Incorrect

You can move out
You can charge
You can stay there and count as charging

How much more do I have to say it. There are no forced moves, there are always choices.

Having a rule that provides no choices based on a situation is breaking the fundamental rule as stated on page 16. Simple as that.

*tired now*

Broken formations within 15cm of the enemy are forced to move away or be destroyed. Good positioning often means they have no choice over where they go.

Just like overwatch breaks the rules that all formations must activate (1.6), and reinforced armour breaks the rule that units are removed as soon as they fail their armour save, and skimmer breaks the rule that formations that move over dangerous terrain must take dangerous terrain tests, etc etc.

That's what "special rule" means; it means it breaks one of the core rules.

Read my example again... you can't charge or stay put if you take a "Hold" while in an enemy ZoC, you *must* move out of it.


The rule *does* present choice: the choice not to push your potentially insane soldiers over the edge. The player can choose not to take risks with retaining or with formations with Blast markers in bad situations, having to rely on a *different* strategy at times, having to make "hard choices".

You've got a "choice" there Zombo, the choice to be destroyed, so that seems fine by FB's criteria.

Then I'd be fine with allowing BA the "choice" to be destroyed instead of charging.

Tongue -> Cheek.

..and we have agreement

Let's leave it. I know when I am not going to convince the 'heavy hitters'.

At almost 3k posts I'd include you in that "category".

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes, otherwise known as that crazy man who lives in the cave - right?

Well, you could convince me if you addressed my "Hold vs ZoC" example above, as it seems to completely negate your premise that there are "no forced moves" in EPIC.

Actually, I think it's closer to the Warhammer Fantasy way of thinking. In that, units with the frenzy rule gain an extra attack in close combat, but MUST charge if an enemy is found to be within range. Rather than removing tactics from the game, this actually adds a lot. Concepts such as suicidal redirectors, baiting and fleeing, frenzy screening and such have all developed either for the enemy to take advantage of the frenzied units' need to charge (by making them charge somewhere unfavourable), or for the player with the frenzied unit to find ways of keeping them under control (by placing another friendly unit in the way as a shield to block them from doing unfavourable charges).

It's actually very interesting, tactically.

The rules are substantially different and the context of the lists are different. The Red Thirst rule includes a compulsory move towards the enemy. Blood Rage did not. That's a substantial drawback.

Also, the WE list has an extremely large portion of Infiltrator units, which means that a Hold/Engage gives them a double move instead of a single move. That is a substantial indirect benefit which the BAs don't have.


That said, I'm not sold on Red Thirst. I think the mandatory move will be a problem and without the mandatory move it becomes a benefit.

I have no doubt that playtesting will throw up weird situations which may neccessitate rewording the rule somewhat.

A seemingly-relevant part of my post from the other thread.



This could also work, though I'd recommend giving an additional BM if you don't charge. Holding them back should be harder than turning them loose.

Speaking personally, I don't mind being forced to do things if my troops screw up. I assume they're not doing what they're told. That's why the check was failed.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread