Unless you are within 5cm of a unit, or 10cm of a scout unit, when you have zero choice, you must move at maximum speed towards the enemy unit.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I sort of like this stylistically but I don't think it's any more of a hindrance or less of a possible advantage than just "Engage on Hold".

===

What about something like...

Engage on Hold is an option, but if the formation Engages it is wiped out on a loss. (The berzerk troops are incapable of a controlled withdrawal and end up scattered and no longer combat effective.)


If you have a good chance to win this is almost no penalty. If you are not in a dominant position it really ups the ante on squeezing out another (hopefully) useful activation.

I kinda like Neal's suggestion about making the "free" Engage order more risky.

If making the "Free" Engage an option, I would probably look at constraining the normal Hold options, ala:

- Blood Angels do not "Hold" when failing an activation, instead they take the "Red Thirst" Order.
- "Red Thirst" allows you to Engage, or move.
- A "Red Thirsting" formation that fails to win its Engagement is wiped out / suffers double the normal number of "hackdown" hits / some other big drawback.

So replacing the options of shooting or regrouping in the Hold order with a worse form of Engage, basically, but still allowing the option to make one move away... ?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yeah, I think Hena's right. It would need some sort of other incentive to make it worth risking when it's not a strong position.

How about they may Engage on hold, but take D6 blast markers for the priviliege.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

D6 blast markers could very well break a small formation, or one with a lot of BMs on it already...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Moving as an option feels odd, since it lets the BA actively avoid combat while Raging, which seems to be the exact opposite of what should/would happen.

How about they can Engage or Regroup? Engaging is them deciding to go with the crazies, regrouping is them deciding to try and reassert control - but they can't maneuver while they do it.

I'd also make their regrouping under these circumstances worse - perhaps they only roll 1d6? Or pick the lowest, not the highest? And give 'em an extra BM into the bargain?

The idea of 1D6 Blast Markers with the Engage feels kind of appropriate - represents the possible amount of things that could go wrong with giving in to the Red Thirst. I would suggest that it be kept as engaging the nearest enemy formation, and a B2B restriction might also be a good idea. Not sure there's a need for horrific consequences if they lose - extra BMs and a bit of target restriction would make that a risky enough proposition as it is. And Red Thirsting Blood Angels often do OK in CC.

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

Whatever the final decision will be i stronlgy suggest that the version for the World Eaters /Khorne Armies should be more extreme than the Blood Angels version.

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

Noted.

Why so?

Because the followers of the Blood God are even more insane...

I'm not so sure about at all. Lot's of evidence out there to say that the BA are just as blood thirsty and insane for cc as the WE are.