PDA

View Full Version : Mark of Nurgle



Makaber
07-01-2009, 14:09
In our group, we've been a bit uncertain on how the Warriors of Chaos Mark of Nurgle works, because its phrasing is a bit unfortunate. The exact rule goes as follows:

"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."

We've drawn two different interpretations from this; one is that the -1 to WS is always in effect, the other is that enemies only suffer -1 to WS when actually attacking the bearer. The difference would of course be that if the first interpretation is correct, the Mark also makes the enemy models in base contact easier to hit.

So, what's the Internet's word on the matter?

Oberon
07-01-2009, 14:12
The rule is clear for once. You have to target the marked model to get -1 penalty to BS, but you only need to be in contact with him to get that -1 to WS.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 14:31
"and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer."

i dont know why people have a hard time at this, and it should be simple. SHOULD being the appropriate term.

if you are in BtB with something nurgle, you are -1ws. now the real question is do marks of nurgle stack with other marks of nurgle. this was asked by me about a month ago i think and there wasnt a solid answer.

EvC
07-01-2009, 14:32
It's actually not clear (Hence the topic), as the sentence says:
"Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle... is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer."
Thus, if unit with one or models with Mark of Nurgle charges an enemy unit, it's not really possible to tell if there will be any enemy left to target them back, and so no way to know!

I guess the most sensible way would be the enemy unit is not -1WS until it has rolled at least 1 attack against an enemy unit with MoN. So for example:
10 Nurgle Marauders charge 20 Empire Swordsmen
When attacking, the Marauders treat the enemy as WS4. When the Swords attack back, they are at WS3. They stay at WS3 for the rest of the combat. If reversed, and the Swords charged the Marauders, they would be at WS3 for the entire combat.

However it's probably easiest to just play all enemies as being -1WS while in base contact with Nurglers.

Oberon
07-01-2009, 14:38
I think it is clear. There are two parts to the rule.
Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 to hit for shooting attacks... one part
and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer.... the other part.
Both parts of the rule have their own conditions and effects.

EvC
07-01-2009, 14:44
The condition "targeting a model with Mark of Nurgle" applies to both combat and shooting. That much is clear. Which makes it pretty unclear.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 14:45
oberon's interpertation makes use of the english language. how odd that he is correct!!??

secondly the people in the other camp that say only when i target you am is -1ws, convieniently like to leave out the last part "when in base contact".

granted phil kelly is a sophmoric writer, smelly, rude to women and ugly as sin. but those arent reasons to hate him. you should only hate him when he messes with your armybook!

@EvC well that makes the MoN suck, because no model has the mark of nurgle, the unit does. now if you give the unit the mark of nurgle, does that mean that each and every member have the mark? it is unclear if you give the unit the mark, then all members in the unit are considered to have the mark.

and besides spears/pikes i cant think of anytime you wouldnt be in contact with a unit and be able to direct your attacks at the nurgle unit.

EvC
07-01-2009, 14:48
If the rules say you have to target something, then the fact that they must also be in base contact does not negate the fact that they must be targeting them.

NB again, this is why it is unclear, I would still just play them as -1WS while in base contact.

And, lol in fact it was the other way around, with both you and Oberon "conveniently" leaving out the part about needing to be "targeting a model with Mark of Nurgle". However I will not insinuate you're a dirty sneak or anything, that way I get to stay on the moral high ground ;)

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 14:49
agreed. VERY unclear. which is consistant with the WoC book as a whole.

theunwantedbeing
07-01-2009, 14:58
The intent of the rule is quite obvious.

When you shoot models with the mark of nurgle, you are at -1 to hit.
When in base contact you are at -1 weaponskill.

Not unclear in the slightest.
Of course plenty of people can't just read the rule as it was intedned and have to nitpick at the words and get very confused.

A lot of things in the book need to be read as intent rather than the words actually written.
And there is no confusion at all when doing that.

Griefbringer
07-01-2009, 14:59
As far as I can read from the above, the targeting condition applies also when you are in base contact. You could effectively split the sentence into the following two rules:

1.) Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 to hit for shooting attacks.
2.) Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer.

As to what the author actually intended can only be guessed at.

Furthermore, there is the question on what happens when an attacking unit decides to split its attack between models with and without MoN.

EvC
07-01-2009, 15:02
Wow, another person ready and willing to attack someone for daring to call unclear wording unclear! Who'd have thought it, people unable to hold polite discussion, on the internet of all places ;) Yes tub-ster, the intent is pretty clear- is this the third or fourth time I'm stating that we should play it as -1WS when in base contact? That does not mean the choice of wording is clear. It means that we're all so used to GW abominable rules writing ability that we can work out what they mean when they write in their usual poor manner.

Makaber
07-01-2009, 15:06
The more I look at this, the more certain I am that the Weapon Skill penalty only applies when attacking the Marked model in some fashion (so typically, when comparing WS when rolling to hit in melee). If you look carefully at the sentence that makes up the rule, the last bit doesn't make sense unless it applies to the bit about targeting. If it was a blanket rule when in base to base contact, it would have to say something like "any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 to hit for shooting attacks and suffers -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer".

English isn't my first language and I'm having a bit trouble phrasing this the right way. Hopefully I get my point across.

Makaber
07-01-2009, 15:09
The intent of the rule is quite obvious.

When you shoot models with the mark of nurgle, you are at -1 to hit.
When in base contact you are at -1 weaponskill.

Not unclear in the slightest.
Of course plenty of people can't just read the rule as it was intedned and have to nitpick at the words and get very confused.

Look, we're a lot of people here who thinks the rule is very unclear and poorly written. I am very certain about my own interpretation of it, but I also respect the fact that people are very certain in theirs. Coming into this discussion with an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitidue is disrespectful and arrogant, and doesn't contribute at all.

theunwantedbeing
07-01-2009, 15:18
Hey, a lot of you are easily confused then arent you?

My "interpretation" is a highly simple one.
Uusally the simple conclusion is the obvious one.

Look at the berserker sword.
The bearer gains additional attacks for models being in base contact.

Base conact with what????
It doesnt say so I dont know.
Woe is me I cant understand.

Or you can just "assume" that the designer meant "base contact with the bearer".
And suddenly the problem solves itself.

So you use common sense like I just did with my reply.
Or you struggle and have to wait for the FAQ.

Bac5665
07-01-2009, 15:19
Just to point out, the lack of commas presents the equally valid interpretation that it should read this way:

"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.

Meaning that the model needs to be in B2B in order to get the -1 to hit for shooting. I agree that this interpretation is prolly not what GW intended, but it is just a valid in terms of reading English. On the other had, one can argue that it makes more sense for the B2B to the be controlling part, since its the stench and filth on the model that is the effect here, and thus proximity seems important.

Goruax
07-01-2009, 16:50
One thing I feel should be pointed out;
"Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle [...] when in base contact with the bearer"

What I am trying to point out here, is that this sentence is full of redundant words, if the first part (the targeting clause) applies throughout.
If Part One applies, being in base contact is not required, since during combat, you must be in base contact to have this penalty applied either way.

So, by having the clause, "when in base contact" we could infer that simply being in base contact applies the penalty.

Secondary to this point, it's also redundant to include;
"[...] targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle [...]"
AND
"in base contact with the bearer.

If you were targeting the model, you would have the penalty regardless.
But since it states, "when in base contact with the bearer." there is a very strong inference that this is a whole seperate clause.
The model is in BtB with the bearer, and thusly suffers the penalty.

If this is unclear (and sorry for using that word :p) please say so, I might not have explained it very well, but if you understand my ramblings, I hope you see my point!

Lord Zarkov
07-01-2009, 17:09
There are some times it would matter, like the DE spell Bladewind that is combat attacks targeting the model but not in base contact

Mr.chair
07-01-2009, 18:01
Wish I'd seen this thread earlier before you guys really got in to the thick of it. I had the same thought and sent the question (and many others) in to GW about a month ago. My question, and the answer, plain and clear:

7) If I have a unit with the mark of Nurgle containing a character without a mark, and an enemy model in base to base contact with both unit and character wants to strike the character, does that model still receive the -1 penalty to its WS? If so, does this penalty apply to enemy models, even if they are involved in a challenge with the unmarked character (but are obviously still in base contact with the unit)?

Yes.

Condottiere
07-01-2009, 18:22
In our group, we've been a bit uncertain on how the Warriors of Chaos Mark of Nurgle works, because its phrasing is a bit unfortunate. The exact rule goes as follows:

"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."

We've drawn two different interpretations from this; one is that the -1 to WS is always in effect, the other is that enemies only suffer -1 to WS when actually attacking the bearer. The difference would of course be that if the first interpretation is correct, the Mark also makes the enemy models in base contact easier to hit.

So, what's the Internet's word on the matter?

The phrasing is messy, but once the models are in btb contact, they automatically lose one to weapon skill.

Lord Zarkov
07-01-2009, 19:05
@ Mr Chair: send the question in to GW five more times and you might get that responce twice more ;)

GodlessM
07-01-2009, 19:14
The rule is very clear actually. Enemies who target the bearer with shooting are -1 to hit, and enemies who are targeting and also in base contact are at -1WS. They have to be both in contact and targeting.

Wapniak
07-01-2009, 19:17
The real question is what happens to zombies when in combat with model marked by grandfather Nurgle, as they're reduced to 0 WS, poor things. :o

Lord Dan
07-01-2009, 19:35
There's no cap on papa nurgle's ability? Usually it says something like: "...to a minumum of 1."

Wapniak
07-01-2009, 19:42
nope, nothing like that

Griefbringer
07-01-2009, 20:10
The real question is what happens to zombies when in combat with model marked by grandfather Nurgle, as they're reduced to 0 WS, poor things. :o

They get hit automatically in close combat (BRB page 5).

As for what happens should the zombies for some reason want to strike back might be a bigger discussion.

Ganymede
07-01-2009, 20:14
It is important to note that the close combat section never uses "target" as part if its nomenclature. Further reinforing the point is the fact that units never do any targetting in close combat, individual models do. Such suggests that "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle" applies principally to missile fire.

nosferatu1001
07-01-2009, 20:21
The rule is fairly clear - you have to target and be in base contact to be at -1WS. nothing in the sentence structure prevents the initial requirement for the model to be targetted from applying to the second part of the sentence.

A model with 0WS is unable to attack in close combat, as you are told you must use the table to dfetermine your "to hit" score - as the table does not have an entry for 0WS you are not given permission to attack.

So thety are hit automatically and cannot attack :)

Also - if you do a searchy there is a nice long thread on this...

Lord Dan
07-01-2009, 20:23
Actually it wouldn't matter if the zombies could attack or not. S2 wouldn't wound papa nurgle...

Wapniak
07-01-2009, 20:28
Yes, I knew the anwser. I just wanted to change the topic. The intention of the rule is clear (perhaps, it could be templated better). Furthermore it dosen't stack (with the exception, that it stacks with the Archaon's ability).

Ganymede
07-01-2009, 22:22
The rule is fairly clear - you have to target and be in base contact to be at -1WS. nothing in the sentence structure prevents the initial requirement for the model to be targetted from applying to the second part of the sentence.

Sentence structure aside, how on earth does a unit target something in close combat?

It is important to note that the close combat section never uses "target" as part if its nomenclature. Further reinforing the point is the fact that units never do any targetting in close combat. Such suggests that "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle" applies principally to missile fire.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 22:35
welcome to the camp, ganymede. :)

EvC
07-01-2009, 23:46
Zombies are reduced to WS0, and are hit automatically. No-one knows if or what the Zombies need to hit their opponents, but I'm sure there are many people ready to tell us how clear their solution is ;)

Mr.chair
08-01-2009, 05:23
@ Mr Chair: send the question in to GW five more times and you might get that responce twice more ;)
I agree completely, but it's better than having random internet tard assert that they are grammar lord; ruler of correct wording town. I've been checking the rules threads the last couple days, and almost none of the actually (non-idiotic) questions are really resolved.

Lord Zarkov
08-01-2009, 12:29
Thats true.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 16:23
I agree completely, but it's better than having random internet tard assert that they are grammar lord; ruler of correct wording town. .

i would change my name, but i think that one it too long.

:)

nosferatu1001
08-01-2009, 16:29
I guess a unit never targets, but models can deirect - you can argue at that point they are a unit of 1

WS0 definitely cannot attack, as you have nothing which tells you your to hit value. If you don't havea to hit value, you can't hit....

Mr_Wayne
14-02-2009, 19:14
The wording of the rule say nothing of models in base to base contact, only that the unit that is in base to base contact with the model with the mark of Nurgle suffer -1 to WS.

If we are to obey all the rules in the english language the penalties (both the -1 to BS and the -1 to WS) will be dictated by both targeting and being in base to base contact. This cannot be RAI though, because the -1 to BS would be wasted if the shooters are in base to base contact.

Also, can individual rank and file troops target other rank and file troops? Rank and file troops can target characters and the unit itself but not individual rank and file troopers and therefore the whole unit suffers the penalty and not those individual models in base to base contact.

"Any enemy unit targeting a model with Mark of... // ... when in contact with the bearer." The whole enemy unit suffers the penalty even if they're only touching one model with the Mark of Nurgle - like a unit of Khornate Warriors with a Nurglitch Sorcerer. It's awesomejuice.

This trick only works for close combat though, because characters can't be targeted inside units by missile weapons (some exceptions exists though like Longrifles).

Sarah S
14-02-2009, 19:21
I just put this in the General Discussion thread that devolved into this same discussion:

For those who believe that "target" is the necessary condition, does this mean that when the Chaos side attacks first (because of charging or initiative or whatever) that the enemy unit will not be at a lower Weaponskill, because at that point in time the enemy unit isn't "targeting" anything?

Because that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Actually it applies even when the enemy attacks first, because once they're done attacking they aren't targeting anything either. This would render the MoN only useful when the enemy attacks and it would make the MoN totally useless against all the WS breakpoints that don't give the enemy a negative modifier to hit.

stripsteak
15-02-2009, 03:43
Also, can individual rank and file troops target other rank and file troops? Rank and file troops can target characters and the unit itself but not individual rank and file troopers and therefore the whole unit suffers the penalty and not those individual models in base to base contact.

actually according to the newest FAQ yes any rank and file can target allocate attacks at any model in base to base contact with them, it doesn't have to be a character/champion.

Neckutter
15-02-2009, 06:46
note the FAQ DOES NOT use the word target

EvC
15-02-2009, 10:29
Bearing in mind the ultimate conclusion is that you can never "target" a model with close combat attacks, and therefore MoN doesn't work in close combat :D

Tae
15-02-2009, 10:59
Bearing in mind the ultimate conclusion is that you can never "target" a model with close combat attacks, and therefore MoN doesn't work in close combat :D

*takes notes in preparation for playing my friend with his Nurgle army*

:D

(btw, sarcasm)

Neckutter
15-02-2009, 18:03
Bearing in mind the ultimate conclusion is that you can never "target" a model with close combat attacks, and therefore MoN doesn't work in close combat :D

until you read the last part of MoN where it says "in base contact"

EvC
16-02-2009, 00:13
Logical failure, Neckutter. Being in base contact does not mean that the targeting condition does not apply. I think I've said this about eight or nine times now. Ignore the "targeting" bit, as I do, but in a detatched conversation on what the rules state, we should acknowledge it does say what it says ;)

Neckutter
16-02-2009, 03:26
i know im american, but seriously learn to read english please. :)

you only target for shooting attacks, meaning the first part of "targetting" is talking about shooting and the second part of MoN means you are -1WS when you are in base contact.

EvC
16-02-2009, 14:14
Once again, you show your own lack of reading comprehension. Especially dubious combined with insulting someone else's at the same time.

Look: "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle..."
That's the clause, you have to be targeting a model, and it has to have the Mark of Nurgle. You can pretend that you can never target a model for close combat attacks, and you'd be wrong yet again, but the clause inextricably links "targeting" and having the "Mark of Nurgle". If you can never target a model with the Mark of Nurgle, then you can never be liable for the WS penalty.

That is what it says. Undeniably. Well, you can try to deny it, but you'll make yourself look foolish. Instead, it is down to us rules theologans to try and interpret the rule which makes the best sense, in spite of its poor wording. And yes, your interpretation is the best interpretation! You're totally correct, in my opinion! But why isn't that enough for you? Why must you also insist that the rule says something it doesn't?

Neckutter
16-02-2009, 20:12
maybe your reading too much venom in my posts. ill try to put more smiley faces in my posts so people wont get offended. :P try rereading my first sentance again of the last post, to see if it hits you differently.

ok well try this:
if you were a rules writer and wanted to say what the mark of nurgle does, then write it in your own words and pretend that you wanted to say "shooting at MoN units give you -1 to hit". and "when in base to base with MoN units you are -1WS." now put those together in one sentence.
honestly i dont know why they just didnt make it -1 to hit for both shooting and hand to hand. it would make the mark better. AND it would be easier to write.

and that is all im saying. :)

Ganymede
17-02-2009, 15:46
You can pretend that you can never target a model for close combat attacks, and you'd be wrong yet again,

Oh yeah?

Back up this supposition.

Embalmed
18-02-2009, 08:25
This targeting thing is a red herring, you can target stuff in cc or else poison wouldn't work in cc as it only causes automatic wounds to 'the target'.

As to the issue, I believe the intention is that if you are involved in a multiple combat a unit does not suffer -1 WS if they attack a unit that doesn't have the mark, even if they are in b2b with a unit that does. The wording seems to imply this IMO and it makes sense.

The conclusion of that would be that a unit does not get it's WS reduced for the purpose of defending vs attacks, only for when it attacks.

EvC
18-02-2009, 12:29
if you were a rules writer and wanted to say what the mark of nurgle does, then write it in your own words and pretend that you wanted to say "shooting at MoN units give you -1 to hit". and "when in base to base with MoN units you are -1WS." now put those together in one sentence.

Very good suggestion- I've written elsewhere what they should have said if they wanted the result of how we agree it should be played.

I find another way of looking at the rule is to reverse the placement of the two results:
"Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer and -1 to hit for shooting attacks."
Does this make it clear why "targeting" is necessary?

Thanks for stepping in there Embalmed, always good to have an actual example of why something is wrong, rather than rely on such uncommon sense as "if you're targeting by the common definition of the word, then you're targeting!".

After this discussion and referring back to 6th edition Nurgle, I think I agree that the aim of the Mark was simply to reduce the WS of attacks made against Nurgle troops, similar to the old -1 to hit function. Course, I'm not gonna stop playing it the way that favours Chaos until an FAQ tells me to :D

Ganymede
18-02-2009, 13:07
This targeting thing is a red herring, you can target stuff in cc or else poison wouldn't work in cc as it only causes automatic wounds to 'the target'.


Interesting, but this is contextually hollow. All you've proven here is that the poison rules are written in a manner superficially inconsistent with the actual close combat rules. You're off base in assuming that a little blurb in the poison rules is correct while the entirety of the close combat section is wrong. That's one contrived way of saying models are targetted in close combat.

Hell, they didn't even use target as a verb in the poison rules as they do in the mark of nurgle.

EvC
18-02-2009, 15:42
Well I'm not sure what the text regarding targeting and poisoning actually is I must admit, but if there are cases where GW considers "targeting" to be possible in close combat, then that is pretty solid to me. You are however completely and utterly wrong in saying that if you can target a model in close combat, then that makes anything in the close combat section wrong. It just means that GW likes to use different words to describe the same thing every now and then. Which isn't especially outrageous, is it?

Ganymede
18-02-2009, 16:24
Well I'm not sure what the text regarding targeting and poisoning actually is I must admit, but if there are cases where GW considers "targeting" to be possible in close combat, then that is pretty solid to me. You are however completely and utterly wrong in saying that if you can target a model in close combat, then that makes anything in the close combat section wrong. It just means that GW likes to use different words to describe the same thing every now and then. Which isn't especially outrageous, is it?

You misunderstood what I wasy saying. I was trying to convey that, if you interpret the poison rules to mean that models may be targetted by close combat attacks, then the close combat section's omission of the ability to target close combat foes is a collossal screwup that spans the entirety of that section of the rules.

The close combat section has many, many opportunities to state that such attacks may be targetted, but it does not. A questionable reference in the poison rules does not change such a fact.

EvC
18-02-2009, 16:27
No, but it clarifies that when you might need to choose a particular model to attack, that is basically the same thing as "targeting". You're getting hung up on the "targeting" issue, the term is not defined, there is nothng that says you can only target with shooting attacks. Since it aint defined, let's just use basic English to define it ourselves? If you're targeting a model in close combat, or allocating attacks, or designating attacks, or whatever synonym you wish to use, you're targeting it.

Neckutter
18-02-2009, 16:30
I find another way of looking at the rule is to reverse the placement of the two results:
"Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer and -1 to hit for shooting attacks."
Does this make it clear why "targeting" is necessary?

After this discussion and referring back to 6th edition Nurgle, I think I agree that the aim of the Mark was simply to reduce the WS of attacks made against Nurgle troops, similar to the old -1 to hit function. Course, I'm not gonna stop playing it the way that favours Chaos until an FAQ tells me to :D

point 1) i really wish it was worded in a concise way, like the way you wrote it. however, it would really diminish the strength of the mark significantly. -1WS only while attacking is lame. but -1WS while being attacked by nurgle guys is decent, but not awesome. someties it doesnt even make a difference.

point2) if GW changes the way i feel that it works, i will stop playing Nurgle all together. i would rather have Tzeentch's 6+ ward than Nurgle -1 to hit with shooting and lame WS ability. plus i will be a little mad, since i bought and painted up 20 damn nurgle warriors, and also bought some more 6th ed chaos knights and painted them up nurgly, since my previous knights were slaaneshi.
:)

Shamfrit
18-02-2009, 16:34
So, using your logic EvC/Ganymede...

A Dark Elf noble wanders up to a Nurgle Marauder unit, and allocates/targets a single attack at three seperate models...

Do you go your way, and apply -3ws to the Dark Elf Noble? Or do you go Shamfrit's/current way, and just be a flat out -1ws?

Neckutter
18-02-2009, 16:37
your in base contact with something WoC nurgle marked; you are -1WS.

Aglemar
18-02-2009, 17:00
I say no (-1 WS only) as any other way of reading it borders on the absurd. The condition is placed on the attacking unit and not the nurgle unit, the attacking unit either fulfills it or it does not.

To read it any other way would mean when shooting at a Nurgle unit, you would be at -1 to hit that unit for every unit with the mark of Nurgle on the battlefield, as it doesn't specify you must be targeting their unit but only a unit with the mark of Nurgle.

EvC
18-02-2009, 17:23
So, using your logic EvC/Ganymede...

A Dark Elf noble wanders up to a Nurgle Marauder unit, and allocates/targets a single attack at three seperate models...

Do you go your way, and apply -3ws to the Dark Elf Noble? Or do you go Shamfrit's/current way, and just be a flat out -1ws?

In this case, we apply the rules : "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." What we have here is an enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle, and so is at -1WS when in base contact with the bearer.

Given that Ganymede and myself have been putting forth differing viewpoints, it seems you haven't really read or understood what anyone has been saying (Although you understand the rule just fine, so that's not a problem), and there is no reason any one of us would think you go at -1WS per attack targeted.

Although I have heard people claim that if you have a Nurgle character in a Nurgle unit, that's -2WS when in contact... not my bag though baby.

DeathlessDraich
18-02-2009, 18:02
this was asked by me about a month ago i think and there wasnt a solid answer.

And there still isn't.

There is an FAQ due out - hopefully soon and hopefully will resolve the problem properly.


It's actually not clear (Hence the topic), as the sentence says:
"Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle... is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer."
Thus, if unit with one or models with Mark of Nurgle charges an enemy unit, it's not really possible to tell if there will be any enemy left to target them back, and so no way to know!
.

Yes a very valid point.

The rule is badly phrased:

1) "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle"
i.e. this Mark is applicable only when Enemy units target a Nurgle *model*
N.B. a model and not a unit.
Therefore the -1 to hit applies only to shooting a Nurgle *model* and not a unit??!! e.g. Hochland long rifle or shooting at a unit of 1 lone model!?

2) Target and targeting - normally applied to ranged attacks but 'Target and targeting' is *not* defined in the BRB or anywhere. So whether it extends to Close Combat attacks is uncertain.
As usual like all Warhammer terms, what it means in real life is far less important than what it means in Warhammer.
This lends some creedence to EvC's contention.

3) "-1WS when [enemy unit] in contact with the bearer"
The bit in the brackets is the subject of the sentence and therefore its inclusion is grammatically correct.

Again an unfortunate choice of terms - models may be in base contact. Units may be in contact with other units
But
Can a unit be in contact with just 1 model?
Obviously part of the unit is in base contact but what implications are there for the models which are *not* in base contact?

E.g. a unit of spearmen is in corner to corner contact with a single character of Nurgle. Are all models, that can fight, deemed to be in btb?

It is easy to jump to the conclusion that the whole unit is deemed to be in base contact with the Nurgle character as soon as one model is in btb

But This *does not work*!
Consider magic items where base contact has to be clearly defined e.g. TK's Destroyer of Eternities or Daemons Noxious vapours etc.

Any interpretation of base contact for Mark of Nurgle must be consistent with these magic items and if you say the whole unit is in base contact then a TK with Destroyer of Eternities will hit every model in the unit?! - again unacceptable.

So some spearmen are at -1 to hit and some not!? or Hydra handlers? etc etc

Lets just hope the FAQ clears this up by rephrasing it completely.

Nurgling Chieftain
18-02-2009, 20:13
They basically entirely re-wrote the rule in the errata. :p Notably, it only applies to rolls to hit!

Dragonreaver
18-02-2009, 21:07
And only applies to rolls to hit the model, not the unit he's with.

Neckutter
18-02-2009, 23:36
yep, the rewrite is quite clear, where its predecessor was not.

well, i guess i go back to playing tzeentch. no need to finish painting the last 6 nurgle warriors. :)

EvC
19-02-2009, 14:20
Funny thing is that by the end of this thread, I had determined that they probably only ever meant for MoN to be -1WS when rolling to hit, they had just written it in such a poor fashion. Unfortunate... ah well, it was clearly unclear :D