View Full Version : Mark of Nurgles versus Tzeentch: the definitive stats

16-05-2009, 17:09
I posted this on another thread, and I know some others (such as W0lf) have done the stats for this, but I think there's still enough uncertainty about the effectiveness of these 2 marks that it should be addressed in a thread of its own once and for all.

When the Warriors book was first released, I (like the majority of others players posting on the forums) assumed that the Mark of Nurgle was a superior mark and the Mark of Tzeentch a very poor one. This is because I instinctively think of 6+ ward saves as being largely ineffective, and penalties to hit as being pretty potent. I also assumed that the Mark of Nurgle would help increase the Warriors chance to hit versus WS5 units, which the errata ruled not to be the case.

Doing the mathematics has shown, however, that while -1 penalties to hit are slightly more effective then 6+ ward saves, the modest increase in effectiveness is largely outweighed by the fact that the Mark of Nurgle only is effective against very specific enemies.

Mark of Nurgle only is effective in close combat versus WS3 (go from 4+ to 5+ to hit) and WS6 troops (go from 3+ to 4+) to hit, as the errata ruled that the decrease in WS does not affect the Warriors chance to hit.

12 WS6 attacks: w/o Mark: 8 hits w/MoN: 6 hits w/MoT: 6.66 hits
Mark of Nurgle very slightly better, but WS6 is very rare.

12 WS3 attacks: w/o Mark: 6 hits w/MoN: 4 hits w/MoT: 5 hits
Mark of Nurgle has an edge, though most WS3 troops are not very dangerous. Notable exceptions exist, of course, such as the Skeleton Giant.

Overall, the Mark of Tzeentch is much better for Close Combat because it is both cheaper, and it will be effective against all troops instead of just WS3 or WS6 troops.

Ranged attacks is where the Mark of Nurgle is more relevent:

12 shots with a 5+ to hit: w/o Mark: 4 hits w/MoN: 2 hits w/MoT: 3.32 hits

12 shots with a 4+ to hit: w/o Mark: 6 hits w/MoN: 4 hits w/MoT: 5 hits

12 shots with a 3+ to hit: w/o Mark: 8 hits w/MoN: 6 hits w/MoT: 6.6 hits

So Mark of Nurgle has an edge versus lower-accuracy ranged attacks, which are fairly common overall (long range, moving, multiple attacks, etc.) But again, the Mark of Nurgle doesn't protect against magic missiles or warmachines that don't roll to hit, whereas MoT does. Still, if you are really concerned about missile units (and not so worried about enemy magic or warmachines), Mark of Nurgle is a better ranged defense, though not quite proportionately to the increased points cost.

Overall, because the Mark of Tzeentch is both cheaper and effective more often in close combat and versus magic, it seems the better defensive choice. Though obviously, a 6+ ward save will only take you so far.

In short, the Mark of Tzeentch is a superior mark to Nurgle against most opponents in addition to being cheaper unless you anticipate facing a large amount of ranged shooting units or high strength WS3 troops, and little in the way of warmachines and enemy mages.

16-05-2009, 22:18
Nice summation of the two marks and what they are effective and not effective against.

16-05-2009, 23:54
Combined with the fact that you get a ward save against all forms of attacks, be it war machines, templates, close combat attacks etc. MOT is just plain awesome. If you find a way to get a ward save for your troops (such as Celestial Shield on an unmarked L4 or someone with Third Eye) then the additional boost to the ward save is amazing for keeping your troops alive.

MON seemed to be worth the points with its original rules, where all enemies were at -1WS all the time. Not so much any more now that it doesn't make heroes/elf combat units easier to hit.