PDA

View Full Version : MoN, Misinterpretation



Defacto
14-02-2009, 16:39
I apologize if this has already been discussed. I did a forum search, but found only one post with a pertinent opinion. I was hoping for some additional feedback on the subject, a cross-section of opinion ...

The way the Mark of Nurgle is worded in the army book leaves it wide open for misinterpretation and general rules-lawyering.

What is the widely accepted interpretation?

1) The -1 WS applies ONLY to models attacking a unit in base-to-base contact, targeting the bearer of the mark. The -1 WS is NOT suffered by the enemy when the marked unit attacks.

2) The -1 WS is applied to the enemy unit in both cases, attacking the bearer AND defending against attacks made by a bearer in base-to-base contact.

Also: Does the -1 WS apply to the entire enemy unit, even affecting models attacking/being attacked by non-Nurgle models/units (to the flank/rear for instance) so long as a single MoN model is in base contact?

Thanks in advance.

Thommy H
14-02-2009, 17:01
Option 1 is correct. The enemy model must be "targeting" the Marked model - you don't select targets unless you're rolling your own Attacks.

As for the second question, the rule specifically says "any enemy unit" (emphasis mine), which suggests that the entire unit would be affected if any models fighting are targeting models with the Mark of Nurgle. This is probably the easiest way to handle things anyway - having to juggle different WS values for different models would just get annoying.

Braad
14-02-2009, 17:03
You're talking about the WoC right, as I don't have the DoC book, so dunno what their nurgle stuff does...

Anyway, about your final question, how I read it here: any unit in base contact with the bearer... so the -1 WS applies to the entire enemy unit, not just the models in base contact.

On the first bit, the rule is given in a single sentence, and the restriction given is: any enemy unit targeting... For the CC they do not remove this condition (as we're still reading along the same sentence), and add that they also have to be in base to base.

If my English knowledge serves me right, they should have written it like this, if the 'targeting'-bit shouldn't apply to the CC part:
"The mark of nurgle causes shooting targeted at the unit to get a -1 modifier and any unit in base contact with the bearer to suffer a -1 to weapon skill."
But they didn't so targeting seems important to me.

Oberon
14-02-2009, 17:04
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177456

Defacto
14-02-2009, 17:24
Thanks, Oberon. I assumed there was a thread about this, already. It's too obvious an issue ...

EDIT: Ha. Still not really clear. In the end, it comes down to whether you assume the word "targeting" infers itself upon the close combat or whether you consider "in base contact" to preclude the word "targeting". It can be interpreted either way, as it can be argued logically either way. Was "targeting" included to avoid the issue of an unmarked unit benefiting from -1 BS while accompanied by a character model with the MoN? Or was "in base contact" included to cover situations that simulate close combat from range, thus precluding the -1 WS? Impossible to tell.

Oberon
14-02-2009, 17:38
Yeah, as you can see I had a part in this already, so it was easy for me to find. The consensus I believe was that the rule is badly worded, but it is easy to see how it is supposed to be done. Hint: it is not the interpretation #1 in the first post of yours :)

sulla
14-02-2009, 18:02
The awesome thing about MoN is how the new faq deals with challenges. You still count as in base contact with everyone else in the combat as normal so if you are fighting a MoT hero in a MoN knight unit, you still get -1ws as long as you touch even one nurgle knight...

Oberon
14-02-2009, 18:05
I don't understand why would you need a FAQ for that? The models in challenge are not moved to a another dimension to do their battle, they keep in their units and move in b2b with each other at most, right?

Defacto
14-02-2009, 18:21
So Oberon and Thommy H are at odds. :D

I've called Direct twice now. Just got off the phone, also called them yesterday afternoon. It's a tie game: The first Direct Troll in favor of option #2, the other 100% convinced it's option #1.

Woo!

:wtf:

Oberon
14-02-2009, 18:23
Classic! I thought it was a in-joke or a urban legend, that you get different answer every time you call GW and ask them, but no :D

And yes, we are very much at odds. I made my point in the other topic, and I see it got raised again, oh dear.

Defacto
14-02-2009, 20:19
Okay. Well, my personal decision regarding this: I intend to play it the weakest way possible, to avoid any of my near future victories being spiritually disputed by an opponent bemoaning improper use of the MoN ("Dude! Remember that game where your MoN unit broke my whatever?? I totally would have won that game!!). Until (if and when) GW publishes errata that states otherwise, I will play it as:

[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 close contact with the bearer].

In other words, I will not demand the -1 WS unless my opponent is specifically allocating an attack against a unit/model with the MoN in base-to-base contact. I'm still not convinced this is the RAI (affecting only attacking enemy units with WS6 and WS3 seems situational to the extreme), but in terms of RAW it's a definite possibility and as such I must play it weak to avoid being harped on when the FAQ/Errata is eventually published.

Sarah S
14-02-2009, 20:22
Sigh. I have now posted the following in the thread on the main page and the other thread in the rules forum:

I just put this in the General Discussion thread that devolved into this same discussion:
Originally Posted by me :D

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.

If you think it only applies when targeted, then you never get to use it in offensively in combat, because the enemy is only targeting you while they are attacking, not when you are attacking. This will render the MoN useless 80% of the time.

Defacto
14-02-2009, 20:25
That's exactly the issue. The MoN will only work when an enemy is attacking you, and only if the enemy is WS3 or WS6. Beyond that, with regard to close combat, it's totally useless.

I highly doubt this is the RAI, but when one considers the RAW ... Gav Thorpe, champion of sentence structure.

Thommy H
14-02-2009, 20:59
I'm not sure I see the issue here: the way the rule is worded, the "targeting" bit applies to both parts of it. I actually ran it through my head to see if the sentence made sense considering it the other way (i.e. that the "targeting" only applies to shooting attacks) but it doesn't - I can't see why they'd have written it that way if it did. Hey, I only have a degree in English Literature, so what do I know about the language? ;)

Anyway, I don't think there's a logic problem with the rule using my interpretation. It makes models with the Mark of Nurgle harder to hit - it doesn't make it easier for them to hit their opponents. This is consistent with the description of the effect.

I can see the argument for the other side of the debate but this is the way I'd play it because a) that's what it actually says and b) it fits the fluff description.

Defacto
14-02-2009, 21:43
I'm inclined to agree, which makes me believe there exists an inherent flaw within the sentence with regard to RAI (I cannot recall the word "targeting" being used in conjucture with close combat in the BRB or anywhere, so it makes me wonder). If not, the MoN in close combat is rarely considered (if the enemy isn't specifically WS3 or WS6 and attacking a marked unit in base-to-base, it's ignored), and the mark becomes somewhat harder to justify with regard to point cost. So yeah, though the RAW makes it extremely situational, the MoN makes a unit harder to hit and falls in line with the fluff.

In my opinion, with regard to fluff, the miasma of pestilence/cloud of flies actually causes the opponent to become ill and disoriented, making them both easier to hit and less competent in combat. However, the current RAW fails to reflect this, at least conclusively.

Axis
14-02-2009, 21:57
I favour option #1. However, it is not entirely clear and there is dispute. I suspect it will get FAQ'd. In the mean time i suggest talking to your gaming group and deciding which is most reasonable and just make sure everyone knows exactly which interpretation is being used

Neckutter
14-02-2009, 22:15
you dont target things in close combat. you direct/allocate your attacks. read the rulebook.
targetting only happens when you use ranged weapons(and sometimes magic spells but this is unimportant for this discussion). page 25/26 of the BRB contains the wording "target" "targetting" for shooting attacks.

when you are in base to base with a MoN, you are -1 WS read the last 4 words of MoN.

when MoN knights fight other WS5 things, the MoN knights hit on 3s for example.

Thommy H
15-02-2009, 08:09
you dont target things in close combat. you direct/allocate your attacks. read the rulebook.
targetting only happens when you use ranged weapons(and sometimes magic spells but this is unimportant for this discussion). page 25/26 of the BRB contains the wording "target" "targetting" for shooting attacks.


Warhammer pretty much never works like that though - the rules don't specify terms with that kind of accuracy. "Targeting" doesn't mean something really particular in the rules, it just means what it means in the English language.

Pretty much 50% of all rules disputes in Warhammer are based on people not reading the rules as if they were written by writers rather than lawyers. They phrase stuff to sound like entertaining, readable English, not a manual for playing an incredibly strict, balanced game.

Anyway, there's no answer to this dispute. It says what it says and, while it may not read like what it's supposed to be, I know which interpretation I favour. Not that it matters to me - my Chaos Warriors are the red, angry kind.

Neckutter
15-02-2009, 17:02
if you read the rulebook, it is accurate. only in shooting/magic does it say "targetting". only in close combat does it specify "directing/allocating attacks.

the last words of MoN state that it works when you are base contact.

Thommy H
15-02-2009, 21:14
It also says it works when the models are being targeted. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Neckutter
16-02-2009, 02:27
yes they are, it uses the word "and"

Thommy H
16-02-2009, 17:20
What? How does "and" make something mutually exclusive? That's the complete opposite of what the word means.

You have to be targeting a unit with the MoN and you have to be in base contact.

Both conditions apply, and they do not contradict one another.

Neckutter
16-02-2009, 19:56
well i guess you're right. in combat, you allocate attacks to enemy units. the BRB AND FAQ never use the word "target" when it comes to close combat. and because you haveta target AND be in B2B contact you will never get the -1WS.

Thommy H
17-02-2009, 19:43
Just because they don't use that exact word doesn't mean you can't do it. You know what the word "target" means - like I said, GW doesn't use definite terms like that in the rules. "Target" means exactly what it means in ordinary English usage, and it's a perfectly valid synonym for "allocating attacks" in this context.

I mean, they may not have meant that, but what I'm saying is that the rule works fine and, as written, is workable even if it's not what was intended.

Neckutter
17-02-2009, 20:06
I mean, they may not have meant that, but what I'm saying is that the rule works fine and, as written, is workable even if it's not what was intended.

you dont get your cake and eat it too. you cant read the intentions of the writers, since it is obviously intended to work in base to base. but since you dont like my interpertation, then youre stuck with your literal interpertation, which means that in base to base you NEVER get -1WS, because the BRB doesnt say you target your attacks in HtH.

Dragonreaver
18-02-2009, 02:17
You have to be targeting a unit with the MoN and you have to be in base contact.

If this were the case, you'd never be able to use it against shooting attacks, since you can't shoot something if you're in base contact with it and according to you, you have to be in base contact for the MoN to take effect...

I agree completely with Neckutter on this one (except the mutual exclusivity thing, which is clearly incorrect, and his most recent post which is a bit OTT...). The word 'targeting' is only used in this case to refer to shooting. It's badly worded, but then, it's a GW publication.

You keep saying "GW doesn't use exact terms" blah blah blah, when they CLEARLY DO. As has been pointed out multiple times. Never, anywhere, is the word 'targeting' used to refer to combat. Sure, it CAN mean the same as allocating or directing in general use, but never in any GW rules publication does it refer to anything other than a ranged attack. Besides which, that's completely irrelevant.

The intent, IMHO, is clear. When you're shooting at the bearer or his unit, you're at -1 to hit. When you're in close combat with the bearer or his unit, you're at -1 WS.

For further clarification (although it's not exactly official GW manuscript or anything), consider this... can you think of ANY other spell or effect that only affects the enemy when you're attacking, and not when they are? I can't. Everything I can think of specifies that you "gain +1 WS" or "gain +1 toughness" or whatever. Nothing, AFAIK, states that "you gain +1WS when you attack, but when your enemy attacks back you're back to normal again".

I could, of course, be horrendously wrong about that, I only have four army books :cries: But I'm used to being wrong by now...

Neckutter
18-02-2009, 02:32
I agree completely with Neckutter on this one (except the mutual exclusivity thing, which is clearly incorrect, and his most recent post which is a bit OTT...).

im going over the top to prove a point to the other side, and how they shouldnt read it the way they are. that is all. :)

Embalmed
18-02-2009, 07:36
well i guess you're right. in combat, you allocate attacks to enemy units. the BRB AND FAQ never use the word "target" when it comes to close combat. and because you haveta target AND be in B2B contact you will never get the -1WS.

*Sigh* why has everyone got stuck on this 'target' thing for cc? Yes, you can target things in cc. If you have two viable opponents to attack you target one of them, who will be the target of your attack, it's really that simple.

If you're a unit with only one rank and get charged in the front by a regular unit and in the side by a MoN unit then you can target the regular unit and the condition for the -1 WS will not be fulfilled.

Festus
18-02-2009, 07:53
Hi

The intent, IMHO, is clear. When you're shooting at the bearer or his unit, you're at -1 to hit. When you're in close combat with the bearer or his unit, you're at -1 WS.
My take exactly ...

all this *targetting* and *allocating* nonsense will not bring you to any conclusion.

Just try and read the rule with common sense (which unortunately isn't) and try not to read too much legalese into the rules (because there isn't).

Greetings
Festus

EvC
18-02-2009, 11:41
If this were the case, you'd never be able to use it against shooting attacks, since you can't shoot something if you're in base contact with it and according to you, you have to be in base contact for the MoN to take effect...

For the effect of -1WS, yes. You can never use the close combat part against shooting attacks, it is true ;)


You keep saying "GW doesn't use exact terms" blah blah blah, when they CLEARLY DO. As has been pointed out multiple times. Never, anywhere, is the word 'targeting' used to refer to combat. Sure, it CAN mean the same as allocating or directing in general use, but never in any GW rules publication does it refer to anything other than a ranged attack. Besides which, that's completely irrelevant.

As Embalmed has noted elsewhere, they use the term "target" with regards to poison, so if you truly think that you can never target a model in close combat, then that means poison doesn't work in close combat. Far more likey: that targeting, allocating, directing, it all means the same.

Also note, that if you are so sure that GW uses precise terminology all the time, consider this: you never target a model with shooting attacks. You target units. Thus, the Mark of Nurgle can never work with shooting attacks either!

...or, yes, we apply some common sense, and accept that the rule is worded wrongly for the effect that we all believe it has. No biggie, is it? :)


The intent, IMHO, is clear. When you're shooting at the bearer or his unit, you're at -1 to hit. When you're in close combat with the bearer or his unit, you're at -1 WS.

Yes, that is fine. Intent is pretty clear, wording is off. Don't pretend that the wording is correct though, because it is not. If the wording was clear, then there would be no need to look at intent, would there?


For further clarification (although it's not exactly official GW manuscript or anything), consider this... can you think of ANY other spell or effect that only affects the enemy when you're attacking, and not when they are? I can't. Everything I can think of specifies that you "gain +1 WS" or "gain +1 toughness" or whatever. Nothing, AFAIK, states that "you gain +1WS when you attack, but when your enemy attacks back you're back to normal again".

It's the other way around you are thinking of- if MoN only affected attacks made whilst targeting, then we'd do well to consider whether items or effects that lower WS or your to hit roll exist. And, yes, they do. So you probably don't wanna consider them ;)

Thommy H
18-02-2009, 18:02
you dont get your cake and eat it too. you cant read the intentions of the writers, since it is obviously intended to work in base to base. but since you dont like my interpertation, then youre stuck with your literal interpertation, which means that in base to base you NEVER get -1WS, because the BRB doesnt say you target your attacks in HtH.

Actually I can do whatever the hell I want in my own games, but whatever - EvC already made all the points I would have made.

The rule could be read either way because neither interpretation is inherently more or less logical than the other. The "only -1 WS when you roll your own attacks" way of playing it is perfectly well-supported by what the rule actually says, but it's less workable than "always -1 WS while in base contact", so it's really up to you how you want to play it until it gets FAQ'd.

Sarah S
18-02-2009, 18:24
New FAQ is out. Show's over boys.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350036_WarriorsofChaosFAQFeb2009.pdf

Sarah S
18-02-2009, 18:36
No. It erratted the MoN.

It now applies only when the enemy model is rolling to hit.


When rolling to hit against a model with the Mark of Nurgle, the attacker suffers -1 to its Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill, to a minimum of 1.

Game over.

Worst. Mark. Ever.

Tzeentch is about twice as good for half the price now. Nurgle is useless in 75% of combat situations.

Edit: Curse you Dragonreaver for deleting your post and making us look like fools! CURSE YOU!!! :D

Borthcollective
18-02-2009, 18:36
Did you even look at it. It's the first question on the FAQ.

Dragonreaver
18-02-2009, 18:36
Bwaha. Flawless victory for common sense. ~!

Edit: Yeah, sorry, I figured the only bit that was changed was the red highlighted text (this being the very point of highlighting the text). But apparently GW can't even get that right any more. I don't have the book, so I was just playing by what was posted in this topic, and didn't realise the paragraph was worded entirely differently in the FAQ.

Edit2: Oooh, ouch. Further ramifications are filtering through my porridge-like brain. The MODEL with the MoN... bahahahahahahahaha.

Neckutter
18-02-2009, 22:38
yep, the MoN was so fouled up, they needed to rewrite it. i think even the FAQ writer didnt understand its previous version.

lets just hope that if you buy the MoN for a unit, each original member of that unit counts as bearing the MoN.