PDA

View Full Version : Weapon Skill = 0 and attacks



lomore
20-08-2010, 23:12
I've found no answer for this in the rulebook or the faqs:

If a model/unit has its WS reduced to zero (fear test + Mark of Nurgle for example) can it attack?

The rulebook states that it's automatically hit and nothing else, but in the "to hit" chart there is no entry for attacks with WS0, so there is no number that would make you hit a target.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Tykinkuula
20-08-2010, 23:19
I'd say that since the book says about characteristics of 0 that "...they have no ability whatsoever in that skill" and the to hit-chart doesn't include such thign as ws 0, it's pretty evident that ws0 models are intended to not be able to attack.

lomore
20-08-2010, 23:34
It was my guess too, it would have been nice from GW to state that along with "and are automatically hit" ! :)

Lord Zarkov
20-08-2010, 23:35
The rulebook also says that a natural roll of a 6 always hits, so I'd go with that as nothing actually bans them from attacking (and they still have an attacks value).
Hitting on a 6 is also harder than any option on the chart

Tykinkuula
21-08-2010, 03:42
Hmm, that actually has a point. I didn't think about the natural 6 thing. Though two models with thwir ws reduced to 0 beating each other with autohits would seem rather funky.

Kampfpanzer
21-08-2010, 06:32
They have no WS though, regardless of attacks, just like if I don't have a BS, I can't attack with ranged weapons.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 07:33
Except for that little passage that says you can always hit on a 6 in CC...

Scalebug
21-08-2010, 11:27
Except for that little passage that says you can always hit on a 6 in CC...

Yeah... but I'm a bit sceptical, since that is really referring to modifiers to your to hit roll, and how it never can get worse than a natural 6... To catch any combos like "only hit on 6's" and "-1 to hit"... not the situation here, when you have WS 0 and don't even get to look up on the table what you need to roll to begin with...

theunwantedbeing
21-08-2010, 13:05
Except for that little passage that says you can always hit on a 6 in CC...

Thats not what that bit of the rules says. It's part of a much longer sentence so quoting it out of context doesnt make it a rule.

its like the following

You smell with your nose.
Now, if we ignore the unnessecary extra 3 words at the end it simply reads as
You smell

Clearly this is out of context and thats not what the sentnce says.
But if we pick and choose what we read we can make it seem like a childish insult. Same as how we can pick and choose the paragraph about rolling a natural 6 into a made up rule about always getting to roll to hit with ws0.

darkstar
21-08-2010, 14:19
after looking up the relevant rules, it seems that "[...]roll a D6 for each attack a model gets to make." is clear enough, and also "Sometimes modifiers apply to these rolls, but a natural dice score of 6 always hits..." is all clear enough to me. They hit on 6s

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 14:37
Hmm. Actually, after what Scalebug and theunwantedbeing said, I'm leaning towards RAW saying they don't attack.

Sorry TUB, I missed that bit... Somehow :shifty:

Tae
21-08-2010, 15:26
Important to remember that MoN only works one way.

So the models are not autmoatically hit, as they will have WS 1 (failed fear test) because MoN only kicks in once they attempt to attack a model with the mark.

So they will be able to defend themselves but potentially* not attack back.


*Potentially being I'm not entering the debate on that question, just highlighting an often overlooked aspect of MoN.

lomore
21-08-2010, 19:07
Important to remember that MoN only works one way.

So the models are not autmoatically hit, as they will have WS 1 (failed fear test) because MoN only kicks in once they attempt to attack a model with the mark.

So they will be able to defend themselves but potentially* not attack back.

Is that confirmed ? The italian version isnt that clear and it's something like "units in base contact with a model with MoN", so I assumed it works for the full combat round.

Tae
21-08-2010, 19:14
Is that confirmed ? The italian version isnt that clear and it's something like "units in base contact with a model with MoN", so I assumed it works for the full combat round.



ERRATA
Page 110 The Mark of Nurgle
Change the second paragraph to 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.

Yup, confirmed.

Taureus
21-08-2010, 19:28
Yup, confirmed.

It does not say "attacks made against models with the mark are at -1 WS."

It says "models that target him in CC are at -1 WS."

That is a big difference, taking into account how targeting works in Warhammer.

sergentzimm
24-08-2010, 02:06
If only they would use the words pulse and aura...

I am inclined to allow the attacks, as this seems like a crazy powerful loophole. It is a bit difficult to pull off, but still nasty. I am always against something that makes your opponent not be able to affect the combat, which is why I love step up.

Still with no official word, its up to us to deal with it. I am playing it as they get the attacks at 6+ personally.

Brother Siccarius
24-08-2010, 02:25
The wording has been switched around here. It says that something that is otherwise unable to attack at range will have a BS 0 or - not that a model with BS0 or - will be unable to shoot. Likewise page 4 covers the only way that models cannot attack in combat (A0 or -) and what happens when you have WS 0 or -.

EDMM
24-08-2010, 06:47
The new new new Mark of Nurgle does not say "while attacking." If a model ever targets a model with the Mark of Nurgle in close combat, they suffer a permanent -1 modifier to their WS.

Famder
24-08-2010, 07:02
The new new new Mark of Nurgle does not say "while attacking." If a model ever targets a model with the Mark of Nurgle in close combat, they suffer a permanent -1 modifier to their WS.

By that logic every combat phase they would receive another -1 if they attacked. Leaving them with a -2 on the second round of combat. It clearly states "any model targetting...suffers -1 WS." The models don't target an enemy when their being attacked so the -1 WS does not apply. It also says nowhere in the text that this penalty is permanent as you claim.

Paraelix
24-08-2010, 08:57
Try using a search function guys. This topic has arisen a multitude of times before. Ws 0 does not appear on any charts, and it is clearly defined that any stat of 0 means you cannot use it for anything- ergo auto fail tests or inability to attack.

TMATK
24-08-2010, 20:02
The topic has appeared multiple times with no clear solutions. It needs to be FAQ'd, despite how sure people are one way or the other.

My group has decided that MoN + fear means you need 6's to hit, no auto hits.

Getting auto-hit and no attacks is so dumb it makes my head hurt :P

knightime98
26-08-2010, 21:43
You know there is only 1 unit/model that I know for sure that gets auto hit.
To that, it is the Steam Tank. The army book says specifically that this happens.
So, GW had to go out of their way to make a point that a model/unit is auto hit by an army book entry. I have yet to see any other reference that suggests auto hits for being in Close Combat. Not to say that they exist and if they do then it will be in a strange situation that carries itself here. Ergo, Ws=0 vs MoN.. The Rulebook excludes this very unique situation. For a house rule if you will in the mean time, I'm with TMATK on the interim solution.

Scalebug
26-08-2010, 22:41
P. 4 of the rulebook, Knighttime98...

WS0 is autohit in close combat.

knightime98
26-08-2010, 23:28
Well then I guess that settles being hit then doesn't it.
In a 500+ page book it takes 3 weeks for some one to point that out. (Not you Scalebug, of course but it's been circulating in other threads and hasn't been mentioned thus far... So far as I can tell anyhow).

Sigh!

Good find though.

Lungboy
26-08-2010, 23:34
The issue isn't WS0 being autohit in combat, it's whether WS0 units can attack back.

knightime98
27-08-2010, 10:29
Just one itty bitty silly question.

What is the number of Attacks on the models profile?
If it is 0 then I'd agree they don't get to attack back.
Otherwise, I don't see your point.
The rule book says that you always hit on a 6.
Where's the argument?

This like arguing in the 6th edition that a Flame Cannon isn't a flaming attack just because it wasn't in the rules? Say what? Anyone who argues otherwise is just being stubborn. I wouldn't play with such a person. Just my thoughts anyhow.

Col. Frost
27-08-2010, 10:43
MoN gives a -1 modifier, so a natural 6 will always hit.

TheKingInYellow
27-08-2010, 14:58
Just one itty bitty silly question.

What is the number of Attacks on the models profile?
If it is 0 then I'd agree they don't get to attack back.
Otherwise, I don't see your point.
The rule book says that you always hit on a 6.
Where's the argument?

This like arguing in the 6th edition that a Flame Cannon isn't a flaming attack just because it wasn't in the rules? Say what? Anyone who argues otherwise is just being stubborn. I wouldn't play with such a person. Just my thoughts anyhow.

The argument is that number of attacks determines how many times you roll using your WS. If you have a 0 WS, you have no ability and *can not roll it and auto-fail*. You would still be able to use Stomp, for instance, because it does not require a roll using your WS.

a18no
27-08-2010, 15:56
Something weird guys:

If I DON'T attack the nurgle, i have WS 1 (providing fear test is missed), since the mark don't activate t'ill i actually ATTACK the wearer.

If I choose to attack, i hace WS0, so can't attack. But if I don't attack, i have WS1, so can attack.

We are in a loop hole right their. 1 of the effects CAN'T happen, since you can't have an effect that create a loop hole (I don't remember the pages).

So whatever you say, the guy can attack with WS1, so will probably hit on 5+ regarding other effect.

TheKingInYellow
27-08-2010, 17:04
No, the mark affects any one that *targets* a model, not *attacks*.

When you declare that you are attacking, the Mark takes effect -> WS 0 -> no attacks.

theorox
27-08-2010, 17:26
I'd say that since the book says about characteristics of 0 that "...they have no ability whatsoever in that skill" and the to hit-chart doesn't include such thign as ws 0, it's pretty evident that ws0 models are intended to not be able to attack.

Completely agreed. I have a hard time to see anything but that really...:wtf:

Theo

NixonAsADaemonPrince
27-08-2010, 17:39
P. 4 of the rulebook, Knighttime98...

WS0 is autohit in close combat.

But I don't think that that is the intent of the rules, as the errata has changed it too “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.”

So now the pure RAW is that if the model is eligible to strike before the model with MoN (and they have failed their fear test), then they would be at -1WS and thus WS0 for the rest of the combat phase (as it does not specify otherwise) they would carry out their attacks (which may auto miss, hit on 6 or whatever) and then the nurgle models would strike, hitting them automatically.

But if the models were eligible to strike after the model with the mark of nurgle, then they would not yet have been affected by the MoN as they have not yet targeted the model with the MoN, and so the model with the MoN would still need to roll to hit.

But I think the RAI is that the model affected by both fear and the MoN is at WS0 when attempting to attack, but at WS1 when be attacked itself, as the errata states that a model with MoN is difficult to TARGET, and it would seem strange that this would then make the model targeting the model with MoN easier to target themselves. It seems that way to me anyway.

On the matter of whether a model with WS0 can attack at all, I'd say no, as they have no skill what so ever in close combat, and BS0 mean your range attacks auto fail, so why not WS?

a18no
27-08-2010, 18:00
No, the mark affects any one that *targets* a model, not *attacks*.

When you declare that you are attacking, the Mark takes effect -> WS 0 -> no attacks.

If I don't declare an attack against a marked warrior, I'm not targeting him. Since you only became WS0 when you target/attack him, your are still doing something. The mark does nothing if I don't attack.

Following that, when you're not attacking/targeting him you're at WS1, you can attack, but can't attack cause if you do you're at WS0 so have no attack. So maybe the loop hole is created by the attack...

Following that, since, bye the RAW, you MUST attack if elligible (search, you'll find it), you are at WS1 when you choose to attack, but at WS 0 at the time you select the target. So the effect that cause the loop (and is not legal by the way), is the mark, so have no effect against a unit that miss the fear test.


Conclusion: as long as i'm not attacking (mean exactly the same as targeting with an attack), i'm at WS1 (you can't say otherwise, your FAQ say that). And by the rule, if I can attack I must attack, the rule that must be ignore is the mark, not the OBLIGATION to strike. Simple as that, don't try to make someone loose his attack, it's clearly not fair-play, and cheated by the rule p.2.

So, if someone failed fear test, he is at WS1 and the mark as no effect when the warriors is attacking AND when the ennemy is attacking the warriors.

Jericho
27-08-2010, 18:14
You can't choose to attack or not... I don't understand how there's a "loop hole" here.

It's not like "choosing" to attack would trigger the additional -1WS and prevent you from attacking, and being "forced" to attack wouldn't. The MoN as written right now means that models with WS1 will be reduced to 0 and unable to attack. Models in the unit that are also engaged by enemy models lacking the MoN could attack them instead with WS1, but the attacks against the Nurgle unit would always fail.

I think the bigger question in all this is what happens when the enemy unit is striking on the same or higher initiative than the Nurgle-marked unit. The return attacks happen after or at the same time, and the FAQ errata no longer says it only applies on the attack roll itself. Possibly allowing the Nurgle unit to hit them on 3+ when they wouldn't normally.

I can't believe that they can't get this rule right. "When rolling to hit a model with the Mark of Nurgle in close combat, the attack is resolved with -1WS (to a minimum of 1)." How hard is that?

a18no
27-08-2010, 18:22
You can't choose to attack or not... I don't understand how there's a "loop hole" here.

It's not like "choosing" to attack would trigger the additional -1WS and prevent you from attacking, and being "forced" to attack wouldn't. The MoN as written right now means that models with WS1 will be reduced to 0 and unable to attack. Models in the unit that are also engaged by enemy models lacking the MoN could attack them instead with WS1, but the attacks against the Nurgle unit would always fail.



Your problem is here. As long as i'm not attacking a marked warriors, I'm at WS1. If I stay there looking stupid at him, i'm at WS1, if you say that I CAN'T attack, I HAVE WS1.

You are creating a loop hole just there. If I don't attack, I have WS1 and so MUST attacks, but at the time I choose my target I have ws0 (following your interpretation), so can't attack.




I can't believe that they can't get this rule right. "When rolling to hit a model with the Mark of Nurgle in close combat, the attack is resolved with -1WS (to a minimum of 1)." How hard is that?

And it's exactly the only way to play it. Their is no other way to play it.

EXCEPT that by not including that sentence, they entered a "obscure" ruling: If you are touching a marked warrior (nurgle), and someone not marked by nurgle, providing you missed the fear test, you MUST attack the guy that is not marked by nurgle, if you can (let say a Hero who have a khorne mark in the nurgle marked unit), because if you CHOOSE to attack the nurgle warrior, it's now the attacker that is creating the loop hole. But as long as you MUST attack the nurgle warrior, you ignore the mark cause it's the mark that create the loop hole.

Taureus
27-08-2010, 22:56
Your problem is here. As long as i'm not attacking a marked warriors, I'm at WS1. If I stay there looking stupid at him, i'm at WS1, if you say that I CAN'T attack, I HAVE WS1.

You are creating a loop hole just there. If I don't attack, I have WS1 and so MUST attacks, but at the time I choose my target I have ws0 (following your interpretation), so can't attack.

If you choose not to attack, you won't be hit automatically.

But you won't get to attack with WS 1 later on...


And it's exactly the only way to play it. Their is no other way to play it.

EXCEPT that by not including that sentence, they entered a "obscure" ruling: If you are touching a marked warrior (nurgle), and someone not marked by nurgle, providing you missed the fear test, you MUST attack the guy that is not marked by nurgle, if you can (let say a Hero who have a khorne mark in the nurgle marked unit), because if you CHOOSE to attack the nurgle warrior, it's now the attacker that is creating the loop hole. But as long as you MUST attack the nurgle warrior, you ignore the mark cause it's the mark that create the loop hole.

Except they changed the FAQ and removed the "to a minimum of 1" line. So the Mark can reduce WS to 0.

Not sure what you are trying to say with the last paragraph...

Yrrdead
27-08-2010, 23:55
MoN + Failed Fear = can't attack the MoN models.

The MoN marked models attack them at WS1(Failed Fear).

NixonAsADaemonPrince
28-08-2010, 00:02
MoN + Failed Fear = can't attack the MoN models.

The MoN marked models attack them at WS1(Failed Fear).

Yep I'd say that is the intended and logical application of the rule.

knightime98
28-08-2010, 09:34
It seems to me that there are 2 camps.

You have the Woc players

and you have the rest of us.

The Woc players want their cake AND ice cream AND eat it with cherries on top!

The rest of us just want to play a game where there are no shenanigans!

I'm claiming Shenanigans!

The FAQ will read something like this, "when referring to pg. xxx in context to fear/terror, if a model and/or unit fail their fear test thier WS will be reduced to 1, WHICH CAN NOT BE AFFECTED any further by any other means (spells, abilities, Marks of nurge, etc..), and they strike last"

Then you will hear WoC players cry a river as they are already sulking over this as if it were the end of the world.

Tired of people crying over something that so trivial in the first place.

The easiest thing to do is to ask the WoC player - Show in the Rule book where it says if you have WS 0 you can not hit?

The answer is, - he can not.

I can show you in the rule book that you can ALWAYS hit on a 6!

So, stop with your crying as it is in the rule book!!!!!!!

Edit: And if you don't like that one.. Here's another for you. Ok, so - I'm WS1 because of fear.
I attack you and I'm WS0.. Hmmm. OH Wait, the Fear rule says I"m WS1 so, I'm WS 1 again...
Or if you don't like that.. My WS base is 3.. Ok now, I'm WS 2 because of MoN.. but wait, I now have fear so I'm WS 1..
Knock if off already! - I'll compromise with hitting on a 6!

geldedgoat
28-08-2010, 09:55
Mark of Nurgle is the most expensive mark for every single unit entry in the army book and deserves more than -1 to hit at ranged and -1 WS (to a minimum of 1) in close combat. That's the way the 7th edition errata read, and it made the mark ridiculously overcosted. Now, however, GW has rewritten the rule, making it unnecessarily obscure, to the point that people can convincingly argue their way into inflicting WS0 in close combat. This makes the mark ridiculously undercosted.

Until GW pulls their heads out of their asses, I'll suggest a much simpler interpretation to my Nurgle WoC opponents: -1 to hit at range and -1 to hit in close combat. That's more than reasonable for the price. And this is coming from a Tzeentch-dedicated WoC player.

Lungboy
28-08-2010, 11:08
Maybe GW were being clever and factored in the likelihood of having a BSB nearby in 8th to reroll the fear test.

Taureus
28-08-2010, 22:15
It seems to me that there are 2 camps.

You have the Woc players

and you have the rest of us.

The Woc players want their cake AND ice cream AND eat it with cherries on top!

The rest of us just want to play a game where there are no shenanigans!

I'm claiming Shenanigans!

The FAQ will read something like this, "when referring to pg. xxx in context to fear/terror, if a model and/or unit fail their fear test thier WS will be reduced to 1, WHICH CAN NOT BE AFFECTED any further by any other means (spells, abilities, Marks of nurge, etc..), and they strike last"

They already released FAQs, and this was not mentioned.

They did however remove the limitation on MoN reducing WS to less than 1. This was intended. You can't argue against that, because that's how they changed the rules for MoN this time around.


Then you will hear WoC players cry a river as they are already sulking over this as if it were the end of the world.

Tired of people crying over something that so trivial in the first place.

You're rather impertinent and rude.


The easiest thing to do is to ask the WoC player - Show in the Rule book where it says if you have WS 0 you can not hit?

The answer is, - he can not.

Having no skill for having an attribute of 0. You're just choosing to disregard that part of the rules.


I can show you in the rule book that you can ALWAYS hit on a 6!

So, stop with your crying as it is in the rule book!!!!!!!

Assuming that you could even make those attacks in the first place. Which you cannot.


Edit: And if you don't like that one.. Here's another for you. Ok, so - I'm WS1 because of fear.
I attack you and I'm WS0.. Hmmm. OH Wait, the Fear rule says I"m WS1 so, I'm WS 1 again...
Or if you don't like that.. My WS base is 3.. Ok now, I'm WS 2 because of MoN.. but wait, I now have fear so I'm WS 1..
Knock if off already! - I'll compromise with hitting on a 6!

You don't create an endless loop of having Fear reset your WS to 1. Failing the Fear test puts you at WS 1. MoN gives you a -1 penalty to WS. Putting you at WS 0.

How hard is that to understand exactly?

TMATK
29-08-2010, 01:24
You don't create an endless loop of having Fear reset your WS to 1. Failing the Fear test puts you at WS 1. MoN gives you a -1 penalty to WS. Putting you at WS 0.

How hard is that to understand exactly?

Getting no attacks back is so obviously broken, at least to most of us, that we know it can't be right.

theunwantedbeing
29-08-2010, 01:33
Getting no attacks back is so obviously broken, at least to most of us, that we know it can't be right.

However it's not the fact that ws0 would result in being unable to attack that is the issue at hand,
it's that the mark or nurgle needs that clause of "to a minimum of 1" reinstated.

Brother Siccarius
29-08-2010, 02:09
Try using a search function guys. This topic has arisen a multitude of times before. Ws 0 does not appear on any charts, and it is clearly defined that any stat of 0 means you cannot use it for anything- ergo auto fail tests or inability to attack.


Well then I guess that settles being hit then doesn't it.
In a 500+ page book it takes 3 weeks for some one to point that out. (Not you Scalebug, of course but it's been circulating in other threads and hasn't been mentioned thus far... So far as I can tell anyhow).

Sigh!

Good find though.
I pointed it out in the first page
(see below)

The wording has been switched around here. It says that something that is otherwise unable to attack at range will have a BS 0 or - not that a model with BS0 or - will be unable to shoot. Likewise page 4 covers the only way that models cannot attack in combat (A0 or -) and what happens when you have WS 0 or -.


No, the mark affects any one that *targets* a model, not *attacks*.

When you declare that you are attacking, the Mark takes effect -> WS 0 -> no attacks.
To target a model you have to be making an attack, so the illogic loop applies.

---------------

However having 0 attacks is the only way that you cannot attack. Having 0 WS only means that you are auto-hit. These are the only parts addressed by the rulebook, and saying that the rulebook doesn't address it is wrong. It does address the issue, it gives the answers, but it's up to the readers to be willing to accept the rules as they are.
The only downside from 0 WS is being unable to defend yourself. You can still attack as long as you have at least 1 attack on your profile as the only method of being unable to attack is having 0 attacks. All attacks in combat hit on a 6+. This is by the rulebook, these are the rules.

Taureus
29-08-2010, 06:20
However having 0 attacks is the only way that you cannot attack. Having 0 WS only means that you are auto-hit. These are the only parts addressed by the rulebook, and saying that the rulebook doesn't address it is wrong. It does address the issue, it gives the answers, but it's up to the readers to be willing to accept the rules as they are.
The only downside from 0 WS is being unable to defend yourself. You can still attack as long as you have at least 1 attack on your profile as the only method of being unable to attack is having 0 attacks. All attacks in combat hit on a 6+. This is by the rulebook, these are the rules.

The rule regarding always hitting on a 6 deals with penalties to hit (not penalties to weapon skill).

How does not having any skill (WS 0) allow you to make attacks at all? :shifty:

The rulebook does not address this issue, other than the note about having BS 0 (which is the same thing as having WS 0, it just affects ranged attacks in place of close combat attacks).

frapermax
29-08-2010, 09:52
I say Let the opponent hit you on 6's.
What the hell is everybody so afraid of?
Keep the game flowing, let people roll dice, give them the hope of a roll with 10 6's in there, give yourself a little suspense. It's a game. I would never play again against people who try to milk every rule to the extreme. They remind me of multinationals in third world countries. Rules are just something to give some direction, if they are not clear, let humanity kick in, not greed.
Play on
FPM

Lazarian
29-08-2010, 22:44
I say Let the opponent hit you on 6's.
What the hell is everybody so afraid of?
Keep the game flowing, let people roll dice, give them the hope of a roll with 10 6's in there, give yourself a little suspense. It's a game. I would never play again against people who try to milk every rule to the extreme. They remind me of multinationals in third world countries. Rules are just something to give some direction, if they are not clear, let humanity kick in, not greed.
Play on
FPM

Quite true, trying to squeeze the life out of a friendly game attempting to draw any chance of your opponent away seems a bit underhanded. Even if you in good nature came to this conclusion after reading this thread I would hope that you would see it is a tad bit unseemly to force this on someone. Hopefully when those of you who are arguing for this play you dont seriously hammer some unfortunate with this, only bust it out on some WAAC jerk who is trying mental gymnastics of his own.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
29-08-2010, 23:32
Quite true, trying to squeeze the life out of a friendly game attempting to draw any chance of your opponent away seems a bit underhanded. Even if you in good nature came to this conclusion after reading this thread I would hope that you would see it is a tad bit unseemly to force this on someone. Hopefully when those of you who are arguing for this play you dont seriously hammer some unfortunate with this, only bust it out on some WAAC jerk who is trying mental gymnastics of his own.

Yes, I'd agree with this. Though I think WS0 would allow no attacks, I think it is unreasonable in a friendly game to enforce this. As you say, this should be kept for those games versus rules lawyers.

What people also need to remember though is that this will be a rare situation, as you will need a fear causing unit with MoN (and with MoN not exactly a great mark otherwise, there aren't that many going around me thinks) and then the opponent to fail their fear test on typically rerollable Ld. Though I'm still in favour of letting people hit on a 6 in friendly games.

a18no
30-08-2010, 01:41
I say Let the opponent hit you on 6's.
What the hell is everybody so afraid of?
Keep the game flowing, let people roll dice, give them the hope of a roll with 10 6's in there, give yourself a little suspense. It's a game. I would never play again against people who try to milk every rule to the extreme. They remind me of multinationals in third world countries. Rules are just something to give some direction, if they are not clear, let humanity kick in, not greed.
Play on
FPM

Except the 6 is always hit yes. When the ennemy is giving you -1 to HIT. The mark say you are at -1WS.

If the opponent miss his fear test on a nurgle warrior, he hit on 5+.

That's the point, and the reason WoC are complaining.

The RAW is clear:
0A = can't attack
0WS = hit automaticly.

Prove me that 0WS = can't attack, by a RAW and i'll give it to you, without that, they hit on 5+. Sorry for you.

The point is that WOC player are using RAI to create a breaking rule that is clearly not fair-play. And you'll NEVER find a juge to approve you, unless he play WoC too.

Citadel97501
30-08-2010, 02:03
The point is that WOC player are using RAI to create a breaking rule that is clearly not fair-play. And you'll NEVER find a juge to approve you, unless he play WoC too.

Really, I detest people arguing against the rules in this way its supported by everyone at my local game store, including our judges. Now many of don't like it but we can't really argue against it, with the current errata.

Most people who "read" the section on WS dropping to 0, or the example of BS being 0, agree that you can't make attacks of that type, if the skill drops to 0.

The only argument that has any bearing on the matter is whether there should be another round of errata for the Mark of Nurgle, which I happen to believe would be a good thing.

geldedgoat
30-08-2010, 07:35
I honestly can't understand why GW doesn't just let the original army book wording stand or make a simple errata of -1 to hit for ranged and close combat attacks. Both are very easy to understand, and both are very balanced in terms of cost.

TMATK
30-08-2010, 07:50
You don't create an endless loop of having Fear reset your WS to 1. Failing the Fear test puts you at WS 1. MoN gives you a -1 penalty to WS. Putting you at WS 0.

How hard is that to understand exactly?

Thinking about, it's possible GW intended fear tests to put you to WS 1, regardless of MoN modifier. So an Orc with WS 3 is WS 2 when targeting a Chaos Knight of Nurgle. If he fails his fear test, he's WS 1, not 0.

Really, is there anything that tells us when to apply the -1?

Yrrdead
30-08-2010, 08:11
Really, is there anything that tells us when to apply the -1?

Sure, the sequencing isn't in question.

See the rules for fear (pg 69). They specify when to apply fear. Which is at the start of the close combat round.

MoN doesn't kick in until you target a model that has MoN.

Now we could have a discussion about when exactly targeting occurs, since this term isn't used at all in the close combat section of the BRB but it doesn't really matter in this case. As it seems clear that Fear happens before anything else.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
30-08-2010, 10:44
Thinking about, it's possible GW intended fear tests to put you to WS 1, regardless of MoN modifier. So an Orc with WS 3 is WS 2 when targeting a Chaos Knight of Nurgle. If he fails his fear test, he's WS 1, not 0.

Really, is there anything that tells us when to apply the -1?

And if they wanted that to be the case, why didn't GW simply leave the bit about to a minimum of 1 in the FAQ? (Obviously they could have just made a mistake, but if they did they still haven't sorted it).

Lungboy
30-08-2010, 10:52
I honestly can't understand why GW doesn't just let the original army book wording stand or make a simple errata of -1 to hit for ranged and close combat attacks. Both are very easy to understand, and both are very balanced in terms of cost.

Indeed. It doesn't help that they left Archaon's Mark of Nurgle with the old wording.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
30-08-2010, 14:08
I just rang up my local store to see if there is some to contact GW to get some kind of answer to this issue, and he said that there wasn't, and for the query itself all I got was the usual "agree with your opponent before the battle". Do any of you guys from other countries (I'm in the UK) know of a way to get in contact (I thought someone in America phoned some kind of district guy about a rules query recently, think it was whether monstrous cavalry get monstrous support) so we can some kind of official guidance on the matter (don't worry, I'm not taking this as seriously as it sounds I am ;)).

Cheers.

jamano
30-08-2010, 14:37
Why do you think WS 0 means you can't attack? your ability to attack is solely determined by having more than 0 attacks on your profile, nothing about weapon skill. It says (paraphrased) "each model may make a number of attacks equal to the number of attacks on its profile" not "each model with 1 or higher weapon skill"

NixonAsADaemonPrince
30-08-2010, 15:19
Why do you think WS 0 means you can't attack? your ability to attack is solely determined by having more than 0 attacks on your profile, nothing about weapon skill. It says (paraphrased) "each model may make a number of attacks equal to the number of attacks on its profile" not "each model with 1 or higher weapon skill"

Well you would be able to attack, but you would auto miss as the to hit chart doesn't include WS0, and BS0 auto misses.

jamano
30-08-2010, 16:30
but doesn't a 6 always hit? You can't really relate BS and WS, theyre similar but ranged and close combat attacks are completely different.

a18no
30-08-2010, 17:02
So, 2 possibilty to see it:

1- Nothing prevent someone to fight except having 0 attack. So i can attack with WS0
1a) hit on 5+, cause the table show that nothing can hit on less than 5+, except when you have penalty to HIT, in that case you hit at least on 6+
1b) hit on 6+ cause the table don't cover the 0WS case, since 6+ is always a hit

2- Having WS0 = no attack
2a) can't attack
2b) both effect happen at the same time, so the player choose which activate first. So if i miss the fear test on your turn, you choose that i got fear then nurgle, so can't attack. But on my turn i choose nurgle first then fear, so i can attack with WS1


Pick what you want. But for me, 2 is cleary not fair play at all AND against the rule, remember the only case you can't attack is with A=0, not WS=0. So 2 is only an interpretation of the rule to go in line with what WoC want.

For me, the RAW is clear with 1a), but you play what you agree with your opponent.

TheKingInYellow
30-08-2010, 19:26
In case 1a you are referencing the table that shows that nothing can hit on less than a 5+... This is the SAME TABLE that shows no possibility of attacks at WS0!

Taureus
30-08-2010, 19:31
but doesn't a 6 always hit? You can't really relate BS and WS, theyre similar but ranged and close combat attacks are completely different.

Having an attribute of 0 in any case is identical. That stat cannot be used.

S/T 0 cause the model to die (Curse of the Leper specifically says this...not sure about the GBRB). Initiative 0 means you strike last, unless you have ASF.


So, 2 possibilty to see it:

1- Nothing prevent someone to fight except having 0 attack. So i can attack with WS0
1a) hit on 5+, cause the table show that nothing can hit on less than 5+, except when you have penalty to HIT, in that case you hit at least on 6+
1b) hit on 6+ cause the table don't cover the 0WS case, since 6+ is always a hit

2- Having WS0 = no attack
2a) can't attack
2b) both effect happen at the same time, so the player choose which activate first. So if i miss the fear test on your turn, you choose that i got fear then nurgle, so can't attack. But on my turn i choose nurgle first then fear, so i can attack with WS1


Pick what you want. But for me, 2 is cleary not fair play at all AND against the rule, remember the only case you can't attack is with A=0, not WS=0. So 2 is only an interpretation of the rule to go in line with what WoC want.

For me, the RAW is clear with 1a), but you play what you agree with your opponent.

Where on the chart is WS 0?

That's right, it's not there. And because you have a penalty to WS, not your 'to hit' roll, you won't automatically hit on 6s.

And they do not happen at the same time, so you wouldn't get to take the penalty first and then make the fear test.

What rule does #2 violate? Where does it say that a model with attacks > 0 may always attack, regardless of any magic items/special rules/abilities in effect on them?

You won't find that, because it does not exist.

Korraz
30-08-2010, 19:41
S/T 0 cause the model to die (Curse of the Leper specifically says this...not sure about the GBRB). Initiative 0 means you strike last, unless you have ASF.



Can't findy anything in the BRB, but the only cases where you can lower someone to 0 S/T mention that the unit will die, AFAIK.

itcamefromthedeep
30-08-2010, 20:34
The assertion that models with a WS of 0 don't get Attacks doesn't follow.

Having "no ability" in Weapon Skill implies that the attacker gets Attacks, but that those Attacks automatically miss. Weapon Skill is used to determine whether you hit, not how many dice you roll. The "ROLL TO HIT" heading (their caps) on page 50 tells you to roll one die for each Attack. It then tells you that Weapon Skill is used to determine whether or not that Attack will hit.

We have a conflict between "auto-miss" and "6s always hit". As with any rule, the specific case beats the general case. However, it's hard to tell which is supposed to be which in this situation. If the Mark of Nurgle specifically handled this case then we'd be set, but instead we have two corner-case rules in conflict.

Another principle of rules interpretation is that if two rules conflict, use the rule that is printed later in the book. In this case, that's the one on page 50, giving natural 6s precedence (as opposed to "CHARCTERISTICS OF ZERO" on page 4). This isn't the normal usage of that principle, however. It normally applies to more specific rules given later in a section or paragraph. However, since the rules for *using* Weapon Skill are indeed just above the "natural 6" rule on page 50, then it is correctly applied in this case.

It can be argued that the Mark of Nurgle is a modifier to Weapon Skill, not the roll to hit. I do not find that compelling, however. Reducing one's capacity to hit is a modifier in my books. That would trigger the "regardless of modifiers"* clause on page 50.

*It isn't phrased that way, but that's the intent. See it for yourself.

---

Using Criti's rule of interpretation, if there is an honest ambiguity then players should err on the side of the weaker interpretation of the rule. Such is the choice of good sportsmanship. In this case, allowing natural 6s is weaker than ignoring Attacks completely.

Rules that are weaker than they are supposed to be can simply be ignored along with other weak options. Rules that are stronger than intended, however, will be disproportionately common in army lists and make the game overall more lame.

TMATK
30-08-2010, 21:53
This thread/argument appears to be in an endless loop. :P

theunwantedbeing
30-08-2010, 22:11
Such is the choice of good sportsmanship. In this case, allowing natural 6s is weaker than ignoring Attacks completely.

I'de of thought good sportsmanship would be using the previous errata'd rule for the mark of nurgle from 7th edition.

Which was..
When rolling to hit against a model with the Mark of Nurgle, the attacker suffers -1 to it's Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill, to a minimum of 1.

Neatly avoiding the whole weaponskill 0 issue.

Why they had to go and make up a whole new version rather than copy&paste the old version I don't know.

geldedgoat
31-08-2010, 00:40
Why they had to go and make up a whole new version rather than copy&paste the old version I don't know.

My hope is that they realized how worthless and needlessly overcosted that revision made the Mark of Nurgle.

theunwantedbeing
31-08-2010, 01:21
My hope is that they realized how worthless and needlessly overcosted that revision made the Mark of Nurgle.

Considering it's -1 to hit with shooting and tends to mean your rarely ever hit on a 4+ (and often on a 5+) I don't see the issue personally.

They could have kept the rule and just added in a clause of the weaponskill reduction being to a minimum of 1.

Taureus
31-08-2010, 02:09
Rules that are weaker than they are supposed to be can simply be ignored along with other weak options. Rules that are stronger than intended, however, will be disproportionately common in army lists and make the game overall more lame.

And thus, you can play however you want to on that note.

And everyone else can play however they like.

I could care less, since I won't be standing across the table from all you rule-ignorers.

geldedgoat
31-08-2010, 02:58
Considering it's -1 to hit with shooting and tends to mean your rarely ever hit on a 4+ (and often on a 5+) I don't see the issue personally.

If the modifier applied to all ranged attacks, maybe.

Keep in mind, though, the Mark of Nurgle is the most expensive mark for every unit that can take it. More expensive than shield-bearing, Tzeentchian Warriors and Marauders with their newly granted 5++ parry ward save. Tied with ASF Slaaneshi Giants for the most expensive. Tied with Khornate Knights for the most expensive.

And for what? A modifier to certain ranged units that most armies have only a few of, if any at all, that will cease to be a factor after the second or third turn when most things are in close combat. And once they see close combat, that -1 WS on only incoming attacks will likely have no effect as most units from most armies don't have the appropriate WS5-6.


They could have kept the rule and just added in a clause of the weaponskill reduction being to a minimum of 1.

I somewhat agree. No matter the way they revise the rule, as long as it modifies WS, it should do so to a minimum of 1.

itcamefromthedeep
31-08-2010, 05:02
I could care less, since I won't be standing across the table from all you rule-ignorers.What I meant was that if a unit is weak, you can simply not field it, such that it being weak doesn't come up in a game, so that it being weak doesn't matter (as it's not on the field).

I did not mean to imply that rules should be selectively disregarded on the tabletop. I'm sorry for being unclear if you misunderstood.


I'de of thought good sportsmanship would be using the previous errata'd rule for the mark of nurgle from 7th edition.
That would be fine if you and your opponent are amenable to such a house rule. I'm amenable to that idea.

AussieLauren
31-08-2010, 07:13
I think one of the reasons that the errata was changed was that previously nothing was supposed to lower your characteristic to less than 1, but at least in the case of BS there is now a rule for "BS 0".

Unfortunately not making a similar rule or clarification for WS is BS. Or making the "flavour-style" text talking about no ability in the skill more specific.

knightime98
31-08-2010, 07:36
My hope is that they realized how worthless and needlessly overcosted that revision made the Mark of Nurgle.

Over Costed??? <=== What is your definition of over costed?

At least you (as a WoC player) have the option to kit your unit out in a multitude of different lay outs. umm, yes today, I want a ward save, ah ok- I just take a Tzeentch mark, umm tomorrow, I want to be hit less so, I take the Mark of Nurgle, The day after - I want to hit more so I'll take the Mark of Khorne and so on.. Now that I have one buff, let's give one unit the Eye of the Gods roll. Now, that unit also gets (anything listed on the Eye of Gods chart).. Ok, now let's give that same unit a magic banner! Oh, the banner that gives them a 4+ Ward Save vs shooting (and if you have mark of tzeentch, it is now a 3+ Ward, oh and an eye of the gods favor that makes it even less!)..
This reminds me of a bank robber.. Simply put, more is NEVER enough!
This is what the WoC players want.. DoC had it in 7th edition and to a smaller extent still do but they got toned down just a bit. WoC will do absolutely amazing this edition. Step-up rule, High Armor saves, multi buff's as described, Lowest WS is a 4? maybe with marauders?, Insane Tzeentch magic, 2 of the greatest magic items infernal puppet and the Black Tongue, Oh and you are in combat by Turn 2 no matter what, Hell Cannon!

Go to Staples and buy the "Easy" button because that is what WoC is now. Put them on the board and claim your win!

- End Rant -

SERIOUSLY! get over it!

Man, I'm done with this pathetic thread. Reminds me of night gobbos squabbling on whose going to run off the table first!

geldedgoat
31-08-2010, 08:42
Over Costed??? <=== What is your definition of over costed?

...well my very next post in this thread gave three comparisons that I believe suggest that the Mark of Nurgle under the 7th edition errata was overcosted.


At least you (as a WoC player) have the option to kit your unit out in a multitude of different lay outs. [...]

I don't understand your point here. Doesn't every army have access to the counts as rule? What makes WoC special in this regard?


umm, yes today, I want a ward save, ah ok- I just take a Tzeentch mark, umm tomorrow, I want to be hit less so, I take the Mark of Nurgle [...]

If you head over to this thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272244) you'll see that I firmly oppose mixing marks for the sole purpose of min-maxing. However, that doesn't preclude me from wanting all the marks to be balanced and equally competitive.


Go to Staples and buy the "Easy" button because that is what WoC is now.

Some players apparently do, yes, but I'm curious why you quoted one of my posts to begin this spiel.

AussieLauren
31-08-2010, 08:59
Go to Staples and buy the "Easy" button because that is what WoC is now. Put them on the board and claim your win!

- End Rant -

SERIOUSLY! get over it!

Man, I'm done with this pathetic thread. Reminds me of night gobbos squabbling on whose going to run off the table first!

Actually, I think you put the end rant in the wrong place there.

On-topic: Is there any way to actually submit these questions to the dev team and get them adressed in an official FAQ? Coming from a spin at malifaux, it just seems so messy (As opposed to having an official forum with official responses to rules queries, usually within hours if not days.)

Korraz
31-08-2010, 10:11
Go to Staples and buy the "Easy" button because that is what WoC is now. Put them on the board and claim your win!


That's not exactly news, is it? WoC were always basically the Marines of WHFB. :)