'my will be done' vs nurgle

[Liber]

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]

Not when one reads the actual definition of a "target".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

So umm what was the final ruling?? Anyone ??