PDA

View Full Version : Nurgle mark*



Tolinwiz
02-04-2009, 01:45
Just want to clarify, after the FAQ - nurgle now only gives -1 ws while being attacked yes? So - when I'm attacking back, the model doesn't have -1 WS?

rottahn
02-04-2009, 01:47
my unit attacking you is -1WS. being attacked by your nurgle, i am full WS.

yes it got neutered.

Tolinwiz
02-04-2009, 01:55
blech, thanks for the info*

English 2000
02-04-2009, 02:36
Is it really that bad? Warriors and up are WS5 anyway, there isn't a whole lot out there that is WS 5+ anyway other than some pansy elves and characters (who will be getting mulched by your characters anyway)

Autobot HQ
02-04-2009, 08:56
It was more for Chaos Ogres I imagine. With Mark of Nurgle, a unit of 4 weighed in at an impressive 250 pts or there about, but was absolutely terrifying. -1 to hit shooting at them helps ALOT, and against more rank and file they'd be hitting on 3+ instead of 4+, and with great weapons and Chaos armour there were really quite a sight.

These days, elves and elite troops still only hit back on 4+, but only hitting the weakest infantry on 4+ neuters the Ogre quite a bit.

MarcoPollo
02-04-2009, 16:16
Yah, the nerf is not really that bad. Most of the time you are going to hit on 3's anyways. The ws for most units of comprable tactical value his lower anyways.

So it means that usually they will hit on 4's and you will hit on 3's. In some cases, it can drop your opponents weapon skill so low that they will need 5's to hit. Like, spearmen vs chaos knights. So charging into that big block of spearmen/pikemen won't hurt as much.

StormCrow
03-04-2009, 00:30
For warriors and knights in combat the mark is only useful against WS 6 and WS 3 troops, for ogres and marauders it's WS 2 and WS 5 troops.

However the bonus against shooting is still awesome.

Spirit
03-04-2009, 01:41
Chaos knights with the mark are one of the few units that scare my lizardmen army. With the bulk of my army being ws3 and t4, lanced knights that i cannot kill (even the S5 ones are bad) really worry me. Once charged 3 of them with 4 kroxigor and they won!

Tolinwiz
03-04-2009, 02:15
Could just be that I'm brain dead, but where in the FAQ does it point out this new rule about nurgle? I see the one about lower below WS1, but that's it.

Spirit
03-04-2009, 02:25
Could just be that I'm brain dead, but where in the FAQ does it point out this new rule about nurgle? I see the one about lower below WS1, but that's it.


The wording is "When rolling to hit against a model.... you suffer -1 WS and BS"

This means that if they are hitting you, you cannot be hitting them and thus are not at -1 WS or BS

I assume the wording has not actually changed from the WoC book, but as they have not disputed this, there is no way to claim -1 ws when you attack them.

Nurgling Chieftain
03-04-2009, 05:06
I assume the wording has not actually changed from the WoC book...The FAQ MoN is worded completely differently from the army book, despite being only partially colored red.

stripsteak
03-04-2009, 15:11
yeah i think a lot of people only notice the red words. i think they use red to denote added/removed words, and then just leave it in black if the wording is just changed....or they just missed it on the formatting pass.

Lord Yawgmoth
03-04-2009, 15:19
to stripsteak-

I think that they must have missed it, because that seems like an odd precedence.

Dexter099
05-04-2009, 20:38
If it doesn't say anything about them not being at -1 WS when you hit them, then I say that they are (at -1 WS when you hit them).

Einholt
05-04-2009, 21:43
LoL what are you talking about. It clearly says when rolling to hit against MoN the attacker is -1 WS. How can you possibly suggest they would be at -1 WS When they are not rolling to hit against you and infact you are rolling to hit them.

You are twisting the "if it does not say it" argument horribly, If it does not say you get a benefit YOU DON'T GET IT. Its as good as saying IF it doesn't say I'm not stubborn or don't cause terror I am and I do.

Spirit
05-04-2009, 23:03
If it doesn't say anything about them not being at -1 WS when you hit them, then I say that they are.

If it doesnt say anything about my slann not killing everything in the enemy army on the roll of a 2+ on 2 dice with 3 re rolls, then i say it can.

It also doesnt say my troops DONt all get a 2+ ward save against every attack in the game, this must mean they do.

No, sorry, you need permission to do anything not in the cores rules. If it doesnt say anything about them NOT being at -1 WS when you hit them, then they are not at -1 WS when you hit them.

rottahn
06-04-2009, 01:32
LoL what are you talking about. It clearly says when rolling to hit against MoN the attacker is -1 WS. How can you possibly suggest they would be at -1 WS When they are not rolling to hit against you and infact you are rolling to hit them.

You are twisting the "if it does not say it" argument horribly, If it does not say you get a benefit YOU DON'T GET IT. Its as good as saying IF it doesn't say I'm not stubborn or don't cause terror I am and I do.

to solve your questions, you could do a search on the subject. i believe the discussion was long and heated and the old wording is very debatable, whereas the new wording gives no wiggle room.

Dexter099
06-04-2009, 04:47
If it doesnt say anything about my slann not killing everything in the enemy army on the roll of a 2+ on 2 dice with 3 re rolls, then i say it can.


What I'm saying is that the FAQ doesn't change the clause in the WoC rulebook that says the enemy has -1 WS when they are in combat with a bearer of the MoN.

nosferatu1001
06-04-2009, 05:23
The FAQ completely changes the wording - so yes, it does change the WoC army book.

Necromancy Black
06-04-2009, 05:33
What I'm saying is that the FAQ doesn't change the clause in the WoC rulebook that says the enemy has -1 WS when they are in combat with a bearer of the MoN.

You mean the clause that the FAQ has completely rewritten?

You keep thinking that...

WLBjork
06-04-2009, 07:33
It's not even a Q&A - it's an errata which does take precedence over the Army Book.

Spirit
06-04-2009, 11:25
What I'm saying is that the FAQ doesn't change the clause in the WoC rulebook that says the enemy has -1 WS when they are in combat with a bearer of the MoN.

The FAQ does change it. It removes it, replaces it with something else and sets the new set of rules in place of the old.

rottahn
06-04-2009, 17:12
What I'm saying is that the FAQ doesn't change the clause in the WoC rulebook that says the enemy has -1 WS when they are in combat with a bearer of the MoN.

i would absolutely agree that they should be -1ws while in base to base(given the points cost of MoN), but that isnt what the new wording says, unfortunately. :(

Dexter099
06-04-2009, 21:11
I understand.