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.

In another thread a poster insisted that Typhus is useless in a Death Guard army since plague zombies being a nominated Chaos Cultist squad means those cultists must take the mark of Nurgle precluding them from being made plague zombies.

My response:

Typhus' plague zombie rule says: "Any Chaos cultist units in the same army as Typhus can be nominated as plague zombies... and cannot purchase upgrades."

Meanwhile the pertinent Death Guard rule says: "units that can take a Mark of Nurgle must do so."

Typhus' rule works when you nominate a cultist unit and that nomination occurs before purchasing upgrades... once you make that nomination the unit "cannot purchase upgrades" and thus cannot take a Mark of Nurgle. They are therefor unaffected by the requirement

Which is the correct interpretation?

I would believe your interpretation to be correct. They are no longer able to take the MoN upgrade due to being plague zombies.

They both happen during list building, and it's not like we're given an order of operations FOR list building, so you decide. Either they're not plague zombies and they have to take the MoN, or you let Typhus make them plague zombies and they're no longer able to take the MoN they would otherwise be forced to take.

I agree with your interpretation.

I think this is a case of "may" versus "must". In this situation, you are not required to turn the Cultists into Plague Zombies, but you ARE required to take the Mark of Nurgle. If you perform the "must" first, then the "may" is not an issue, as you are capable of fulfilling both (upgrade to Mark of Nurgle yes, upgrade to Plague Zombies no). If you perform the "may" first, then the "must" becomes an issue, since you become incapable of making the choice later.

To back this up, I would point to GW saying that if two units in your army both say they must be your Warlord, then the list is illegal, and it's illegal to take something that "must" be your Warlord in an Allied Detachment:

Q: If two Formations both include a model that must be your army’s Warlord, are you only able to take one of these Formations?
A: Yes.

Q: Can models that must be taken as your Warlord be taken in an Allied Detachment?
A: No.

This seems to be stating that a GW list must be legal forwards and backwards; there's no "order of operations", but instead everything must be legal at all times - the effects are all simultaneous. You have to be taking both the Mark of Nurgle AND nominating them as Plague Zombies at the same time. However, those two are mutually exclusive... except... Plague Zombies are a "may" and the Mark of Nurgle is a "must".

So, by the RAW, I don't believe you can take Plague Zombies in a Death Guard detachment.




However...

You don't need to have Typhus in your Plague Zombie detachment! If you have Typhus in a Death Guard detachment, and the Cultists in another non-Death Guard detachment, then you're golden

But it's not that you "must" give them the MoN. It's that "Any model that CAN take the MoN must do so." If they're plague zombies, they no longer can. There are other units you can put into a Death Guard detachment that will not be able to take a MoN, so I feel like your "must" argument doesn't hold up, but just because I view it as you are able to take away the ability to give those cultists the upgrade. I don't read it equivalent to "This model must be your warlord" because it's "if this unit can, then it must." It's an if-then statement, rather than an absolute.

Wow this is very interesting..... I feel RAI is they can be Plague Zombies but RAW they can't

It's ultimately an order of operations question... The phrase "and cannot purchase upgrades" by its grammar means purchasing upgrades is an act that normally occur after the act of nominating a cultist squad into plague zombies...

If the implication were the inverse, that upgrades occur before the nomination, the phrasing would appear as "and cannot have purchased upgrades."

If you read it any other way it could be circumvented by simply buying upgrades before the fact.

Jacksmiles wrote:
But it's not that you "must" give them the MoN. It's that "Any model that CAN take the MoN must do so." If they're plague zombies, they no longer can. There are other units you can put into a Death Guard detachment that will not be able to take a MoN, so I feel like your "must" argument doesn't hold up, but just because I view it as you are able to take away the ability to give those cultists the upgrade. I don't read it equivalent to "This model must be your warlord" because it's "if this unit can, then it must." It's an if-then statement, rather than an absolute.

Well, like I stated, I think GW's view, at least as inferred from their FAQ answers, are that you can't circumvent "musts" by changing the order of things. Like I said, both have to be applied simultaneously, and the only legal option in that case is to give them the Mark of Nurgle and not make them Plague Zombies, as all other combinations of those two things are illegal when no order of operations applies. In the same way, you can't take Magnus the Red as your Warlord in your Primary CAD detachment, and take Abaddon in an Allied Detachment after that. It doesn't matter that he's not able to be your Warlord in that "order", it just matters that if the list was all taken simultaneously, it'd be an illegal list.

Is not a matter of changing order to circumvent the must. First off, cultists must be nominated as plague zombies before any upgrades are purchased to avoid that rule circumventing itself. Second, it's a conditional must. At options purchase they are required to take a Mark of Nurgle if the unit can, but since plague zombies cannot purchase any upgrades they are not able to take the Mark so are not required to.

If it said simply that all units must take a Mark of Nurgle then they couldn't be plague zombies but then you also couldn't take any vehicles in the detachment since they can't take marks either.

That's the thing, one is conditional, and the other isn't. By making them into Plague Zombies, which is optional, you are making them unable to take the Mark of Nurgle, which is not optional. Perhaps I view it this way because of another game I play that deals with a simultaneous check; "must attack" or"must block" in Magic the Gathering. In that game, when dealing with multiple abilities and conditions, a "Must attack if able" will override conditional options and force a choice on other cards, even if that choice would result in an "unable to attack". For example; if I have 2 cards that can attack, and one says it must attack if able and that it can't attack alone, then even if my other creature's attack is optional, I still am forced into attacking with it because the "must if able" can only be satisfied by a certain set of choices. I see it the same way here. One choice allows you to satisfy the must statement, while the other doesn't. Therefore your only viable choice is to not take the Plague Zombies.

And I realize that you're saying that once they're plague zombies that you can't take the mark of Nurgle, but that's saying that there is an order of operations, which as per GW's FAQ, isn't the case. There is no order to taking things; it's all considered simultaneous, and in that case, my above argument is the only logical course of action.

Granted, that's just the RAW. I'd agree that the RAI may be different.

 Yarium wrote:
That's the thing, one is conditional, and the other isn't. By making them into Plague Zombies, which is optional, you are making them unable to take the Mark of Nurgle, which is not optional. Perhaps I view it this way because of another game I play that deals with a simultaneous check; "must attack" or"must block" in Magic the Gathering. In that game, when dealing with multiple abilities and conditions, a "Must attack if able" will override conditional options and force a choice on other cards, even if that choice would result in an "unable to attack". For example; if I have 2 cards that can attack, and one says it must attack if able and that it can't attack alone, then even if my other creature's attack is optional, I still am forced into attacking with it because the "must if able" can only be satisfied by a certain set of choices. I see it the same way here. One choice allows you to satisfy the must statement, while the other doesn't. Therefore your only viable choice is to not take the Plague Zombies.

And I realize that you're saying that once they're plague zombies that you can't take the mark of Nurgle, but that's saying that there is an order of operations, which as per GW's FAQ, isn't the case. There is no order to taking things; it's all considered simultaneous, and in that case, my above argument is the only logical course of action.

Granted, that's just the RAW. I'd agree that the RAI may be different.

I don't think I agree with the MTG comparison because you've chosen a dissimilar scenario. There is no hard counter to the "must" in your scenario like there is with plague zombies. For example, if you have a card that "must attack if able" and then you play pacifism on it so that it says "this creature cannot attack" , then that card does not have to attack, even though it "must" . Likewise if you have a unit that "must take a MoN if able" and then you give it a rule that says "this unit cannot take upgrades" , then the unit does not have to take a MoN.

In the same way though, you can take Fabius Bile as your Warlord in a CAD, then take Abaddon in an Allied Detachment later because he can't be your Warlord from there. Putting on the extra layer of "can't because" doesn't really get you out of it, as displayed by the GW FAQ. Nonetheless, I think we've both made our points here, just disagree on the wording. I guess anyone reading this will just have to choose on their own because we're starting to just rehash the same arguments over again.

 Yarium wrote:
In the same way though, you can take Fabius Bile as your Warlord in a CAD, then take Abaddon in an Allied Detachment later because he can't be your Warlord from there. Putting on the extra layer of "can't because" doesn't really get you out of it, as displayed by the GW FAQ. Nonetheless, I think we've both made our points here, just disagree on the wording. I guess anyone reading this will just have to choose on their own because we're starting to just rehash the same arguments over again.

That's a very different situation though. Abaddon is a must, Death Guard is if it can it must. The rule allows for the exception so conflict doesn't happen. If for any reason the unit can't take the Mark it is exempted from doing so by the rule that would require it.

As the person I think you are talking about, I certainly didn't insist he was worthless in a deathguard army. I asked if I was interpreting the deathguard rules correctly with regards to plague zombies.

Edit: just found another post that I think must be talking about but I did ask the question the day the book came out in the news and rumours thread.