[Nymie_the_Pooh]

I have not had a chance to play test the proposed rules yet so this is all unproven theory and may have no bearing on how things actually play out.

I was thinking about reactions. What if performing a reaction that was not prepared gave the active character a free Pause for Breath action upon resolution of the reaction. Let's say Character A declared they were going to evade to a spot fifteen inches away then go into overwatch giving them a prepared reaction until Character A's next turn. They roll their actions, and only get the first three of evade move. After the first move, Character B can react. If this is a prepared action (like overwatch) then Character B takes the shot and Character A continues as normal after resolving the effects of being shot at. If the reaction fire was prepared then Character B can take the shot, but after resolving the reaction Character A may select the remaining two actions over again so can evade move another five inches into cover and go into overwatch rather than continue on the remaining ten inches they were going to originally move.

Something along those lines would make it to where there's no need to keep track of how many reactions are performed or reserved, but it's not always in the best interest of the player with a model capable of reacting to do so. I also think it might help if reactions not prepared ahead of the triggering circumstance were limited to once per activation of a character. Once per action if opened up would likely be too much.

One thing to keep in mind when pulling from other games is how a part of the rules affects that game and how that might translate over. Infinity is great with the back and forth thanks in no small part to the ARO system, but close combat is rare indeed. There are some models that are amazing in close combat, but it's hard to get into close combat due to all the reactions and being in the open for those reactions when moving to engage so even the melee focused models have to load up on guns and normally ignore their close combat capability. I think you have this balance in mind already, but two traps to look for specifically are reactions in melee and reacting to those closing to melee. The former never comes up in Infinity but could under the rules you have where the latter is deadly to the one looking to close and usually is not worth the risk. If a model closing the gap to close combat is ever out in the open during the move to engage then they won't have any protection beside their equipment and the range modifiers will normally be in the favour of the model doing the reacting. Again, it's something I would need to actually test to see how it goes, but it might end up calling for a to hit penalty with a ranged weapon on reactions against anybody that moves and finishes the move engaged in close combat with the shooter. I do not know if reserved actions will cause any problems in melee, but it's something to test. Maybe one possible reserve action can be used to take a hit at anybody that leaves reach (disengage/circle) and otherwise keep moving in melee as a normal walk action with no restrictions since you seem to want more mobility in close combat.

I like the idea of giving up actions to ready a reaction, but I fear it could promote turtling up and might be something the GM would have to build into every scenario they were running if their games tended to drag out from it. It's hard to tell without playtesting and having one player go on the defensive in this manner over multiple games and see how it goes.

From skimming over the rule set document it looks like there is no reason to prepare a reaction when you can reserve a reaction instead. They seem to do the same thing, but with prepared reactions having a set trigger where reserved reactions seem to be able to trigger from anything as long as the player controlling the reacting character can get the GM to agree that it makes sense to do so and can pass a test. Going back to Infinity as an example, they have the reactions which read sort of like reserved reactions in the document, but then they also have things like suppression fire which is a full attack on anything that enters the pre-selected area and lasts until the next turn no matter who passes through it. In the case of suppression fire this includes allies as it basically represents the model firing a steady stream of shots in an unobstructed column, but it serves as an example. Maybe prepared reactions could work more along the lines of that.

So for instance, Overwatch in the draft already affects a specific area and has a set trigger before it will cause the character on Overwatch to fire. There are greater restrictions on Overwatch than a reserved action if I understand the document correctly. It reads like a reserved action can be used to take a shot (any reaction really) at anybody that performs an action that can reasonably be reacted to with the readied action on a successful test as long as the reacting character is aware of the target. There seems to be little reason to use Overwatch over a reserved reaction since they are both usable once and the Overwatch is canceled if another reaction is taken anyway where multiple reserved reactions can be used in the same turn. With the limited area of affect of Overwatch (4 yards) one way to differentiate the two types of reactions is to make Overwatch usable more than once per turn in it's limited area. Maybe drop a large blast template for 56mm and small for 32mm to show the area of effect and have anybody friend or foe get shot at in the area as it seems something like this could make a friendly standing in it near impossible to engage in close combat. That holds true even without the templates, but it's an idea to have an area that is easy to see at a glance. It sort of emphasizes the specialty versus generalist natures of the two types of reactions. Right now it is a trade off between firing once in a fairly tight area with a penalty to the hit, or reserving multiple chances to shoot at anything you can reasonably react to that you can see as long as you pass a test each time you fire and you can choose to react in a different manner in that moment if you so choose.

Thanks for doing this. I do not know if I am of any actual help or not. I do appreciate you doing this. Hopefully I'll get a chance to play this draft some instead of just read and hypothesize.

[MarcoSkoll]

I was thinking about reactions. What if performing a reaction that was not prepared gave the active character a free Pause for Breath action upon resolution of the reaction.

I like the idea.

I might want to leave the possibility for an active character to still be caught off guard, so a tweak may be in order; possibly doubly so as I have another idea about reactions being used in the active turn to redeclare actions, but my brain is too addled to come up with any fully reasoned suggestion at the moment.

Perhaps reactions always permit the active character a redeclaration of their actions, but it takes an initiative test (or a spent reaction of their own) to skip the required PfB action. Although I'd have to see how messy that was with the rest of the rules - I'm not looking to have exception upon exception.

I also think it might help if reactions not prepared ahead of the triggering circumstance were limited to once per activation of a character. Once per action if opened up would likely be too much.

It could be a helpful limitation, but given reactions also include things like trying to not be an easy target for incoming fire, I'm not sure on that one. Again, too tired to think of a perfect answer.

two traps to look for specifically are reactions in melee and reacting to those closing to melee. <snip> If a model closing the gap to close combat is ever out in the open during the move to engage then they won't have any protection beside their equipment and the range modifiers will normally be in the favour of the model doing the reacting.

Well, running across a large open space to get to close combat does carry with it a certain likelihood of expecting to get shot.
Obviously, I don't want to invalidate close combat through reactions, but I do think that making getting into close combat across 18 yards of open terrain a bit more of a challenge than getting three successful actions would be a positive.

In any case, one suggestion made by Robey was only (normally) allowing reactions to follow the action that triggers them - essentially, setting the reaction time of any Inquisitor character to one action.
This simplifies the sequence a lot, and would also make covering short distances to get into close combat little more of a threat than it is now.

I like the idea of giving up actions to ready a reaction, but I fear it could promote turtling up

This is addressed in the draft rules, to an extent. The version we tested was increasing every character's speed by 1, but the alternative of increasing action dice to 3+ is to be considered as well. This means a single reserved reaction has no major effect on a character's normal ability - and no reserved reactions (such as when a character has no reason to be cautious near the start of the game or is just throwing said caution to the wind) means a character can act faster than normal.

Additionally, there's also a restriction as suggested by Koval - a character cannot store more reactions than half their speed (rounding down). A character cannot go completely on the defensive.

From skimming over the rule set document it looks like there is no reason to prepare a reaction when you can reserve a reaction instead.

As written, prepared reactions do not need to test initiative to be activated - their "test" for activation is whether the conditions were met.

one way to differentiate the two types of reactions is to make Overwatch usable more than once per turn in it's limited area.

It is a possibility to be considered, although I think my primary point was just to define the fact that Overwatch should not just be "I'll shoot as soon as I see anyone, anywhere!" (which would require a less certain reserved reaction).

[Nymie_the_Pooh]

Thanks for taking the time to go through that.

My concern with the closing to melee was that last action to move to engage. If a character is moving eighteen yards in the open to engage then they are asking for trouble. I was thinking more in line when that last two yards of movement to engage is in the open. In those cases it makes no difference if the character used cover for the first sixteen yards. So basically, the character stays in cover then jumps out at the last second of moving to engage only to have the target react by shooting at them within a yard or two of engaging and the moving model counts as out in the open at that moment. It's that 4" move to actually get in melee then swing that kills melee in Infinity as performing such a move normally results in death. Maybe it's as simple as making reactions only happen at the end of an action and since that last bit was to close to melee range the reaction can be to perform a melee strike or dodge or something, but not to shoot. The issue with doing it only between actions during an activation is then you can't take shots at somebody as they dash back and forth behind obstacles that block line of sight.

I'm not sure if it will be a real problem with what you are doing as there are many differences between the two systems. I just know it practically kills melee in Infinity. It makes sense there as they want everything to be a firefight where I tend to think of the 40K setting as being more Science Fantasy or Space Opera than Infinity is.

[Ynek]

It's been quite some time since I posted anything to the conclave, but after reading through this entire topic, I thought this would be a good time to break my long-established silence and actually post something.

With regards to "reactions," I did a little experimenting with a friend about a week ago and came up with something that we think is quite a fun and dynamic way to represent reactions.

Ynek's suggested reactions rule:

A character gets a number of 'reactions' equal to their speed, divided by three, rounding numbers down. Therefore, a speed 6 character would get two reactions per turn whilst a speed 2 character would get none (*1).

With GM discretion, a reaction can only be used to do something to react to something that the opposing character has done. For example, if a character is fired upon, it's reasonable to assume that they might try to shoot back or dive for cover. However, it would be a bit of a stretch for a character to "react" to being fired upon by continuing to hack a door code or continue summoning daemonic assistance.

When a character reacts, the reaction is resolved as an opposed initiative test with the character that they are reacting to. (*2) If the reacting character passes his initiative test, then he or she successfully reacts. However, if they pass their initiative test by a greater margin of success than the character that they are reacting to, then they react FIRST. This means that a high initiative character has a chance of diving for cover before the first shot is fired, or drawing their sword BEFORE the enemy tries to strike them. If the reacting character fails his initiative test, then this means that they fail to react and may not attempt to react again until the next action at the earliest. If the "acting" character that the reacting character is reacting to fails their initiative test, then obviously, the reacting character manages to make their reaction BEFORE the acting character makes their 'action'. However, there is no further negative consequence for the acting character. They still get their action whether or not they pass their initiative test because, after all, this is their turn and they've already passed their action roll.

So, in practice, this rule might work like this:

Example one - an example of a 'defensive' reaction.
Character A spends his turn walking down an alleyway, minding his own business.
In Character B's turn, character B steps out from behind a dumpster and fires a shot at character A. Character A chooses to react to dive into cover.
Both players roll a D100.
Character A has an initiative of 80, whilst character B has an initiative of 75. Character A rolls 55. According to the "roll high, but under," convention described by Marco earlier in this topic, Character A has passed their test by 55. Character B rolls their initiative test and rolls 65, passing his test by 65 points. A glance at the two D100s will reveal that 65 is higher than 55, and both characters have rolled beneath their initiative values. The outcome of this dice result is that Character B fires their round at character A, and immediately after, before any following actions by Character B, Character A dives into cover.

Example two - an example of an 'aggressive' reaction.
Character A has been followed back to his lair. He closes the door behind him, draws his gun, and aims at the doorway.
Character B follows him and opens the door. The GM rules that an awarness check is required to notice the 'trap' that has been laid, with an appropriate modifier depending on how obvious the trap seems to be. Character B fails the awareness test and walks right into the trap.
Character A chooses to 'react' to the opening of the door by opening fire with his gun.
In the opposed initiative test, Character A rolls a 95, whilst character B rolls a 50. Character A, the reacting character, has failed his initiative test, and therefore does not react when character B opens the door. Character B opens the door and continues with their remaining actions (A smart player would have chosen to make a pause for breath after opening the door... Because the character doesn't know what might be behind it, and it makes sense that a character would pause for breath in that moment.)


An alternative version of this rule that I'm tinkering with alongside my usual gaming buddy is that a character is limited to one SUCCESSFUL reaction for every three points of speed. This means that if you fail your reaction test in this action, you can try again after the next. It seems to slow gameplay down a bit, but it does mean that just because a character fails to react in the first instant that a change occurs, they're not left standing there getting shot at for the several actions that follow in the remainder of the turn. Bearing in mind that there might be three or four enemy characters who get their actions before he does, it doesn't really make sense that just because he failed to jump for cover after the first shot was fired, that he just decides to stand and get blasted by every gun in the enemy's arsenal.

Of course, it's not a perfect rule... But I'm humbly submitting it for your consideration.

(*1)= Such characters are likely to be too slow to react in time to any sudden changes in the situation. However, considering that Speed 2 is usually reserved for Orks, Ogryns, servitors, cripples and the like, I think it's safe to say that they aren't exactly the most reactive of characters anyway. Similarly, the only characters which are speed 6 are usually hyper-elite assassins and aliens such as Eldar, who are almost certainly going to be very reactive and fast to respond to any changes on the tabletop.

(*2)= This means that a slow and dull-witted character is easier to react to than a lightning fast one, and this is something that any rules for reactions ought to consider. For instance, it's easier to dive for cover and make it in time when your opponent is a dull-witted servitor with slow response times than it is to make the same dive when you're trying to avoid getting hit by a highly trained Eldar assassin.

[Koval]

That looks pretty cool. I might suggest "...every three points of Speed, or part thereof" as a possible alternative. It will of course need plenty of testing.

[Ynek]

That looks pretty cool. I might suggest "...every three points of Speed, or part thereof" as a possible alternative. It will of course need plenty of testing.

I was reluctant to do this, because it would mean that the threshold for multiple reactions comes much lower, from the nigh-mythical speed of 6 down to the far more abundant speed of 4.

In addition, it means that speed 1 and 2 characters will start rolling initiative tests for their reactions, even though their chances of success (since a low speed inevitably means a low initiative) will be virtually non-existant. Now, whilst I appreciate that rolling the dice in a manner that completely defeats the odds on a nigh-impossible test can be satisfying, there comes a point where making a "snowball's chance" roll every turn gets tiresome and starts to bog the game down.

The other side of it is that when we consider the types of characters who typically have speed 1 or 2 (Obliterator cultists, hulking monstrosities, servitors, robots, and zombies,) we have to wonder if making reactive rolls for such creatures would even be characterful?

And also, just as an aside, I think that if such a rule as the above were adopted, it would become much easier to "nail down" exactly what the oft-difficult to define rules for "lightning reflexes" would become.... Simply a positive modifier for the opposed initiative test.

[MarcoSkoll]

A character gets a number of 'reactions' equal to their speed, divided by three, rounding numbers down.

A few people have proposed fixed numbers of reactions now (although not all solutions the same).
I'm ultimately okay with that if such is the collective will of the player-base... but I'd be still be interested to hear why these people prefer the idea over an adaptive mechanic.

I know it's a little simpler, but I really do rather like the adaptive mechanic. At least if appropriately written, it could even could actually speed the game up.
If you increase the average number of actions at the same time as letting them be traded in for reactions, characters in (inter)action would still act close to the current rate (so no "lots of actions at once" imbalance, particularly if other characters can interrupt them). Characters not involved in interaction would get on with their stuff quicker (and thus get back into the middle of the game more promptly).

The other thing is that I'm toying with some rules for the close combat system that work around the idea and hopefully address some of the concerns that Nymie had at the same time.

A loose idea I've got in mind is that a character engaged in combat has to spend a reaction in order to unlock the full range of defensive options. Hence, a character not on their guard would be fairly at risk in close combat - and in the process, this makes for a decision between using a reaction to take a shot at an incoming assassin or preparing to fight them. (Or, alternatively, I've just realised that a simple reminder to players that they can swap weapons with reactions could work to an extent, with no real change needed).
But increasing the importance of having reactions in that way means less if characters automatically have them around.

However, if they pass their initiative test by a greater margin of success than the character that they are reacting to, then they react FIRST.

I'm increasingly in agreement with what Robey said on this one, I think.
Although a chance of getting that shot off first is interesting, it is going to be much simpler and quicker rules-wise to just put reactions after anything they're reacting to (with exceptions - things like dodge rolls logically have to be simultaneous).

Thing is, our playtesting showed up a few niggles with the originally suggested sequencing if you've got more than one reacting character (not unlikely in a three player game, which is a common way for Inquisitor to be played at events - after all, that's how we were playing when we found that out).

It may well be very worth allowing such things as an optional or "if the GM thinks it's cool enough" rule though.

... they're not left standing there getting shot at for the several actions that follow in the remainder of the turn.

I'm not planning to ditch pinning tests, so characters are still quite welcome to choose to fail one and dive for cover.

[TheNephew]

Disclaimer: Painfully unfamiliar with the rules as they actually function on the tabletop, all of the following is based on thinking it through rather than years of experience.
Also I got interrupted and my train of thought derailed catastrophically.

I'd have to agree with Marco re: reacting before the precipitating action - not a bad idea per se, but complicating matters further.
Perhaps Lightning Reflexes can allow you to do that on a successful I test.

I'm also leaning towards characters having a set number of actions per table turn, and splitting them into actions and stored reactions - intuitively feels like it would balance the process a little better.
That said, it adds (a little bit) to the number of things to be kept track of per character per turn, which is not so good news.

As for reacting more easily to lower I characters (Alan has higher I than Barry, Alan is more likely to successfully react to Barry's moves than vice versa), I too think that would work quite neatly with the "roll under, roll high" system, but with a multi-character situation, you risk going down the rabbit-hole with the number and order of rounds of reactions nested within the rounds of actions.
If Barry and Carl are both reacting to Alan stepping onto the street, you'd presumably have to roll A, B and C's I and then rank them and act/react in that order.
If Alan passes with a 30, Barry passes with a 40, Carl fails on a 50, do you then play it B-A-C (Initiative Roll order), or A-B-C (Action then ranked Reaction Rolls)?

If you've got multiple Reacting characters with multiple Reaction actions each, keeping track of it all gets that much more awkward.

I think in the interests of simplicity the I/3 Reactions per turn would be preferable, and would also bog the game down resolving one sequence of actions a bit less.
Naturally I'm pretty biased at this stage, but simplicity should be a driving force for the restructuring, as at the moment the mess of rules provides a significant barrier of entry to new players.

[Nymie_the_Pooh]

Please let me know if I should not be posting to this thread. I felt what I was saying was directly relevant to this conversation. Otherwise I can create a new thread if that is more appropriate.

I have been thinking about Reactions and Prepared Actions. I like the idea of anybody being able to make a reaction, but I think it should have some restrictions for multiple reactions. Here is the basic idea.

A player activates a model. The other player declares a reaction with one or more of their models. The player that controls the reacting models makes an Agility test for each. If the test is failed then the active model continues as normal as if nothing happened. If the test is passed then the Reaction occurs. The reacting model may attempt their declared action and receives a token to reflect they have performed a reaction. Depending on preference, that model could either not be able to perform any more reactions, or do so at a penalty. I imagine we would be leaning toward the latter. If going the penalty route then the penalty from multiple tokens stack. If the Reaction check is beat by half or better then the reacting character performs the reaction, but does not receive a Reaction token. I am still trying to work out if someone that failed the check should get a token or not. It makes a lot of sense to me the reason for their poor reaction might result from their attention becoming split, but game play wise it might make more sense to give them a Reaction token for attempting a Reaction.

Prepared Actions would work the same way, but the model would start with a Prepared token. Perform the Reaction check as before. If you would add a Reaction token to a model then remove the Prepared token instead. The model loses Prepared but may perform further Reactions as normal. A fail here would definitely remove the Prepared token. To me Prepared is a state of readiness. Having your attention become split should automatically shatter that state of being prepared. If a model with a Prepared token passes the Reaction test by half or better then it remains in Overwatch.

One downside is this adds a level of record keeping during the game through tokens. This could be a double sided token as no model would have both Prepared and Reaction tokens on them at the same time. You may want to add a rule that no model may have more Reaction tokens than their Speed. I imagine each Reaction token increases the difficulty by around twenty. There could be a case for them only going as low as ten, but I think that could result in many characters performing more reactions in a turn than they have actual actions. If going with only a penalty of ten, then maybe those that pass the Reaction test get two Reaction tokens unless they pass by half or better in which case they would only get one Reaction token. I would not change how Readied Actions work off of this without extensive testing.

This is a rough idea. There is quite a bit of wiggle room for it. It essentially treats both Reactions and Readied Actions the same with one adding tokens and the other taking away based on the test. The idea is not field tested and probably should not be used as is, but I liked the idea of one set of rules covering both to remember instead of separate rules for each.

[MarcoSkoll]

Sorry for a catastrophically late reply:

I have been thinking about Reactions and Prepared Actions. I like the idea of anybody being able to make a reaction, but I think it should have some restrictions for multiple reactions.

Well, as I've got it drafted at present, there's no form of reaction that doesn't have a restriction on how many can be performed.

Either they need to be stored up out of a character's actions for the turn and can only be spent once, or they're "continuous"... which, following a redraft from the last alpha release, carries a progressive penalty for each time they're used.

At present, all I've put into this category covers when a character is evading and when they're in melee.
- In the former case, a character this is evading gets a "free" dodge against any incoming fire.
- In the latter, it covers all the old basics like parrying and dodging (although I've currently called it "side-stepping" for the sake of differentiating it from trying to avoid shooting attacks), but also new options*.

* For an example, one experimental option is "Take the hit" - in this case, the character deliberately elects to forego their chance to defend (bearing in mind that a character now has to choose their defence before the attack is rolled) in exchange for a free counter-attack.

It's a dangerous option only likely to be popular with desperate (or excessively tough) characters, but it's an extra option, so it's working towards my ideal of there actually being decisions to make in melee.

... anyway, I guess I'm sort of drifting there, but I got up very early today, so I think it's bed-time now even if it does mean posting a load of rambling.

[Drubbels]

I have a suggested Reactions mechanic. The basic system borrows somewhat from D&D 4E, which in spite of its many flaws I always found handled delayed actions quite simply and effectively.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16S4PBnM4yDDu4u0XmtBwFfKBAiMGCx6iI92nJBElyWk/edit

So, what are people's thoughts on this?

(Please let me know if anything is worded unclearly or ambigously)

[Drubbels]

Thoughts for close combat:

-Every attack is an opposed roll: to hit, the attacker must both (1) beat their own target number and (2) do so by a greater margin than their opponent. If the opponent is unable/unwilling to react, the attacker only has to beat his own target number (probably with a bonus).

-Parrying with a weapon imposes the weapon's Parry Penalty on the attack. If the defender both (1) passes his Parry test and (2) does so by a greater margin than the attacker, an otherwise successful attack is negated.

-If a Parry is successfully made with a margin greater than or equal to the weapon's Parry Penalty (on top of the penalty applied to the roll itself), the defender may take a free out-of-sequence action (counter-attack, circle...)

-Evading without a weapon removes any chance of counter-attacking, but does not impose a Parry Penalty and in fact grants a +20 bonus.

-Each subsequent Parry or Evasion after the first suffers a cumulative -20 penalty.

-Parrying is Hazardous(1) - triggering the hazard results in falling prone. *

-Each and every attack where the attacker's WS Test is passed (regardless of the success or failure of any parry/evasion tests) allows the attacker to manoeuver his opponent by 1 yard. He may also follow if he wishes, but does not have to. **

-A special 'Manoeuver' Action like in the current rules draft can be used to manoeuver the opponent by a greater distance.

* & ** These suggestions probably seem somewhat unorthodox, and I'm not entirely convinced by them myself. But they might be a good start for forcing some more movement into combat.

EDIT:

-Critical Hits in close combat (as in, double damage) also knock the defender prone (?)

-Sidestepping is Critical (1) - when triggered, the attacker stumbles forward and falls prone (?)

NB: my proposed additions to Parrying and Sidestepping (Hazardous & Critical) improve sidestepping and worsen parrying - this means perhaps sidestepping would need to lose its +20 bonus in order for parrying to remain a viable alternative(?)

[MarcoSkoll]

Sorry, I did get your PMs, but the long and short of it is that I went to a party on Monday, ended up waking up at four in the afternoon on Tuesday, only really had the mental capacity to mess around with modding Skyrim, went back to bed at three pm on Wednesday, got woken up by someone vacuuming two hours later and now I'm in a horrible state between alertness and exhaustion at two in the morning.

I am thinking on it, but I'm not really organised enough today I think it's good for me to respond in depth just yet.

I will say I'm still rather attached to my shifting mechanic - I'm not sure it's the right choice, but I very much want it to be. If I can find out how to structure it, the dynamics for going between bold and cautious play could be rather beautiful.

[Drubbels]

What exactly are you referring to when you say 'shifting mechanic'? A transition from 3+ action rolls sans reactions to 4+ action rolls and reactions?

My main issue with the current draft rules is that the distinction of prepared vs reserved reactions seems overly complicated. But then, I haven't actually tested them in play yet.

[MarcoSkoll]

When I say "shifting mechanic", I mean offsetting actions into reactions to declare later.

Several of the suggestions for alternative approaches seem to go by handing out reactions on top of actions. I guess that's simple, but I'd like to bundle it in with one of my favourite long time house rules.
I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but for a long time I'll start games I'm GMing off with 3+ action rolls. It still leaves an element of randomness, but gets you through the quiet turns quite a lot faster*. Of course, characters getting lots of actions in a row in combat is a bit of a problem, so I switch things back to 4+ when things look like they're about to get nasty.

* For one of the best games I think I've ever run, "Countdown Run" from the 2013 IGT, I quite literally told the players to deploy where they thought would get us into an interesting game fastest (on top of some 3+ actions where I thought it appropriate). Unlike a fair chunk of IGT scenarios, it thus didn't need me to rush the last few turns, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was really key to helping me win the Best GM vote.

So, as my current 2nd ed drafts go, action rolls will always be 3+. (I eventually preferred this to my original drafts of giving all characters +1 speed).
However, it won't need the the GM to make the decision that it's time to slow things down again, because players will want to start reserving reactions when things start getting messy. (And even if they don't, their opponents having the option to interrupt/react mid-actions will help the balance anyway).

~~~~~

Having looked at your approach, the above rant is largely redundant, as the reactions are not a separate resource from actions. However, it all feels very pre-emptive.

I definitely want part of the mechanics to represent times when a character does have a plan already their head (as they should get a bonus for that anticipation), but I'm not sure it'd be very fluid to have all reactions work that way, as it'd often come across too much like "expecting the unexpected".

I also feel it has an impact on player/character separation to be constantly announcing what the character has in mind. Generally, the less I know for certain about my opponent's plans, the easier it is to stay in character.
If I know for certain that Shyloque will get shot at if he goes around the corner, I might find myself playing differently (even if not intentionally) to if I didn't know if the reaction was going to be being shot at or a demand to identify myself.