@Frogbear: Well the Servants of Slaughter are more a Khorne Cultist kontrolled army with some World Eaters Berzerkers.
This army is a World Eaters army with some Khorne Cultists support, Daemon War Engines and Khorne aligned Titans.

Thats an importand difference.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Could I ask what playtests and games you have performed or reported on to make such a statement? For those of us that have put in the work, this is a slap in the face. So if I for one am going to be told that I need to start again, I would like to see proof of games where it does not work

For the amount of effort placed on a rule that I think has shown it's face twice in the 5 playtests of the joint list I am working on, and only 3-4 times total in 11 games I have played with World Eaters overall, I feel that too much emphasis is being placed on a rule that has little to no impact in the greater scheme of things.

In that regard, if the rule exists, IMO, it should not be one that allows a player to potentially lose a game, nor should it be a rule to stop gaming and then refer to the rule book to remember what it does.

These are just my thoughts in the hope of providing some of my experience to the development. I truly hope that it does help to formulate a decision.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

For the amount of effort placed on a rule that I think has shown it's face twice in the 5 playtests of the joint list I am working on, and only 3-4 times total in 11 games I have played with World Eaters overall, I feel that too much emphasis is being placed on a rule that has little to no impact in the greater scheme of things.

No

All the versions are 1+ initiative. How is my version any different to any proposals?
It only comes into effect if an initiative roll is failed.

Are we talking about the same thing here alakazam?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Well, I am speaking of Blood Rage, which is the topic of this thread.
For one such proposed variation of this rule, see the original post. There are of course others, such as the 'draw assaults on loss' that have been mentioned.

There may be more ideas too! lol I'm not happy with it or the fearlessness as it stands and will be striving to find a better alternative to it.

I just wish more people would comment....

Well, I think the 'draw assaults' variation (I forget who first mentioned it) has some merit to it; it appears to fit the fluff and makes the WE that more interesting. Something like (off the top of my head)...

'After making an engage move the WE enter Blood Rage. If a formation under Blood Rage loses the first round of an assault then treat it as a draw as long as they have at least one model in CC, the WE automatically lose the second round regardless of the result and must withdraw as normal'

What if they wipe out the enemy formation?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Well then there won't be a second round LOL

If they wipe them out in the second round, you mean? Well, there are already rules to cover the evetuality of breaking after defeating the enemy in an assault - use those. The wording I presented would obviously have to be tweaked (it was not mean to be comprehensive), so add something like 'if the WE wipe out their opponents in the second round, follow the rules for broken formations winning an assault' (again, exact wording is not comprehensive) - this is then covered by standard rules.

The idea I am trying to capture is that though the World Eaters have been defeated in the assault and the formation has lost cohesion, individual troopers would not give up the fight and keep going - therefore causing more damage to the enemy but not really gaining any advantage of ground (some would fall back, others becoming scattered as they run amok, etc...), meaning that they would kill more enemy (and may even wipe them out) but would then need to regroup afterwards.

Hmm i kind of like this. But i don't know if it is game breaking. Let try it out!

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

So how would we want to word it exactly?

How's this as a tentative wording for Blood Rage of Khorne?

It could include the design note below as well. I would prefer if only the WEs themselves are subject to this. Any thoughts? BRoK could be included as a note in their data sheets instead to mark specific units in case of a mixed unit-type formation.

Formations(units??) specifically listed as a World Eaters formation(BRoK unit??) in the army list suffer from the Blood Rage of Khorne.

After making an engage move, if a World Eaters formation loses the first round of an assault, then treat it as a draw as long as they have at least one unit in base contact with an enemy unit. The World Eaters formation will automatically lose the second round of combat, regardless of the result and must withdraw as per normal rules. However, if the World Eaters wipe out their opponents in the second round, the rules for broken formations winning an assault apply; as in 1.12.9 of the main rule book.

Design note
This represents the World Eaters’ loss of control, as their heedless fury and bloodlust amid the swirling melee of close combat takes a deeper grip on them. The formation essentially begins to break up to some extent as various individual Marines run amok across the battlefield, ignoring any form of cohesion.