Question about Reactions

[Old Coast]

Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on "reactions" between teams who do not have line of sight.  it seemed odd to me on terrain heavy board specifically where teams are dealing other complications and cant see then other team, that other team could react with physical actions....I understand on a gameplay level trying to steal the initiative. when opportunity strikes , but I only allowed physical reactions where it seemed appropriate and the two teams were engaged.  Does anyone know or have similar thought on the authors intent here. ?

[Dentatus]

Seeing as game mechanics take a riot and turn it into a Ping Pong match, I always figured reactions represent a lull in the over all battle that the opposing side took advantage of, regardless of whether they have actual LOS/are directly engaged with fumbled action and or the unit in question. That's how I took it, anyway.

[privateer4hire]

On the morale page, the rules note that it's assumed that each team's members are in hi-tech and/or psychic contact with the other members of their side.  That's why a guy three buildings away needs to test morale if somebody buys it.  He heard the whole messy thing.

If you need a technical background for why reactions work the way they do, that's probably as good as any.

[Tanin]

If you have ever read World War Z by Max Brooks (no real relation to the film) on pages 92 to 104 he details The Battle of Yonkers and how the Net Rig or Land Warrior Intergration System had a massive effect of the breaking of morale of the U.S. Armed Forces.

[Old Coast]

it seems I was not exactly clear, apologies
I am not talking about any sort of explainable science or meta rationale for this
I am strictly talking black and white game play mechanics.

is it the authors intent, that Team A can  roll reaction attempts to Team's B failed activation attempts when neither team has / or as yet had line of sight to each other?
While trying to steal the initiative is a standard tactic as a response anytime.
Does it seem right that when Player A's figure on the far side of board rolls a failed activation. That all of player B's figures can now attempt to react to something they cannot see.?

Now I have played a bunch of games this weekend and tried it both ways. Using the rules as written,  the game plays quicker for sure. but playing with the limitation that figures must have Line of Sight to react with an "Action"  ( as opposed to just an initiative steal attempt)  certainly makes the game very tactical, but abet slower moving.

Since the book is rather short and many play examples were left out, and we have a sizable errata and clarifications and updates on the Facebook fan page, and offical page, and living thread here at LAF, I was originally wondering if I missed this discussed somewhere.
it seems to me after trying it both ways it doesnt really effect the spirit of rules either way, just changes the pace of the game.

Dentatus response above was what I was after, so thanks guy!....sorry I wasn't more clear.

[Hobgoblin]

Advanced Song of Blades and Heroes (same author) uses a very similar reaction system. In that, reactions don't depend on line of sight, although there is a note that some people prefer to play it that way.

I think that the reaction system exists primarily as a way to disrupt the traditional turn structure. In that sense, it doesn't really need a concrete explanation  - it's just the ebb and flow of battle.

[Tanin]

What Hobgoblin said. Reaction is more a simaction, actions happening at the same time at different parts of the mission area.