Nobody would ever take Devastators or tanks & Rhinos with a rule like that.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That's why I said "or whatever..." Hena. I didn't put it up expecting it to be used, I put it up for an example of a difference - albeit small.

I would be fine with this.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Wow, I just don't get the fervent dislike of an occasional "forced move".

To me it's *SUPPOSED* to be "taking strategy" from the overall commander of the the force, i.e., the player, to represent the inherent danger of using BLOODTHIRSTY MADMEN as soldiers... sometimes you lose control of them and they go off. It's a gamble. presumably one that's made worth it by the other capabilities of the army and, to me, that's a *cool* thing!

The options above of 'must move' are still breaking the rule of 'no forced moves'.

1. The old Blood Rage rule was gain the BM and always charge or Fire @ -1 (no regroup). If this is still too powerful, you could add in that they can only contest rather than claim objectives while under the 'Rage'.

2. The current Blood Rage rule submitted was +1 to Charge and -1 to regroup - KISS solution

3. The other idea floated around was from the Genestealer cult development and that was gain 1BM as normal. If you elect to charge after the failed roll, gain an additional BM


I just cannot agree to anything that takes the strategy away from the player - forcing them to do an action. I really wish people would move away from that 40K way of thinking.

At some point someone needs to draw a line and say enough is enough. With all the talk of variant this and variant that because people really want to play 40K, getting to the point of breaking a rule of the game mechanics; I for one am voicing the opinion that the line has been crossed.

As opposed to finding a solution that works with the rules or stretches them to new boundaries, the easier and often traveled option is to break them. All this does is promote more powerful forces to a point where the newest things keeps competing to be better and stronger than the last.

Why let Epic become that?

Epic already has forced moves; if you enter a ZOC in an engagement you must move into B2B if possible, for example.

I also adds new tactics to the game; the opponent may try to use the thirst against them by baiting them with skimmers or something nearby and laying a BM to try to get them to fail and so make a tactical mistake.

Lots of armies have rules that "break" other rules, heck, "special rules", almost by definition, "break" or modify other rules.


How is "using potentially blood-crazed maniacs might be tougher than using normal soldiers" a "40k way of thinking"? That's the concept being expressed by this rule, I fail to see how that is a type of thinking limited to a specific game system.

The rule is suppoed to represent "loss of control", that's the risk the player takes playing the army; most of the time, they do what you want, occasionally, they don't and might get into trouble. Again, how is that a "40k way of thinking"? If anything, it's an *anti*-40k way of thinking, as the "rage" abilities of both Blood Angels and World Eaters in 40k is *useful* to the player, when it *should* be a dangerous curse.

If you enter. You have a choice up to that point - this is not an discussion that can be argued any other way.

Just as if you find yourself in a ZOC, you have the options to stay, move forward or leave.

There is no such thing as a forced move in Epic.

Sure there is.

If a unit starts it's activation within an enemy ZoC, particularly a scouts's ZoC, and it fails its Action test, it *MUST* move out of that ZoC... the player is *forced* to do so and may not shoot or regroup.

Special circumstance and special rules can both act to "break" other rules.

Enemy scouts have you in their ZoC.

If you Engage, you must move into b-2-b contact.

If you select any other order, then it must be one that allows movement, as you're not allowed to stay there.

If you fail your activation and Hold, then likewise you MUST move away.

-----

Only a Sith thinks in absolutes...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

E&C: You have just highlighted a range of choices with the use of IF. The rule of the Blood Thirst as it stands has no 'Ifs', just 'musts' - That is precisely my point. Having your unit destroyed by your own choice is also an option of IF.

40K is full of forced moves (Chaos Dreadnought comes to mind) - yes it provides flavour to a game that is otherwise bland.

I am just one guy I guess.

I have said what I had to say. I have always had a problem with additions that break the fundamental rules (Fearless being the big one). I just see this as yet another decline towards an open-ended rules system that cannot survive into the future unless people bring it back, draw that line, and say enough is enough.

Where does it stop?