Battletome Maggotkin: GW Rules Reveal Tidalwave

There’s a LOT of new reveals of the new Age of Sigmar Maggotkin codex for Nurgle. Let’s get started:

Allegiance Abilities

Cycle of Corruption: All effects happen at the start of your hero phase. Roll a dice at the start of the game to find the spot on the tree you begin. Each turn the cycle moves  to the next ability, clockwise.

  1. Unnatural Vitality: Add 2″ to the Move characteristics of Nurgle Units.
  2. Fecund Vigour: Add one to wound rolls of all attacks made by Nurgle units in the Combat phase.
  3. The Burgeoning: roll a dice for each unit within 1″ of a terrain feature at the start of the Hero phase. On a 5+, enemy units suffer a mortal wound and Nurgle units heal one wound instead.
  4. Plague of Misery: Re-roll Battleshock test rolls of 1 for enemy units, excluding all Nurgle units.
  5. Nauseous Revulsion: Re-roll wound rolls of six or more for attacks made by enemy units, excluding Nurgle units, in the Combat phase.
  6. Rampant Disease: At the start of the Hero phase, pick D3 different enemy units, excluding Nurgle units, within 12””in of each other. Each units suffers D3 mortal wounds.

 Corrupted Regrowth: Nurgle units heal D3 wounds at the start of their Hero phase. (You can’t roll this initially, but is on the chart)

Garden of Nurgle: Every Nurgle army gets to set up Feculent Gnarlmaw after setting up the terrain but prior to setting up the army and before choosing territory. The Gnarlmaw gives Nurgle units within 7″ of it get the ability to run and then charge.

Summon Daemons of Nurgle: Contagion points are used for summoning daemons without having to cast.

Command Traits

There are three different categories:  Rotbringers, Nurgle Daemons, and Nurgle Mortals. All three have access to three main abilities, then three of their own, unique Command Traits.

  1. Grandfather’s Blessing: can move cycle of corruption at start of hero phase forward or backward by one, if General has not been slain.
  2. Living Plague: Roll a die for each enemy unit within 1″ your general,  On a roll of 4+, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound and you gain 1 contagion point.
  3. Hulking Physique: add one to wound rolls for your general in assault.

 

  • Rotbringers also have access to Avalanche of Rotten Flesh: add 2 to run or charge roll for the General.
  • Nurgle Daemons have access to Pestilent Breath: pick 1 enemy unit within 6″ of the General, roll a dice for each model and on rolls of 5+sufer a mortal wound.
  • Nurgle Mortals have access to Overpowering Stench: re-roll hit rolls of 6 for attacks that target your General in the combat phase.

Artefacts of Contagion – Rotbringer Heroes

  1. The Fecund Flask: Once per battle, roll a dice and on a 2+, regain all wounds lost by the bearer. On a 1, bearer is slain and replaced by Beast of Nurgle.
  2. Rust Fang: Start of combat phase, pick a unit within 3″ of the bearer and subtract 1 from that unit’s save rolls for the rest of battle.

Daemonic Boons – Nurgle Daemon Heroes

  1. Witherstave: Re-roll hit rolls of 6 for enemy units while within 12″ of the bearer.
  2. Endless Gift: Start of battleshock phase, roll a dice for every wound taken by the bearer. On a roll of 4+, heal the wound.

Plagueridden Gifts – Mortal Heroes

  1. Eye of Nurgle: Once per battle, at the start of the Hero Phase, roll 2D6 if there are enemy models within 12″. On a roll of 7, the closest enemy model to the bearer is slain.
  2. Carrion Dirge: -2 Bravery for enemy units while within 12″ of the bearer.

Lores of Nurgle

  • All Wizards know Foul Regenesis: Casting 7: Move the Cycle of Corruption to any point of your choice.
  • ROTBRINGER WIZARDS: Blades of Putrification: Casting 7:  if cast successfully then a friendly unit within 14″. Their hit rolls of 6+ inflict mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
  • DAEMON WIZARDS: Glorious Afflictions: Casting 5: 21″ range, pick a visible enemy unit. That unit’s move, run and charge rolls are halved until start of your next hero phase.
  • MORTAL WIZARDS: Magnificent Buboes: Casting 7: Pick an enemy hero within 21″, they take D3 mortal wounds and subtract 1 from hit, casting, unbinding rolls until your next Hero phase.

Battalions

Thricefold Befoulment

Three Great Unclean Ones (including Rotigus)

Hungry for the Plague god’s Praise: Re-rolls of hit rolls of 1 while within 14″ of a model of this battalion. If within 14″ of two battalion models, a battalion model can re-roll wound rolls of 1.

Plague Storm of Nurgle: Successfully casting the Plague Wing spell while within 7″ of ONE other battalion model, the number of mortal wounds inflicted goes from D3 to 2D3. if within 7″ of TWO other battalion models, then the damage is increased to 3D3.

Plague Cyst:

A Lord of Plagues and three units of Putrid Blight Kings as base. Re-roll all failed hit rolls for units affected by Wanton Slaughter by Batallion’s Lord of Plagues (command ability for Lord of Plagues, re-roll ones if within 7″), instead of just re-rolling ones. In Hero phase, roll a dice for each enemy unit within 3″ of any units in this Batallion and, on a six, they take D3 mortal wounds.

Menagerie of Nurgle: contains Horticulous Slimux and allows him to set up a Feculent Gnarlmaw every turn, rather than solely once per battle.

Warscrolls Excerpts

Rotigus: Deluge of Nurgle (spell) Casting 7:  Roll 7 dice. If the dice roll is equal to beats the number in his damage table (4-6), pick enemy unit visible to caster and it suffers D3 mortal wounds. This spell has no range and only requires visibility.

Horticulous Slimux: Set up a Feculent Gnarlmaw within 3″ of him once per battle, at the start of the Hero Phase.

 

~ Looking good Nurgle!

 

 

  • Jared Swenson

    This is a lot of good stuff. Definitely looking forward to getting my hands on the book. I am relieved to see the blightwheel manipulations, through the command trait and spell. I love the blightwheel in theme, but in practice it often screws you. You either want to roll a 1 or 6 on the first turn, or most of the benefits you get will be entirely out of sequence for when they’re needed. The tree thing seems cool. Sort of a corrupted version of what the sylvaneth get. Definitely fits in theme. Now I’m going to have to make a bunch of nurgle trees. Granted it does not seem to be that I will need as much as a sylvaneth player. Also, this same stuff was posted on the AoS fans facebook group, plus some additional stuff. Like blightkings all have +1 wound and are only 160pts, if true: HOLY CRAP! Not only are they cheaper now, but also even better. These guys are going to be scary spammable.

    • GW amateur-hour point costing. Because math formulas aren’t needed. And the community loves it. o.0

    • ZeeLobby

      “These guys are going to be scary buyable.” – fixed that for yah :D.

  • Marco

    Long live Warhammer Fantasy and the Old World!

    • Bakvrad

      And long live the cheese toast. All hail the mighty cheese toast!
      Eat more cheese toast!

      • Apocryphus

        Cheese toast is delicious!

      • ZeeLobby

        Now that I know it’s a positive, I can’t help but support the old world and cheese toast. Both great things!

  • Luca Lacchini

    Nice to see the Wheel of Corruption becoming integral in the gameplay of AoS for Nurglites.

  • Looking forward to it though the pricing points from what I read are … well… GW never could do points correctly anyway. Blightkings, if they truly got the point cut they did, are now a goatboy spam unit that you take as many of as possible.

    • Steven Hyche

      You mean the 20 point point cut? Which is the minimum point cut in AoS.

      • I had read that they went from 180 to 140. 180 is still a tad undercost for their new abilities so 160 is unwarranted though not as grotesque as 140.

        • Steven Hyche

          They arent that strong…. Ironjaw brutes are a good comparison at 180. Currently they are in the never take unless you are building a fluffy list catagory. A few buffs (that requires a hero that can be sniped) and a slight point cost is not going to jump them into the spam everywhere catagory.

          • Its funny you mention Iron jaw brutes, who are also rated mathematically as one of the best units in the game for their points, so yeah you are comparing an A+ unit to what is now an A+ unit.

            Thats without buffs. Throw in the free tree buff of run and charge (which cannot be sniped).

            Nurgle in general as it stands right now is not an army you see in competitive environments because most of the army sits in the “C” category of usefulness.

            We’ll just have to wait and see. I will often stick to the point formula looking at raw stats and comparing them to all of the units in the game for comparison.

            Raw stat wise, this change to blight kings puts them at among the top of all other units in terms of their overall power minus buffs and things of that nature.

          • Steven Hyche

            Point formulas as by far the worst way to point cost units.

            As can be seen by your example, brutes are solid stat wise but people arent spamming them and winning tournaments. Thry are also much better than blightkings.

          • I strongly disagree but I guess thats a personal preference. All of the games that I prefer, be it tabletop or video games, have been designed with a formula.

            Tournaments are an ok way of gauging power but very flawed in that winning tournaments is a combination of a lot of factors, not just strength of the list.

            People aren’t spamming brutes for a number of reasons, one of which is that there are simply better armies altogether that combiined are more powerful and can exploit the AOS rules.

            In a game where you can ranged attack freely at will, melee units aren’t going to be the #1 go to for powergamers at tournaments. Thats where brutes fall short. Give brutes nasty ranged attacks as well that have soliid range and solid damage on top of their already powerful melee, and I’m willing to bet things would go the other way.

            Then there are other conditions such as luck of your draw of opponents (wherein AOS like any GW game is an expensive game of rock paper scissors), your willingness to spend a lot of money on a lot of models and paint them (which is what currently tempers things like skeletons which can be obscene in their discount).

            In the end, given the choice between throwing darts at the board and hoping it sticks or using math in a game that drives off of statistical probability, I’ll stick with statistical probability.

            But again thats a personal preference and also what I use in designing my own games.

          • Steven Hyche

            You just made a self defeating post. Thats exactly why formulas are poor ways to cost things.

            Lets for example say army A has a lack of ranged weapons weakness and army B has a glass cannon weakness

            Army A should pay more points for ranged units

            Army B should pay more points for tough units

            Army A has a strength of being very tough and Army B is very fast

            Army A pays less for tough units army B pays less for fast units

            This is a very simplified example and the readon formulas dont work is the above happens at different degrees that are hard to quantify.

          • Thats intentional design.

            If all stats cost the same regardless of factions then everything is closer in line to itself.

            If Uniit A pays 20 points for stat line X but Unit B pays 40 points for stat line X, there is a problem.

            In my example regarding brutes, make it so you cant shoot into combats and shoot freely liike you can, and brutes are suddenly very much worth taking.

            The powerful armies that can win tournaments easily skew the entire game. They make it so you can bust thiings like brutes and no one will bat an eye, because the skyfires and things like that are even more broken and even more over the bell curve.

            What it seems like we are saying here is “yes, brutes and their ilk are above the bell curve, but thats ok because skyfires and their ilk are turned up to 11 and those things won’t matter against skyfires and the tournaemnt busting units”.

            Which is true and correct. And also for me very sad.

            It still means that the bell curve of average scores and points are going to largely be irrelevant in the game as competitive players bypass 90% of the game to focus on the 10% of extreme undercosted powerful units.

            Tone shooting down by not letting it be as abusable as it is today and you slide those shooty units down the bellcurve line.

            Just because brutes and now blight kings are not going to be able to as easily win tournaments because shooting is basically the top of efficiency in AOS due to there being no restrictions does not mean that blight kings and brutes being undercost is ok, because a large swathe of the game suffers from that regardless (not everyone is going to be fielding min/max tournament shooting style lists)

            IMO everything should reside in the middle of the bell curve line, not be mostly in the bell curve liine and allowiing thiings like skyfires etc to sit at the very edge. (thats just one example I’m usiing because its the most common and most used)

            There are many many game systems that use nothing but math formulas that do very well. The problem with GW games is that after decades of not using formulas and just wingiing it, people have gotten very used to it.

            There’s also the problem of “its too balanced” which math formulas present to people. That is a common complaint, and it is also valid (its why I don’t like Dragon Rampant for example)

            Math formulas in game design for strategy games are a cornerstone in most game theory courses and seminars. There’s certainly a place for them and they exist all around us successfully.

          • Steven Hyche

            You said it yourself. Brutes are one of the most efficient units by your formula but arent the most powerful. Which pretty much proves you are incorrect by your own words.

            It doesnt matter if gw wings it. If you are correct the most effecient model would at least have a strong showing in relative power level. Even if I were to compare the units outside the army brutes arent the best unit in the game. I would pick skyfires 10 times out of 10 against brutes with only a 20 point point difference.

          • Yep. And I will say it again. If you take every single model in the game and put them in a line from least to most effective, brutes are toward the front of the line.

            The fact that shooting is as busted as it is in AOS doesn’t mean brutes aren’t efficient. Its that skyfires are grossly undercost.

            And that a giant number of models behind them are never seen at competitive levels.

            The skew in AOS is so bad that at the broken levels of play only the tip top is valid.

            You put brutes against a list that isn’t running a skew list like skyfires and those brutes do very well.

            I’ve seen it over and over and over again.

          • Steven Hyche

            Your points are contradicting themselves.

            Point A- brutes are the most efficient stated unit in the game (which you said to prove your assertion that blightkings were in turn costed wrong)

            Point B- they are weaker than skyfires because they ate cost too effciently and need an adjustment.

            Both of the above points can not be true

            You either need to admit that brutes arent that strong cost wise or they are a powerhousr unit. You can make examples of all the things wrong with AoS but thats getting off subject and proves that a formula does not work due to how subtle a game can be in tactics thus invalidating any formula.

          • No the points aren’t contradicting themselves. They may be seeming to contradict themselves to you because it seems that you are putting a binary condition on the term, if powerhouse than nothing beats it.

            The brutes are ONE OF the most efficient units in the game, not THE MOST efficient unit in the game. My exact statement was:

            ” who are also rated mathematically *as one of the* best units in the game for their points”

            Note the difference between “the best unit in the game” and “one of the best units in the game”

            They are a powerhouse unit. This isn’t a binary assertion. This isn’t “if unit is a powerhouse then nothing can beat it”

            This isn’t “skyfires are powerhouse unit, therefore brutes cannot be because skyfires > brutes” because if that were true than out of the near thousand unit combinations in the game only one unit would be a powerhouse unit.

            None of which proves a math formula does not work. There are literally thousands of games and examples showing how math formulas work great that rest in the realm of strategy games involving faction building.

            Especially in a game involving random numbers. The most powerful unit in the game can be beaten by the weakest unit in the game if the dice decide to roll that way. That doesn’t invalidate the statistics of the units or bad point costs.

            If you really feel math formulas cannot work in game design, then you might want to get cracking on trying to invalidate all of the game theory courses that are taught with that in mind and invalidate the many games that show that that is not correct.

          • Steven Hyche

            So vague enough to make it a meaningless statement. Then why even say it?

            Its not just skyfires. I could name a lot of units I would take over brutes.

          • If you feel its vague then ask for clarification.

            In a game where you have near 1000 elements, and an element iis say around 15-20 out of 1000, it is accurate to say it is one of the most efficient in the game.

            The fundamental disconnect here is to you if it can’t reliably win tournaments, it is not good. Therefore it is trash.

            That doesn’t prove that math is not an effectiive tool to point cost units. That means that you are going to hone in on the top 1% and our definition of what is efficient differs at that point.

            To which point there is nothing more to discuss.

            Brutes will continue to be very effective in anything except the most busted of extremes, and bliight kings will also be good in every environment except the most busted of extremes.

            In a system with 1000 or so units, it is as accurate to say if it lands in the top 100 it is still highly efficient. Just because its not the top 1% does not make it not the top of efficient when you compare the entire model line in your summary.

            You are comparing the top of the top, whereas I am comparing the top overall.

            10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 – represent abstractly all units. I’m saying they land in the #1 spot where all of these represent 1000 things total.

            You’re saying no because you’re taking the #1 spot and breaking it out
            1.10,1.9,1.8,1.7,1.6,[1.5,1.4,1.3,1.2,1.1] and your threshold of the best is the bracketed subset of #1 above.

            We’re largely talking in circles at this point, so take care.

          • Steven Hyche

            Hardly, lets take your comment about buffs and blightkings. How donyou cost thrmnif you dont take said buffs? Where does that fall in your point cost? If said buff is a hero for example how donyou cost if you dont take blightkings?

          • Its a comparison based off of their pure statline both offensive and defensive. I find it immensely useful to see how units stack up without babysitter buffs, it lets you see who needs support and who doesn’t need support.

            If you want to see their cost with buffs you simply feed that into the formula and see what their true cost is now that they are buffed. From that point you have a relative value of what hero buffs on average give them and where to move points costs for support models.

            Which is pretty much exactly what GW devs do except instead of using a formula they wing it. Sometimes they come close, othertimes not so much.

    • EnTyme

      For the record, I feel like you’re right about Blightkings being undercosted. As far as Blightkings being spammed, isn’t that kind of the point of a battleline unit? Additionally, I’ve been trying to get this point across for you, but you never seem to get it: math-hammer is the baseline, not the bottom line. At some point, you’re going to have to realize that the sheer number of units you have listed as A+ that are NOT being heavily used at tournaments means you need to take another look at your methodology.

      • You’re right, battleline should be spammed. I often use the wrong words in the wrong context. I’ll have to work on that. A spammable battleline unit is good.

        I don’t feel math-hammer is the bottom line. I understand why some of the units at the top of the formula’s power curve aren’t taken. That doesn’t make them less efficient though.

        Here’s one of the reasons why I don’t follow tournament results as the gospel. The whole “if they aren’t in tournaments they must not be good” mantra has been used pretty much since I have been involved in tabletop gaming.

        I took a warriors of chaos army to a GW GT and was told it was a waste of time. Having had run the math they were very efficient by my formula but they were not taken to tournaments because they weren’t cavalry hammer, which was huge back then.

        I ended up placing sixth out of like 80 players. I went 4-0-2 that weekend, drawing an undead player and an orc player.

        That shouldn’t have been possible because no one did that and it was anti-internet wisdom to take a foot chaos army in the cavalry meta.

        Tournaments are hugely about word of mouth and copying what successful people do. So to not see brutes in tournaments do well today doesn’t equate to them not being good, it means no one has done good with them so no one bothers taking them.

        Does that make the math that says they are good absolute?

        No. And I don’t claim its absolute. But I will stand by my claim all day that brutes and the new blight kings are at the top of the game, and against casual non tournament optimized lists will dominate them. In a game with about 1000 units, placing 20 or so out of 1000 is still quite good.

        “You’re going to have to realize that the sheer number of units you have listed as A+ are not being heavily used at tournaments…”

        Tournaments are about taking the best of the best. Being an “A” unit is not good enough for tournament play. YOu have to be in that rare tiny 1% of the game for most players to consider taking it. Largely. There are people that expand beyond that but the heavy lifting in most tournament placing lists are done by the same tiny fraction of the game, I’ve noted. That was that way in 1995. That was that way in 2001. That was that way in 2007. It seems to be that way in 2018.

        • The blight kings are now an always take as much as you can unit IMO. Especially combined with powers that will let them shoot AND do mortal wounds on 6s to hit and 6s to wound. At 160 points they are 27 points or so too cheap which when you take five or six units of them starts to net you close to a free unit.

          Thats fine though. Like I said on Dakka…. thats the game GW wants to run with so I’ll min/max that out. My blight kings now already rolled pretty well through a local league campaign. I’ll be going to adepticon’s narrative with them and probably NOVA’s narrative with them as well as our annual league campaign this year.

          I am pretty confident that they will do extraordinarily well.

        • EnTyme

          And I think herein lies the problem with your methodology: It doesn’t seem to scale for the meta. It doesn’t matter how good Brutes are in melee if they can’t get into charge range because of the number of ranged units on the other side of the battlefield. If I’m looking for a comp to help me figure out which units are the most efficient to take to a tournament, I’m not going to use the one that has a unit like Brutes ranked in the same category as one like Skyfires when every other meta is telling me Skyfires are miles ahead of Brutes in efficiency.

          • Well if you’re using the scores, my formula does show skyfires as significantly better. Brutes come out at like 23 out of 1000. Skyfires are #4 or thereabouts.

          • It definitely shows that both are undercost for what they can do.

          • Additionally we ran this system through its paces with over 1000 games. The testing was simple. You took your list and plugged it in and it gave you a power coefficient based solely off its stats.

            Your opponent did the same.

            It had a 90% accuracy in determining who would win based solely off that score. Players that were fielding tournament skyfire range lists were always coming out far ahead of anything else in power coefficient.

            If it did not have such a high accuracy, I wouldn’t back it or even talk about it. I would have fixed it and improved it.

          • Steven Hyche

            So did the players play themselves?

            Did you take things like gaunt summoner is consideration? A very so so unit vs anything but horde units? Does its point value change if its fighting hordes and go down if its not?

            if not then its not 90% accurate and I highly doubt the validity of your claim

          • I’m not really worried about proving something to a random dude on the internet.

            I get it. You think point values in a game that is about mathematical statistics can’t be derived using mathematical formulas.

            Decades of game design and other games that have done just that contradict your claim.

            The merry go round can stop spinning now. Enjoy your evening.

          • Steven Hyche

            Closing with vague statements that cant be fact checked, saying you have nothing to prove and then going and once again trying to reaffirm your vaste un prove-able proof is a wonderful way to close an arguement.

          • Cool bud. I’m not interested in internet bad assery or keyboard warrioring or trying to win internet arguments. I understand how actual debate works. In an actual debate, if something is unclear you ask for data, not puff out your chest and beat on it.

            Good luck.

          • Steven Hyche

            Mmmm no in actual debates you give data to support your arguements not vague stuff like “decades of game design contradicts your claim” and then get butt hurt when you called out on a fallacy and start making personal attacks.

          • cool story ultimate warrior.

          • Also what you’re looking for is the term “statistical averages”. Thats what game designers use to assign point values to objects in games. They find the averages and then use those values.

            There are a number of courses you can take online on game theory. Udemy is one good resource. THey go into all of that.

            The masters program that I’m in has a lot of game theory calculus courses. Its pretty cool stuff. Probably my favorite set of classes that I took ever.

  • LordKrungharr

    Loved Horticulus right when I saw the model. Now I’m very excited to plant gardens of feculent gnarlmaws every game! My beasts will have fun in there.

  • marxlives

    I am very impressed with the cycle of Corruption rule. Is that sort of ruleset new to AoS?

  • Christopher Schwab

    Longtime lurker, first-time poster — thence my weird question. As a die-hard Nurgle player from “day 1” of AoS, I’m beyond thrilled we’re getting a GUO refit. I kind of hated the old model. Definitely on the hook for the Battletome. But: in addition to being $$$, the base is getting significantly larger! Is there some established protocol for “this model now takes up more space on the tabletop?” Are my old metal and resin GUOs OK? Should I re-base them? This has never happened to me that I can recall.

    • BrassWitch

      As long as you’re measuring your distances correctly, you shouldn’t have any problem using your old GUOs on their original bases. I seem to recall GW stating that “whatever feels right to you” was the correct way of doing bases.

      • Felix Roper

        They will have a disadvantage and advantage as less models will be able to hit in combat, but your range abilities will be shorter.

  • Orangecoke

    Something I’m wondering – the rules appear to lean into the blight wheel thing you get in the Blightwar box set. Does that mean you need to get that wheel to play Maggotkin, meaning possibly need to buy the Blightwar set (which isn’t cheap and potentially includes a lot of SE models one might not want)?

    • Malx

      Nah, the wheel is not necessary. You can buy ’em on ebay for like £4 if you really want one. The cycle of corruption abilities will be printed in the Battletome for you to use regardless.

  • Orangecoke

    Another question: if I have a box of Blightkings right now, I can safely just build and paint them however I like (meaning, equipment) right? Or should I be considering anything about the new rules when I do so?

    • EnTyme

      We haven’t seen the new warscroll yet, but it’s highly doubtful they would change the equipment loadout without changing the kit itself.

      • Orangecoke

        Makes sense yep. Thanks!