I voted for the +1 to engage (KISS).Especially if the list is to be put forward for tournaments. Although I would like to see the rule left in as an alternative rule for players (if both agree) to use in non tournament games.

My thoughts on this comes from my experiences at tournaments. Also I don't think any formation should be capable of still engaging after failing an activation ,especially with my belief that engages are such a decisive part of epic.

As the rule is at the moment a World Eaters player could find themselves needing a 3+ or even a 4+ (in some situations) to retain but has no fear of failing that action if they are going to attempt to engage anyway (which would be most of the time in this list).

There have been many,many times at tournaments where I've had to decide wether to risk retaining to take out an opponents formation or wait and have a better chance,giving the opponent a chance to counter me,especially late in games.

The always engage on a failed initiative roll rule may be countered by the inability to take a hold action (which could even stop them from moving to obtain a goal or objective). They would also engage with a BM but as the list is built around assault formations it keeps them doing what they want to be doing.

For me all the built in counters and negatives the rule has won't make up for the ability of an army , that is designed to engage, to retain without fear of failing to do it's main roll.

Even though advantageous situations may be few I'd still prefer that a retain could fail rather than an auto engage.

I will close this one off on Thursday (Australian time), so if there are any more votes....

Cheers...

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

Even with Steve's comments, the intentions are not entirely clear. So are you intending to drop all formations to 2+ initiative, with +1 to engage?

Or are you retaining the mixed 2+ and 1+ initiative and still give +1 to engage (a bit like the Tyranids who naturally want to assault) - while perhaps providing some other characterfull element (cannot regroup on a Hold).

Or are you also retaining other elements like the Skull-Lord? (though you seem to intend to remove this)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

If the proposal goes ahead:

- Berserkers will be given the Skull Lord as standard
- SkulLord upgrade will be removed
- Morgan and I are to re-cost the Berserkers with a Skull Lord and to take into effect the fact that charges may fail.

All World Eater units will have 1+ Initiative as standard

I hope that clears this part up.

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

So together with Blood Rage an automatic Engage even with Blastmarkers?

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

No it was an either/or

So the question was what do people think is best for the list with the 3 options.

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

So now that they fail charges, they also have a negative to other actions?

Give up $10 to get $2 back for nothing?

How cheap can I have my troops if you do that?

Honestly, they have to be playable.  

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

If the changes go ahead, here is what the list is potentially going to look like on this thread: Musings on the World Eaters - List Design

Regards.  

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

That is correct.

The problem situation that has always been brought up - that people have an issue with - is the Charge on a retain.

1. Teleport
2. Activate Cruiser
3. Drop Pod
4. Retain
5. Use Commander to Charge

For some reason, people thought all the above was possible I guess. Under the current rule, a failed initiative meant gain a BM (no hold action), and Charge or Shoot.

With the proposal, the above action would have a chance of a failed Charge yet hold action is possible.

Most retains or use of Commander now are viable cases for failure as World Eaters without BM are a myth.

People always seem to have issues with rules they have never played. Even after I produce 20+ games with a rule, there are nay-sayers who will say 'too powerful'. It is a mystery to me how such rules as Fearless ever got approved. What a lucky Cad that player was.

Then again, it looks pretty even on what people want and I am sure the developers have not even voted.

Just my frustration starting to show - that's all.

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

Thats the problem with a D6 based system. D10 would have more and not so different variables.

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

No Hold/Auto-Engage - The opponent cannot do anything to prevent assaults except maintain distance.  I would expect that for formations coming across the board this is fine.  For deepstrike deployments, though, it's just "Bang! I gotcha!" and the enemy has to put up with it.  Regardless of whether it is unbalancing that sort of approach tends to be off-putting to a lot of players.

There's another point no one has addressed, which is that there is nothing actually forces them to Engage.  That means the actual choices are Engage, shoot, or move.  For infiltrate units which are common in the list, that actually becomes a Engage/shoot/double move because they get double move in assault.

That provides more flexibility than the implied "charging nutters" purpose behind the rule.  I don't think it's inherently overpowered, but it brings up the question of whether the rule does what it intends.

In my opinion, those two items - "gotcha" fairness and suitability to intent - are what should drive the decision about this rule.

One thing I would suggest if you keep it close to this would be to drop the -1 to-hit modifier on shooting.  Followers of Khorne may be all about in-your-face violence, but when they decide that's not feasible they have little hesitation to crush the enemy by massed fire.

====

+1 Engage - Nice, clean and simple.  On the downside, the only incentive to assault is the raw ability of the units.  Nothing is wrong with that but if you're trying to portray a berzerker mindset it is not a very strong signal.  In discussing the Death Company rules for the Blood Angels, this was an important consideration, which I think is why the more elaborate rules tend to be favored.

One way to take it farther would be to combine it with a penalty on other actions, e.g. -1 to go on Overwatch (or forbid OW altogether).  If that's still not a strong enough feel you could consider going with a 2+ initiative and +2 to Engage.

_________________
Neal

That'd be an interesting choice, both positive and negative. That kinda thing works for Orks to get flavour into the list

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread