Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sleboda

Clarity on Ironjawz Mad as Hell

Recommended Posts

Hey all, 

I've tried to see this from both sides, including and excluding "lore" as a way to get insight, and frankly I can totally see both ways to play as legit, though I lean toward applying the meanings of words as they appear in the rule.

 

For reference, the rule says (with an emphasis bolded by me) "... if any wounds or mortal wounds have been inflicted on that phase on an Ironjawz unit that is more than 9 inches from any enemy units ..."

To me that means that if any enemies are far away, the effect triggers. A key point to note is that "any" and "all" mean different things (duh), so if there rule is only supposed to work when the unit is 9 inches away from all enemies, the rule could/should easily say that.

I see no FAQ or Commentary one way or the other.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the core rule FAQ 

 

Q: When the word ‘any’ is used in the criteria for an ability, how many times is that ability applied when the criteria for the ability are fulfilled? For example, if an ability said ‘Add
1 to hit rolls for models that are within 6" of any models with this ability’, would I add 1 to the hit rolls of a model that was within 6" of three models with the ability, or would I add 3 to the hit rolls?
A: The word ‘any’ is treated as being synonymous with ‘one or more’. In your example, this means that 1 would be added to the hit rolls, not 3.

Edited by jamie.white
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Any" or "All" in this circumstance is immeterial.  You can only move if you are more than 9" from an enemy unit - how many enemy units are within 9" doesn't matter; if 1 is within 9", yu can't make a move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it's a subtle thing, but the approach matters. It doesn't say "if there are any models within 9 inches." It says "if any models are not within."

 

That matters.

A simple way to work it through is to ask if the criteria had been met, even once (so, as with jamie.white's comment).

Is there a unit , even one, that is more than 9" away? Yes? Criteria met.

Any vs. all is extremely relevant.

Edited by Sleboda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the rule could be read that way, so as long as just one unit (any) is outside of 9”, it could move. Would cause some silly situations where units could move out of combat.

It seems clear the intention (yaya RAI vs RAW) was to prevent being able to move within 3” and get to pile in to combat.

Edited by Kasper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely reads like the intent was for it to say “all”, doubly so when taking in account the very straight forward, associated lore. Surprised that this hasn’t had a clarification. RAW is clear however, and I’m not sure there is room for any alternative interpretations as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

Definitely reads like the intent was for it to say “all”, doubly so when taking in account the very straight forward, associated lore. Surprised that this hasn’t had a clarification. RAW is clear however, and I’m not sure there is room for any alternative interpretations as written.

There isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

There isn't. 

So, given that, you would expect to be allowed to play it as being able to move so long as even one unit is far away at the time of taking damage?

I definitely lean toward the RAW being very clear that this is allowed (and as Jervis wrote many months back in WD, you don't have to like the RAW, but you are supposed to apply it regardless), but I'm concerned that opponents at an event might dispute it, call for a judge, and end up with that judge ignoring the RAW to go with a gut instinct and disallow the moving.

The issue is not really so much one of power as it is practicing by playing with the rule in the book, only to see that experience (and the tactical choices) negated at the event.

This is why I would like to see an official answer either way - so that there are no surprises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

So, given that, you would expect to be allowed to play it as being able to move so long as even one unit is far away at the time of taking damage?

I definitely lean toward the RAW being very clear that this is allowed (and as Jervis wrote many months back in WD, you don't have to like the RAW, but you are supposed to apply it regardless), but I'm concerned that opponents at an event might dispute it, call for a judge, and end up with that judge ignoring the RAW to go with a gut instinct and disallow the moving.

The issue is not really so much one of power as it is practicing by playing with the rule in the book, only to see that experience (and the tactical choices) negated at the event.

This is why I would like to see an official answer either way - so that there are no surprises.

As per the above any means one or more. 

Any = If one or more 

On 2/15/2020 at 4:54 PM, Sleboda said:

"... if any wounds or mortal wounds have been inflicted on that phase on an Ironjawz unit that is more than 9 inches from any enemy units ..."

If one or more wounds or mortal wounds have been inflicted on that phone on an Ironjawz unit that is more than 9 inches from one or more enemy units.

The moment an Ironjawz unit comes within 9'' suddenly they can't make the 1D6'' dice roll move.

Edited by Ravinsild
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

.The moment an Ironjawz unit comes within 9'' suddenly they can't make the 1D6'' dice roll move.

I am not sure I understand you here - do you mean Mad as Hell is turned off when the Iron Jaws unit is within 9" of an enemy unit? 

The rule does not care about units that the Iron Jaws Unit is within of 9" of. Mad as Hell only cares wether at least one enemy unit is more than 9" away from the Iron Jaws Unit in order to work. 

It definitely has to be cleared up by GW to work as intended.

Edited by Isotop
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha it's so counterintuitive that people can't see the problem.

Scenario:

  • The Iron Jaws unit has taken some wounds.
  • Enemy unit A is 1" away.
  • Enemy unit B is 10" away.
  • Is the condition "is more than 9 inches from any enemy units" met?

It's a familiar problem to someone who has studied probability and statistics - you have to change your wording flipping between P and 1-P.  To get what people are assuming it means, you need "is not any enemy units within 9 inches".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Haha it's so counterintuitive that people can't see the problem.

Scenario:

  • The Iron Jaws unit has taken some wounds.
  • Enemy unit A is 1" away.
  • Enemy unit B is 10" away.
  • Is the condition "is more than 9 inches from any enemy units" met?

It's a familiar problem to someone who has studied probability and statistics - you have to change your wording flipping between P and 1-P.  To get what people are assuming it means, you need "is not any enemy units within 9 inches".

I never really thought about it because it seemed so obvious to me what the intention was: Get closer to whatever is hitting you.

This means Ironjawz units (or Big Waagh) can move out of combat at the end of the combat phase, assuming a unit hit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess my shadow warriors can now deploy 3" from enemy units because they were "more than 9 inches away" from other enemy units.  This wording is used all over the place and really means all as jamie.white pointed out.

EDIT: While I'm being a little sarcastic, I don't mean to be mean.  I merely mean to point out that "more  than 9 inches from any enemy units" is very commonly understood to mean "more than 9" from all enemy units" for tons of abilities.  Mad as Hell isn't an exception to that.

Edited by willange
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a weird quirk of English grammar, but 'more than 9" from any enemy units' and 'more than 9" from all enemy units' mean exactly the same thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Isotop said:

 

The rule does not care about units that the Iron Jaws Unit is within of 9" of. Mad as Hell only cares wether at least one enemy unit is more than 9" away from the Iron Jaws Unit in order to work. 

It definitely has to be cleared up by GW to work as intended.

Exactly. 

I think this is the big thing that most folks are missing. It's a check to see if one or more (any) are MORE than 9" away, not a check to see if one or more (any) are WITHIN 9".

That's a vital distinction.

Edited by Sleboda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, willange said:

Well I guess my shadow warriors can now deploy 3" from enemy units because they were "more than 9 inches away" from other enemy units.  This wording is used all over the place and really means all as jamie.white pointed out.

What does the actual, non-paraphrased, rule for them say? Genuinely curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

It's a bit of a weird quirk of English grammar, but 'more than 9" from any enemy units' and 'more than 9" from all enemy units' mean exactly the same thing.

???

Words mean something.

Any =/= all.

Any is at least one.

All is every one.

"Are any students going to the mall tonight?"

and

"Are all students going to the mall tonight?"

definitely do NOT mean the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context means a lot.  In English, and many language, words and phrases derive part of their definition via context. 

Lets try another example.  Person A is convicted of a crime and part of their sentence is: “Person A must remain at least 100 feet from any schools or playgrounds”

Could this person now go onto school grounds or onto a playground and claim they are following the restriction because there is a different school or playground 10 miles away?

Edited by Skabnoze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

What does the actual, non-paraphrased, rule for them say? Genuinely curious.

No problem.

I'll copy it from their warscroll (from Azyr since that's what I have handy):

One With the Shadows:
Instead of setting up this unit on the battlefield, you can place this unit to one side and say that it is set up in the shadows as a reserve unit.  If you do so, at the end of your movement phase, you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy units.  Any reserve units in the shadows that are not set up on the battlefield before the start of the fourth battle round are destroyed.

I believe that the "more than 9" from any enemy units" part is similarly worded in mad as hell (I haven't looked recently, I'm going off your OP) as are most deepstrike/ambush rules.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Words mean something.

Words are contextual, and their meaning changes depending on how they are used.

In your example, "all" and "any" are not equivalent. In the rule you quoted, they are. As I said, a weird quirk of English grammar.

Edit: More students and malls:

Students may visit all malls. Students may visit any malls. (These are equivalent.)

All students may visit the mall. Any students may visit the mall. (These are also equivalent.)

Can all students visit the mall? Can any student visit the mall? (These too.)

When you are dealing with permission, "any" and "all" are often equivalent.

Edited by Kadeton
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really intended to disagree with @Sleboda, but in comparison...

 

An IRONJAWZ unit...

... that is more than 9" from any malls...

Vs.

... that is more than 9" from all malls...

 

I'm finding it difficult to disagree or see the relationship to permissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

Context means a lot.  In English, and many language, words and phrases derive part of their definition via context. 

Lets try another example.  Person A is convicted of a crime and part of their sentence is: “Person A must remain at least 100 feet from any schools or playgrounds”

Could this person now go onto school grounds or onto a playground and claim they are following the restriction because there is a different school or playground 10 miles away?

This is... one of the darker examples I've heard to demonstrate a grammar problem.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, willange said:

No problem.

I'll copy it from their warscroll (from Azyr since that's what I have handy):

One With the Shadows:
Instead of setting up this unit on the battlefield, you can place this unit to one side and say that it is set up in the shadows as a reserve unit.  If you do so, at the end of your movement phase, you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy units.  Any reserve units in the shadows that are not set up on the battlefield before the start of the fourth battle round are destroyed.

I believe that the "more than 9" from any enemy units" part is similarly worded in mad as hell (I haven't looked recently, I'm going off your OP) as are most deepstrike/ambush rules.

It is identical - See below. People can talk all they want about ambiguity of rules, RAI vs RAW etc., but sometimes people read way too much into words or sentences and completely forget context. 

 

image.png.ba5a24d381931163ae49526e597506f6.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I‘m honest and direct here:  

If my opponent would argue like this to get out of combat with an Ironjawz unit during a dire situation* I would be very upset. 

 

This is why „Team RAW“ is often frowned upon, because you can start an unnecessary rules discussion because of a single word that can be interpreted in another way. 

Edit: 

*aka cheating

I can even see why someone could argue this way from a narrative perspective, as they get mad by shooting and turn around to face those pesky shooters. 

BUT 

RAW this interpetation would mean that if I deal any damage in CC to Ironjawz they would get a free D6“ retreat out of combat. Who is a coward now? 

 

Edit #2: Haha such rule lawyering makes me MAD AS HELL 🤣

Edited by Phasteon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...