PDA

View Full Version : Mixing Chaos Marks?



Devon Harmon
02-11-2008, 15:57
I have recently received the new WoC book, and have set about building some lists. In doing so, a question has arisen regarding Chaos Marks. FOrgive me if this has been asked elsewhere. I've been searching the numerous Chaos threads and I have yet to see this issue raised.

I do not see any restrictions on marked characters joining a unit that is marked differently, for example: a sorceror with the MoT joining a unit with the MoS.

Without this restriction, it seems silly to give characters the MoS if they are going to be part of a unit that has the MoS. MoS essentially make the unit immune to psychology. If a character joins a unit that is immune to psychology, they gain the benefits of being immune to psychology, so they have no need for the MoS.

As I stated above, the MoS "essentially" makes the unit/character immune to psychology, but it does not explicitly state that the unit/character is "immune to psychology," it just bestows all of the benefits of being immune to psychology. Is this a distinction with a difference?

The reason I ask is that the rules for characters joinging units and how psychology collectively affects them on pg. 78 state that "A character that is not Immune to Psychology and joins a unit that is, becomes Immune to Psychology for as long as he stays with the unit."

The MoS, which makes a unit/character "immune to Fear, Terror and Panic," technically is not "Immune to Psychology" (practically speaking the two are the same however). I think it could be argued, based on a strict reading of pg. 78 and the MoS definition, that a character without the MoS in a unit with the MoS is not immune to Fear, Terror and Panic (not that I'd agree with that argument). Does the wording of the MoS imply some distinction from ItP, or is GW just moving in a new direction and describing this universal rule differently now?

I just wanted to see what others think. I'm sure that I'm overlooking something, like a rules passage that states a character must bear the same mark in order to join a marked unit :D

Lord of Skulls
02-11-2008, 19:04
Hello.
I don't have the book yet, so I can't help you with most of your questions, but this I can answer:


As I stated above, the MoS "essentially" makes the unit/character immune to psychology, but it does not explicitly state that the unit/character is "immune to psychology," it just bestows all of the benefits of being immune to psychology. Is this a distinction with a difference?
There is indeed a difference, and the MoS is quite a lot better than Immune to Psychology: Units that are Immune to Psychology can never flee as a charge reaction, while units that are merely immune to Fear, Terror and Panic suffer from no such restriction :)

(This doesn't make much difference on a unit of Warriors or Knights, that don't flee as often, but it makes the Mark actually worth taking on Fast Cavalry whose main job is to flee from charges.)

akgaroth
02-11-2008, 19:35
Well, being immune to panic/fear/terror is not exatly being Itp. For example units can flee as a reaction to charge with the MoS, but are also affected by spells like "Treason of Tzeentch".
In any case, a character without the MoS in a unit which has it, it's not considered having it individually speaking; for example he's affected by items/ spells that work only on miniatures susceptibles to panic, fear or terror as long as the item/ spells affects him and only him and doesn't affect the rest of the unit in any case. Although I don't think such item/ spell exists.

Devon Harmon
02-11-2008, 19:53
Well, being immune to panic/fear/terror is not exatly being Itp. For example units can flee as a reaction to charge with the MoS, but are also affected by spells like "Treason of Tzeentch".
In any case, a character without the MoS in a unit which has it, it's not considered having it individually speaking; for example he's affected by items/ spells that work only on miniatures susceptibles to panic, fear or terror as long as the item/ spells affects him and only him and doesn't affect the rest of the unit in any case. Although I don't think such item/ spell exists.


I see that the rules for characters on pg. 78 bestow the immunity to fear/terror to the unmarked character in a unit with the MoS, however, isn't the unmarked character still liable to panic tests?

akgaroth
02-11-2008, 21:00
I don't see where's the problem. The character is part of the unit, so he's not affected by panic as long he stays inside of it. If he would have to flee because he failed a panic test, all the unit would have to flee but that would be absurd since the whole unit is immune to panic.
And you have no problems to put a sorcerer with MoN in a unit with the MoK, etc. just remember who each mark belongs to.

DeathlessDraich
03-11-2008, 08:55
1 more distinction:

Some spells that do not affect units ItP, will affect units with MOS.

Atrahasis
03-11-2008, 10:06
"if a character is liable to a terror or fear test that doesn't apply to the rest of the unit, he can ignore any tests." pp78

NornTyrant
07-11-2008, 04:08
So does it means that character with a different mark can join the unit? e.g. A Nurgle character joing a Tzeentch unit that gives him a +1 to cast?

Einholt
07-11-2008, 04:35
Yep, sadly it does. Notice how great the removal of restrictions makes this army, isn't it wonderful to have all these neat upgrades that we don't need. Marvelous job Phil Kelly Marvelous..

Devon Harmon
07-11-2008, 05:52
So does it means that character with a different mark can join the unit? e.g. A Nurgle character joing a Tzeentch unit that gives him a +1 to cast?


I don't think it would give him +1 to cast. The mark says that "a wizard with the mark of Tzeentch has +1 on his attempts to cast spells." The wizard does not have the mark, so no +1.

The choices in the army list allow you to purchase a mark for a unit. Unlike the prior books that distinguished between how marks affected units and individuals, the new rules for marks are all phrased as "A model with the Mark of "X" gains .....". I have found this confusing with regards to some interactions (which is why I started the thread :)).

So it is not the whole unit (inclusive of all characters who join it) that gain the benefits of marks purchased for units. Only the rank and file models of that unit will gain the benefits. So in the example with the MoT, any characters who join the unit will not gain the 6+ ward or the +1 to cast.

In some cases the effects of the Mark will spillover to the benefit of a differently marked character who has joined the unit. The MoS is the best example of this. As it was stated above, the non MoS character will benefit from the units Mark, as outlined in the rules about characters and psychology. There is also a spillover effect with the MoN. The MoN makes units in base contact with the bearer -1 WS. If you have a non MoN model in a unit with the MoN, he will benefit from the -1 WS, as any model trying to strike him in combat is in an enemy unit that is in base contact with the bearer of a MoN (there may be some exceptions to this, in the odd case where the non MoN model is the only one in base contact with the enemy, perhaps if that model was on the end of a 1 rank unit that was charged in the flank).

The Marks of Khorne and Tzeentch don't seem to have any spillover benefit to characters that have joined that unit (at least that I can see as I hastily type this; I'm sure if there are, someone will be more than happy to correct me ;)).

Atrahasis
07-11-2008, 09:08
Khorne has the spillover effect that the character is Immune to Psychology while he's with the unit, and obviously must charge when the unit is forced to.

madden
07-11-2008, 10:33
Yes they can mix marks and i think of the unit marks like a banner rather than individual so no plus 1 casting unless individual, same with frenzy etc i like the book and it's better than the last chaos warrior(hoards) effort.

akgaroth
07-11-2008, 18:43
For what concerns the MoN, enemy miniatures suffers -1WS only if they target a miniature with the MoN ( not all enemy miniatures in base contact with a miniature with the MoN ).

Devon Harmon
07-11-2008, 21:00
For what concerns the MoN, enemy miniatures suffers -1WS only if they target a miniature with the MoN ( not all enemy miniatures in base contact with a miniature with the MoN ).

Not quite. Here's the full text : "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 to hit for shooting attacks and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer."

In the close combat phase, if a model is in base contact with a model with the MoN, it will be at -1 WS. Since a character without the MoN will likely be flanked by models with the MoN if in a unit with the MoN, the character will most likely get the benefit of the MoN. There will be a few exceptions like the one I mentioned above, and also if a 20mm model was only in base contact with the character who did not have the MoN.

I also think that due to the wording of the MoN, a single character with the MoN in a unit will bestow the -1 WS penalty to all models in the enemy unit in HTH, provided he is in base contact with that unit (even if the rest of his unit does not have the MoN). Consider the fact that the MoN is worded as "Any enemy unit, " and not "Any enemy model." By my interpretation if the enemy unit is in base contact with a model bearing the MoN, the -1 WS penalty applies to the whole enemy unit, not just the models in base contact.

akgaroth
07-11-2008, 21:39
Humm, i still think that only the character with the MoN included in a unit which hasn't got it can benefit from it. For example:

EnEnEnEnEn
EnEnEnEnEn
EnEnEnEnEn
EnEnEnEnEn En=lancers
CwCwCwCwMN
CwCwCwCwCw MN=character with MoN
CwCwCwCwCw Cw=chaos warrior

The enemy lancers decide to not attack MN, so they haven't the -1WS penalisation. Therefore, the 2nd line doesn't have the penalisation since there's no base contact.
I think the MoN is awersome (humm, chaos lord with MoN, runic sword and armour of damnation.... hehehe), but the idea of paying only 20 pts for it and grant also all unit he join its benefits is absurd. It would be like giving to your character "crown of everlasting conquest" and give regeneration to the whole unit.

Devon Harmon
07-11-2008, 23:07
I see where you are coming from. It depends on english language construction, which admittedly is not my strong suit.

I see the rule as:

1. An enemy unit:
a. that targets a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 to hit for shooting attacks; and
b. is at -1 WS when in base contact with the bearer of the Mark of Nurgle.

Your interpretation:

1. An enemy unit that targets a model with the Mark of Nurgle:
a. is -1 to hit for shooting attacks; and
b. is at -1 WS when in base contact with the bearer of the Mark of Nurgle.

It turns upon whether or not "target" modifies the part about being in base contact. As I said earlier, language constuction is not my bailiwick so I'm not so sure that I am correct, as I see your interpretation.

However, if you had to target a model to suffer the -1 WS, then why say that the model has to be in base contact with the bearer of the mark? EDIT: models attacking with spears. What happens when the character with the mark strikes first? Must his potential victims state their intent to target him so he will know if their weapon skill is lower, as it might affect his to hit rolls? EDIT: I think I have been interpreting this wrong, skip down two posts.

For those reasons I think that the "target" requirement only pertains to the -1 to hit for shooting rolls. I do not think that the model with the MoN must be a "target" for the -1 WS to apply. I think merely being in base contact is sufficient to trigger that particular penalty.

Valtiel
07-11-2008, 23:32
I just find it a shame that some marks are better with some types of units more than others. Characters and the Warshrine are amazing with the Mark of Tzeentch and it gives you the ability to actually have a 5+ ward against any attack in the army (for two characters) and also giving +1 to cast to Sorcerers. A War Shrine with a 3+ ward is probably the best way to go.

Mark of Nurgle would be great with Knights, Ogres and other fast stuff. Mark of Slaanesh to Marauder Horsemen, maybe with Marauders as well. Otherwise give these Mark of Nurgle or Mark of Khorne depending on their equipment. I think Warriors and other infantry will be best with Mark of Khorne, baiting won't be that bad a problem as if they were cavalry with their shorter movement and they would get as many attacks as Ogres.

I find it kind of a shame to have the army divided like this, but it is of course up to the player if he wants a circus or if he wants a themed army, or maybe monogod.

Devon Harmon
08-11-2008, 00:02
Now that I have had more time to think about this, perhaps I have had it wrong all along. I was applying the -1 WS to the model that my character was attacking. But I think now that the Mark is purely defensive, and the -1 WS only applies when a model tries to attack the model with the MoN.

Thus the MoN has no offensive application, as it cannot make the bearer strike the enemy any easier, but it can make him harder to hit. I'm sorry for my denseness on this particular issue.

Just so I understand correctly, in HtH, the MoN only affects the WS of a model when it is calculating its required to hit number for striking the character with the mark, it does not apply when the character with the mark is caculating his required to hit number for striking a model in base contact that has targeted him?

If that is the case, please feel free to ignore my last few posts, and thanks for working this through with me:)

Nurgling Chieftain
08-11-2008, 00:41
I'm sorry for my denseness on this particular issue.You're not being particularly dense, there really ARE several different ways to interpret that sentence, and I honestly don't know what they meant. I can scarcely even guess.

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2008, 12:30
Just so I understand correctly, in HtH, the MoN only affects the WS of a model when it is calculating its required to hit number for striking the character with the mark, it does not apply when the character with the mark is caculating his required to hit number for striking a model in base contact that has targeted him?


Yes. more or less but being in base contact is also essential.

The BRB explains quite clearly which models are deemed to be in base contact - pg 32 IIRC.

It is not always necessary to be in base contact to attack in close combat - there are several instances of this.

Spearmen in the 2nd or 3rd rank are not in base contact and will be immune to this effect.

In a challenge, this effect is more controversial so I won't elaborate.:p

Atrahasis
08-11-2008, 13:41
The Mark of Nurgle is horrifically, horribly, awfully worded and can be interpreted at least 3 ways.

The only way that makes sense, however, is for the two conditions to be separate:

1. Models targeting the character with shooting are at -1 to hit
2. Models in base contact are at -1WS

If you mix conditions, then you end up only getting -1 to hit with shooting while in base contact with the model, which is stupid.

etyket
08-11-2008, 14:51
I have actually registered here after receiving the Warriors of Chaos book as I have so many questions...

On this topic the wording in the book actually says unit and not model. This could be interpreted that the entire unit suffers from -1 to its weapon skill if the unit is in base contact with a model with the Mark of Nurgle. In terms of reality this would represent the more active nature of a real combat whereby the nurgle bearing character would be weaving in and out of the enemy striking down foes left and right, spreading pestilence through the ranks as opposed to the static representation we get with minatures.

In response to an earlier comment I also read it to mean that if a unit is in btb contact then they are at -1 to their WS whether it is them striking or the nurgle unit striking.

But like people are saying, it is so ambiguously worded anyones interpretation could be right.

Devon Harmon
08-11-2008, 14:53
The only way that makes sense, however, is for the two conditions to be separate:

1. Models targeting the character with shooting are at -1 to hit
2. Models in base contact are at -1WS




Do you mean:

2. Units in base contact are at -1 WS?

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2008, 16:10
Only an errata can clear the air for the Mark of Nurgle.
Something like this maybe:

"Any shooting targetting the Marked unit or character suffers a -1 to hit penalty.
In close combat, all enemy models in base contact with the Marked model/s suffer -1 to their WS. "


I have actually registered here after receiving the Warriors of Chaos book as I have so many questions...

On this topic the wording in the book actually says unit and not model. This could be interpreted that the entire unit suffers from -1 to its weapon skill if the unit is in base contact with a model with the Mark of Nurgle. In terms of reality this would represent the more active nature of a real combat whereby the nurgle bearing character would be weaving in and out of the enemy striking down foes left and right, spreading pestilence through the ranks as opposed to the static representation we get with minatures.

In response to an earlier comment I also read it to mean that if a unit is in btb contact then they are at -1 to their WS whether it is them striking or the nurgle unit striking.

But like people are saying, it is so ambiguously worded anyones interpretation could be right.

Hello and welcome.
Yes, this is one of several errata needed for WOC. FAQs will not be sufficient unless it rephrases these rules.

Axis
14-11-2008, 01:00
I suspect (or hope :P) that MoN with be FAQ'd. I am playing it at the moment that it is purely defensive because that befits nurgles character. Also i like to play with a disadvantage when things are ambiguous so i don't get screwed when they do get FAQ'd. Not to mention i think that the other interpretations are toogood.