic standpoint unless each of these units has Superior Reactive Fire, or in the very least Advanced Reactive Fire. Though I can see how that might be desirable to defend against a unit that has been injected with a Stim Pack.

I too still interpret the rules as one unit may attempt reactive fire in an activation, though wouldn't be opposed to the view point that ONE unit could attempt between each action. On a normal activation that would be 1 unit. On a Stim Pack enhanced activation 3 units could make an attempt since there are 3 points of interruption. But that's just my two cents and people are welcome to play the game however they wish. It's just that when it comes to "official play" a specific interpretation of the rules does matter, which is why we have these civilized and respectful discussions. If somebody wants to play the game with house rules, then more power to you and I hope it's a blast, but also realize there are other players who prefer to stick to official play rules and wish to participate in official play events and therefore play their private games under official rules to help better understand the game play and develop sound strategies. This would be easier to achieve if FFG had more consistency to their answers and clearer rules to begin with, but nobody's perfect.

Good Gaming everyone!

I sent this into FFG in accordance to my post directly above this one. Hopefully I asked the question in enough ways to illustrate the question as best as possible:

Hello there!

Just me again asking for another clarification. The Revised Core Set Rules state that when attempting Reactive Fire that it "temporarily interrupts the action of an enemy unit to allow one of your units to open fire." The debate of a Stim Pack was brought up to see if a unit could attempt Reactive Fire between each activation. This then also brought up the issue of attempting multiple Reactive Fire attempts on a normal 2 action activation. Reactive Fire is available to all units and the rules on page 16 of the Revised Core Set imply that only one unit is allowed to interrupt the activation when attempting Reactive Fire. I guess what I am trying to ask can be broken into 3 separate questions that will hopefully provide a similar answer for each:

1) Is the ratio to Reactive Fire attempts per activation 1:1?

2) Is Reactive Fire limited to 1 attempt per instances between actions? (normal activation has 1 instance, Stim Pack activation has 3 instances)

3) As long as a unit has not activated, may they attempt Reactive Fire in the same activation where other units have attempted Reactive Fire, regardless of the success of the other units? So if a unit is successful in their attempt can other units still attempt, or is it limited to only allowing another attempt if the previous unit failed their attempt, or is it only one unit gets to attempt period?

Trying to highlight the possibilities and dangers of essentially allowing one side to inflict "game-breaking" damage on the other side simply through multiple Reactive Fire attempts per single activation.

Thank you again for your time,

I disagree with the interpretation of the word "one" in the sentences regarding Reactive Fire rules which is why I have stated from the beginning that I think any number of units are allowed to attempt Reactive Fire.

Now English is not my native language and I could be way off, but the way I interpret the word "one" which appears in three places in the rules for Reactive Fire is in the following way:

Part of the Reactive Fire rules which contains the word "one"

Reactive Fire temporarily interrupts the action of an enemy unit to allow one of your units
to open fire. In order to perform this action, you must first select one of your unactivated
units and roll one die.

My interpretation

First sentence: the use of the word "one" is not to state that only one unit is eligible to attempt Reactive Fire per action but more to emphasis that it is one unit (not all your units) that attempts "Reactive Fire" per attempt.

Second sentence: as in the first sentence the word "one" is not there to limit the number of units that are allowed to attempt Reactive Fire per action but it is there to emphasis that it is one unit at a time that attempts Reactive Fire per attempt and that the roll of the one die (for normal Reactive Fire) affects the one unit attempting Reactive Fire.

Furthermore I can’t really see that being able to attempt Reactive Fire with any number of units per action as game-breaking, overpowering or unbalancing because of the chance of success and the penalty of exhausting the activation of your units regardless of success or not.

Hopefully with more people asking similar questions regarding one and the same rules will get more people from FFG to look at the questions at hand and give an answer that is clear and logical.

Regardless of the answers you get to your questions (for or against multiple attempts of Reactive Fire per action) it will be interesting to see what they do answer this time, either way I do not have any problems accepting any of the two cases.

Yeah, I have argued before (several months ago), that this use of "one" did not necessarily mean only a single unit could try it per activation. Though if you had to lean in either direction, I think it would certainly be less of a stretch to go towards "one" than to go towards "as many as are able to". If their intention was, as this answer seems to indicate, to alow any amount of simultaneous reactive fires, they really should have added a sentence in there to that effect.

Hopefully by being asked this repeatedly it will get them to recognize that this is a very dubious point that should be looked at carefully, and certainly added to the FAQ.

So here is the response from FFG, which like the artillery clarification, makes very little sense:

The ratio of Reactive Fire attempts per activation is not 1:1. It is dependent on the number of units in range with line of sight that have not yet activated during the game turn, and are therefore eligible to make a Reactive Fire attempt.

A single unit may never make more than one Reactive Fire attempt per game turn, even in the event of a Stim Pack where multiple actions take place on a single activation.

If a unit has not activated, it may attempt Reactive Fire in the same activation where other units have attempted Reactive Fire, regardless of the success or failure of other units.

Yeah, a player can choose units to engage in reactive fire one at a time, regardless of the success/failure of previous units.

As ridiculous as this clarification is, I can get on board with multiple units attempting reactive fire, HOWEVER it should be treated like everything else in the game where you have to declare all your intentions before doing anything. After all, the time spent in an action is considered "simultaneous" which is why a player can't decide to shoot their weapons at another target if they destroy a unit before getting through all their weapon lines, but a unit reacting to another unit can take all the time in the world and decide who attempts reactive fire on the fly. Makes absolutely zero sense. If a unit (or units) are reacting between actions, then this should also be simultaneous and not dependent on the success and/or failure of each unit as they make their attempts.

Again, many people are debating the one vs. many aspect of reactive fire, and I can see how both arguments are valid, even though the rules clearly state that "one unit may attempt" instead of "a unit may attempt." So one = one as in one unit because one will always mean one and never two or three or four, etc... where "a unit" implies no such limitation. What I cannot see is how the reactive fire is used between actions and isn't considered simultaneous, yet pretty much everything else is considered simultaneous. No consistency and that bums me out.

Yeah, it seems they are very clear about this: Multiple units can attempt reactive fire at the same time. I'm fine with that, I only wish the rules had given us any indication that we were supposed to be playing it like that.

But you raise a good point ktj1138, can we decide to try Reactive Fire with another unit, after the 1st one has failed to do its job, or must we declare which units will attempt reactive fire before rolling any dice, and stick to it? It does kinda break the rule of simultaneity if we can add more attacks one step at a time.

Loophole Master said:

That's what FFG is saying. The ruling is yes, you can keep declaring reactive fire on the same target between the same actions for each eligible unit that is in range one at a time regardless of success or failure or previous attempts. So an AXIS player can attempt with a Heinrich, then after the fact declare another attempt with a second Heinrich, then after the fact try with a SturmKonig, then after the fact attempt with an infantry unit, etc... as long as the unit hasn't been activated already and are in range.

What I am saying is that this ruling makes little sense with establish game play since everything is supposed to be declared before acting. So I feel to stay in line with establish game play a player must declare each unit attempting reactive fire, and any unit that wasn't needed is still used up by the reactive fire attempt much in the same vein as using weapon lines. If you assign 4 weapon lines on 1 target and get the kill after the first weapon line then it's tough **** and all other weapon fire is wasted. I feel this should be the same with Reactive Fire. Each unit attempting should be declared before any Reactive Fire roles are made. If a player wants 3 units to attempt Reactive Fire, and the target is destroyed on the first attempt, then (much like with weapon lines) tough **** as the other 2 units were also Reacting at the same time. But those are just my thoughts.

Common sense suggest if you can declare Reactive Fire with 2 and more units you should DECLARE it before you roll the dice(s) which stays in line with main rule that you must decklare all the actions befoer any dice is rolled.

It's not the first time FFG try to explain the rule in ridiculous way and then when pointed out they mistake reverse clarification.

I'd say it's better for the players if we stick to declaring all attempts to Reactive Fire before we make any rolls.

I totally agree. I sent this specific question to FFG, hope they answer soon.

If you have do declare all Reactive Fires before rolling any dice, it creates a nice strategy where you move a unit into range of a group of enemies, in the hopes that they'll all attempt reactive fire. Then another unit can move into the same area without fear of being fired upon.

Answer from FFG:

You may declare units attempting Reactive Fire one at a time. If the first unit fails to kill the enemy unit, you may attempt Reactive Fire with another unit if it is in range and has line of sight. This can continue until all eligible units have attempted Reactive Fire or until the enemy unit is destroyed. You do not have to declare all units attempting Reactive Fire beforehand.

Keep in mind that the simultaneous attacks in Dust Tactics involve the weapon lines for a single unit, unless units are engaged in Close Combat, in which case the defending unit attacks as well. Close Combat is the only time that more than one unit attacks at the same time. With Reactive Fire this is still the case: if a Reactive Fire attempt is successful, the unit attacks the enemy with all available weapon lines. If the Reactive Fire includes Close Combat attacks, both units attack simultaneously. If the enemy is still standing, another eligible unit may attempt Reactive Fire.

So that's it, you can try reactive fire with one unit, and after that action is done, you can decide to try it with another eligible unit. Sounds strange, since it's so different from how I've been playing it, but it's not an absurd ruling. This one defintitely must be included in the FAQ, though, cause I think very few people would play it like that after reading the rules as written.

You would have thought that this question would have come up in playtesting (among several others) - assuming they have external playtesters. If not get some.

O gosh... what a bull***t... Don't know even what to say...

I'll stick to declaring Reactive Fire units before rolls cause otherwise (I'm sorry FFG but that's a fact) it doesn't have any sense.

Now close combat specialist unit is a 'one hit' unit (if even one hit) which can be shattered even before attack the opponent.

daniello_s said:

Agreed!

Funny that people gets so anti when the ruling isn’t as they would have ruled.... what is the point in asking for clarification when one won’t accept it if it isn’t what you want to hear.

I agree with Loophole that this isn’t an absurd ruling but that the rule written in the rulebook is very poorly written and needs to get into the FAQ.
I would say that this ruling is still kept in line with the main rules because there is a difference between an ordered action(s) and a reaction. Both have benefits and penalties, one needs to be declared, can be more damaging (Sustained Fire) and is always carried out and while the other doesn’t need to be declared, its less damaging (no Sustained Fire allowed), has a chance of not being carried out and regardless of success exhausting the activation possibility.

I've never had a problem with games allowing a unit to fire on charging enemy models before they get into close combat. Bringing a knife to a gunfight should be a very difficult proposition.

The games that give close combat troops an easy time closing with units armed with ranged weapons I find rather laughable.

I don't have a problem with the ruling, as the price of failing the Reactive Fire test are severe.

Allowing multiple units to try Reactive Fire makes sense, as real units could do that.

Declaring all of the units trying, and forcing rolls for all of them, could be interesting, and part of me leaned toward that as a hopeful resolution for the question. Thinking about it more, comparing the possibilities against the penalties of a failed test, and this is probably the most sensible option.

We have to remember that a failed roll removes a unit's activation, and that will happen 67% of the time for normal units, 45% for Advanced Reactive Fire, and 30% for Superior Reactive Fire. That's a significant risk for any unit.

Plus, even if you succeed your Reactive Fire roll, you only get a one-action activation, which keeps you from using Reactive Fire. Besides that, if you have 3 units trying Reactive Fire at once, it means you'll be severely out-activated towards the end of the round, which can be very dangerous.

So all-in-all, Reactive Fire carries with it a high price. If you want to commit several units to it at once, you'll pay the price. Sure, you might be able to wipe out that pesky enemy that tried to make a move on you, but you will have taken a big risk doing it, and it might bite you in the rear towards the end of the round.

Guys you don't understand the problem.

Multiple reactive fire is of course sensible and should be allowed as friendly unit tend to lay supporting fire to friends in need.

The problem is how are we gonna do it in the game.

Imagine yourself situation: i have 3 units - A, B and C and opponent has 2 CC units X and Y.

Opponents turn - he declares X move+attack which brings it in LOS off all my units.

Now thanks to FFG ruling I can make Reactive Fire with all my units and further more I can do it declaring B with reactive fire, check how it resolves and in case of failure do the same with C. And when it fails as well as a last resort declare A.

In case of success B (or C) I still have a chance to do something with my unit A.

On the other hand if we had to declare reactive fire intentions with all units BEFORE nay rolls are made you have to consider if it's worthy to try reactive fire with all units or maybe just A and B in case if one of them fail or maybe risk and declare only A leaving other free to act in my turn because there is still another enemy unit which can possible charge after my turn..

Besides - how can you imagine yourself a situation when an enemy charges unit A and unit B opens fire - misses and screams 'Yo B! We sucks, open fire', then B opens fire - misses as well and screams 'Yo A! Sorry mates, open fire yourselves!' and in the meantime enemy unit runs and runs and runs...

All reactive fire should be simultaneously so either we open fire at once all not at all cause there is no time to wait for friendly units.

Of course we understand, everybody here has stated that it probably would have been better if the rule forced you to declare all Reactive Fire attempts before rolling any dice. But that is not how FFG is ruling it, and I don't see it as SUCH a problem. Sure, it favours the reacting player, but as I said, trying ANY reactive fire is always a risky gamble.

This is just another nonsencical FFG ruling but I doubt if it would effect the game much and gameplay wise, might actually give a better game, using 2 or 3 units to attempt reaction fire will leave your army at a severe disadvantage for the rest of the game and even more so if you have to declare all first. and I doubt if I would even attempt it.. Sure react with the model being attacked, but much better to let fly with a sustained attack after with another unit.

The fact that Reactive Fire only allows you a single Attack action instead of a full activation, on top the mandatory dice roll, pretty much ensures that it can't be broken, no matter how they handle it. Most of the time, when you're trying Reactive Fire, you'll wish they didn't allow for multiple attempts, as you uselessly burn through the activations of several of your units.

I agree that making sequential attempts at Reactive Fire is not the perfect simulation of combat. Real soldiers don't get the option to wait and see how one unit does before trying to attack themselves, but they can get called to support an attack that isn't being as effective as needed. DUST does not give a specific time limit per turn, but it is obvious that turns are several seconds long, so support could be requested and recieved.

That's clear, however, Reactive Fire is simulating a unit catching an enemy unit while exposed, and bringing fire on it before it can finish whatever it's trying to do. If Reactive Fire would always automatically successful to attempt, it would be a poor choice, because real soldiers don't always identify and react that fast.

Many games use the option of placing a unit in a limited option defensive position to allow them to use overwatch, and some of them still force a roll to see if they successfully make the overwatch attack. DUST keeps it simpler, and allows any unit that hasn't activated the chance to make an overwatch attack, but they keep it balanced by forcing the roll. That roll carries significant penalties for failure, and limits the attack if it succeeds. That's a nice trade-off between realism and faster play. Overwatch is effective, but units attempting it might have gotten too distracted to do other things.

It isn't a nonsensical interpretation of the situation; it's an attempt to balance the realities of overwatch with the godlike view players have of the battlefield by making overwatch less than a perfect defense, but still worth attempting when it is appropriate.

Any game where units attack sequentially loses some realism because players get to see the results before moving to another unit, but forcing all attacks to be declared before any are resolved would limit playability because of the extra time it would take.

If you want a better real time simulation, go for a computer, but even there you get advantages where players don't get killed as easily as real people would.

If you want a tabletop game simulation, you'll have to accept some loss of realism to allow playability. Forcing all units to declare before any rolled for Reactive Fire would be less realistic than allowing them to declare and roll sequentially when considering the penalties the game imposes for the freedom Reqactive Fire allows.

The decision does not give a perfect simulation of real world combat, but it gives a better simulation of combat in its effects than forcing all units to declare and face the penalties of failure would.

Games have to sacrifice realism for playability, but if they can simulate the results of realism while not exactly mirroring realism they can be a good game. The Reactive Fire ruling does that better than the other two options.

I spoke to several Dust players and they laughed at FFG ruling.

Well I'll give a shot both options (declaring before roll and declaring rolling as we go) but declaring units with Reactive Fire before any rolls are made is more realistic and playable than other option. But that's only mine (and bunch of my friends) personal opinion