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.

Hi I had a question about how people are interpreting "Within X inches".
Do you feel that it should include the model itself?
Some command abilities make no sense to not include the user (LoC ability) but then others seem to exclude the user (new khorne units "Blooded Lieutenant" ability, wording on Mystic Shield).
Just wondering how other people are interpreting this.

A model is definitely within 18" of itself, if that's what you're asking.

I think the wording on Mystic Shield is redundant. The caster IS a friendly unit within 18" of the caster. I think they added that wording to make it absolutely clear that the Wizard can cast Mystic Shield on herself/himself.

I interpret it as such. Draw a circle with radius 18" and the Wizard as the center point. If a model is inside that circle, it is within 18". The caster is definitely within that circle.

The Stormcast Eternal guy with the hammer cloak has a command ability that affects him, and all units within 9".

Some evidence that they are specific if they want the effect to include the user.

That is what I assumed just there are some abilities that seem to treat it that you are not within X like the Blooded Lieutenant one.
Thank you for your answer.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
The Stormcast Eternal guy with the hammer cloak has a command ability that affects him, and all units within 9".

Some evidence that they are specific if they want the effect to include the user.

This is really just evidence that their wording is inconsistent. It might simply be unnecessary redundancy. They probably just add wording to remind the player that the hammer cloak gets the buff too and doesn't just give it.

I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself because there are so many abilities that specifically call out the inclusion of the model with the ability.

Distances are measured from the closest points between two models, not from the centre points or bases of models. Just saying...

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself

The calm irrationality of this statement. In any other context, people would stare at you if you said that

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself because there are so many abilities that specifically call out the inclusion of the model with the ability.

Distances are measured from the closest points between two models, not from the centre points or bases of models. Just saying...

Ok then... if you measure from the 'skin' of the model... is the core of the model within x" of the skin? Of course it is. Just point your arrow inwards.

The simplest explanation is that GW calls out the inclusion of the model to remind us the the caster/ability holder can also benefit.

Vetril wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself

The calm irrationality of this statement. In any other context, people would stare at you if you said that

You're quite right....context is everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself because there are so many abilities that specifically call out the inclusion of the model with the ability.

Distances are measured from the closest points between two models, not from the centre points or bases of models. Just saying...

Ok then... if you measure from the 'skin' of the model... is the core of the model within x" of the skin? Of course it is. Just point your arrow inwards.

The simplest explanation is that GW calls out the inclusion of the model to remind us the the caster/ability holder can also benefit.

This is only relevant if there is a need to measure distance from a model to itself. So far in the games I've played, it's never come up as an issue.

 Kriswall wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
The Stormcast Eternal guy with the hammer cloak has a command ability that affects him, and all units within 9".

Some evidence that they are specific if they want the effect to include the user.

This is really just evidence that their wording is inconsistent. It might simply be unnecessary redundancy. They probably just add wording to remind the player that the hammer cloak gets the buff too and doesn't just give it.

QFT

GW were....oh, lets say "less than serious" when doing the warscrolls. They had some fun with them, weren't worried about little things like points. Some models are better, some worse, when compared to 8th edition. They weren't too worried about it.

They also had many people writing the warscrolls. Not all people write in the same fashion, or add things like "including the caster", because they feel it's redundant. Unless it specifically says to exclude them, a model is always "within X distance" of itself.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
The Stormcast Eternal guy with the hammer cloak has a command ability that affects him, and all units within 9".

Some evidence that they are specific if they want the effect to include the user.

This is really just evidence that their wording is inconsistent. It might simply be unnecessary redundancy. They probably just add wording to remind the player that the hammer cloak gets the buff too and doesn't just give it.

QFT

GW were....oh, lets say "less than serious" when doing the warscrolls. They had some fun with them, weren't worried about little things like points. Some models are better, some worse, when compared to 8th edition. They weren't too worried about it.

They also had many people writing the warscrolls. Not all people write in the same fashion, or add things like "including the caster", because they feel it's redundant. Unless it specifically says to exclude them, a model is always "within X distance" of itself.

Lots of games do make the declaration that a model is always within X" of itself; AoS is not one of them. The rules as written work if you don't assume this to be the case though. I grant you that what you say is probably what they meant, and it's probably sloppiness on their part to add all those redundancies, but until it's FAQed, I'll keep playing the slightly less powerful interpretation where models can't apply abilities/spells to themselves unless given permission.

Vetril wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself

The calm irrationality of this statement. In any other context, people would stare at you if you said that

Well, to be fair, if I said something like "all the people within 5 feet of me have red hair" I doubt people would assume that I have red hair.

 kingbobbito wrote:

Vetril wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to think that a model is NOT within X" of itself

The calm irrationality of this statement. In any other context, people would stare at you if you said that

Well, to be fair, if I said something like "all the people within 5 feet of me have red hair" I doubt people would assume that I have red hair.

But if you dropped a grenade and all people within 5 feet of you got shredded, we'd assume you were injured as well.

You're example is of observation, mine is of an area effect.

Or, combine the examples:

"OMG! Ginger Terrorists just set off a Dye Bomb and now everyone within 5 feet of me has red hair!"

I was going to comment, but how do you beat Ginger Terrorists with hair dye bombs?

You can't.

OT. Warmachine has a great explanation of this game mechanic. Basically thus: if a model is partially within a given distance then that model is "within" x distance. If the model is completely inside the maximum distance measured then that model is "wholly within" that distance.

So given this we no know how to guage who is within and who isn't, but really this doesn't help. What matters is from where the measurements are coming from and how they are being measured. If the rules say to measure from a models base then that model is not within the measurement because you are starting the length from the edge of the base. Clearly this model is not within x. If the rules say to measure from a certain point, such as the centre of the model then that model would definitely be within x.

You aren't thinking in 2 dimensions.

The left edge of the model is within X inches of the right edge of the model. So the model's base is always within X inches. Because you would pick a point, put a circle around that point, and at least part of that base would be "within" that drawn circle.

But it's not even clear that distance is defined in AoS if you don't have 2 models. It says nothing about circles. It says to measure between the closest points of the models (with an "s") that you're measuring to/from.

As written, there doesn't seem to be a need to define if a model is within X" of itself, because abilities that ought to affect the model itself spell it out.

In the meantime, either interpretation would work, but I'd generally go with the least powerful option.

The distance from a point in space to itself is 0, guys. It can be easily proven.
Doesn't really matter from what point you measure the distance of the model from itself - the closest point is always going to be the point from which you measure and the distance is always going to be 0.
Common sense should be enough to see this.

In English, you don't talk about something being within a distance of itself. It's just incoherent.

I think the way they specifically define these abilities as affecting "this model and models within x"" strongly suggests that the model itself is not included.

ETA: someone mentioned Warmachine!!!!! In Warmachine a model is not considered to be within x" of itself.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
In English, you don't talk about something being within a distance of itself. It's just incoherent.

I think the way they specifically define these abilities as affecting "this model and models within x"" strongly suggests that the model itself is not included.

ETA: someone mentioned Warmachine!!!!! In Warmachine a model is not considered to be within x" of itself.

I would agree, if I thought that GW put any thought whatsoever into making this a consistant rules set. They probably farmed out the warscrolls to a dozen different people to write.

 mikhaila wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
In English, you don't talk about something being within a distance of itself. It's just incoherent.

I think the way they specifically define these abilities as affecting "this model and models within x"" strongly suggests that the model itself is not included.

ETA: someone mentioned Warmachine!!!!! In Warmachine a model is not considered to be within x" of itself.

I would agree, if I thought that GW put any thought whatsoever into making this a consistant rules set. They probably farmed out the warscrolls to a dozen different people to write.

It's totally possible you're right and they intend it to include the model (or they have different authors who each intend it to include or exclude the model). I think it's possible to justify it either way, e.g.

- of course the commander doesn't get the command bonus unless specified - it's included in their base stats because they're always "commanding" themselves
- of course the commander gets the bonus too when using their command ability - by acting in concert with their troops they become more dangerous themselves

I think the evidence points to the model not being within x" of itself more than the other way, but hey, it's Age of Sigmar, so in the end the thing that matters most is being consistent within the game you're playing at that moment.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
In English, you don't talk about something being within a distance of itself. It's just incoherent.

I think the way they specifically define these abilities as affecting "this model and models within x"" strongly suggests that the model itself is not included.

ETA: someone mentioned Warmachine!!!!! In Warmachine a model is not considered to be within x" of itself.

I would agree, if I thought that GW put any thought whatsoever into making this a consistant rules set. They probably farmed out the warscrolls to a dozen different people to write.

It's totally possible you're right and they intend it to include the model (or they have different authors who each intend it to include or exclude the model). I think it's possible to justify it either way, e.g.

- of course the commander doesn't get the command bonus unless specified - it's included in their base stats because they're always "commanding" themselves
- of course the commander gets the bonus too when using their command ability - by acting in concert with their troops they become more dangerous themselves

I think the evidence points to the model not being within x" of itself more than the other way, but hey, it's Age of Sigmar, so in the end the thing that matters most is being consistent within the game you're playing at that moment.

Yeah but by that measure there are a lot of abilities that don't make sense and make it hard to be consistent. A Lord of Change "saturates the area with magic and units within X get Y" would indicate to me that it gets the bonus, whereas Blooded Lieutenants "this gets 2 more attacks if within X of your Khorne General" doesnt make sense thematically unless disciples of Khorne are really against delegation. (It is fun to imagine the Khorne leader being so exasperated with his troops that he overexerts himself to prove a point though.)