Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Daemons of Chaos book states that wounds caused by followers of Nurgle will add to the tally.
The definition of 'follower of Nurgle' is given, but it's not specific enough. We all know what the Nurgle daemons are, but they are not 'followers of Nurgle' because they don't have the key word 'follower of Nurgle' in their rules. They have the phrase '...of Nurgle' in many of their titles, but they don't actually have marks or any identifying keywords.

Second, what falls into the category of 'wound caused by a follower of Nurgle?' (FON)

It's not a far cry to say that wounds suffered in close combat with FON models count for the Tally, but take spells for instance. Do Nurgle spells that inflict wounds count as wounds caused by a FON? The spell is what's causing the wounds and not the sorcerer that is a FON.

...so what's the definition of 'follower of nurgle'? Is it a specific rule, like how certain Dark Elf units are listed as 'Khainite'?

The wording doesn't matter because it refers to something that doesn't exist.

That's part of the issue.

Yeah, it's pretty badly worded and is pretty much just a copy/paste of the 40K book. I think it would be safe to treat any daemons of nurgle (plaguebearers, nurglings) and any models bearing the mark of Nurgle as "followers of Nurgle".

As to wounds inflicted, that is a good question. Clearly any melee or ranged attacks by the model would count. I would lean towards saying magic would count, as the model is casting the spell and the spell is an instrumentality like a weapon. You don't say that the great weapon inflicted the wound, not the model, after all.

Interesting twist, though. What about CR wounds, like to daemons or undead? I would be inclined to say that these do not count, as the unit suffers it from themselves via a special rule and it is not actually inflicted by the other models.

this is the thing - CR wounds for instability wouldn't count because they are inflicted by RULES. ranged attacks wouldn't count because they are wounds inflicted by weapons. spells wouldn't count because they are wounds inflicted by spells.

honestly i'm not sure if this is an issue that's come up before, or if it's addressed anywhere in the main rulebook (because i looked and couldn't find anything regarding the source of wounds).

i can totally understand that close combat attacks would cause wounds from FON because that is the primary way that wounds are dealt in WHFB, so the intent would seem clear. but was the design intent here to allow ranged attacks and spells to count towards the Tally?

You're being to fine with your interpretation of causality. At the resolution you're talking about (weapons and spells being distinct from the wielder) no creature really causes a wound; even cc attacks rely on a hand weapon to actually do the damage.

i just assumed that close combat attacks would, at the very least, be able to count as 'part of the model' for the purposes of dealing a wound, otherwise there is no reason for the Tally to even exist.

you're correct, however i wasn't going to take it that far.