Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=19519		 Page 1 of 9
Author:  frogbear [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Let's see if we can do this. First off, the two specific rules:


Quote:
Blood Rage of Khorne
Any ******** formation which has at least one unit that can reach base contact with an enemy may perform an Engage action with a +1 modifier to the initiative roll.
If a ********* formation that has at least one unit that can reach base contact with an enemy decides to perform any other action other than an Engage, they will receive a -1 modifier to their initiative roll.


and

Quote:
The Red Thirst
On a failed Action Test Blood Angels formations take a Blast Marker as normal, and then instead of a Hold action they must Engage the closest eligible enemy formation, moving at towards the enemy with at least the full speed of the slowest unit in the formation and attempting to reach base-to-base with as many infantry and Dreadnought units as possible.



Frogbear's view: I have showed ~20 games with a similar rule to the Red Thirst without the need to 'force' a non-tactical move. I was advised by many who had not played the list that it was "too powerful". Regardless of the games played and discussions, I could not gain agreement so I then went onto make the Blood Rage rule shown above. Somehow the Red Thirst then came into being as acceptable.

I am open to consolidating these two rules as they are the same thing under a different name in theory. My only stance is that I do not accept the need for a forced move which takes all tactics away from the player. I have played the 'father' of the Red Thirst rule extensively, so I am going to go by my own experiences. I have also extensively played the World Eaters so I know how hard it is for them to survive an entire battle.

I will protect the need for the World Eaters to not just run out into the open as the army cannot survive such rules. With no special rules and formations with 2+ initiative, the Red Thirst is not a viable option for the World Eaters. I see no reason why the Blood Angels however should not adopt the Blood Rage rule.

So with the above in mind, can we attain agreement on a shared rule? Let the discussions begin.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
I like the World Eaters rule a lot, actually.

Unless anyone has any objections I'd be happy to adopt that wording.

We should probably settle on a rather generic name for the special rule, mind you.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Hey you could even combine the name and call it "Blood Thirsty" ;)
Author:  Tim_nz [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
having not played any of these lists bear this in mind when you read the follwoing :P

i was reading this thread and the first thing that came to mind with out adding a special rule per say to the list as i know this seems to be a thing people tend to want to avoid ? or maybe my percption from what i have read on the forums anyway :)

i digress, but my thoughts were something like :

Bloodthirst : When a ********* formation makes a engage move they gain infiltraitor for the duration of there action.


as i said jsut take it with a grain of salt as i may have totally mis understood the intention of this thread :)

Regards

Tim NZ
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Infiltrator makes them better able to choose who they wish to attack.

That...doesn't seem to reflect a crazy berserk rage very well.
Author:  Tim_nz [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
all good :) as i said i think i might have misunderstood the intentions of the thread :)

Tim NZ
Author:  zombocom [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Also, since infiltrators is only used when engaging, that special rule would be identical to just giving everything infiltrators.

For a generic name, how about "Aggressive" or "Bloodthirsty".
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Perfect generic name would be (as it is used in a very familiar but different game): "Rage".
Only needs some fluff text so that it is useable for every army with troops of similar behaviour.
Author:  dptdexys [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
"Blood Lust"
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Unless anyone has any objections I'd be happy to adopt that wording.


If that is the case, either Bloodthirsty or Bloodlust work for me.

Rage does not really do it for me.

Open to any others as well
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
I vote Bloodlust...

Unless someone comes up with a name I like better... ;D
Author:  Dobbsy [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
Red Rage...? :D :D

What about just Blood Thirst?
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
The Red Mist ?
Author:  zombocom [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
I'd recommend keeping it to one word, and as generic as possible if it's going to be used as a special rule in several lists.

Bear in mind that other future lists may want to use the mechanic but not if it's named too specifically.
Page 1 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/