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.

I'm picking up my rulebook later this week, but for the moment I was curious about something. If fear makes someone WS1 and then they're fighting a unit with Mark of Nurgle, do they become WS0? I would assume there's something saying otherwise in the wording.

Read the WoC FAQ.

I have 3 times, thanks Sorry if it didn't leap off the page at me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see that MoN reads slightly differently. Can you please just answer the question?

as far as i understand it yes, it would make them ws0 when trying to strike which means they auto fail to strike, but ws1 when you attack them because MoN is only "when directing attacks at"

also MoN does not specify minimum ws1 like almost everything else that changes ws that i could find.

It states you are -1WS when attacking a model with the MoN, so you are WS0 and can only hit on 6s if memory serves.

The only thing I have seen about WS 0 is that the unit is automatically hit, which doesn't apply in this case (pg 4, Characteristics of 0).

Under Roll to Hit (pg 50), nothing is mentioned about it that would contradict the normal To Hit rules. I would say you still hit on a 5+.

Except under roll to hit (page 50) there is no way for a WS0 model to determine what result they need to hit on - the chart only goes as far as WS1.

However it DOES state that a roll of a 6 *always* hits, hence a 6+ seems fair.

The charts are obviously not all encompassing, as it did not include a WS of 0. You are trying to make up a rule that doesn't exist (WS 0 vs anything else).

The rules clearly state if the WS is more than double, you need a 5+.

Actually you are the one making rules up.

Read the first non bold paragraph under "ROLL TO HIT", page 50, where it states you MUST consult the chart. Therefore the chart IS all encompassing and, as it does not give a value for WS0 WS0 models have no basis to claim a 5+ for them to hit.

So as the chart does not talk about WS0, you follow the line that states a roll of a 6 ALWAYS hits.

Ok, tit for tat. Since WS 0 is not on the chart, you can't find a value, therefore the game breaks. I mean, nowhere on that chart does it show WS 0, therefore you can't use it.

I can do this too.

If you read further down, it mentions about more than double WS needing a 5+ to hit. That sections deals specifically with what is going on, vs a more general 6+ always hitting. As to making rules up, it is there in black and white. "In rare cases when a target's Weapon Skill is more than double that of the attacker, a 5+ is required for a successful hit."

Are we going to argue that a WS 1 is not more than double a WS 0 as 0 is just a placeholder, and not a number, therefore can't be dealt with mathematically for a basic function?

No, it states you must use the chart. Do you agree that you MUST use the chart, there in B&W?

It says look at the chart. Check

Find WS 0. BBBZZZZTTT. Chart is invalid. Game breaks.

Continue reading and find the "more than double".

Game un-breaks.

Easy peasy.

As I mentioned in the other thread, we have expressed our differing viewpoints and I am done.

Doesn't the part on unit characteristics at the beginning of the rules state that having a value of <nothing> or zero means that it has no capability at all for that skill? I beleive it used ballistic skill as an example, and following from there, I would say no attacks are possible.

ZF-

Hence finding the rule stating a roll of a 6 always suceeds.

I wasn't aware of another thread and I tried searching. I got to scour a rulebook last night and couldn't come up with anything conclusive The FAQ states that models in base to base have -1 WS (so WS0) so I'll probably let people hit on a 5+ and auto-hit them if they're cool with it, since I'm following bits of RaW in both instances.

remember they dont autohit them - you are only -1WS when attacking, not when being attacked.

Ugh, n/m. Got the errata and the book language flip-flopped. So the reasonable thing to do here is let them hit on 5+ which they would anyway.

p4 and characteristics of zero i believe covers what happens on both sides when your WS is 0. the formula on p50 is simply a summary of the chart, or an way way to remember the chart.


the rules for a 0 mean you cant do anything with that stat, so the example is a BS 0 means you can not shoot missle weapons. so a WS0 mean you can not swing a melee weapon.

it also explicitly covers attacking a WS0 model as that is not covered anywhere else.

basically unless GW makes a ruling, we will be dicing at the table for what it does.

Hence reasonable compromise (between 5+ and not hitting at all) is that a roll of a 6 is always a pass on "to hit" - so 6+.

Still gives some benefit to it without being horrible...

I would take hitting on a natural 6+ as an acceptable alternative to dicing for it.

6s always pass don't they?

Yes, hence stating it twice....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, hence stating it twice....

Do what i do nos, give them page numbers, they usually stop arguing after that