Weirdnob Shaman rolling a double

[polarbear]

If I'm taking the FAQ right that a model is always within X of itself, then in the event the Weirdnob Shaman rolls a double, which causes D3 wounds to the closest Orruk unit, that would have to be himself, right? Because he's the closest to himself. I don't think that's the intention, though. Thoughts?

[Shane]

Can you get us both exact quotes?

I'll cast an eye over them. Might be worth mentioning this on the AoS FAQ draft page.

[polarbear]

FAQ:

Quote

Q: Is a model within X" of itself – i.e. if Arkhan the Black uses his ability that increases the range of spells cast by Death Wizards within 18", will this mean that Arkhan’s spells also have an increased range?

A: Yes, as long as they meet any other qualifiers for the spell or ability. This means that Arkhan the Black is affected by his own command ability.

Weirdnob:

Quote

Add 1 to a Weirdnob Shaman’s casting or unbinding rolls if there are 10 or more Orruk models within 10”. Add 2 to the roll instead if there are 20 or more Orruk models within 10”. However, if the casting or unbinding roll was a double, then the closest Orruk unit within 10” suffers D3 mortal wounds.

I assume the Weirdnob counts as one of the 10 Orruk models within X of himself, then, but I don't think the intent is for the mortal wounds to apply to himself. 

[Shane]

 

Quote

If Arkhan the Black uses this ability, then all Death Wizards within 18" of him can increase the range of their spells by 6" this phase.

 

The word "closest" is the clear difference here.

I see the Shaman's as affecting the closest and not within. So it doesn't affect him directly (especially as the power draws on those within in the first sentence).

 

Within = s/he counts

Closest = s/he doesn't count

 

 

[Anodyr]

To my mind, closest definitely implies something other than the object itself, so the Shaman is unaffected. Otherwise, the shaman would always be the only possible target for the wounds (as no other unit could be closer than itself), and the rule would presumably read "...then the Shaman suffers D3 mortal wounds."  

[gnaleinad]

Best answer.

Btw.. After playing 10+ experimental games where I field the Weirdboyz Battalion.. It's a beast. Just keep a bunch of Ardboyz with Shields around it and they can have a 6+ saves to the mortal wounds.

7 hours ago, Anodyr said:

To my mind, closest definitely implies something other than the object itself, so the Shaman is unaffected. Otherwise, the shaman would always be the only possible target for the wounds (as no other unit could be closer than itself), and the rule would presumably read "...then the Shaman suffers D3 mortal wounds."  

There was one spectacular round where my Foot of Gork dished out D6 + 5 mortal wounds a unit of 15 Bloodknights proxy.. I stomped 3 times.. For a total of 24 mortal wounds.. And then they failed the battleshock on a 5, losing another 3 Bloodknights.. 

Bloodknights with bloodfest are still bloody good, that 15 Bloodknights killed like 10 Gruntas on a charge. 

[gnaleinad]

Best answer.

Btw.. After playing 10+ experimental games where I field the Weirdboyz Battalion.. It's a beast. Just keep a bunch of Ardboyz with Shields around it and they can have a 6+ saves to the mortal wounds.

7 hours ago, Anodyr said:

To my mind, closest definitely implies something other than the object itself, so the Shaman is unaffected. Otherwise, the shaman would always be the only possible target for the wounds (as no other unit could be closer than itself), and the rule would presumably read "...then the Shaman suffers D3 mortal wounds."  

There was one spectacular round where my Foot of Gork dished out D6 + 5 mortal wounds a unit of 15 Bloodknights proxy.. I stomped 3 times.. For a total of 24 mortal wounds.. And then they failed the battleshock on a 5, losing another 3 Bloodknights.. 

Bloodknights with bloodfest are still bloody good, that 15 Bloodknights killed like 10 Gruntas on a charge.