Orc spell: Led'z Go

Hi there,

the spell "Ledz Go" words that:

"Any Orc or Goblin within 4" of the Shaman will automatically strike first in hand-to-hand combat regardless of
other circumstances. The spell only lasts until the caster is knocked down, stunned or taken out of action."

My question is, if the Shaman also is affected by his own spell (i.e. also striking first) or not. Is there any errata / clarification on this matter?

thanks a lot in advance...

A recent discussion of this topic meandered into a thread on spears--

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/rules-and-gameplay-f1/is-spear-still-worth-it-t438-75.htm?highlight=are+spears+worth+it#43317

We play that the shaman also strikes first, but we never asked this question either.

Don't see why not, he is an orc and he's within 4" of himself

thanks for your answers so far.

btw: I'm asking because in some spells the caster is explicitly mentioned as in phrases like "except the caster", "including the caster" etc.

As in this spell the caster is not mentioned at all I wondered if it has been officially ruled out / how you play it...

We never questioned it - as sartori said, he is an orc and he's within four inches of himself...

well, thanks again to all.

as you even seem to be astonished about the question, strongly emphasizes for me where common sense lies in this case

i also inclined to interpret the rules the same way, but was not exactly sure...

It's cool, there are so many foggy areas in the rules!

Yeah there is a part of me that wants to Re-write the whole game to make these things more clear, and give things priority order.

@rudeboy: nice idea. I thought the same a dozen times also. a friend of mine and me often joked we should once apply to gamesworkshop or specialist-games as "linguistic consultant" for rule developers (we're both studying linguistics).

it's really amazing how much in the rules is unclear although it would have been quite easy to formulate a sentence in a manner that would resolve a lot of problems.

10 minutes of hard thought to prevent years of heated debates

----------

ironically, I have another question about the spell:

I asked this before and you guys told me how you're playing it. but i really wonder about the wording:

the spell says: "ANY orc or goblin within 4" of the shaman... ".

I'm not a native speaker, but for me this strongly sounds as if it would mean only ONE model within 4". otherwise it would say "EVERY", wouldn't it?

Nope, any just means every orc within 4'', otherwise it would be more like "An orc within 4'' "

That make sense? No? Well I'm rubbish at explaining things so pfft. =)

Although looking at how the spell is worded, now I have a question... does this mean enemy orcs too?

Good one Speckie!

I think you have a point there. "Any" means a selected group or individual. The wording Every is not a selected group, but simply any and ALL. THough I am pretty sure the spell DOES affect all orcs within the range, as I think this is just another, as you say, linguistic mistake.

Also, i understand your cocnern with the spell affecting the caster as well. Does the caster call down a spell, or is he merely the conduit for one? If he is a conduit for a spell, then he isnt necessarily affected himself. Hosever, the spell name gives a clue.

"Lets go" is an incentive to do something. Such a thing is also best enforced if the one commanding also takes initiative and acts in the same way. Am I totally off my rocker here?

RationalLemming wrote:

Good one Speckie!

I Like you ;D.

Opheliate wrote:

Am I totally off my rocker here?

You play Mordheim, ofcourse you are we all are! But I agree with what you say too =)

Opheliate wrote:

I think you have a point there. "Any" means a selected group or individual. The wording Every is not a selected group, but simply any and ALL. THough I am pretty sure the spell DOES affect all orcs within the range, as I think this is just another, as you say, linguistic mistake.

You're right. That's exactly it. Before I learned on this forum otherwise, I was automatically convinced that this spell must mean one model only, because I was going for the literal wording, which is ambiguous though.

Thanks for the hint to regard the title. It's really this concept of "come on guys, let's ALL fight harder". It would be strange if 9/10 of the orks would then answer:

Nah, you fight I sit and look. And only one Ork responds: Yes, for Mork and Gooooooork and runs off towards the enemy all on his own

Usually I'm reluctant to take "fluff" or "general meaning" into account to decide rule interpretations. But I think in this case it seems to help quite a bit to "sense the author's intentions"...


BTW: Hurray, I just became a knight. does this mean I will get a damsel now?

Dahag wrote:

Thanks for the hint to regard the title. It's really this concept of "come on guys, let's ALL fight harder". It would be strange if 9/10 of the orks would then answer:

Nah, you fight I sit and look. And only one Ork responds: Yes, for Mork and Gooooooork and runs off towards the enemy all on his own

Well, on an unlucky animosity check, that is EXACTLY what happens

It IS only one orc but - back to the original question, that chosen orc (or gobbo) can be the shaman. The wording is not a mistake - it is not intended to be all orcs and gobbos (or it would be "all...and" not "any...or"). Note that the spell lasts until the shaman is knocked down, stunned or taken out of action - "all...and" would be incredibly powerful. Note that the target of the spell can be shifted from melee round to melee round.

it is? Is that your own interpretation or is there an errata?

We have always played it that it is all the Orcs and Goblins in a 4" radius of the Shaman (including the Shaman).

It is powerful on paper but the Shaman has to be in danger of getting thumped for it to really work. Most canny players will target the poor Shaman as soon as they know the spell is in effect and shut it down quite quickly.

WarbossKurgan wrote:

Most canny players will target the poor Shaman as soon as they know the spell is in effect and shut it down quite quickly.

Good point. it's funny how things can be one way on paper but when you play the game and actually put something in practice it can change completley. So in one sense maybe the spell is awesome... in another sense it's your shaman wearing a sign above his head saying "kill me".

nice ;D

Also, I stand by my interpretation on the rules, based on both the spells name and wording, BUT, that is my interpretation, and should in no way be considered the official standpoint

I love the way that non-English people are so much better at the subtleties of the English language than the English are!

"it is? Is that your own interpretation or is there an errata?"

Not sure how to answer that, Opheliate. There is no errata I know of, that's just what the spell says.

"Any Orc [singular noun] or [not "and"] Goblin [singular noun] within 4" of the Shaman will automatically strike first in hand-to-hand combat regardless of other circumstances. The spell only lasts until the caster is knocked down, stunned or taken out of action."

If it was all orcs and goblins, the spell would say "all orcs and goblins" or "any orcs and goblins".

So, I guess it is my interpretation that the author said what he meant to say...

Hey, now I notice that "... or goblins". Well, I yield. If there is an "or" involved, it most definately does NOT mean everyone. Thansk for clearing it up

I think I was a little too preoccupied with the "any" bit

It really, really does mean everyone, or it would say "Any one orc" or "An orc" instead it says "Any orc within 4''"

The "or goblin" bit is just there so if your playing with your green warband one day and the opponent goes "Wait, it just says orcs, your not using it on your goblin" then you can punch him in the face. No don't do that, that would be nerd rage....

But no really, it's "any" and therefore every ork or goblin... Like if I said "Any Boy or Girl under the age of 5 is cooler than me" not only would it be true it would also mean that every person that fit that criteria would be what I said they are, it wouldn't just stop at one peron... though I wish it did because they bully me because their so fly and I'm 17 and they just don't respect me. Wait now i sound like i hang around small children... I don't.... i don't even know a five year old... I just like SHEEP okay!

But yes so in this case it just means any orc that fits the criteria, i.e. of being within four inches. Oh and just for credibility purposes, I'm English, as in REAL english, not american, (Not that there is anything wrong with americans apart from the fact YOU SUCK... nahhh just jealous we don't have Ke$ha). I'm also doing English literature... yeh I know, I'm so cool. Oh and I also do spanish so we always go over rules like this anyway.

Anyway, yeh as cool as quibbling semantics is ( I lied) I think we have strayed from the main bit of it, being if it affected the shaman, which if it does affect the shaman, cause he is within 4 inches of himself... then it would only afffect the shaman, so what's the point of saying within 4 inches? yeh.

Win?

-Speckie

well, that word "any" is really a tough case. As I can't decide which argumentation I should endorse, I will argue for both simultaneously

A) ANY=ONE

there are a bunch of orcs within 4" of that shaman. any orc or goblin would mean that all of them are electible and it does not matter which one. But the fact that they are ALL viable candidates, does not mean that they can be simultaneously. it is still only ONE which is to be chosen at one time.

Like when you offer somebody from a box of sweets and say "pick any, does not matter which one". The other thinks: oh it does not matter which one, each of them could be it (if I choose it). So if none of them is off limits that means I can take all of them and reaches deeply into the box. But if (s)he would look at your face and see the big "no,no" in your shocked glare...

too bad we can't see marc havener's face (although: maybe he would look like: yes, go for it!!)


but I went a bit off topic so back to mordheim: If the author meant all of them, he would have said "every orc or goblin" or "all orcs and goblins".

the OR (as stated before) implies that ONE must be CHOSEN. it cannot be more than one at the same time but either (one) orc OR (one) goblin.

B) ANY=ALL

if the author meant it to be only one, he would say "one orc or goblin" or "choose one orc or goblin". But instead it is more like:

any orc or goblin (that happens to be) within 4"... In every round it may be other orcs or goblins as they move around and so does the shaman. so the "any" does not refer to a choosing process but to single point in time, like a snapshot. the any would here much more mean something like:

"any (number of) orc or goblin (which are) within 4" (at a given point in time) ...."

sometimes any does indeed mean everyone, like in speckies example. any(one) is cooler than me... so you could as well say everyone (of them).

or another example: any teacher would tell you that English is difficult as hell
so you could also say: every teacher would tell you... as ALL OF THEM say the same thing if you ask them.

further, the expression "any orc OR goblin" could also be a later insertion.

Maybe at an early stage the rule text was like "any orc within 4" and later he was like: umm.. lets add goblins to that list and inserted "or goblins".

of course this is speculation here, but who knows. It's not the first time that parts of rules were forgotten, vague or changed later because it was not thought out properly or certain rules simply contradict eachother...

However, I must admit that it is dangerous to assume that an author did not really mean what he said. If we stick too much to such an assumption all rules may crumble into dust...

one last thought:

in case he meant only ONE orc / goblin to be affected: isn't that difficulty 9 a bit too high then?