PDA

View Full Version : Mark of Nurgle - and what does it mean now?



Yehoshua
09-07-2010, 17:12
Original Wording: 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.

2009 Errata: 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.

2010 Update: Ranged attacks that target him are at -1 To Hit. Models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS.

So what is it now?

1. -1 WS in base contact with the MoN bearer.

2. -1 WS when rolling to hit the MoN bearer.

3. -1 WS in close combat once you've declared that you are targeting the MoN bearer. If so, how long does this last? (If it only lasts for the duration of the attack, then we're back at #2, except when both models are striking simultaneously.)

Edit: added italics

Romulus68
09-07-2010, 19:29
Models that wish to strike the model with the Mark are at -1 WS to do so. If they target someone else they act as normal.

Lasts so long as they are targeting the model with the Mark and only applies when rolling "To-Hit".

Yehoshua
09-07-2010, 19:42
I'm inclined to agree, but I have to say that the MoN is still balls, then.

Gratan
09-07-2010, 20:39
I asked this a few days ago but how does MoN and Fear work now?

A unit being attacked by a fear causing unit fights at WS1 if it fails a LD check.

If they are fighting a unit of Chaos Knights with MoN and are feared, do they now has WS0 against the Knights?

WS1 from Fear
-1 WS from MoN

This got all confusing again...

jaxom
09-07-2010, 20:44
It got differently confusing. The change to the BS portion of the rule is a sop for TK players. As a BS penalty, TK archers were not immune to it. Now it is back to being a shooting modifier so they are immune to it again.

Regarding Fear and MoN, I don't think there's anything ambiguous. The unfortunate victim is WS1 when being swung at and WS0 when trying to attack so the knights would not be subject to return attacks.

Nitael
09-07-2010, 21:03
Hmm and near the Mark Of Nurgle in Tactica they says that :

''Last but not least, such are the clouds of flies buzzing around the bearers of the Mark of Nurgle that foes incur -1 to hit penalty at range and -1 WS in range. This can make a real difference when fighting elite ranged troops that depend on their high BS to make an impact, not to mention making Chaos troops hit most foes on a 3+.''

RanaldLoec
09-07-2010, 22:21
Well page 4 of the 8th ed rule book clearly states any object or creature with ws0 is unable to defend itself and any blows struck against it automatically hit.

So fear and the mark of nurgle look like best buddies.

mightyzombie
09-07-2010, 22:25
So, the errata removed the "to a minimum of 1" on the WS?

If so, that's absolutely disgustingly broken. So you're options are: Pass a LD test, or you get no attacks, and even if you pass you only hit on 5+?

Yehoshua
09-07-2010, 22:39
I think that "targeting" in close combat is closest to the rules for declaring your intentions on page 48. Models that are only presented with one unit and model type to fight presumably auto-target the enemies in contact.

Therefore, in most cases, I think this is simply a penalty to WS when rolling to hit, as under the above rules a model is only "targeting" its opponent for the duration of its attacks in a close combat round.

However, what happens when both models strike simultaneously (which usually happens when both models have the same initiative)? I would guess that the penalty benefits the attacks of the MoN bearer.

Also, I think we should ignore the website tactica, as the tactica is not rules and it's terribly written anyway: "foes incur -1 to hit penalty at range and -1 WS in range."

Argent
09-07-2010, 22:41
So, the errata removed the "to a minimum of 1" on the WS?

If so, that's absolutely disgustingly broken. So you're options are: Pass a LD test, or you get no attacks, and even if you pass you only hit on 5+?

There's an entry in the Core Rulebook that Weapon Skill can never be reduced to less than 1.

RanaldLoec
09-07-2010, 22:42
So, the errata removed the "to a minimum of 1" on the WS?

If so, that's absolutely disgustingly broken. So you're options are: Pass a LD test, or you get no attacks, and even if you pass you only hit on 5+?

I only got my copy today at 5 I know the local gw store has an add in which I don't have, the rule book states

characteristics run on a scale of 0 to 10 - they cannot go below 0 or above 10

There is no entry to state ws0 means you can't attack back, it only states you get auto hit if attacked.

Take what interpretation you want I'm not certain if it means you can or can't strike back?

RanaldLoec
09-07-2010, 22:46
There's an entry in the Core Rulebook that Weapon Skill can never be reduced to less than 1.

I'm sure I've read that I just can't find it.

I really do want to find it but I've 528 pgs and a naff gw layout to slow me down.

Yehoshua
09-07-2010, 22:48
8th Edition Page 4:
CHARACTERISTICS OF 0
Some creatures have been given a value of '0' (often shown as a dash: '-') for certain characteristics which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that skill. . . .

If any creature or object has a Weapon Skill of 0 then it is unable to defend itself in close combat, and any blows struck against it will therefore automatically hit.

Argent
09-07-2010, 22:49
I'm sure I've read that I just can't find it.

I really do want to find it but I've 528 pgs and a naff gw layout to slow me down.

I actually checked my Book, and I'm wrong. Sorry guys. It says, under the Characteristics section in the first chapter "A model with a Weapon Skill of 0 is unable to defend itself in close combat, and any blows struck against it will automatically hit."

Yay Mark of Nurgle?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Yehoshua 0_0

mightyzombie
09-07-2010, 22:55
I only got my copy today at 5 I know the local gw store has an add in which I don't have, the rule book states

characteristics run on a scale of 0 to 10 - they cannot go below 0 or above 10

There is no entry to state ws0 means you can't attack back, it only states you get auto hit if attacked.

Take what interpretation you want I'm not certain if it means you can or can't strike back?

I, personally, consider attacking back to be part and parcel of "defending yourself", hence why I interpreted that the way I did, but you are correct. I see no mention of the book specifically stating that WS0 means no attacks, but there is also no way to resolve attacks made at WS0, and nothing that I can see that specifies that WS can't be reduced below 1, other than the fact that it says that all attributes range from 0 to 10.

I would assume that WS can't be dropped below 1, primarily because there's no way to resolve attacks at WS0 and it doesn't specifically say that WS0 means no attacks, just that attacks against automatically hit. There must be an entry clarifying this somewhere.

RanaldLoec
09-07-2010, 22:56
Ninja'ed both of you check my entry at 23:21

RanaldLoec
09-07-2010, 22:59
There is a little add in sheet for print errors or add ins to clarify points in the brb my gw store has it I don't it could be on there I hope but I doubt it.

TMATK
09-07-2010, 23:12
Wow, so much for toning down fear. :rolleyes:

I seriously hope this is a typo/oversight.

Gratan
10-07-2010, 00:25
So if this is right then Chaos Knights and Chaos Ogres with the Mark of Nurgle just got insanely scary...

Witchblade
10-07-2010, 00:57
"A model with a Weapon Skill of 0 is unable to defend itself in close combat, and any blows struck against it will automatically hit."

Yay Mark of Nurgle?

How is this relevant? MoN only works when being attacked. It confers no benefit whatsoever when you are attacking. It seems to me MoN and fear have no synergy, because fear makes the enemy hit you on 5+ anyway, so MoN is wasted in that situation.

Yehoshua
10-07-2010, 01:04
It looks like you missed the point, Witchblade. What if you're at WS 1 from fear and declare your attack against a MoN character? You're now WS 0, which doesn't appear on the Rolling to Hit Chart, so can you even attack?

It's also not 100% clear the MoN now only works when being attacked, and even if it does, what about simultaneous attacks? Shouldn't the MoN model be able to strike against the enemy's WS -1?

geldedgoat
10-07-2010, 14:03
It's like they're intentionally screwing with us by changing the wording for the Mark of Nurgle AGAIN and this time making it unnecessarily vague. What does 'target' mean in this instance? Is it back to being partially offensive in nature? I'm inclined to think so, as the previous errata was very straightforward and impossible to misinterpret. But this? Any word on when will the FAQ for the new errata be released? :rolleyes:

Zaustus
10-07-2010, 14:35
The wording is a little bit worse than in the old FAQ, but the following is how it works:

Anything using BS to shoot at him gets -1 to hit. Anything using WS to attack him in combat gets -1 WS for the purposes of making their attacks.

I don't have the new book yet, but since this errata doesn't say "to a minimum of one," it seems like failed fear + MoN means the enemy is WS0 when trying to attack you, and thus can't attack at all. That's how I interpret it, at least.

geldedgoat
10-07-2010, 15:00
The wording is a little bit worse than in the old FAQ, but the following is how it works:

Anything using BS to shoot at him gets -1 to hit. Anything using WS to attack him in combat gets 1- WS for the purposes of making their attacks.

The problem is it's not clear at all if that's the extent of its effects.

The original wording (in the army book) clearly allowed MoN to be used both defensively (-1 WS attacking your models) and offensively (-1 WS to models you attack). The 7th Edition errata changed it to clearly work only defensively. Now they have changed it yet again, only this time it's not clear what their intentions are.

The concurrently released tactics article indicates that it once again works offensively and defensively, but until we get either a new errata or an FAQ, it will only lead to confusion and argument.

IMHO, I think it should be played one of two ways: 1) inflicting -1 WS skill on any model engaged with the unit for all interactions between those models and the MoN unit, or 2) inflicting a straight -1 to hit for both ranged and melee attacks, completely forgoing any alteration in WS or BS. MoN is the most expensive mark for all units and characters, and playing under the 7th Edition errata makes it way, way overpriced.


I don't have the new book yet, but since this errata doesn't say "to a minimum of one," it seems like failed fear + MoN means the enemy is WS0 when trying to attack you, and thus can't attack at all. That's how I interpret it, at least.

I hope they address this as well and rule that WS1 is the lowest it can go.

Zaustus
10-07-2010, 16:38
Oh, I agree that it should always have just been -1 to hit the model for both shooting and combat. That would be a much simpler solution. Who knows why GW makes the decisions they do?

Regardless, we can try to clear up the current ruling. The new FAQ says "Models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS." I suppose you could try to argue that as soon as a model directs attacks at Nurgleman, he gets -1WS. That leads to even more problems though, since the FAQ doesn't specify a duration of the penalty, so one could then argue that the WS penalty is permanent, and worse, cumulative. That's pretty obviously silly and abusive rules lawyering, of course.

So let's be slightly less silly and assume that the WS penalty is not cumulative, and applies only to interactions with Nurgleman. Now Initiative is an issue. If Nurgleman goes first, then the enemy's attacks haven't been targeted yet, so he wouldn't take the penalty. If the enemy goes first--say he's an elf--then his WS is reduced before Nurgleman makes his return attacks, thus the Nurglezoid would make his attacks against an enemy with reduced WS. I know it's not clearly worded -- and you could argue that they deserve the penalty for being a poncy elf -- but it makes no sense that GW would put in a mechanic that fundamentally changed its application solely based on whether the enemy strikes first or not.

Reading the FAQ, the key part I see is "... are at...." That indicates that only the attacks targeting Nurgleman are affected by the WS penalty. You're absolutely right that it's only an indication though, due to poor wording on GW's part. They could simply have said "Attacks that target him in close combat are made at -1 WS." Alas.

TMATK
15-07-2010, 00:28
Are we 100% sure that WS 0 means you get no attacks? I know there is no 0 on the 'to hit' chart, but the book does say an unmodified 6 is always a hit.

MoN+fear requiring 6's to hit actually sounds reasonable to me. No attacks seems wrong.

Yehoshua
15-07-2010, 02:54
Well, I would also base no attacks off of page 4, "Characteristics of Zero."

I quoted this elsewhere, if you want to search for it.

TMATK
15-07-2010, 03:01
Well, in that paragraph it mentions "...some creatures or warmachines may have no attacks (A0 or A-)."

A unit that's WS0 isn't A0. :)

Yehoshua
15-07-2010, 03:19
Really?

First of all, you deleted "For example" from that line, which was a strange decision.

Secondly, the combination of "they have no ability whatsoever in that skill" and "unable to defend itself in close combat, and any blows struck against it will therefore automatically hit" is not enough for you?

TMATK
15-07-2010, 03:25
I look at it this way, if A doesn't equal 0, then the unit has attacks. period. Sure, they have no skill, but even the most unskilled warrior can hit on a 6! Look, even something with a str of 1 can wound a T10 steam tank, so I don't think it's that crazy :)

Regarding "unable to defend itself", afaic a unit is only ws0 when it targets a unit with MoN, not when it is targeted; not really relevant.


First of all, you deleted "For example" from that line, which was a strange decision.

Sorry, didn't think it was needed. I added the 3 dots for ya ;)

Vandelan
15-07-2010, 03:58
The rules for the MoN are worded so that the attacks made from the unit with the mark do not have a better chance to hit the unit or character than they normally would.

The unit attacks as though it were at one less WS than usual, but this is only when the unit is making its attacks, and not when the MoN unit is making its attacks.

Yehoshua
15-07-2010, 03:59
There's no rule that says that the most unskilled warrior can hit on a 6. A warrior with WS 1 can hit on a 6. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a warrior with WS 0 - that's the "most unskilled warrior." Why do you even bring up Str 1? We're talking about skills of zero. Something with Str 0 can't wound a T10 steam tank; in fact, it's dead. Even if it weren't dead, I kind of doubt it could wound anything, don't you?

The number of attacks just tells you how many times you are allowed to strike. If your ability to strike is nonexistent, why would we bother rolling? It would be pointless.

If we're going to analogize, why don't we analogize to Ballistic Skill. If you have Ballistic Skill 0, you cannot use missile weapons. Why would you be able to use close combat weapons with a Weapon Skill of 0?

"Unable to defend itself" does not exclude "unable to attack back." The commonly accepted definition of "defending oneself" includes "attacking the person attacking you."

Finally, did either of you consider that the WS 0 model might be automatically hit if both models strike simultaneously? You know, like I already brought up, on...Page 1?

TMATK
15-07-2010, 04:16
In the combat section it says something like "sometimes modifiers apply, but a 6 is always a hit and a 1 is always a miss" I suppose one could argue that only pertains to modifiers, and not to a WS 0? I don't know. Hopefully we'll get another round of FAQs to clear it up.

Vandelan
15-07-2010, 04:25
My assumption from the rules is that if a unit has a WS, it cannot be reduced below one, just as most stats cannot be reduced below one. Except in the case where reducing a stat to zero does something like killing the model, for instance like in the case of certain spells.

If the model doesn't have a WS, then it just doesn't have one.

Paraelix
15-07-2010, 04:27
Lasts so long as they are targeting the model with the Mark and only applies when rolling "To-Hit".

Truth. When I'm not attacking, I'm not targetting your models.

Zaustus
15-07-2010, 05:11
... most stats cannot be reduced below one.
I think you're making this up. Where does anything say that?

The RBRB explicitly states that characteristics are from 0 to 10, and cannot go below 0 (p.3). That very clearly means that they can go below 1, i.e. to 0.

On the very next page, the book states that models with a characteristic of 0 "have no ability whatsoever in that skill." If they have no ability whatsoever in Weapon Skill -- in fact they're not even on the table -- there's no way for them to hit. I do see the argument of "6 always hits" and I'd be willing to play it that way; it's acceptable as RAW. I strongly disagree with the "WS can't go to 0" crowd, though.

Vandelan
15-07-2010, 05:45
I think you're making this up. Where does anything say that?

The RBRB explicitly states that characteristics are from 0 to 10, and cannot go below 0 (p.3). That very clearly means that they can go below 1, i.e. to 0.

On the very next page, the book states that models with a characteristic of 0 "have no ability whatsoever in that skill." If they have no ability whatsoever in Weapon Skill -- in fact they're not even on the table -- there's no way for them to hit. I do see the argument of "6 always hits" and I'd be willing to play it that way; it's acceptable as RAW. I strongly disagree with the "WS can't go to 0" crowd, though.

I said I was making an assumption, and it was based off of most stat modifying things not reducing something below one.

Thank you for catching my mistake.

But after reading the rules as written, it states that Models may have values of 0 for stats, and that they "have no ability whatsoever in that skill."

I take it that this means that they have no ability in rolling to hit, and I do not believe that the rule of "6's always hit" will apply because the unit will be incapable of making attacks. This will be up to GW to clarify as they choose, but as far as I see it, models that don't make attacks cannot roll a 6 to hit.

Thankfully the part about defending themselves while in combat will not apply when being struck by MoN units.

Yehoshua
15-07-2010, 06:05
Except maybe it does when striking simultaneously *head against wall* :mad:

Vandelan
15-07-2010, 06:08
Except maybe it does when striking simultaneously *head against wall* :mad:

No way, that's just stretching the rule too far beyond its meaning. It only applies when the unit is attacking a unit with MoN. MoN will roll to hit as normal.

Yehoshua
15-07-2010, 06:38
Maybe that's the way I'll play it, but that is most definitely not the way it's written.

Vandelan
15-07-2010, 06:43
Maybe that's the way I'll play it, but that is most definitely not the way it's written.

Well then read it again. The errata says "Models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS."

You have to be attacking to target something, and this only applies when targeting. It doesn't matter if both units are striking at the same time, it ONLY applies when targeting/making attacks against a unit with MoN.

geldedgoat
15-07-2010, 08:50
You have to be attacking to target something, and this only applies when targeting.

Do you have a source for this?

Your interpretation of the MoN's effects in close combat is identical to the previous edition's errata. If that were the case, why would GW bother changing the wording?

TMATK
15-07-2010, 13:53
Do you have a source for this?

Your interpretation of the MoN's effects in close combat is identical to the previous edition's errata. If that were the case, why would GW bother changing the wording?

The original entry in the armybook says -1 WS when in base to base contact. If GW wanted the -1 WS to count both ways, they could have just left it at that.

TMATK
15-07-2010, 16:03
The FAQs are updated today, the MoN entry was updated. They added the line "A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to target."

Thanks GW, that's incredibly helpful. :rolleyes:

geldedgoat
15-07-2010, 16:21
The original entry in the armybook says -1 WS when in base to base contact. If GW wanted the -1 WS to count both ways, they could have just left it at that.

The army book wording and (the way I interpret) the new errata actually do slightly differ.

Original:
A Nurgle unit engages an Empire unit to the front. A unit of Khorne knights joins the fight on the flank and benefits from the Mark of Nurgle, both when attacking and defending against the Empire unit.

A Khorne unit engages an Empire unit to the front. A unit of Nurgle knights joins the fight on the flank. The Khorne unit now benefits from the Mark of Nurgle, both when attacking and defending against the Empire unit.

In both of those examples, the Nurgle unit will always benefit from a negatively modified Empire unit for the purposes of both offense and defense.

8th errata:
A Nurgle unit engages an Empire unit to the front. A unit of Khorne knights joins the fight on the flank and benefits from the Mark of Nurgle, both when attacking and defending against the Empire unit as long as the Empire unit does not reform to face the knights.

A Khorne unit engages an Empire unit to the front. A unit of Nurgle knights joins the fight on the flank. The Khorne unit does not benefit from the Mark of Nurgle at all as long as the Empire unit does not reform to face the knights.

In these examples, the Nurgle unit will only benefit from a negatively modified Empire unit when the Empire unit is facing the Nurgle unit.

=====

As an aside, here's an example of how I will actually play the rules, ignoring both the army book and the FAQ:
A Nurgle unit and a Khorne unit are both engaged on different sides of an Empire unit. The Khorne unit can never benefit from the Mark of Nurgle, no matter what direction the Empire unit faces.

In this example, the Nurgle unit will always benefit from a negatively modified Empire unit for the purposes of both offense and defense.

Lungboy
15-07-2010, 16:24
The original entry in the armybook says -1 WS when in base to base contact. If GW wanted the -1 WS to count both ways, they could have just left it at that.

They couldn't leave it at that as it would mean that support attacks from second or other ranks wouldn't be affected by the MoN.

TMATK
15-07-2010, 16:30
They couldn't leave it at that as it would mean that support attacks from second or other ranks wouldn't be affected by the MoN.

It was units in b2b, not models.

Yehoshua
15-07-2010, 17:01
Yah, I saw that the Ogre FAQ was updated, immediately opened the WoC FAQ, saw that they had changed the MoN...and ground my teeth together.

geldedgoat
16-07-2010, 09:12
I just sent an email to gw asking for clarification regarding this. I'll post an update if/when I get a response.

CmdrLaw
30-07-2010, 11:14
Just spotted that GW's nurlge FAQ appears to still be up in the air.

I think it should affect both attacking and being attacked, my reasoning you ask?
This is from the tactica and is pretty clear, Its not from the update I know but thats ambiguous.

Last but not least, such are the clouds of flies buzzing around the bearers of the Mark of Nurgle that foes incur -1 to hit penalty at range and -1 WS in range. This can make a real difference when fighting elite ranged troops that depend on their high BS to make an impact, not to mention making Chaos troops hit most foes on a 3+.

Guessing they mean to put "Any model that CAN target a model with the mark of nurlge"
instead of DOES target.

Then again the tactica might be worng but I think it Nerfs MoN a bit too much otherwise.

ChrisIronBrow
31-07-2010, 22:17
Well then read it again. The errata says "Models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS."

You have to be attacking to target something,

Interesting, do you have a reference for this rule? As far as I know it, there is no definition of what "targeting" is in the BRB.

It seems to me that the new wording says that once a model has "targeted" him that model has -1 WS in close combat.

It seems to me that it can in fact be used offensively now.

Teongpeng
01-08-2010, 01:40
Interesting, do you have a reference for this rule? As far as I know it, there is no definition of what "targeting" is in the BRB.

It seems to me that the new wording says that once a model has "targeted" him that model has -1 WS in close combat.

It seems to me that it can in fact be used offensively now.whats so difficult to understand? if u are picking him to attack you are targetting him. if he is picking u to attack he is targeting u.

regular english applies.

ChrisIronBrow
01-08-2010, 09:15
whats so difficult to understand? if u are picking him to attack you are targetting him. if he is picking u to attack he is targeting u.

regular english applies.

It's not that I don't understand what the word Target means. It's that the Rules don't seem to spell out the limitations of Targeting.

The issue becomes when does "he" pick to attack you? and when do "you" pick to attack him? If you have the same initiative for example then it would seem that the -1 applies since your targeting him the same time he's targeting you.

Do you see my point now?

Yrrdead
01-08-2010, 19:01
MoN in 7th edition (post FAQ) was a defensive only ability. This hasn't changed in 8th. The change to the wording was done to attempt to clarify in the case of Supporting Attacks. This attempt was done rather poorly.

ChrisIronBrow
01-08-2010, 20:03
MoN in 7th edition (post FAQ) was a defensive only ability. This hasn't changed in 8th. The change to the wording was done to attempt to clarify in the case of Supporting Attacks. This attempt was done rather poorly.

Interesting. How do you know what the Writer of the FaQ intended? Or are you just guessing?

solkan
01-08-2010, 20:28
If you claim that the rules don't spell out when a model is targeting another model, you're left with only those situations in which you can prove that one model targeted the other model: when one model directs its attacks at the other.

What else is there to target?

ChrisIronBrow
01-08-2010, 20:44
If you claim that the rules don't spell out when a model is targeting another model, you're left with only those situations in which you can prove that one model targeted the other model: when one model directs its attacks at the other.

What else is there to target?

Well, that's the problem. Is a Charge targetted? Does a Challenge count as Targetting?

Gratan
01-08-2010, 21:11
Let's say a unit of Chaos Warriors of Nurgle (MoN WS5) is attacking an Empire Halberdier unit (WS 3). They are Base-to-Base and ready to fight. Warriors attack first due to I5 and so need a 3+ to hit (WS5 vs. WS3) the Halberdiers.
Now the Halberdiers go. They are fighting Chaos Warriors with MoN and so with the penalty are now effectively WS2. They are going to need 5+ now (before would have hit on 4+) to hit the Warriors.

It's the same whether being charged or versus higher I units.

As is stated in the army book and FAQ only the WS of the enemy is changed when attacking the MoN unit. It doesn't change for the Warriors who factor their to-hit scores off the original WS of the attacking unit when attacking back

ChrisIronBrow
02-08-2010, 07:21
As is stated in the army book and FAQ only the WS of the enemy is changed when attacking the MoN unit. It doesn't change for the Warriors who factor their to-hit scores off the original WS of the attacking unit when attacking back

Except that's not actually said in either the FaQ or the rule book.

CmdrLaw
02-08-2010, 10:17
MoN in 7th edition (post FAQ) was a defensive only ability. This hasn't changed in 8th. The change to the wording was done to attempt to clarify in the case of Supporting Attacks. This attempt was done rather poorly.

Eh? the last edition it read models in BTB had -1 WS. That could certainly be use offensively.

And I still advise that the guy who wrote the tactica probably has a better grasp on what the rules are than anyone in this forum. (WD battles aside...sigh)

ChrisIronBrow
02-08-2010, 19:51
Eh? the last edition it read models in BTB had -1 WS. That could certainly be use offensively.

And I still advise that the guy who wrote the tactica probably has a better grasp on what the rules are than anyone in this forum. (WD battles aside...sigh)

Yeah, I would generally agree with you on that. Where is the Tactica btw? on the website?

I think what bothers me most here, is that the Army book was originally very clear, -1 ws to modles in base to base, then the "faqed" it changing the written rule to a defensive only ability, then the change their Erratta twice in 2 weeks making it very unclear what they want this rule to say.

Here is what the rule officially says now.

“A model with the Mark of
Nurgle is difficult to target. Ranged attacks that target him are
at -1 To Hit. Models that target him in close combat are at -1
WS.”

The problem is that their is no duration listed for the -1 ws or bs. so it could be implied it lasts the whole game, also they fail to define targetting, in the case of shooting it seems simple enough to assume because you have to choose a target to fire at. However, in close combat we are left guessing what targetting means.

In addition, because they don't specify these things, it could also be implied that the -1 stacks..

CmdrLaw
02-08-2010, 20:14
It was changed because of supporting attacks coming from models in the second rank.

Tactica page here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=&section=&pIndex=14&aId=9900050a&start=15

So unless they were being very mean to the tactica writer it is clear its meant to work offensively..otherwise the MoN is bit pants.

Lungboy
02-08-2010, 20:19
It was changed because of supporting attacks coming from models in the second rank.


People keep saying this (including myself until i was corrected) but MoN works on units in B2B, not models, so no clarification was needed for the supporting attacks.

Yrrdead
02-08-2010, 23:54
Just to get everyone on the same page.

7th Edition Original

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.

7th Edition post Errata

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.

8th Edition Current (FAQ v1.1)

A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to target. Ranged attacks that target him are at -1 To Hit. Models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS.

This hopefully will help get this argument back on point. I won't bother to repeat my own stance.

CmdrLaw
03-08-2010, 08:31
Yeah weird it was units, does read that they meant it to mean defensively...but the tactica indicates otherwise.

Plus they still haven't explained the Fear + MoN WS0 issue.

Dhaemian
03-08-2010, 09:12
I find the rules to be fairly simple actually.
I will ignore the 7th edition rule and FAQ seen as they are irrelevant now.


8th Edition Current (FAQ v1.1)

A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to target. Ranged attacks that target him are at -1 To Hit. Models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS.

The ranged part seems obvious. Any ranged attacks have -1 to hit against the MoN model.

As for the CC. Any unit attacking a MoN bearer see their WS reduced by 1. The rank part is included as they say models.
And it works both defensively and offensively, as return attacks need to target as well.

Hence the
A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to target.

In case the WS is reduced to 0 which can be the case. Then that unit is simply unable to continue their attack on the model seeing as they are now unable to use their weapons.

This makes the MoN a bit overpowered, true. But it's not the most expensive mark for nothing.

As for duration.
It only lasts as long as you target the MoN model. Else this would mean that a single MoN model would grant his bonus to the whole army when targeted once. Marks can not be shared and have to be bought individually for each model.

So basically if a model with MoN joins a unit without mark the -1WS only counts for attacks/return attacks directed against that specific model not the entire unit.

CmdrLaw
03-08-2010, 10:35
Certainly sound thinking Dhaemian, but its easily argued other ways.

I agree with what your saying except there really isn't any precedent for the WS 0 part.

Yrrdead
03-08-2010, 16:35
MoN does this.
While A targets B = -1WS to A

People want it to do this.
While B targets A = -1WS to A

Where B is MoN.



As far as the WS0 goes it doesn't need a precedent. It states what happens (a reduction in WS) it doesn't set up any conditionals. Though If you look at my last post they clearly put in a limit(to a minimum of 1 )in 7th. And just as conspicuously left it out in the 8th FAQ's.

Dhaemian
03-08-2010, 17:03
Well it does both actually. That's why I say it's a bit overpowered

To explain it I'll take a slightly different example.
Two units A and B with no mark where B has a character C with MoN who joined.

When A attacks (or gets attacked by) BC you have to choose who your attacks will resolve against B or C.
A decides all attacks target B then no -1WS.
A decides all attacks target C then -1WS.

Thus if it's just A versus B where B has MoN.
Then A always targets B be it when attacking or being attacked.


As far as the WS0 goes it doesn't need a precedent. It states what happens (a reduction in WS) it doesn't set up any conditionals. Though If you look at my last post they clearly put in a limit(to a minimum of 1 )in 7th. And just as conspicuously left it out in the 8th FAQ's.

Indeed no precedent needed.
People should forget the 7th and it's errata's as being of worth. It's nice for comparison but nothing more. Only the 8th and it's errata's are valid now.

ChrisIronBrow
03-08-2010, 19:19
MoN does this.
While A targets B = -1WS to A

People want it to do this.
While B targets A = -1WS to A

Where B is MoN.



As far as the WS0 goes it doesn't need a precedent. It states what happens (a reduction in WS) it doesn't set up any conditionals. Though If you look at my last post they clearly put in a limit(to a minimum of 1 )in 7th. And just as conspicuously left it out in the 8th FAQ's.


And what happens if A and B have the same initiative?

Yrrdead
04-08-2010, 00:41
And what happens if A and B have the same initiative?

That is an excellent question :D. And one of the reason's why we would be so bored if GW had better editors/playtesters.

Citadel97501
04-08-2010, 04:08
In there incredibly helpful way (Heavy Sarcasm), this is the email I received a couple days ago. . .

Hey there,

I am not quite sure that I could explain this in an e-mail without it getting lengthy and confusing, so here’s the remedy: if you can call us at 1-800-394-4263, we can get to the bottom of this quite quickly and effectively for you before we even hang up the phone!

Thanks!

Dave Swan
Customer Service Supervisor

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6211 East Holmes Road
Memphis, TN 38141
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM CST
Contact info:
1-800-394-4263
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com

ChrisIronBrow
04-08-2010, 05:08
That is an excellent question :D. And one of the reason's why we would be so bored if GW had better editors/playtesters.

Yeah.. Sometimes it's funny. Othertimes...

CmdrLaw
04-08-2010, 10:04
As far as the WS0 goes it doesn't need a precedent. It states what happens (a reduction in WS) it doesn't set up any conditionals. Though If you look at my last post they clearly put in a limit(to a minimum of 1 )in 7th. And just as conspicuously left it out in the 8th FAQ's.

I'm sorry i'm a little confused, what exactly are you saying happens with a WS0 model to hit and to be hit if you say it doesn't need a precedent?

Lungboy
04-08-2010, 10:39
It specifies that WS0 are hit automatically. It also gives an example of what happens with BS0 troops attacking, so i'd say go with that for WS0.

CmdrLaw
04-08-2010, 10:57
It specifies that WS0 are hit automatically. It also gives an example of what happens with BS0 troops attacking, so i'd say go with that for WS0.

Right managed to miss that completely, where can that rule be found?

Dhaemian
04-08-2010, 11:11
Right managed to miss that completely, where can that rule be found?

You will find this on page 4 of the rulebook.


And what happens if A and B have the same initiative?

Well that's one of those nice moments where you have to improvise. Blows in that case are simultaneous so I'd say before the game decide on how you resolve drawn initiative.
But keep in mind that in this case even if you kill an opponents men, they still get to participate in the rolls on that draw. (see page 50)

TMATK
04-08-2010, 15:18
In there incredibly helpful way (Heavy Sarcasm), this is the email I received a couple days ago. . .

Hey there,

I am not quite sure that I could explain this in an e-mail without it getting lengthy and confusing, so here’s the remedy: if you can call us at 1-800-394-4263, we can get to the bottom of this quite quickly and effectively for you before we even hang up the phone!

Thanks!

Dave Swan
Customer Service Supervisor

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6211 East Holmes Road
Memphis, TN 38141
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM CST
Contact info:
1-800-394-4263
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com

If you call, make sure you let us know what he says!

I imagine he'll give you one of the interpretations found in this thread, since it's the best they can do.

This issue needs to be faq'd, with a few crystal clear examples. AFAIC with this, everyone is right and wrong. Pick one solution for your group and roll with it in the meantime, the whole thing has been discussed to death with no solution.

Dhaemian
04-08-2010, 22:09
Been thinking about the whole WS0 with the book in front of me and I can only come to one conclusion.

WS0 is possible.
WS0 means you are automatically hit (BRB p4)
WS0 means you have no ability whatsoever for wielding CC weapons just as BS0 means you cannot use ranged weapons. So basically you CAN'T hit.

CmdrLaw
05-08-2010, 08:18
No offense but I really don't know how an american customer service representative can be a definitive rules source. Its a completely different division in a different country that determines the rules. The best they will do is come up with an interpretation.