Reaction Etiquette

[PlasticCraic]

Question on how you approach Reactions.

The rules are that only one Reaction can be used each turn. 

The next player to activate gets to use a Reaction if they wish.  If they don't, the player whose turn it was gets to use theirs. 

But if their opponent does use a Reaction, the player whose turn it was cannot use one at all.

I can foresee disagreements along the lines of:

Next player: "..."

Player whose turn it is: "I'm going to use a Reaction" 

Next player: "No, I'm going to interrupt you"

Player whose turn it is: "Too late, you didn't say you were going to - you can't do it now"

Next player: "Well you didn't give me a chance, I was just about to say I wanted to..."

So if, for example, I had a way to chain two attacks together, I have to pause after my first "normal" action to see whether the opponent wishes to interrupt, before continuing to the second "free" action.  This kind of telegraphs what you are intending to do. 

I guess you could also use this to your advantage by bluffing and getting your opponent to burn a Reaction at the wrong time, but it does feel like quite a clunky mechanic. 

How are people approaching this on the table in practice? 

[Killax]

I usually state I want to play a Reaction if I have one. I signal that I have one if they do to but no cards need to be revealed after this statement is made.

Basically its akin to asking a Mtg pkayer if a card resolves before playing another one.

Call it "I want to play a Reaction, but if you want to do that first your up".

[Attackmack]

If I know im second in line and have a reaction I want to play I will first ask my opponent if they wish to do so before me. Its courtesy IMO and I want to win because I play better, not because my opponent forgot a rule or missed a timing.

 

[Black_Nexus]

I think if you are the person with that activation, just ask the person if they want to play a reaction

 

[Black_Nexus]

If they say no, then you play yours. 

That way, it is all neat and tidy. I always ask the other person if they want to play a card after I do stuff. 

[Field907]

The way I read it is actually not just one reaction per turn, but one reaction per trigger. So if both players had a reaction that triggered on a tighter being removed, then only one would get to play theirs. However, if one player had a reaction that triggered on a fighter taking damage and the other had one that triggered on a fighter being removed, these would be resolved separately. 

[Black_Nexus]

16 hours ago, Field907 said:

The way I read it is actually not just one reaction per turn, but one reaction per trigger. So if both players had a reaction that triggered on a tighter being removed, then only one would get to play theirs. However, if one player had a reaction that triggered on a fighter taking damage and the other had one that triggered on a fighter being removed, these would be resolved separately. 

That is totally how it works, max 1 reactions per trigger. 

Honestly the reaction rules are some of the best spelled out in the entire book

[ledha]

i don't have the rulebook, but isn't there somewhere a text about who have the "priority" on the reaction ?

[Killax]

9 hours ago, ledha said:

i don't have the rulebook, but isn't there somewhere a text about who have the "priority" on the reaction ?

Yes, the player whos activating next has priority. Though because it works this way you still have to ask. As miss re-rolls are usually in the interest of the current players action.