'my will be done' vs nurgle

[geldedgoat]

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]

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. 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]

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]

We need the faq

[GodlessM]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

So does the same thing apply for transmutation of lead if it's cast on a unit with the king/ prince in it?

[oldWitheredCorpse]

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]

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.

[warhammero]

The if i take the sword that gives ws10 then the efect pass to the unit. Is the same thing.

[T10]

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]

You say that we modify the unmodify ws jajaja its a Joke jajaja

[dementian]

Unmodified does not equal unmodifiable.

T10 spells it out very clearly

[Athlan na Dyr]

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]

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....

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]

...
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]

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". (from one person in education to another)

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 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]

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.