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.

I have a question about the Salamander's new stratagem.

To start off, the rule in question:

2CP - Self-Sacrifice
Salamanders Stratagem
Use this Stratagem at the start of your opponent's Shooting phase. Select one Salamander's Infantry unit from your army. Until the end of that phase, enemy units cannot target any other Infantry units from your army that are within 6" of the selected unit, unless that unit is the closest enemy unit to the firing unit and visible to it.

It says "...unless that unit is the closest enemy unit to the firing unit and visible to it."

The first "that unit" refers to the Infantry unit being protected. So is the logic conjunctive or conditional?

Does it mean:
A) A protected unit that is both the closest and visible.
B) A protected unit that is the closest visible.

To clarify, in Case B, my Leman Russ can peek around the corner and shoot a protected unit even if there are closer enemy units because it's the only unit visible to it. Under Case A, it would not be able to. Furthermore, in Case A, my Basilisk would not be able to shoot a protected unit, even if it is the closest unit, because it is not visible to it.

It's English so both are valid until GW decide to learn how to properly write rules.

Figures... what is the groupthink on this one? I favor B myself. Can't shoot the self-sacrificing hero if you can't see him.

I would interpret as...

You can only target another (non-strategem'd) infantry unit within 6" of the strategem'd unit if the desired target is closer, AND the desired target is visible.

Situation A: Self Sacrifice unit is NOT visible to firer. SS unit is closer to firer than Unit B, out in the open. Can't shoot SS unit (unless able to ignore LOS) or Unit B, because it's farther away.

Situation B: Self Sacrifice unit is visible to firer. Unit B is closer, but out of LOS. Can't shoot Unit B, because it isn't within LOS (even with weapon that ignores LOS).

Situation C: (Only way to shoot Unit B) Unit B is closer to firing unit, within LOS. You must fulfill both conditions to fire at Unit B. Doesn't matter if SS unit is visible or not.


To Clarify, the rules function whether or not the SS unit is visible. As other targets must be closest AND visible. If SS unit is out of LOS (inside a perfectly enclosed building, somehow?) but closer than another unit within 6" of them, you can't target the exposed unit because it only fulfills one of 2 requirements (being visible) but not the other (being closer). The rule makes no conditions on the SS unit being visible or not.

Perhaps beating a dead horse, by putting the word *and* between the conditions, it creates two separate conditions to fulfill. Had the rule been written, “can only be targeted if it is the closest visible unit” that would be a singular condition with a clause. Which is a different thing.

*soo many edits* A singular condition with a clause, is like a get out of jail free card. The unit must be the closest unit... but you can ignore other units that aren’t visible to the firing unit. Again, by including the word “and” between the two parts, you set up two conditions to meet, instead of a singular condition with a clause.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I would interpret as...

You can only target another (non-strategem'd) infantry unit within 6" of the strategem'd unit if the desired target is closer, AND the desired target is visible.

Situation A: Self Sacrifice unit is NOT visible to firer. SS unit is closer to firer than Unit B, out in the open. Can't shoot SS unit (unless able to ignore LOS) or Unit B, because it's farther away.

Situation B: Self Sacrifice unit is visible to firer. Unit B is closer, but out of LOS. Can't shoot Unit B, because it isn't within LOS (even with weapon that ignores LOS).

Situation C: (Only way to shoot Unit B) Unit B is closer to firing unit, within LOS. You must fulfill both conditions to fire at Unit B. Doesn't matter if SS unit is visible or not.


To Clarify, the rules function whether or not the SS unit is visible. As other targets must be closest AND visible. If SS unit is out of LOS (inside a perfectly enclosed building, somehow?) but closer than another unit within 6" of them, you can't target the exposed unit because it only fulfills one of 2 requirements (being visible) but not the other (being closer). The rule makes no conditions on the SS unit being visible or not.

Yes, I agree with this. It’s the fairest, and also how I read it working as well. Pretty sure it is the actual intention

So conjunctional. Sigh. They had better nerf this rule then. It can get abused so hard...

Amusingly, and completely off-topic, I imagine this rule’s *intention* would be to have the SS unit create “living cover” for a unit “behind” them. Getting in the way of incoming fire, sacrificing themselves to protect the other units.

Which *should* allow enemy units to target the SS squad, even if they’re out of LOS, as how else can they sacrifice themselves to protect the other units? But that’s just me being difficult, and why RAI is not always helpful.

It means that none of the infantry units in the Stratagem unit’s 6” bubble can be targeted, unless they’re the closest visible infantry unit to your firing unit, in which case you can shoot said closest unit at will.

FAQ for the Salamanders Supplement is up with some changes to the 'Self-Sacrifice' and 'Fires of Battle' stratagems.

CODEX SUPPLEMENT: SALAMANDERS Official Update Version 1.0

It also contains this nugget - a citation that RAW does not equal RAI. Nice to be able to put that one to bed.

 Stux wrote:
It also contains this nugget - a citation that RAW does not equal RAI. Nice to be able to put that one to bed.

RaW does equal RaI. Them trying to backpedal simply proves it further. If I get caught stealing a pack of gum out of the corner store, I'm going to say "Sorry, I intended to pay for it I just forgot I put it in my pocket."

Notice how they intentionally changed it. Much as they intentionally wrote it.

As I have said before, if the RaW doesn't match RaI they can errata it. Until then the RaW is the RaI because nothing says otherwise.

No, they have said - in an official errata - that it was "clearly" not meant to be played as written. The fact they have now erratad it doesn't change that. It is official GW policy that RAW does not equal RAI and that we are supposed to use our own judgement to discern if RAW is wrong.

That is now RAW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It also contains this nugget - a citation that RAW does not equal RAI. Nice to be able to put that one to bed.

RaW does equal RaI. Them trying to backpedal simply proves it further. If I get caught stealing a pack of gum out of the corner store, I'm going to say "Sorry, I intended to pay for it I just forgot I put it in my pocket."

Notice how they intentionally changed it. Much as they intentionally wrote it.

As I have said before, if the RaW doesn't match RaI they can errata it. Until then the RaW is the RaI because nothing says otherwise.

You’ve been asked not to post about this by moderators on multiple occasions yet still do.

RAW does not always RAI, obviously, demonstrably, and now provable by this should you need it. Please, one day, just stop with this nonsense.

I didn't post about it, someone else did and I responded.

Let me explain again and leave it at that: RaW is RaI unless otherwise stated. They have now stated otherwise via errata.

My point is not and has never been that the writers are infallible, it has been that without the writers stating otherwise it is impossible to deduce a RaI other than that of matching the RaW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I didn't post about it, someone else did and I responded.

Let me explain again and leave it at that: RaW is RaI unless otherwise stated. They have now stated otherwise via errata.

My point is not and has never been that the writers are infallible, it has been that without the writers stating otherwise it is impossible to deduce a RaI other than that of matching the RaW.

It may be impossible to deduce, but deduction is the most useless of the three forms of logic when trying to derive a rule's meaning.

I think it's possible to inductively and even abductively determine the intent.

Or by the RAW making no sense.

But yes, this is way off topic - let's return to Salamanders. Pretty big nerf for them right?

seeing as this is answered, t'would seem this thread has served its purpose.