Chain Reaction

[Bob Frapples]

I really like the FoF rule set and I am planning on running a game soon.  I have a question about resolving chains of action and reaction though.  The rules state:

– Reaction Tests are rolled starting with nearest unit to furthest unit

– Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit lost

– Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit won

– Initiative unit completes action

So lets say I have Initiative unit Blue1 that wants to make a rapid move from one building to another.  Non-initiative units Red1 and Red2 have LOS of the path Blue1 will take and both will react by firing.  So we roll the reaction tests starting with the nearest unit:

Blue1 vs. Red1 – Blue1 wins
Blue1 vs. Red2 – Red2 wins

So if we resolve the reaction in which the Non-initiative unit lost first how does that work?  Since Blue1 was making a rapid move do we just say that the unit would have made it to cover and Red1 doesn’t get to fire?  Then would Red2 fire on Blue1 before Blue1 completes it’s move?

If Blue1 is making a tactical move to cover and then firing at Red1, would we resolve the round of fire as if Blue1 made it to cover and fires first at Red1?  Then for resolving the round of fire with Red2 would we put Blue1 back out in the open?

It seems like it would make more sense to first resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit won.  In that case, Red2 would fire on Blue1 halfway through their move, then Blue1 would fire at Red1 from the location they moved to.

[Jörgen Andreasson]

Yes.. I agree that it sometimes can be confusing.

First of you have to understand that everything happens at the same time and it is abstracted. Since all units will be able to attack it will not really matter in what order you resolve the engagement from a mathematical perspective.

You just have to get over the logical urge of thinking in game terms and instead of the simulation.

If the initiative unit can’t claim cover against the unit they loose the reaction test to but can against the one they win against that is how you solve it. Which enemy bullet makes the casualty and in what order does not really matter. All units in the engagement will count as if they fired anyway.

Let’s say that the initiative unit takes fire against three non-initiative units. The initiative unit win two reaction test but loose one. The initiative unit can claim  cover against the first two rounds of fire but not the third. But what happens is that they take one casualty in each of the first two rounds of fire and loose the morale roll on both occasions. Thus might then lead the unit out if sight of the third and last unit… which unit do which casuilty does not matter. They all contributed to the result in an abstracted way anyway. The initiative unit simply retreated before they received too much casualties.

It is an abstraction of the events and the end result is just that… the result of that action.

If the case are that non-initiative units will not be able to fire if they loose the reaction test… then that is what happens. If the initiative unit is wiped out it will not move and the point is moot for the ones who don’t get to fire at the final destination. If the case is that the initiative unit is pinned and still end up in line of sight the ones who lost the reaction test will get a chance to fire after all… This would be like a unit reacting to someone moving into their line if sight at a later point in the turn… at least that is the way I interpret what would happen. In this instance I might remove a firepower dice though because they lost the reaction first and might treat it as a second reaction.

 

Hope that helped.

 

 

[Bob Frapples]

Thank you for the reply.  Even from a simulation perspective I don’t see how it makes sense to first resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit lost.  For my first example the simulation would go like this:

Fireteam Blue1 (Initiative Unit) begins running (Rapid Movement) across the courtyard to seek shelter behind a building.  Enemy teams Red1 and Red2 (Non-Initiative Units) are covering the courtyard (in LOS).  Red1 was taking a smoke break and did not expect any action (loses Reaction Test).  Unfortunately for Blue1, Red2 is on the ball and opens fire (wins Reaction Test).  One of Blue1’s riflemen is hit as they run across the courtyard (Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit won).  Blue1 makes it to the building (passes Morale check) with their wounded comrade and takes cover.  Red1 finally gets their rifles up but it is to late as their target is no longer in sight (Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit lost).

And the narrative for my second scenario would go like this:

Fireteam Blue1 (Initiative Unit) moves (Tactical Movement) behind the cover of a wall to fire at Enemy team Red1 (Non-Initiative Unit).  Lucky for Blue1, Red1 is slow to react (loses Reaction Test).  Unfortunately for Blue1, enemy team Red2 (Non-Initiative Unit) is locked, cocked and ready to rock (wins Reaction Test).  Red2 fires at Blue1 (Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit won) as they move for the wall (no cover) and one of Blue1’s riflemen is hit.  Blue1 fires back (passes Morale Check) at Red2 and causes two casualties.  Blue1 makes it to the wall and opens fire on Red1 (-1FP for Reaction fire, -1FP for casualty) causing three casualties (lucky roll!).  Red1 fires back (Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit lost) causing no additional casualties to Blue1 (who has cover).

So I think for my games I will resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit won first.  That is the way reactions are resolved when it is 1v1 as explained in the rules and it makes sense to do it that way for multiple reactions as well.

Page 67 – “If the non-initiative unit wins the Reaction Test, the Round of Fire will be resolved before the initiative unit performs its declared actions. If that action is to return fire, the non-initiative unit will fire first in the Round of Fire.”

[Jörgen Andreasson]

The point is that the dice you throw and in what order they are done does not really matter. In the Narrative you can imagine the fire team who won the initiative to be the one doing all the casualties since they also fire… the dice you throw does not matter to which team it belong to. It is like having 100$ in your pocket and half is for buying food and the other half for buying clothes. It does not matter exactly which of the dollar goes to which… more or less.

 

The point here is that the initiative team needs to resolve the round of fire against the fire-team it win against before the one it looses against. The winning reacting non-initiative unit are suppose to have the best conditions possible which means the initiative team have now lost a few fire dice. The loosing reacting team are suppose to get the worst if the initiative teams fire. It is also important when you consider lost movement from the initiative team using time to fire before reaching its destination and engaging with the non-initiative team that is the most threatening.

 

This is why every action is resolved in reverse order. It might seem counter intuitive at first but once you are used to it you will find it actually produce a very realistic simulation to these engagements. There is a perfectly valid reason for why they decided to use this method of resolving the actions. When playing a game where time is a fluid and abstract concept we need to let go of the old I go You go mentality.

[Jörgen Andreasson]

Another important point to consider is that if you allow the winning non-initiative unit to go first (in a chain reaction scenario) then things actually will be harder for the initiative unit from a mathematical perspective. If you on the other hand allow the initiative unit to resolve the rounds of fire where it wins first and then where they loose they have a better chance to survive.

[Bob Frapples]

Jörgen Andreasson wrote:

The point here is that the initiative team needs to resolve the round of fire against the fire-team it win against before the one it looses against. The winning reacting non-initiative unit are suppose to have the best conditions possible which means the initiative team have now lost a few fire dice. The loosing reacting team are suppose to get the worst if the initiative teams fire. It is also important when you consider lost movement from the initiative team using time to fire before reaching its destination and engaging with the non-initiative team that is the most threatening.

Okay, that’s something to think about.  So based on what you are saying, in regards to my second scenario Blue1 would fire at Red1, then Red1 would fire back with Blue1 getting the cover bonus from the wall resolving that round of fire.  Then Red2 would fire at Blue1 without Blue1 getting the cover bonus from the wall and then Blue1 would fire back with -1FP because they already fired at Red2 and -FP for any casualties.

I think your statements help me understand better the reasoning behind the order of actions.  I’ll have to mull it over some more and test play a few rounds of fire with that in mind.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Jörgen Andreasson]

Yes… I think that sums it up pretty good.

 

I also thought it was a bit awkward at first and actually have done it wrong a couple of times as well when I did not understand it properly. But it works quite well when you get used to it.

[Papasan]

Bob Frapples wrote:

… I have a question about resolving chains of action and reaction though. The rules state: – Reaction Tests are rolled starting with nearest unit to furthest unit – Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit lost – Resolve reactions in which the Non-initiative unit won – Initiative unit completes action.
So lets say I have Initiative unit Blue1 that wants to make a rapid move from one building to another. Non-initiative units Red1 and Red2 have LOS of the path Blue1 will take and both will react by firing. So we roll the reaction tests starting with the nearest unit: Blue1 vs. Red1 – Blue1 wins Blue1 vs. Red2 – Red2 wins …

This can be difficult to get your head round Bob – if you look at it that in a chain the initiative unit is playing one action interrupted by multiple rounds of fire before finishing its move it may be clearer.

In your initial example Blue 1 makes its move. Red 1 & Red 2 are tasked to interrupt with gunfire, Red 1 loses it’s roll; Red 2 wins his.
As Red 1 lost it’s test Blue 1 can open up on them. If Red 1 survives & passes any required rolls it can fire back.
If Blue 1 survives Red 2 now opens fire on Blue 1.  If Blue 1 survives & passes any required rolls it can fire back (minus FP following first exchange)
Blue 1 can now finish its action minus any FP/Movement penalties resulting from the reactions. In this case it’ll move into the building.
(though you cannot ‘rapid move’ out of or into a building).

Point of interest: in the original FoF you did resolve chains by taking on those you lost against first – they changed it for this release perhaps for the reasons Jörgen suggests.

[Author]

Posts