PDA

View Full Version : 'my will be done' vs nurgle



Pavisel
15-03-2012, 17:01
last week at the lgs, two of the guys got into a big argument about conflicting rules. tomb kings against chaos. a unit of skellies with tomb king, who by virtue of 'my will be done' conveys his WS6 to his unit. battling unmarked chaos warriors led by hero. the chaos hero had the gift/ability/magic item? that put everyone in base contact with him at -1WS. the argument was over which one takes precedence - does the -1WS apply to the skellies WS2, making them WS1, then the king makes them WS6 or does the king make them WS6 then the chaos hero adds his -1 to make them WS5? bear in mind, the king and chaos hero were not in base contact.

Poncho160
15-03-2012, 17:16
If the Tomb King was not in base to base, his weapon skill would be 6, which would pass to the skellies. The Skellies in btb would them be made WS 5 by the -1.

Dont see there is much to argue about really! haha

Iraf
15-03-2012, 17:22
Those in base contact with Nurgle marked models are NOT -1 WS. Models which attack Nurgle marked models are -1 WS, and only when they attack, they are normal WS when attacked back.

Warrior of Chaos
15-03-2012, 18:09
Those in base contact with Nurgle marked models are NOT -1 WS. Models which attack Nurgle marked models are -1 WS, and only when they attack, they are normal WS when attacked back.

Iraf is correct here.

Paladin21
15-03-2012, 18:10
Probably needs an FAQ, to be honest, judging by the old answer for the VC Helm. Their item did basically the same thing (in end-function, if not exactly the same restrictions) and was FAQ'd to overrule any other modifier. They always got the WS of the controlling vampire, regardless of any modifiers which would affect the troops. I'm not sure if they want to keep that precedent, but they should at least clarify.

Warrior of Chaos
15-03-2012, 18:24
No FAQ needed. It is very clear in the WoC Armybook what mark of Nurgle does. In a nutshell if you make an attack that uses WS or BS against a Nurgle marked model you take a -1 penalty to that skill (WS/BS). You DO NOT take a penalty when attacked by a Nurgle marked model. For the OP, my will be done would only matter if you were attacking his marked hero. The undivided models with no mark don't even come into the equation. If you attack his Nurgle marked hero you are at -1WS (for the model making the attack - so in this case you would be at WS5 with the King or the skellies). Finally Marks are not magic items or gifts. Just a unit upgrade you pay for to "buff" your unit/character.

Bloodedsoul
15-03-2012, 19:29
The way I understood it is they always used the kings unmodified WS no matter what, ignoring penelties and bonuses. Really hope I haven't been playing that wrong.

Iraf
15-03-2012, 19:42
My Will transfers unmodified WS, but once transferred nothing stops it from being modified. They have WS 6, and WS 5 when attacking Nurgle.

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2012, 19:48
It'd be nice if the core rules addressed this sort of thing in a definitive sort of way.

Personally, the way I see it is that you make any substitutions before you perform any modifiers. The most obvious example is Ld - I'm going to work out what Ld my unit uses and then I'm going to apply the modifiers. This has been supported by the Daemon FAQ on the Ld bomb. Your goblins are within range of the orc general (Ld 9) but under the effect of Doom and Darkness (-3 Ld). What's their Ld? It's 6, right?

I think the same logic applies to tomb kings (or fencer's blades, or whatever), you substitute the characteristic for the best available, then you apply any relevant modifiers.

Bloodedsoul: it does indeed say they use the king's unmodified WS, but I'm not sure that they can't have it modified after that. I assume the "unmodified" is to prevent you sticking fencer's blades on the King and then getting WS10 tomb guard. They get the kings unmodified WS as their modifiable WS. That'd be my interpretation but I can see this could possibly be argued the other way though.

Bloodedsoul
15-03-2012, 20:41
Thanks, seems fair enough way to play it anyway, I just never thought of it like that is all, makes sense though.

thesoundofmusica
16-03-2012, 12:03
I agree with LI. First establish WS, then add modifiers.

warhammero
16-03-2012, 14:53
Unmodifyed ws. Nothing can modify. Thats the same case with the sword that gives ws 10 to the king the weapon skill of the skelies is 6 because unmodify ws.
The tomb kings become 5 but and because the rule "unmodify Ws" the skellies always has WS6 no matter wath even if we cast the spell speed of light in this unit the king has WS 10 but the skellies only the unmodify WS OF THE KING WS 6

I hope that this two examples clarify the unmodify WS rule.

Iraf
16-03-2012, 14:57
No, he gives His unmodified, it's not unmodified once they have it.

warhammero
16-03-2012, 18:32
Unmodified means unmodified. Not + or - of any source aply

Iraf
16-03-2012, 18:38
Giving you his unmodified means just that, you get his unmodified. No one can modify what he gives you. After you have it though, you own it. And nowhere does it say that their WS is unmodified.

Iraf
16-03-2012, 19:12
Like LI said earlier though, I can see your argument also. I'd "Most Important Rule" it until FAQd

warplock
16-03-2012, 23:51
Unmodified means unmodified. Not + or - of any source aply

The king has ws6, he has to pass that on to the skeletons, thats his WS and no one can take that away from him (when he passes it to his skeletons).
So now they have ws6.
Nothing stops THEIR WS (WS6, they got it from their king!) from being modified now. -1? Now they're WS5 honestly.

Warrior of Chaos
17-03-2012, 00:16
Unmodified means unmodified. Not + or - of any source aply

All stating "unmodified" does in the example of transfer of WS from the King to the Skellies is specify that his "base" WS is transferred. It protects against abuse such as putting Fencer's Blades on the King and transferring WS10 to all the Skellies. There is no reason or rule that would prevent modification of that base WS once the Skellies have it. If that was the case you might have entire effects, spells, items and the like which are negated simply by a literal reading of the term "unmodified" and blanket application of the term to a concept.

Grimgormx
17-03-2012, 00:27
In this one Im with Iraf completely.

Also as has been said, unmodified is the base ws of the king so the skellies will be ws 6 even if the king attacks the character with the nurgle rule and his WS gets -1 (WS5) the skellis will keep their WS 6 unless they also attack the character with the nurgle rule.

Glen_Savet
17-03-2012, 07:41
Does it become a timing issue? They're given ws 6, have it reduced by mark of nurge, or have it reduced, then are given ws 6?

geldedgoat
17-03-2012, 12:17
No FAQ needed. It is very clear in the WoC Armybook what mark of Nurgle does. In a nutshell if you make an attack that uses WS or BS against a Nurgle marked model you take a -1 penalty to that skill (WS/BS). You DO NOT take a penalty when attacked by a Nurgle marked model.

This is how the mark worked in the errata under the previous edition of the BRB but not the current one. The errata we've got now needlessly complicates things by reverting to the use of 'target,' language which is never defined. It most certainly does need an FAQ now (or a new errata).


The undivided models with no mark don't even come into the equation.

This, however, is correct.

Warrior of Chaos
17-03-2012, 14:00
Does it become a timing issue? They're given ws 6, have it reduced by mark of nurge, or have it reduced, then are given ws 6?

It is not about timing at all. They have WS6 (Skellies and King). IF they ATTACK a Nurgle marked model, they will take a -1WS because of the mark (becoming WS5 for THEIR attacks). If they are attacked in return by a Nurgle model or any other model for that matter, they will be WS6. Mark of Nurgle is purely a defensive mark.


This is how the mark worked in the errata under the previous edition of the BRB but not the current one. The errata we've got now needlessly complicates things by reverting to the use of 'target,' language which is never defined. It most certainly does need an FAQ now (or a new errata).

WoC Errata pg1
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."

Seems the current errata is pretty cut and dry.

I myself tend to be guilty of reading errata and making the necessary updates in my books without giving it too much thought. My statement that it is clear in the WoC Armybook is accurate (if you're reading mine); so I apologize for that. ;) The above listed is the current errata update for WoC. Once again, it is quite explicit that my previous explanation is correct. I'm not sure how you are have having difficulty with the use of the word "target". If an attack is directed at a Mark of Nurgle model (he/she is included as a target/targeted). To be clear I am not being mean or sarcastic :)....I'm just not sure how this can be confusing to people.:eyebrows: I'm an American and I realize that those crazy Brits who created Warhammer may use English a bit different myself, but this is not a case of them calling the hood of a car a "bonnet" and the trunk a "boot" (on a side note I miss my MGB - reading the owner's manual was a real treat). Target is a target is a target.....

tar·get (tärgt)
n.
1.
a. An object, such as a padded disk with a marked surface, that is shot at to test accuracy in rifle or archery practice.
b. Something aimed or fired at.
2. An object of criticism or attack.
3. One to be influenced or changed by an action or event.
4. A desired goal.
5. A railroad signal that indicates the position of a switch by its color, position, and shape.
6. The sliding sight on a surveyor's leveling rod.
7. A small round shield.
8.
a. A structure in a television camera tube with a storage surface that is scanned by an electron beam to generate a signal output current similar to the charge-density pattern stored on the surface.
b. A usually metal part in an x-ray tube on which a beam of electrons is focused and from which x-rays are emitted.
tr.v. tar·get·ed, tar·get·ing, tar·gets
1. To make a target of.
2. To aim at or for.
3. To establish as a target or goal.

geldedgoat
17-03-2012, 20:18
WoC Errata pg1
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."

Seems the current errata is pretty cut and dry.

Yep, this is the errata that unnecessarily muddied the rule. Show me where in the BRB, any army book, or any errata where it says a model engaged in an ongoing combat only 'targets' another model when it is attacking but not when defending against a return attack. I've tried to find it, but the language simply isn't defined anywhere.


tar·get [list of definitions]

So when two guys are swinging at each other, each only focuses his attention on the other (AKA targets) when he's the one doing the swinging? Those return blows might as well be coming from the ether?


To be clear I am not being mean or sarcastic ....I'm just not sure how this can be confusing to people.

I'd like to use this as well. I also am not being sarcastic and fail to see how the ambiguity isn't apparent.

warhammero
17-03-2012, 20:37
We need the faq

GodlessM
17-03-2012, 21:40
My Will transfers unmodified WS, but once transferred nothing stops it from being modified. They have WS 6, and WS 5 when attacking Nurgle.

This. Not sure how there is any confusion.

Liber
17-03-2012, 21:45
WS5.

How is there any confusion on this? The errata is quite clear with how the mark of nurgle works.

My Will Be Done grants the skellies WS6. So they have WS6. Then when they target (read 'attack' for those whom target is too complex a word LOL) something with MoN a -1 to the WS is applied.

6-1 = 5. C'mon people.

Warrior of Chaos
18-03-2012, 03:15
So when two guys are swinging at each other, each only focuses his attention on the other (AKA targets) when he's the one doing the swinging? Those return blows might as well be coming from the ether?

His "target" is his opponent. When he engages his opponent he is "targeting" weakness to create a desired outcome (i.e. hit em' with da sword). Return swings are not necessarily targets, but our intrepid example's "target" goal may be to avoid getting hit back. LOL.

Or to put it in excessive use of wording.... The guy picks a target (noun) and begins targeting (transitive verb) his opponent for an opportune strike, all the while keeping a targeted (transitive verb) goal of not getting hit back in return by his target (noun).


Page 110 - The Mark of Nurgle
Change the second paragraph to "A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to target (used as a transitive verb not a noun). Ranged attacks that target (used as a transitive verb not a noun) him are at -1 To Hit. Models that target (used as a transitive verb not a noun) him in close combat are at -1 WS."

CORRECTED: Page 110 - The Mark of Nurgle
Change the second paragraph to "A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to aim at. Ranged attacks that aim at /for him are at -1 To Hit. Models that aim at /for him in close combat are at -1 WS."

See no FAQ necessary....:D


I also am not being sarcastic and fail to see how the ambiguity isn't apparent.

I see that the problem lies on interpretation of the wording. The word "target" can be used as a noun or a transitive verb....sometimes you have look into the base definitions and put it into context of how it is used in a phrase. Another huge issue I see is that a game like Warhammer, which is played all over the world and translated into many languages, may run into the occasional "lost in translation" issues. I know if I was reading rules for a game in say...French, when my first language is English, I may at times not understand the full intent of the designers (if they were French for example and writing in their native tongue).

warhammero
18-03-2012, 14:34
Faq because Is a cyclic rule. Unmodify ws 6 / -1 ws = 5 / then unmidified Ws 6 and goes all day.

We use the most important rule

Bloodedsoul
18-03-2012, 18:16
So does the same thing apply for transmutation of lead if it's cast on a unit with the king/ prince in it?

oldWitheredCorpse
19-03-2012, 08:29
A model that is defending itself does not have a target. You defend yourself from attack, you don't "target" someone with a parry.

Warrior of Chaos
19-03-2012, 16:13
So does the same thing apply for transmutation of lead if it's cast on a unit with the king/ prince in it?

I don't see why not. King + unit are WS6, receive the spell and take a -1 penalty to WS,BS,AS per spell until the the effect ends. You see "unmodified" does not make a stat immune to manipulation. It just stipulates where your start point is.:p

warhammero
19-03-2012, 16:27
The if i take the sword that gives ws10 then the efect pass to the unit. Is the same thing.

T10
19-03-2012, 16:31
I think the math is pretty simple.

(Tomb King Current Weapon Skill) = (Tomb King Unmodified Weapon Skill) + modifiers
(Skeleton's Current Weapon Skill) = (Skeleton's Unmodified Weapon Skill) + modifiers

My Will Be Done allows the Skeleton to use the Tomb King's Unmodified Weapon Skill instead "of his own", which I am going to assume means "the Skeleton's Unmodified Weapon Skill":

(Skeleton's Own Weapon Skill) = (Skeleton's Unmodified Weapon Skill)

In which case, if the MWBD rule applies to the Skeleton:

(Skeleton's Current Weapon Skill) = (Tomb King's Unmodified Weapon Skill) + modifiers

-T10

warhammero
19-03-2012, 17:12
You say that we modify the unmodify ws jajaja its a Joke jajaja

dementian
19-03-2012, 21:52
Unmodified does not equal unmodifiable.

T10 spells it out very clearly

Athlan na Dyr
19-03-2012, 23:43
what the... I don't even...
People, its very simple. When a Tomb Prince/ King is in a skeleton unit, you effectively replace the skeletons WS with the Prince/ King's starting WS (so 5 or 6). That is where this ends.
If a king takes the fencer's blades, he has WS 10, the skellies have WS 6
If they get targetted by a spell reducing WS (by, say, 2) then the skellies WS = 6 - 2 = 4
If they get targetted by a spell increasing WS (to 10) then the skellies have WS = 6*0 + 10 = 10

There is no confusion. Its as clear as day.

geldedgoat
20-03-2012, 02:01
CORRECTED: Page 110 - The Mark of Nurgle
Change the second paragraph to "A model with the Mark of Nurgle is difficult to aim at. Ranged attacks that aim at /for him are at -1 To Hit. Models that aim at /for him in close combat are at -1 WS."

The emboldened section can just as easily be interpreted to include return attacks. The rules actually reflect this with the parry ward save, from limiting it to only those attacks made from the front to restricting it to non-frenzied models. This strongly suggests that return attacks can be focused on (or aimed at, to use your words) just like the model's own attacks.

With that RAI taken care of, let's go back to RAW, the only thing that really matters. So again: "Show me where in the BRB, any army book, or any errata where it says a model engaged in an ongoing combat only 'targets' another model when it is attacking but not when defending against a return attack."


See no FAQ necessary....:D

See, FAQ necessary. :)


Another huge issue I see is that a game like Warhammer, which is played all over the world and translated into many languages, may run into the occasional "lost in translation" issues.

Don't dismiss this as a translation issue; I'm American, born and raised. The only reason my location is listed as South Korea is because I taught English there for four years (fortunately not any more, though). My grasp of the English language should not be in question.


A model that is defending itself does not have a target. You defend yourself from attack, you don't "target" someone with a parry.

Obviously I disagree, but I'd love to see something in the BRB that proves me wrong. I suggest looking somewhere other than page 88, though; nothing written there explicitly supports your interpretation.

T10
20-03-2012, 06:59
...
If they get targetted by a spell increasing WS (to 10) then the skellies have WS = 6*0 + 10 = 10
...


It took me a few seconds to work out your math, which I still think is a bit crazy by the way. It's not how I would express substitution of variables.

If a WS 2 Skeleton is affected by both the Speed of Light (or was that Time Warp? I forget) which changes his WS to 10, and the My Will be Done special rule which sets his WS to 6, it's not entirely clear which of those should apply. Throw in some funky effect that changes his WS to 1 in there, and it's no longer "obvious" that the best effect applies.

I guess one way to resolve this is for both players to pick one and then roll off for who gets to choose.

-T10

Warrior of Chaos
20-03-2012, 07:50
If a WS 2 Skeleton is affected by both the Speed of Light (or was that Time Warp? I forget) which changes his WS to 10, and the My Will be Done special rule which sets his WS to 6, it's not entirely clear which of those should apply. Throw in some funky effect that changes his WS to 1 in there, and it's no longer "obvious" that the best effect applies.-T10

MWbD is in effect while the King is in the unit (i.e. from deployment). Skellies have WS6 because of it. They get Speed of Light or whatever cast on them which changes their WS to 10....until the effect ends or something trumps it later. As I read/would understand it, the TK could in fact end up with a WS lower than the Skellies if something specifically lowers his WS below normal (because the Skellies get his unmodified WS of 6 as their starting point).


Don't dismiss this as a translation issue; I'm American, born and raised. The only reason my location is listed as South Korea is because I taught English there for four years (fortunately not any more, though).

In this case it makes me wonder why your are being so obtuse about the definition of "target". :wtf::D (from one person in education to another):p


My grasp of the English language should not be in question.

Of course it should be in question since we don't tend to use the Queen's English, though I am sure our grasp of "American" is just fine...... j/k:evilgrin: The reason I say this is while I lived in Germany I remember asking a local a question in "English" since my German is not good at all, and they looked at me with a quizzical expression then turned around and IN PERFECT ENGLISH asked some others behind them, "does anyone here speak American?" Too funny....true story.

What I said: "Do you know where I can get gas?"
Should have said: "Do you know where I can purchase petrol?"

Lessons learned.


The emboldened section can just as easily be interpreted to include return attacks.

Not when one reads the actual definition of a "target". ;)
I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. Play it how you feel is most satisfying to you.:)

Athlan na Dyr
20-03-2012, 09:46
It took me a few seconds to work out your math, which I still think is a bit crazy by the way. It's not how I would express substitution of variables.
-T10

Eh, regardless of what WS was it equals ten under the spell, so eliminate starting WS through multiplication by zero and add ten. Just as fear would be multiply by zero and add 1.

I've always thought of it as the unit replacing their WS with the characters on a stat level, rather than having an immutable stat conferred upon them.
If you aren't sure, or think there is a point of contention, talk it over with your opponent before hand, or note what the Tomb Kings player does first (skellies go to WS10? their WS can be modified) and make sure they stay consistent.

Liber
20-03-2012, 11:37
The emboldened section can just as easily be interpreted to include return attacks.



No, no it cannot.

If I were to grab a baseball bat, raise it over my head, and bring it swinging down at your head, would you be targeting me? Of course not, you have to be dense to think that the word "target" causes confusion, either that your just wanting Mark of Nurgle to be more effective for selfish reasons.

The idea that you are blaming this on the rulebook not providing a working definition of the word 'target' (laughable honestly) makes me grateful that your ilk don't run things over at GW. If you did than our BRB would be replaced by multiple volumes on par with the encyclopedia Britannica and cost thousands of dollars.

You actually have to think in this game, and cannot simply throw up your hands and proclaim a need for an faq to hold your hand every time a word is used that the BRB does not explicitly define. Give me a break.

geldedgoat
20-03-2012, 12:44
Not when one reads the actual definition of a "target".

:confused: Did you look at the parry entry? That should clearly enough show an obvious example of a model targeting his attacker. "[...] even the mightiest axe strike can be turned aside at the last moment if the timing is right."

I'm really not changing the definition of 'target' here; I'm just applying it to one more action than you are.


If I were to grab a baseball bat, raise it over my head, and bring it swinging down at your head, would you be targeting me?

If I swing specifically at your head (or neck, or chest, etc) to attack you, am I targeting you? Yes. If I swing specifically at your attacks (or hands, or wrists, or arms, etc) to deflect them, am I targeting you and your attacks? Well, if you answered yes to the previous question, you must also answer yes to this one. And the rules (parry in particular) actually support this. If a model swings wildly to deflect incoming attacks (meaning he isn't targeting them), he is probably subject to something equivalent to frenzy or has a WS of 1 (and no, I'm not one of those who think WS1 models in base contact with MoN models are autohit and can't defend themselves).

So to answer your question, maybe, depending on my skill and ability to focus.


Of course not, you have to be dense to think that the word "target" causes confusion, either that your just wanting Mark of Nurgle to be more effective for selfish reasons.

The idea that you are blaming this on the rulebook not providing a working definition of the word 'target' (laughable honestly) makes me grateful that your ilk don't run things over at GW. If you did than our BRB would be replaced by multiple volumes on par with the encyclopedia Britannica and cost thousands of dollars.

You actually have to think in this game, and cannot simply throw up your hands and proclaim a need for an faq to hold your hand every time a word is used that the BRB does not explicitly define. Give me a break.

This is a rules discussion about the game of Warhammer. Do you honestly think being a dick is an appropriate way to respond?

I couldn't care less how good the MoN is; even using the interpretation I'm (in part) arguing for, it would still be horribly, horribly overcosted. The only reason I see for picking MoN over MoT or MoK is for fluff reasons, and my posting history should be evidence enough that I don't think very highly of the inconsistent fluff written for Nurgle. So no, I'm not arguing this for a rules advantage. I'm arguing this because it's a very poorly written errata (the actual rule itself is much clearer, as is the previous errata), and I don't want to see any future rules written similarly.

thesoundofmusica
20-03-2012, 14:53
No, no it cannot.

If I were to grab a baseball bat, raise it over my head, and bring it swinging down at your head, would you be targeting me? Of course not, you have to be dense to think that the word "target" causes confusion, either that your just wanting Mark of Nurgle to be more effective for selfish reasons.

The idea that you are blaming this on the rulebook not providing a working definition of the word 'target' (laughable honestly) makes me grateful that your ilk don't run things over at GW. If you did than our BRB would be replaced by multiple volumes on par with the encyclopedia Britannica and cost thousands of dollars.

You actually have to think in this game, and cannot simply throw up your hands and proclaim a need for an faq to hold your hand every time a word is used that the BRB does not explicitly define. Give me a break.

If you were in combat with the guy receiving the bat blow, then yes he'd very likely be targetting you.

Your way of arguing with namecalling etc doesnt really belong on forums. Go back to abusing your gaming group, I can just imagine all the "fun" debates that come with you near a gaming table.

Edit: on topic, my stance is still WS5 from the OP. Establish WS, WS6. Add modifiers, -1 = WS5.
I am undecided about where the -1WS applies =D
Leaning towards just -1WS when attacking. "hard to hit" couldve said anything, but says just that.

Lord Inquisitor
20-03-2012, 18:08
I'm a big fan of silly-RAW arguments, but I have to say this is the daftest argument I've seen on Warseer for a good while. Some pretty good trolling.

Liber
20-03-2012, 18:31
If I swing specifically at your head (or neck, or chest, etc) to attack you, am I targeting you? Yes. If I swing specifically at your attacks (or hands, or wrists, or arms, etc) to deflect them, am I targeting you and your attacks? Well, if you answered yes to the previous question, you must also answer yes to this one.

Why are you talking about parry still? You do realize that parry is not affected by WS right? Its a completely separate mechanic...whens the last time you played this game?? Parry and the 'to hit' roll that is affected by WS are not linked in any way, so your entire argument is null and void. What else do you have? In the baseball bat scenario, the action of 'parrying' the blow (and yes that would be targeting, but not the actual target but in fact targeting the weapon itself...so even on that point you are mistaken) is not affected in Warhammer by WS, while avoidance of the attack is. Again, there is no connection here, you cannot use this example as the rules do not support this bridge between "oh parry save blah blah" and "therefore defenders are targeting attackers and this has something to do with WS" that you are trying to build. Its bogus.



This is a rules discussion about the game of Warhammer. Do you honestly think being a dick is an appropriate way to respond?

No, this is a discussion over the definition of a word and basic common sense while certain individuals try to twist plain english to their benefit.


I couldn't care less how good the MoN is; even using the interpretation I'm (in part) arguing for, it would still be horribly, horribly overcosted. The only reason I see for picking MoN over MoT or MoK is for fluff reasons.

Ok first your whole point about MoN being 'horribly horribly overcosted' is just wrong. The only reason it may appear that way is because if you compare it too MoK or MoT which are both waaaay undercosted. -1 to hit with ranged and CC attacks costing 30 (i think?) points for say a unit of 50 mauraders is a stupendously good deal that most people would be happy to take. WoC is just a little over powered in some respects, and these things will probably be adjusted when the new book comes out. Funny coincidence that you're a WoC player that actually uses MoN as you take the time to argue this ridiculous point isn't it?


Edit @thesoundofmusica: This kind of 'debate' has never and would never happen with any of my gaming buddies, they are all very intelligent and far above either purposely or mistakenly misinterpreting such simple language. One of my most regular opponents (and freind of almost 10 years) plays WoC and when he saw the FAQ there was no question of what the interpretation was, and he does use MoN...quite effectively I might add because I am a Dwarf player and have quite a bit of shooting. For example putting it on his Marauder Horsemen makes them much more effective warmachine hunters :(

geldedgoat
20-03-2012, 22:06
You do realize that parry is not affected by WS right?

Nurgle warrior with shield VS Dwarf warrior with shield
Nurgle goes first, needs 3+ to hit (it doesn't matter whose interpretation for MoN we use), needs 4+ to wound. Dwarf warrior needs 5+ to save with armor. Assuming he fails this, does he not get a parry save? Oh wait, yes he does, even though at the beginning of this round both models' WS were involved. Uh oh.
Dwarf warrior goes second (assuming he saved), needs 4+ to hit (at this point you see it wouldn't matter if the Chaos guy had MoN or not), needs 5+ to wound. Nurgle warrior needs 3+ to save with armor. Assuming he fails this, does he not get a parry save? Oh wait, yes he does, even though both models' WS were involved... TWICE now. Uh oh again.

So tell me again how parry isn't affected by WS. Because it looks to me like WS is integral to getting from step 1 to the parry save in step 4.


[...] the action of 'parrying' the blow (and yes that would be targeting [...]

GREAT! You admit now that return attacks can and are targeted in close combat. Now since I didn't get an answer for this from the other poster... "Show me where in the BRB, any army book, or any errata where it says a model engaged in an ongoing combat only 'targets' another model when it is attacking but not when defending against a return attack." You admit we're using 'target' in the same manner, but you object on a rules basis. Show me your support.


Ok first your whole point about MoN being 'horribly horribly overcosted' is just wrong.

It is the most expensive mark wherever a model has the option to take a mark. It is completely useless at range for the majority of armies because they don't use BS-based shooting (and even those that can take BS-based shooting either don't or simply don't make enough use of it for this aspect of the mark to have much effect). And, using your arbitrary interpretation, it is completely useless for close combat attacks that aren't of one of two values (3 and 6 for warriors, 2 and 5 for marauders, etc).

For the same price as the mark for one unit, you could take an entire unit of redirectors, give the same unit an extra attack (and a few minor benefits and one very minor drawback), give the same unit a ward save and have change left over, take two extra warriors, take six extra marauders, etc. The only instance in which it is beneficial to take the mark over something else is if you want access to the lore for your sorcerer. Now, if MoN worked either like the super mark on Archaeon or the aura on yhetees it could be worthwhile. As it is now... :eyebrows:


-1 to hit with ranged and CC attacks [...]

... is not how MoN works. You may want to reread the army book and BRB. That might dispel some of the confusion you're having.


Funny coincidence that you're a WoC player that actually uses MoN as you take the time to argue this ridiculous point isn't it?

Did you really miss the entire paragraph explaining why I don't and would never use MoN? And you accuse me of not understanding simple language (and after you agree with my use of 'target,' no less).


No, this is a discussion over the definition of a word and basic common sense while certain individuals try to twist plain english to their benefit.

Whatever, man. I hope for your sake that you strike it rich, because that attitude sure won't win you any friends.

Warrior of Chaos
21-03-2012, 07:08
Did you look at the parry entry? That should clearly enough show an obvious example of a model targeting his attacker. "[...] even the mightiest axe strike can be turned aside at the last moment if the timing is right."

I'm really not changing the definition of 'target' here; I'm just applying it to one more action than you are.

The model is not targeting his attacker....the model is setting a "goal/target" of not getting hit back. LOL


I'm a big fan of silly-RAW arguments, but I have to say this is the daftest argument I've seen on Warseer for a good while. Some pretty good trolling.

Well if you're gonna just sit there and watch LI, pass the popcorn please...:)

Col. Tartleton
21-03-2012, 07:51
This would all be easier if Nurgle gave its guys a +1 WS or a 6+ wardsave.

You're welcome for a unhelpful post.

Banville
21-03-2012, 09:51
This is hilarious. I have no idea where geldedgoat is getting this stuff. It's priceless. It's the internet equivalent of someone being the centre of a slowly expanding circle of empty space and quizzical looks.

As 99% of posters have pointed out, the rule is crystal clear. I think the confusion is coming from someone reading the fluff text as rules. I have no idea how an un-modifiable parry save has anything to with WS or the rule in question.

This is great stuff. Keep it up!

Brother Haephestus
21-03-2012, 11:18
There are a few things to remember in this discussion of the rules:

1) The designers did not, nor do they plan to, provide rules that cover for every instance, quirk, permutation, or whatever you want to call it. Instead, they created the dice-off method of resolving muddy issues (read any of the design sections, and The Most Important Rule.) Don’t hold your breath waiting for the “perfect set of rules”.

2) Relating a game of giants, ogres, wizards, vampires, mages, goblins, skeletons, etc., to realism or realistic combat in order to attempt to interpret rules is a very stupid premise. Having been in real combat, I don’t ever recall waiting for the other side to “re-roll a leanie” (house rule – dice that are not flat due to terrain and other tabletop clutter are re-rolled), nor have we ever bothered to deal with the specifics of “who’s targeting who” when we’re taking jabs at each other.

Several games have some very specific rules in regards to targeting. This gets extremely frothy when playing CCGs, and I am going to make an assumption (and all that entails) that Gelded has some experience in this area because his questions are quite similar to some of the CCG targeting tap-dances I have seen.

However, in Warhammer, targeting is pretty simple, at least to me. In this specific example, there are only two things that are going to “trigger” the Mark of Nurgle – a ranged attack aimed at the Nurgle-marked model, or a close combat attack aimed at said model. Parrying has no bearing whatsoever, nor does any faulty logic attempting to assign weapon skill to parrying; the model parrying the attack is not attempting to aim a ranged attack or a close combat attack at the Nurgle-marked model at this time and therefore no Mark of Nurgle results are triggered. There are no problems with the definition of “targeting” here – the specific requirements are clearly laid out. I don’t mean to be nasty, but I have to question the intent of continuing to attempt to wring more juice out of the lemon than has already been done.

geldedgoat
24-03-2012, 20:58
This is hilarious. I have no idea where geldedgoat is getting this stuff. It's priceless. It's the internet equivalent of someone being the centre of a slowly expanding circle of empty space and quizzical looks.

Well it certainly is surprising. When the errata change was first made following the introduction of 8th edition, most people took the exact position I'm arguing: that the new errata is needlessly ambiguous. I'm having a terrible time figuring out what changed from then to now. Have people taken their houserulings for MoN as RAW? Maybe they've forgotten what the errata used to read? I'm guessing it's some combination of the two. I dunno, maybe folks just need to be reminded of the incarnations this rule has taken.

army book: 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 errata: 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.
8th errata: 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.

When the change to 8th occurred, this discussion came up, and some people were adamant the rule should work the same as it did previously (excepting the minimum reduction on WS). Others thought the change must have been intentional, so the rule must work differently (this has some very strong RAI arguments going for it, which is why I was initially of this opinion - no longer though). But in the end, most seemed to just scratch their heads with a 'wtf?'


Several games have some very specific rules in regards to targeting. This gets extremely frothy when playing CCGs, and I am going to make an assumption (and all that entails) that Gelded has some experience in this area because his questions are quite similar to some of the CCG targeting tap-dances I have seen.

I did play Magic ages and ages ago, but I don't recall any issues with regards to targeting. The problems (well, problems for those who didn't understand the rules) normally centered around the stacking of spells and actions. And, while I appreciated the usually clear and concise nature of the Magic ruleset, I certainly do NOT relish the idea of having "the stack" brought to Warhammer. *shudder* No thanks.

But no, my position here has nothing whatsoever to do with how CCG rules are written and interpreted.


Parrying has no bearing whatsoever, nor does any faulty logic attempting to assign weapon skill to parrying

You're missing the point. My last reply to Liber about parry was specifically addressing his remark about WS having nothing to do with parry. I was only pointing out that, as they're part of the same singular process that resolves the same singular action, it's silly to say parry isn't affected by WS. It was entirely tangential, though, as I only brought up parry to show an instance in the rules in which a defensive action can and should be thought of as targeting. I thought I succeeded well enough since even the belligerent guy had to admit it.


the model parrying the attack is not attempting to aim a ranged attack or a close combat attack at the Nurgle-marked model at this time and therefore no Mark of Nurgle results are triggered.

If the rules for MoN mentioned anything about targeting with close combat attacks, we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, it doesn't.

It seems like those of you that are refusing to acknowledge the obscure language of MoN are reading something in the rule that isn't there. I don't say that with an aggressive tone, but it really does seem to be the case.


There are no problems with the definition of “targeting” here – the specific requirements are clearly laid out.

Since you sound so sure and no one else has stepped up with an answer to this... "Show me where in the BRB, any army book, or any errata where it says a model engaged in an ongoing combat only 'targets' another model when it is attacking but not when defending against a return attack."

==========

Just for gits and shiggles, I'm gonna lay out the different arguments I've heard for the different interpretations of this rule.

Arguments for -1 WS only being defensive:
fluff: The cloud of flies mentioned in the fluff text would only obscure the body, and any offensive actions (like attacking) would leave the cloud and so wouldn't be similarly obscured.
errata RAI: The previous errata clearly read that the penalty was only applicable when attacked, so it shouldn't be read differently now.
balance: The penalty working in both an offensive and defensive manner would be too strong, especially considering how powerful the ranged penalty is against armies like Wood Elves. Also, autohitting against models that failed a fear test would be stupidly powerful.
RAW: Nothing.

Arguments for -1 WS being both defensive and offensive:
fluff: If the cloud of flies is dense enough to make a Nurgle warrior harder to hit, it should also be dense enough to make it harder to see when he's swinging or stabbing.
errata RAI: Some portions of the previous edition's errata and FAQ were copied directly, yet the MoN was specifically changed. The previous errata would have caused no problems in the current ruleset if it too had been copied directly. There must have been a reason for the change, so the 7th and 8th edition erratas must have different meanings.
balance: *I already laid out the reasons I think the mark is overcosted in my previous post.*
RAW: Nothing.

Arguments for the rule needing an FAQ:
All of the fluff, errata, and balance arguments above could make sense. But really, the kicker is there not being any RAW arguments one way or the other.

AMWOOD co
25-03-2012, 05:24
Is it worth pointing out that there are cases where a parry is used and WS is never checked and so the two are separate? Or that they can be independent of eachother (ie separate) and still be used in the same process the same way that a model's S and T are?

Is it worth pointing out that in Warhammer 'target' is only used in an offensive manner in every other case of the word?

Is it worth pointing out just how far we have strayed from the original issue? What happened to 'My Will Be Done'?

geldedgoat
25-03-2012, 17:39
Is it worth pointing out that there are cases where a parry is used and WS is never checked and so the two are separate? Or that they can be independent of eachother (ie separate) and still be used in the same process the same way that a model's S and T are?

As I pointed out already, the parry/WS discussion is irrelevant. Parry only matters insomuch as it gives us an obvious example of defensive targeting.

Out of curiosity, are you referring to anything other than autohits? Is there something that checks WS then skips parry, outside of specific exceptions either spelled out in the parry rules or another special rule?


Is it worth pointing out that in Warhammer 'target' is only used in an offensive manner in every other case of the word?

As I've repeated ad nauseum, I would love to see an actual RAW argument to settle the issue, rather than simply assuming 'target' is more restrictive than the rules, the dictionary, or logic tell us it should be. If you think you can make one in this manner, please do. I don't imagine it'll be very successful, though, as both offensive and defensive spells make use of 'target.'


Is it worth pointing out just how far we have strayed from the original issue? What happened to 'My Will Be Done'?

I brought it up when it was relevant to do so, and the argument has persisted because the issue isn't settled and is still relevant to the discussion of MoN and MWBD. But, if need be, I'll open a separate thread.

BTW, any chance of you adding this to your FAQ wishlist now? I was wondering why it hadn't been after I posted in that thread.

AMWOOD co
26-03-2012, 08:22
Out of curiosity, are you referring to anything other than autohits? Is there something that checks WS then skips parry, outside of specific exceptions either spelled out in the parry rules or another special rule?

It's an autohit example. Trolls vs. anyone with a shield. Parrying troll vomit was one of the few things people thought of as odd. The trolls don't check WS but you get to parry them, the return attacks check WS but trolls don't parry. And you're right, this is irrelevant in the end.


BTW, any chance of you adding this to your FAQ wishlist now? I was wondering why it hadn't been after I posted in that thread.

I still don't see this as a real issue. Yes, the wording could be clearer, as you've stated, but the intent is easily determined. I can't really say that your arguement is convincing in the least. The wording that would be needed to convince me it applies when the Nurgle model attacks them would be either 'in base to base contact' or 'for that round of combat'. Taken in context with the rest of what is said for Mark of Nurgle, it's easily understood that it is defensive.

Maoriboy007
26-03-2012, 19:43
I don't see why not. King + unit are WS6, receive the spell and take a -1 penalty to WS,BS,AS per spell until the the effect ends. You see "unmodified" does not make a stat immune to manipulation. It just stipulates where your start point is.:p Does that mean that skeletons with the speed of light spell on them gain the WS 10 as the spell is modifying their WS? I've heard the argument against skeletons gaining any sort of "Bonus" to WS from spells and items because of MWBD granting the charqacters unmodified WS, if this is the case then the same should apply to WS "penalties" as well, otherwise it would seem to be a case of Bias opinions wanting to have thier cake and eat it too. I dont mind if the WS is modifiable or unmodifiable after the fact in both senses, but you can't apply one view in your favour and then the negative in detriment to the TK player.

Warrior of Chaos
26-03-2012, 21:11
Does that mean that skeletons with the speed of light spell on them gain the WS 10 as the spell is modifying their WS? I've heard the argument against skeletons gaining any sort of "Bonus" to WS from spells and items because of MWBD granting the charqacters unmodified WS, if this is the case then the same should apply to WS "penalties" as well, otherwise it would seem to be a case of Bias opinions wanting to have thier cake and eat it too. I dont mind if the WS is modifiable or unmodifiable after the fact in both senses, but you can't apply one view in your favour and then the negative in detriment to the TK player.

If the Skellies have SoL cast on them, they would gain WS10. Remember that they have the 6 from the King while he is in the unit, but there is nothing to say that they can't have their respective WS's further modified by spells.

Brother Haephestus
27-03-2012, 04:34
Gelded, I am sorry sir, but you're stretching and this is becoming an argument just to argue. The logic really is both simple and clear, and I fail to see what the problem is. You're still bringing up tangential issues that have no bearing on interpretation of the rule, and it seems to me that what you really want to get back to is the "in base contact" interpretation. Again, any attempts to interpret rules by the "logic of the fluff" etc., should be automatically thrown out by now. Anyone who has made an attempt to argue from that stance (as self has already learned) should have rapidly learned the folly of their ways.

I present that this dialog has run its course. I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretations, and move on - nothing left of value here.

geldedgoat
31-03-2012, 21:58
The wording that would be needed to convince me it applies when the Nurgle model attacks them would be either 'in base to base contact' or 'for that round of combat'.

How is "models in base to base contact that target him are at -1 WS" any less ambiguous than "models that target him in close combat are at -1 WS?" And adding 'for that round of combat' to the end without any other clarifications would leave us with the same issue, only this time it would be contingent upon initiative orders.


[...] the intent is easily determined.

What was the intent behind the FAQ change from 7th to 8th? The 7th FAQ clearly does exactly what you're claiming the 8th FAQ does (with the addition of a minimum WS reduction). And the FAQ as a whole wasn't rewritten from scratch, we know that from other entries that were copy/pasted. So why the change?


[...] it seems to me that what you really want to get back to is the "in base contact" interpretation.

The 'base contact' wording was troublesome because it could allow non-Nurgle friendly units to benefit from MoN. But to answer your accusation, no, that's not the interpretation I "really want to get back to."

I'm not here advocating for one interpretation over the other; I just want clarity (and in the next army book I'd also like a better mark and better fluff). If you don't see the need for clarity because of your gaming group's house rules, that's awesome. Play on without giving this issue another thought. But I've had a Nurgle opponent once before who raised the argument (granted, this was in 7th and using the army book wording, not the FAQ), and I've been next to another table where it came up. Both times, we looked at the RAW, we looked at the RAI, and we eventually had to just dice off (well, the table next to me did - I just conceded it to my opponent because the mark is desperately lacking).


Again, any attempts to interpret rules by the "logic of the fluff" etc., should be automatically thrown out by now.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I put up a list of all the RAI arguments and invited everyone to offer any RAW argument. I have not once in this thread used any "logic of the fluff" as the sole support for any of my arguments. The closest I've come is stating that only RAI and fluff arguments are available, which I'm sure you realize is quite different.


Gelded, I am sorry sir, but you're stretching and this is becoming an argument just to argue. [...] I present that this dialog has run its course. I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretations, and move on - nothing left of value here.

I'll assume you didn't realize how smug this out-of-hand dismissal was. Move on if you don't find anything worth arguing over.

TsukeFox
10-08-2012, 21:35
So umm what was the final ruling?? Anyone ??