Psychic Phase wrote:When a PSYKER unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds. If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest. If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If a psyker explodes and dies, and he kills a second psyker this way, does that psyker explode as well? The way I read it, it's also a PSYKER unit destroyed by perils.
PSYCHIC TESTS When a Psyker unit attempts to manifest a psychic power, you must take a Psychic test for that unit by rolling 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the Psychic test is passed. If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
Perils of the Warp is defined as "the result of rolling double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test."
The second psyker is destroyed as a result of the mortal wounds from a psyker who suffers Perils of the Warp. The second psyker itself did not get destroyed by Perils of the Warp (because determining whether a model suffered Perils of the Warp necessarily involves having taken a psychic test, and the subsequent result was either double 1 or double 6, and if you never suffered from Perils, then you cannot subsequently be destroyed by it).
p5freak wrote: No, the second psyker didnt suffer perils of the warp, and he wasnt attempting to manifest a psychic power.
That doesn't matter. " If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds." The 2nd psyker is certainly destroyed by Perils of the Warp even if it was only the first pysker that suffered the perils of the warp - it suffered the explosion the Perils inflict on the units within 6" of the dying 1st psyker. The place where "suffers Perils of the Warp" is with the first psyker, but the Perils causes the damage if the psyker dies.
PSYCHIC TESTS When a Psyker unit attempts to manifest a psychic power, you must
take a Psychic test for that unit by rolling 2D6. If the total is equal
to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the Psychic test is
passed. If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test,
that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
Perils of the Warp is defined as "the result of rolling double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test."
The second psyker is destroyed as a result of the mortal wounds from a psyker who suffers Perils of the Warp. The second psyker itself did not get destroyed by Perils of the Warp (because determining whether a model suffered Perils of the Warp necessarily involves having taken a psychic test, and the subsequent result was either double 1 or double 6, and if you never suffered from Perils, then you cannot subsequently be destroyed by it).
100% this.
if you never suffered from Perils, then you cannot be destroyed by Perils.
Yeah. It's an unlikely scenario (requiring at least two Psykers to be within 6" of each other and both having 3 or less wounds) but if it happens, you can chain react it.
Jidmah wrote: What did destroy the second psyker then?
The D3 mortal wounds from the exploding psyker.
"If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp." (Psychic tests rules).
"When a PSYKER unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds.... If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds." (Perils of the warp rules).
If a psyker explodes and dies, and he kills a second psyker this way, that psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp, because to be destroyed by Perils of the Warp, you need to suffer Perils of the Warp, which only happenes ""If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test..."
The 2nd payker explodes there is no requirement for it to be manifesting a psychic power at the time only that it dies to perils the d3 mortal wounds is part of the perils rule.
The rule explicitly states if a psyker unit is destroyed while attempting to manifest - this clause is not applicable but states the intended possibility that you can be destroyed by it while not manifesting
The second sentence has no requirement on you to manifest or to suffer perils of the warp just to be destroyed by the ability which you are.
The raw is clear
As to RAI I see no reason why psychic feedback might not be intended its certainly coherent with the fluff
U02dah4 wrote: The 2nd payker explodes there is no requirement for it to be manifesting a psychic power at the time only that it dies to perils the d3 mortal wounds is part of the perils rule.
The rule explicitly states if a psyker unit is destroyed while attempting to manifest - this clause is not applicable but states the intended possibility that you can be destroyed by it while not manifesting
The second sentence has no requirement on you to manifest or to suffer perils of the warp just to be destroyed by the ability which you are.
The raw is clear
As to RAI I see no reason why psychic feedback might not be intended its certainly coherent with the fluff
Except that the 2nd psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
DeathReaper wrote: Except that the 2nd psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
Both psykers are destroyed by a rule called "Perils of the Warp". Please check your rulebook.
If the second psyker doesn't explode, neither does the first one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: Agreed. The 2nd psyker is destroyed by MWs, not by perils.
The first psyker is also destroyed by MW. Suffering Perils by itself cannot destroy a psyker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: "When a PSYKER unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds.... If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds." (Perils of the warp rules).
If a psyker explodes and dies, and he kills a second psyker this way, that psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp
So you are saying that a unit that is killed by a rule called "Perils of the Warp" is not a unit killed by "Perils of the Warp"?
because to be destroyed by Perils of the Warp, you need to suffer Perils of the Warp
Please provide a rule citation for this. None of the rules you have quoted says this.
DeathReaper wrote: Except that the 2nd psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
Both psykers are destroyed by a rule called "Perils of the Warp". Please check your rulebook.
False, suffering from Perils of the Warp is a specific thing, namely "If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp." (Psychic tests rules).
This absulotely does not happen to any subsequent units damaged by a psyker being destroyed by the 'Perils of the Warp' rules.
DeathReaper wrote: False, suffering from Perils of the Warp is a specific thing, namely "If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp." (Psychic tests rules).
This absulotely does not happen to any subsequent units damaged by a psyker being destroyed by the 'Perils of the Warp' rules.
U02dah4 wrote: The 2nd payker explodes there is no requirement for it to be manifesting a psychic power at the time only that it dies to perils the d3 mortal wounds is part of the perils rule.
The rule explicitly states if a psyker unit is destroyed while attempting to manifest - this clause is not applicable but states the intended possibility that you can be destroyed by it while not manifesting
The second sentence has no requirement on you to manifest or to suffer perils of the warp just to be destroyed by the ability which you are.
The raw is clear
As to RAI I see no reason why psychic feedback might not be intended its certainly coherent with the fluff
Except that the 2nd psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
I evidenced it was you provided no evidence it wasnt
DeathReaper wrote: Except that the 2nd psyker is not destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
Agreed. The 2nd psyker is destroyed by MWs, not by perils. He only explodes when he himself suffers perils. Perils from another psyker are irrelevant.
Can you provide a rules quote specifying that is the case - I don't think so
Yes you suffer perils on a double
No that doesn't mean you can't die from perils separately or that dieing as a result of another psykers perils is irrelevant
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can any of you provide a direct quote saying models that die as a result of the text in the perils box do not die from perils?
Or one stating that you can "only" die from perils if you role a double?
Because these seem to be your assumptions but I can't find any evidence to support them
@psfreak
1) Again suffering perils and being destroyed by it are two different things.
You need to either show that you need to suffer perils to be effected by perils or that models destroyed by perils do not count as destroyed by perils if they do not suffer perils.
2) that quote explicitly does not state that "you can only"
It says
"If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp." This supports my position and would contradict yours.
3) Please either provide a direct quote that supports what you say it does or acknowledge that you cannot
p5freak wrote: You can only suffer perils on a roll of double 1 or double 6. The quote has already been provided by Deathreaper.
Weirdboyz can suffer PotW in other ways. Some stratagems can also cause PotW to occur.
Ok, weirdboyz suffer perils on 12+, and some stratagems say that the psyker suffers perils on any double roll. But this doesnt change the fact that the second psyker dies because of MWs, he doesnt suffer perils, which is only possible when a psyker tries to manifest a psychic power, and makes a psychic test. Did the second psyker make a psychic test ? No, he didnt.
PSYCHIC TESTS
When a Psyker unit attempts to manifest a psychic power, you must
take a Psychic test for that unit by rolling 2D6. If the total is equal
to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the Psychic test is
passed. If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test,
that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
"what, infarct, constitutes 'perils of the warp.'"
A: It is every effect and mechanic in the section entry 'Perils of the warp.'
B: It is specifically the part in the entry that says 'double 1s and 6s cause perils of the warp.' and therefor only the model that has triggered the cause of perils is being subjected to the status effect itself.
If I haven't boiled down the two sides arguments correctly, feel free to correct me.
Now,
The way I read it , the correct approach is B.
The title of a section does not mean everything in that section IS that 'status effect.'
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think there would be alot more problems all through the rule book if we use the logic from A:.
This is like:
"who heroically intervened,,,, well both the unit the character moved into AND the character did because what happens to both is described in a single section called heroic interventions"
ignoring that the section specifically says who is heroically intervening.
By RAW it is A unless a quote can provide evidence otherwise
A rule giving permission does not deny permission from another source.
The way you read it is irrelevant
Nice strawman on the heroic intervention its also a completely erroneous interpretation i mean to use your straw analogy
If B were correct then you don't count as heroically interveneing if you use a stratagem to heroically intervene a unit because the heroic information text gives permission to a character. So yes this is highly problematic and would be roughly the same as the current argument.
Interpretation A would state
PERFORMING A HEROIC INTERVENTION
When a unit performs a Heroic Intervention, you can move each
model in that unit up to 3" – this is a Heroic Intervention move. Each model in the unit must finish its Heroic Intervention move closer to the closest enemy model. Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency (pg 4).
That is the rule because that is RAW. Ergo A is correct
nowhere in the RAW does it mention an impact on the opposing model. So again your wrong for the same reason - your deviating from the text based on your assumptions then using those assumptions to justify your conclusion.
p5freak wrote: You can only suffer perils on a roll of double 1 or double 6. The quote has already been provided by Deathreaper.
Weirdboyz can suffer PotW in other ways. Some stratagems can also cause PotW to occur.
Ok, weirdboyz suffer perils on 12+, and some stratagems say that the psyker suffers perils on any double roll. But this doesnt change the fact that the second psyker dies because of MWs, he doesnt suffer perils, which is only possible when a psyker tries to manifest a psychic power, and makes a psychic test. Did the second psyker make a psychic test ? No, he didnt.
U02dah4 wrote: By RAW it is A unless a quote can provide evidence otherwise
A rule giving permission does not deny permission from another source.
The way you read it is irrelevant
Nice strawman on the heroic intervention its also a completely erroneous interpretation i mean to use your straw analogy
If B were correct then you don't count as heroically interveneing if you use a stratagem to heroically intervene a unit because the heroic information text gives permission to a character. So yes this is highly problematic and would be roughly the same as the current argument.
Interpretation A would state
PERFORMING A HEROIC INTERVENTION
When a unit performs a Heroic Intervention, you can move each
model in that unit up to 3" – this is a Heroic Intervention move. Each model in the unit must finish its Heroic Intervention move closer to the closest enemy model. Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency (pg 4).
That is the rule because that is RAW. Ergo A is correct
nowhere in the RAW does it mention an impact on the opposing model. So again your wrong for the same reason - your deviating from the text based on your assumptions then using those assumptions to justify your conclusion.
You throw the word strawman out too easily ... XD you guys really need to learn what that word means.
Here let me underline the relevant text.
So by the logic of A any strat or ability that effects a model that heroically intervenes must effect "the closest enemy model."
If everyone is effected by Perils because the effects are written in the same section, then everyone here is effected as a heroic intervention because they are all in the same section...
My point is,,, which you so precisely decided to skirt around and pretend didn't exist... The logic of "its simply mentioned in the section so there for it is happening because of the words of the title of that section" needs more proof from within the section itself (like the people who argue for B have done several times). My 'strawman' (which was not a strawman but a different kind of argument called a 'Reductio ad absurdum') was meant to show you that the if the same logic would not work else where it cannot work here... people really need to stop calling "strawman" everytime someone does this to them.
As already stated there is no requirement to take a psychic test
Unless you can provide a quote
You state that is only possible when trying to manifest a power can you provide a quote specifying the "only" part
If you cannot you are wrong
No one is questioning that you can perils while attempting to manifest
As to the perils box
First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. (First part of perils effects psyker suffering perils only)
Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( this part effects a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power there's is no requirement that it suffers perils of the warp)
Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(This part effects all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp there is no requirement that they suffer perils of the warp)
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ type 40
Normally I agree but
A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
You are misrepresenting in your proposition when you claim that it effects the closest enemy model
"When a unit performs a Heroic Intervention, you can move each
model in that unit up to 3" – this is a Heroic Intervention move. Each model in the unit must finish its Heroic Intervention move closer to the closest enemy model. Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency (pg 4)."
You must move closer to the closest enemy model their is no effect on that model according to the text of heroic intervention provided above
That is precisely a strawman
Our logic and argument is what is written in the text of the rules is what happens. If a sentence says it effects models that suffer perils only models that suffer perils are effected if a sentence says models destroyed by perils whilst manifesting powers are effected then only models destroyed by perils whilst manifesting powers are effected and if the only requirement is that the model be destroyed by perils then any model dieing as a result of MW caused by the perils box meets that requirement
No it's not abducto ad absurdem that is where you seek to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that your proposal must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.
Given that you misrepresented your argument to make it easier to beat the extreme conclusion you reached was not valid and so while your answer was absurd that absurdity was not based on our/my original argument and so your argument is rejected ipso facto (because it is not valid and is misrepresentative and has no bearing on the tenability of the arguments in question)
As already stated there is no requirement to take a psychic test
Unless you can provide a quote
You state that is only possible when trying to manifest a power can you provide a quote specifying the "only" part
If you cannot you are wrong
No one is questioning that you can perils while attempting to manifest
As to the perils box
First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. (First part of perils effects psyker suffering perils only)
Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( this part effects a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power there's is no requirement that it suffers perils of the warp)
Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(This part effects all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp there is no requirement that they suffer perils of the warp)
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ type 40
Normally I agree but
A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
You are misrepresenting in your proposition when you claim that it effects the closest enemy model
"When a unit performs a Heroic Intervention, you can move each
model in that unit up to 3" – this is a Heroic Intervention move. Each model in the unit must finish its Heroic Intervention move closer to the closest enemy model. Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency (pg 4)."
You must move closer to the closest enemy model their is no effect on that model according to the text of heroic intervention provided above
That is precisely a strawman
Our logic and argument is what is written in the text of the rules is what happens. If a sentence says it effects models that suffer perils only models that suffer perils are effected if a sentence says models destroyed by perils whilst manifesting powers are effected then only models destroyed by perils whilst manifesting powers are effected and if the only requirement is that the model be destroyed by perils then any model dieing as a result of MW caused by the perils box meets that requirement
No it's not abducto ad absurdem that is where you seek to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that your proposal must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.
Given that you misrepresented your argument to make it easier to beat the extreme conclusion you reached was not valid and so while your answer was absurd that absurdity was not based on our/my original argument and so your argument is rejected ipso facto (because it is not valid and is misrepresentative and has no bearing on the tenability of the arguments in question)
I did this:
"Reductio ad absurdum is also known as "reducing to an absurdity." It involves characterizing an opposing argument in such a way that it seems to be ridiculous, or the consequences of the position seem ridiculous."
A: I am not making a misrepresentation of your argument at all. However, you may try to defend why your logic does not match the logic I applied (which you did). I am making a representation of your argument to the best of which was explained to me... again, not a strawman.
B: definition of strawman "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted."
I understood your argument, perhaps not in its full context, but I was addressing it directly and addressing the logical fallacy I see in it. I may be wrong about that fallacy, BUT, I am not refuting a different argument by demonstrating the logic you proposed in a different context... this simply IS NOT what a strawman is and I am getting tired of people just throwing that word around when ever someone gives them an example that they think isn't adequate.
If you disagree with these definitions, argue with the definitions provided by Wikipedia not me.
I am not saying I am right. I am just pointing out that what I provided you with was NOT a strawman and never will be. We know this because you were able to systematical respond to my argument to demonstrate your validity (and you did a good job of it). A strawman argument, by definition, can not be responded to in this way. This is because a strawman argument doesn't address your actual argument and instead attempts to address a different argument (which I did not do, I represented your argument [aka a model is being destroyed by perils of the warp because it is being destroyed in the context of the rules section called "Perils of the Warp"]).
Now, I get what you are saying and why you are saying it. I also think your explanation was tight and did in fact prove that my Reductio ad absurdum comparison did not fully apply to your logic. Where I fundamentally disagree with you is on what it means to be "destroyed by perils of the warp."
My self and others believe, and read, that the only models 'destroyed by perils of the warp' are models which 'suffer' from perils of the warp and not models which have been given MWs as a result of another model suffering from perils of the warp.
As seen with this line
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of th Warp, ..."
I do understand WHY you argue differently and I do believe the your reading of it is as valid as those who are disagreeing with you... The question here is; does the line "If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp" only refer to units who are , in fact, 'suffering' from perils OR is it a broader statement. I would argue that it is not a broader statement and I understand why some may argue otherwise. It doesn't help either side that the bullet point is not grammatically correct
" - If Psyker unit is destroyed ... " this neither specifies whether or not it is referring to "THE psyker unit" or "A psyker unit"
It is important to be able to acknowledge there is in fact merit in how other people are reading this and that if it was completely clear people wouldn't be disagreeing.
I think it's clear (already from the first post in which the rule is quoted) that "Perils of the Warp" encompasses both a cause and an consequent effect (this is like any other rule...).
Suffering from the effect isn't the same as satisfy the required trigger.
All this fuss however pivot around the interpretation of "by". GW should learn to use proper logical notation to write down their rules (yet, they're going in the opposite direction with the bespoken rules).
Let me write this down:
If X->Y, then you can't tell if Y->X
Mistaking a simple implication for a double implication is probably the most common logical error you'll ever find.
So, I think it's pretty clear that's A. BTW I agree that it would be thematic and fluffy to apply interpretation B... But, "RAW", that's not it.
Your issues are caused by the fact that you are parsing language as you feel. That's not how it works: there are rules to do that.
Anyway, I encourage you to write to GW to settle this in a FAQ or in any other channel if you're not convinced.
I don't disagree with your definition of a straw man.
Your argument however was a strawman argument by that definition.
The logical fallacy you claimed to exist did not exist in the arguments being made against you. You constructed the logical fallacy and then defeated it. However this had no bearing on the argument because it was not an extension of the arguments being made against you.
You have not presented my logic in a different context. Because my logic is you do what the text says. In your claim, you present a different portion of text and then directly go against the wording of that text (the exact opposite of my argument) claiming it effects more than the text does and then saying obviously this is wrong. Thus you have given the impression of challenging the argument while not addressing it at all.
in relation to "I do understand WHY you argue differently and I do believe the your reading of it is as valid as those who are disagreeing with you... The question here is; does the line "If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp" only refer to units who are , in fact, 'suffering' from perils OR is it a broader statement. "
Well the answer to that is simple we follow RAW unless RAW doesn't work then we go to RAI and if RAI is unclear we go to HIWPI
by definition"If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp" effects a Psycker unit destroyed by perils of the warp. That is the RAW so that is what it does.
If you can provide a quote limiting the scope to something more specific then, by all means, provide that quote
if you cant you are using a RAI argument that the statement isn't broader and should only apply to models that suffer perils
We then fall back on the standard YMDC answer of RAW trumps RAI because you cannot know GW intention and psychic feedback is congruent with the Grimdark universe.
I don't claim to know GW intention with respect to this but the wording under RAW is clear which is why to date no one advocateing that it only impacts models suffering perils of the warp argument have been able to provide a RAW quote supporting there reasoning.
A Psyker being killed by Perils of the warp is a specific thing, one that involves rolling double 1's or 6's.
The bit that says "If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp..." in context, means they were the PSYKER unit that was attempting to manifest a power.
"When a PSYKER unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds.... If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds." (Perils of the warp rules).
The incidental D3 damage from the first psyker suffering (and dying from) Perils of the warp, since Perils of the warp only kills psykers that attempt to manifest powers. (The context of the rule proves this is true).
Q: If a model is slain by an ossefactor, and the mortal wound inflicted by the ossefactor’s ability causes another model in that unit to be slain, do I roll again to see if another mortal wound is inflicted?
A: No.
Should GW get around to answering this question I would expect the same response.
Q: If a model is slain by an ossefactor, and the mortal wound inflicted by the ossefactor’s ability causes another model in that unit to be slain, do I roll again to see if another mortal wound is inflicted?
A: No.
Should GW get around to answering this question I would expect the same response.
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, ..."
The second psyker destroyed happens because of the mortal wounds given by a unit that was suffering from perils of the warp. The first psyker was the only one suffering from it... as defined in the rules. RAW, I am doing what I am being told as well. I understand your reading of it, and why, however I disagree with your reading of it. Who is and isn't suffering from perils of the warp is defined directly in the RAW. I am 100% not making a RAI argument. |
RAW as written ONLY a psyker who rolls double 1s or 6s 'suffer' from perrils of the warp. It is very strictly defined in the RAW of the rules section. "If you roll double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp" and also other abilities will trigger a unit to "suffer" perils of the warp. Only a unit that is, in fact, suffering from Perils can be destroyed as a result of it ... who is and isn't suffering from it is specifically defined RAW.
Also, my argument was not a strawman. Again, I was addressing your point directly and thus not making a strawman.
lets use an example.
I believe that 1+1 = 3.
1-1 = 0, so you are wrong.
This is a strawman.
v.s.
we know 1 + 3 = 4 so if you say.
1+1+1+1 = 6, you are wrong.
The second is not a strawman.
Now,,, If I applied your logic incorrectly on how you got to the number 3 from 1+1 ... my argument is still not a strawman, it is an appeal to extremes with misinterpreted logic.
It can not be a strawman unless I am responding to your proposition with an unrelated answer. My answer was related it just misinterpreted your logic path,,, which you cleared up for me,,, I still disagree with you but I agree that the extreme I presented was not using the logic that brought you to your conclusion,, just another set of logic that could bring someone to the same conclusion you actually concluded...
The point is,,, not a strawman,,, just a miscommunication on how you actually got to your conclusion.
@ type40 as stated their is no requirement to suffer perils to be destroyed that is an assumption not RAW and unless you can provide a direct quote supporting that part specifically the rest of your argument is not RAW it is based on an erroneous assumption
@death reaper their is no requirement for 1's and 6 to be rolled for a model to be destroyed by perils. (Yes that causes a model to suffer perils) but it doesn't prevent a model dieing or being destroyed from perils by other means
Incidental damage from perils is still damage from perils and is still capable of destroying models. You have been unable to provide a quote saying it doesn't count. Parotting that you require 1's and 6's or saying you need to suffer perils is irrelevant unless you can find a quote that directly states that
@Ghaz GW factually hasn't always ruled against causal chains although it has in that instance their are still plenty of causal chains in 40k e.g. if my knight explodes it can cause another vehicle to explode. Chain explosions probably being a more similar ruling if you want precedent. However your argument is RAI and RAI doesn't matter when there is a clear RAW - and there is a clear RAW because one side has provided clear quotes supporting their position and the other side have waffled a lot of irrelevance and provided 0 quotes to support their position.
@death reaper their is no requirement for 1's and 6 to be rolled for a model to be destroyed by perils. (Yes that causes a model to suffer perils) but it doesn't prevent a model dieing or being destroyed from perils by other means
The only way to suffer perils of the warp is by trying to manifest a psychic power, and performing a psychic test. Rules quote has already been provided by me.
U02dah4 wrote: @Ghaz GW factually hasn't always ruled against causal chains although it has in that instance their are still plenty of causal chains in 40k e.g. if my knight explodes it can cause another vehicle to explode.
Sorry, but that's not a chain. That's a direct result (i.e., A causes B, B causes C, etc.). A chain would be A causes B, A and B causes C, etc. A causal chain would be claiming that the unit shooting at the Knight destroyed the unit that the Knight's destruction caused to explode and could therefore potentially trigger one of that unit's special rules.
@death reaper their is no requirement for 1's and 6 to be rolled for a model to be destroyed by perils. (Yes that causes a model to suffer perils) but it doesn't prevent a model dieing or being destroyed from perils by other means
The only way to suffer perils of the warp is by trying to manifest a psychic power, and performing a psychic test. Rules quote has already been provided by me.
That quote didn't show that at all. All it showed was that rolling a double 1 or 6 resulted in you suffering perils of the warp. You have provided no quote to show "the only way to suffer perils" your quote is permissive not restrictive. you have also provided no quote to show that incidental damage from periling does not count as periling. If you cannot provide either you are wrong
So to sort this circular answer where this thread loops with you stating an argument as correct and not supporting it
i suggest your next answer is either - I am wrong,
or a direct quote of the rules proving either of those two things any additional wording is irrelevant we know your argument we say it is wrong because you can't support it
I don't think you can so your next argument will be a load of waffle and ill accept that as you saying I am wrong
U02dah4 wrote: @Ghaz GW factually hasn't always ruled against causal chains although it has in that instance their are still plenty of causal chains in 40k e.g. if my knight explodes it can cause another vehicle to explode.
Sorry, but that's not a chain. That's a direct result (i.e., A causes B, B causes C, etc.). A chain would be A causes B, A and B causes C, etc. A causal chain would be claiming that the unit shooting at the Knight destroyed the unit that the Knight's destruction caused to explode and could therefore potentially trigger one of that unit's special rules.
I can kind of see what your saying but GW haven't rulled in this case and until they do your argument is predicated on RAI so the RAW argument wins
U02dah4 wrote: @Ghaz GW factually hasn't always ruled against causal chains although it has in that instance their are still plenty of causal chains in 40k e.g. if my knight explodes it can cause another vehicle to explode.
Sorry, but that's not a chain. That's a direct result (i.e., A causes B, B causes C, etc.). A chain would be A causes B, A and B causes C, etc. A causal chain would be claiming that the unit shooting at the Knight destroyed the unit that the Knight's destruction caused to explode and could therefore potentially trigger one of that unit's special rules.
I can kind of see what your saying but GW haven't rulled in this case and until they do your argument is predicated on RAI so the RAW argument wins
The problem is that RAW does not support your claims.
As to the perils box
First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. (First part of perils effects psyker suffering perils only)
Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( this part effects a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power there's is no requirement that it suffers perils of the warp)
Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(This part effects all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp there is no requirement that they suffer perils of the warp)
No one has provided a counter RAW argument just hyperbole and RAI
No. The RAW does not support your claims without using a causal chain, something which we have a precedent against in the FAQ I have previously quoted.
So the RAW fully supports my claims but uses a causal chain which is fine as there is no specific RAW exclusion on causal chains. I'm glad you admit I'm correct.
I acknowledge your RAIFAQ however a RAI argument does not overrule the RAW one and personally the FAQ is not that solid a RAI evidence as it does not mention causal chains that is your inference and not one I agree with.
@death reaper their is no requirement for 1's and 6 to be rolled for a model to be destroyed by perils. (Yes that causes a model to suffer perils) but it doesn't prevent a model dieing or being destroyed from perils by other means
The only way to suffer perils of the warp is by trying to manifest a psychic power, and performing a psychic test. Rules quote has already been provided by me.
As to the perils box
First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. (First part of perils effects psyker suffering perils only)
Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( this part effects a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power there's is no requirement that it suffers perils of the warp)
Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(This part effects all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp there is no requirement that they suffer perils of the warp)
No one has provided a counter RAW argument just hyperbole and RAI
The RAW *expressly contradicts you*. It tells you which model is killed by Perils and then a secondary action to do if that happens. These extra MW on nearby units are not in themselves Perils of the Warp, they are (fluff-wise and rules-wise) a result of the Psyker’s death *by* Perils of the Warp. It helps if you read clearly rather than just throw insulting attempts to rubbish the opposing view.
JohnnyHell wrote: The quote is in your post FFS. Third Sentence as you post it, if that helps you.
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(This part effects all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp there is no requirement that they suffer perils of the warp)
That as stated contradicts you it shows that any psyker unit destroyed by perils of warp is effected -it provides no restrictions on what part of the perils of the warp rule does the destroying
As to the perils box
First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. (First part of perils effects psyker suffering perils only)
Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( this part effects a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power there's is no requirement that it suffers perils of the warp)
Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(This part effects all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp there is no requirement that they suffer perils of the warp)
No one has provided a counter RAW argument just hyperbole and RAI
The RAW *expressly contradicts you*. It tells you which model is killed by Perils and then a secondary action to do if that happens. These extra MW on nearby units are not in themselves Perils of the Warp, they are (fluff-wise and rules-wise) a result of the Psyker’s death *by* Perils of the Warp. It helps if you read clearly rather than just throw insulting attempts to rubbish the opposing view.
I've just quoted you the RAW i see no contradiction in it provide a rules quote doing so or i conclude your wrong
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see no quote just waffle a quote is where you take a peice of the rules and copy the exact text
What your doing is telling me what you think I know your argument
But you have to provide me a rules quote stating that those extra wounds are not part of perils of the warp otherwise your argument falls flat on its face
I rubbish your view only because you can't support it with a quote. If you can provide the quote I will accept it but you can't so your argument is rubbish
I’ve done that already. Read the quote, and my post. Then I’m done here. If you’re just gonna insult and not read the very text you quoted correctly, and won’t listen to advice, I’m not here for you to be bored and angry at thanks.
JohnnyHell wrote: Then I’m done here. If you’re just gonna insult and not read the very text you quoted correctly, and won’t listen to advice, I’m not here for you to be bored and angry at thanks.
Agreed. I'm done here as well. Play by your weird house rules, RAW is clear.
The rule explicitly SAYS who is being effected by Perils...
If I have a Keeper of Secrets and it had "Sinistrous Hand." then it destroyed a vehicle causing it to explode and kills 3 non-vehicles in the explosion. This would not trigger the kieeper of secrets to regain d3 mortal wounds... the keeper did not kill the non-vehicle units.
The rules for Perils is very specific about what is suffering from perils and what isn't . The rule where this specification happens has been quoted to you over and over... see any part of the rule that specifically mentions what models or units are "suffering" from perils of the warp.
Indeed, the raw dies not support any claim that the explosion effect is also perils of the warp. We know what perils of the warp is, the explosion is not it.
JohnnyHell wrote: I’ve done that already. Read the quote, and my post. Then I’m done here. If you’re just gonna insult and not read the very text you quoted correctly, and won’t listen to advice, I’m not here for you to be bored and angry at thanks.
You keep saying you've provided a quote and I don't see one copy and paste it if you have one but again you've stated you have one and have not provided it. I'm not angry I'm just asking for your evidence that you keep stating you have but fail to provide. I can only conclude that you have none since you have not provided it in about 6 posts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type40 wrote: The rule explicitly SAYS who is being effected by Perils...
If I have a Keeper of Secrets and it had "Sinistrous Hand." then it destroyed a vehicle causing it to explode and kills 3 non-vehicles in the explosion. This would not trigger the kieeper of secrets to regain d3 mortal wounds... the keeper did not kill the non-vehicle units.
The rules for Perils is very specific about what is suffering from perils and what isn't . The rule where this specification happens has been quoted to you over and over... see any part of the rule that specifically mentions what models or units are "suffering" from perils of the warp.
So again your telling me that there is a rule about who suffers perils which i don't disagree with (although its not exclusive as their are abilities that can) where we differ is you say its specific about who isn't but cannot provide a quote that says that. I say it says who is but makes no mention of who isn't at all -that the rule is solely permissive- if you are correct provide the quote we have been asking for and the arguments done but waffle and not provide a quote explicitly stating that and I'll conclude your wrong.
I would say the non vehicles were destroyed by the explosion rule not the keeper according to my reasoning and you appear to concur in your example which is identical to the second psyker being destroyed by the perils rule. In otherwords the rule that caused the MW is the source of the damage
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be honest I think the arguments done - I have asked you all to supply a quote supporting your position and none of you have.
I know that you cannot supply the quote I asked for because it doesn't exist.
If it explicitly did one of you would have a copied and pasted it by now. Since none of you have - all of you know that quote does not exist whether you publicly admit that or not which is why your getting annoyed.
In the absence of a counter quote the only conclusion is that perils chains because of the rule
"If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds"
Being within the perils section and as the rule states suffering perils is not a requirement only that you are destroyed by perils.
All further comments should be ignored in this thread unless they provide a counter quote
You are the one making the proposition that something else then what IS absolutely defined as suffering from Perils is also effected.
You are the one making a proposition, then the burden of proof is on you... we can not be expected to provide a quote in the rules that points out a rule does not exist. If the rule defining other units as also being effected does not exist, as we are saying to you it does not, then it simply does not. No one at GW is going to write "Hey, btw, this rule we didn't write, it doesnt exist."
So unless YOU can provide a quote that shows any unit other then units specifically declared to be suffering from perils are in fact suffering from it exist, then you are wrong.
Sorry, this is just the way argumentation works. You don't get to say "big foot exists unless you can show me proof that he doesnt"
It is impossible to prove a negative.
All further comments should be ignored in this thread unless they provide a counter quote.
You are the one making the proposition that something else then what IS absolutely defined as suffering from Perils is also effected.
You are the one making a proposition, then the burden of proof is on you... we can not be expected to provide a quote in the rules that points out a rule does not exist. If the rule does not exist, as we are saying to you it does not. No one at GW is going to write "Hey, btw, this rule we didn't write, it doesnt exist."
So unless YOU can provide a quote that shows any unit other then units specifically declared to be suffering from perils are in fact suffering from it exist, then you are wrong.
Sorry, this is just the way argumentation works. You don't get to say "big foot exists unless you can show me proof that he doesnt"
It is impossible to prove a negative.
It is the default position in 40k that when a rule says it effects something it effects what it says it does. I've provided that quote
"If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds"
it effects any psyker unit destroyed by perils - proof - note because its important to counter arguments the wording is not suffered it is destroyed as suffered clearly means (a model manifesting a power and rolling a double)
You have contended that in this instance that is not the case
I have asked for your proof and you have not supplied it again... because you can't
As you say I cannot quote something that does not exist I cannot prove a negative but you claim it does so the burden is on you
And yes I get my stupidity i should ignore you as you did not provide a quote
You are the one making the proposition that something else then what IS absolutely defined as suffering from Perils is also effected.
You are the one making a proposition, then the burden of proof is on you... we can not be expected to provide a quote in the rules that points out a rule does not exist. If the rule does not exist, as we are saying to you it does not. No one at GW is going to write "Hey, btw, this rule we didn't write, it doesnt exist."
So unless YOU can provide a quote that shows any unit other then units specifically declared to be suffering from perils are in fact suffering from it exist, then you are wrong.
Sorry, this is just the way argumentation works. You don't get to say "big foot exists unless you can show me proof that he doesnt"
It is impossible to prove a negative.
It is the default position in 40k that when a rule says it effects something it effects what it says it does. I've provided that quote
"If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds"
it effects any psyker unit destroyed by perils - proof
You have contended that in this instance that is not the case
I have asked for your proof and you have not supplied it again... because you can't
As you say I cannot quote something that does not exist I cannot prove a negative but you claim it does so the burden is on you
There is no rule telling you that those other models are effected by Perils of the Warp. There is only rules that specifically tell you WHAT IS effected by Perils of the warp. Just because the MWs you keep referring to appear in the section titled "Perils of the Warp" doesn't change the fact that what is and isn't suffering perils of the warp is very specifically defined. The section called "fight first/last" specifically defines what those are and in what circumstances it is fight first or fight last... just like in this section where it specifically defines what is suffering from Perils and then what that means for those suffering from Perils.
YOU are the one making a proposition that something exists in a larger context then in which it does. You are the one with the proposition, not us, you are the one with the burden of proof. XD . "Units other then the ones specifically outlined to suffer perils of the warp explode when destroyed by mortal wounds because of perils of the warp" < is your proposition... It is up to you to prove that those units are actually suffering from perils of the warp as well,,, which you have not done.. All you have done is point out that the rules all exist in the same section of the rule book... Your proposing the extra steps and extra models effected not anyone else... your proposition XD. Again, we can't prove to you that something that does not exists does not exists. It is impossible to prove a negative. All we can do is keep pointing you to the rule that specifically defines what does suffer from Perils of the Warp and keep repeating our question to you "why do you think other models then what is specifically defined to suffer from perils of the warp would be effected by a rule that only effects models that are suffering from perils of the warp ?" and it all existing within the same section of the rulebook isn't a good enough answer,,, that's not how the rules in this game work.
I honestly can not explain this in any other way... the RAW tells you who is suffering from it. I will never be able to provide you with a quote that points out "who doesn't suffer from it" because proving a negative is impossible. So I think we should agree to disagree on this... there is no other way to explain to what people have been trying to explain to you here.
So your first paragraph reads just because the perils rule specifies how it deals that damage it doesn't mean it counts as dealing that damage even if the damage comes from that rule.
Lol are you serious
Indeed perils is clearly defined it is a rule with its own box anything in that box - perils - far as I am aware there is no other definition feel free to quote one
I am contending that when a rule specifies how it deals damage that damage comes from that rule yes that is the crux of the argument and when that rule specifically causes any psyker unit destroyed by that rule to also deal that damage that is what it says as backed up by the quote you asked for therefore that is what it does its not a big logical leap its just reading the text as it is written
Now again your saying thats not the case despite what is written so provide your quote
So, let me get this straight. People get all worked up, impolite and condescending over this thing and their only argument is that something killed by the last scentence isn't actually killed by perils of the warp, but by some other mysterious entity?
Since words clearly don't reach you guys any more, let's try pictures. I present you, an actual photo of the rulebook. Color for emphasis.
Lets ignore the previous section where it defines what does actually suffer from Perils of the Warp. Lets ignore that rules do not anywhere else say any models other then those specific ones suffer from perils of the warp... lets just ignore that.
I guess everytime a unit Fights first it is also fight last because they exist in a section called
"Fights first/last"
...
For what ever reason we are just ignoring the part of the section you keep point out that actually defines what constitutes a unit that is or is not suffering from Perils XD... The rules specify it ,,, the title of the section doesn't have a bearing on anything when the rules specifically say what IS actually suffering from perils of the warp... I don't care how many times you circle the title of the section, thats not how the rules of this game work.
The title says what the section will be about... then the section actually defines what it means ... you know,,, under the section "Psychic test" where it actually says what suffers perils of the warp.
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something... not sure how else to point that out... What we can show you is where it says WHAT is suffering from Perils... what we can not show you is proof of that something does not suffer it. You can not prove a negative... we can prove this glaringly obvious positive... but you keep asserting that more then just what is defined here gets effected by perils... even though nothing says they do ... thats not how the rules work,,, i don't care what the title of that section is,,, we have a rule that says what does and doesn't get effected by it...
Type40 wrote: For what ever reason we are just ignoring the part of the section you keep point out that actually defines what constitutes a unit that is or is not suffering from Perils XD... The rules specify it ,,, the title of the section doesn't have a bearing on anything when the rules specifically say what IS actually suffering from perils of the warp... I don't care how many times you circle the title of the section, thats not how the rules of this game work.
The rule does not care whether you were suffering perils. The only requirement is being killed by perils of the warp. Suffering Perils of the Warp means no more, no less than having your unit affected by everything outlined under the rule "Perils of the Warp".
Oh, and the red bullet points are a summary, not the actual rules, as per page 195 in the big book.
Type40 wrote: For what ever reason we are just ignoring the part of the section you keep point out that actually defines what constitutes a unit that is or is not suffering from Perils XD... The rules specify it ,,, the title of the section doesn't have a bearing on anything when the rules specifically say what IS actually suffering from perils of the warp... I don't care how many times you circle the title of the section, thats not how the rules of this game work.
The rule does not care whether you were suffering perils. The only requirement is being killed by perils of the warp.
How can something be killed by something if it is not suffering from that thing ? XD ? lol really ?
The keeper of secrets doesn't get d3 Ws back because it killed a tank that then exploaded and caused a non-vehicle to die... that's not how the game works.
You are being impolite. I suggest stepping away from the keyboard and thinking about this instead of insisting on being right despite providing no evidence.
How am I being impolite XD ? by pointing to the rules in the same fashion that is always done on this forum ? Your repeatedly pointing to the title of a section.
p.s. there is plenty of evidence, its you two not providing evidence XD.
Again: by RAW it does not chain.
You can't parse a rule as you like: you have a trigger, and then a number of effects. The effect does not count as cause themselves.
You may illude yourself that jumping the middle of the execution of a rules is legit (because the sub-section of the rule haven't specific names - differently, from example, from the attack sequence in which the sub-steps are named separately).
But what you believe don't change the fact that you're wrong.
"But what killed the nearby Psyker then?"
Mortal wound did. Mortal Wound inflicted by Perils, which are not the same things as Perils themselves.
The quote you want is in the paragraph posted:
do you read "If a Psyker unit is killed'?
Because I read "If Psyker unit is killed"... so, not any Psyker unit, but the one aforementioned as taking test.
Type40 wrote: For what ever reason we are just ignoring the part of the section you keep point out that actually defines what constitutes a unit that is or is not suffering from Perils XD... The rules specify it ,,, the title of the section doesn't have a bearing on anything when the rules specifically say what IS actually suffering from perils of the warp... I don't care how many times you circle the title of the section, thats not how the rules of this game work.
The rule does not care whether you were suffering perils. The only requirement is being killed by perils of the warp.
Suffering Perils of the Warp means no more, no less than having your unit affected by everything outlined under the rule "Perils of the Warp".
Oh, and the red bullet points are a summary, not the actual rules, as per page 195 in the big book.
Yes type 40's quote only shows that a model rolling a double suffers perils it does not define what perils is and it is not a requirement to suffer perils only to be destroyed by it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type40 wrote: How am I being impolite XD ? by pointing to the rules in the same fashion that is always done on this forum ? Your repeatedly pointing to the title of a section.
p.s. there is plenty of evidence, its you two not providing evidence XD.
No we have both provided ample evidence - you submitted one peice of evidence after a hundred posts and that clearly provided no challenge to our contention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: Again: by RAW it does not chain.
You can't parse a rule as you like: you have a trigger, and then a number of effects. The effect does not count as cause themselves.
You may illude yourself that jumping the middle of the execution of a rules is legit (because the sub-section of the rule haven't specific names - differently, from example, from the attack sequence in which the sub-steps are named separately).
But what you believe don't change the fact that you're wrong.
"But what killed the nearby Psyker then?"
Mortal wound did. Mortal Wound inflicted by Perils, which are not the same things as Perils themselves.
The quote you want is in the paragraph posted:
do you read "If a Psyker unit is killed'?
Because I read "If Psyker unit is killed"... so, not any Psyker unit, but the one aforementioned as taking test.
Their is no RAW rule against chaining and even if there was the specific wording of a rule would overrule it. (Also if your going to say by RAW conventionally you quote the exact bit of RAW you are referring to)
Yes the mw are caused by perils ergo perils destroyed it. If the mw were caused by an explosion the explosion destroyed it and if was shot by a meltagun the meltagun destroyed it
Type40 wrote: For what ever reason we are just ignoring the part of the section you keep point out that actually defines what constitutes a unit that is or is not suffering from Perils XD... The rules specify it ,,, the title of the section doesn't have a bearing on anything when the rules specifically say what IS actually suffering from perils of the warp... I don't care how many times you circle the title of the section, thats not how the rules of this game work.
The rule does not care whether you were suffering perils. The only requirement is being killed by perils of the warp.
Suffering Perils of the Warp means no more, no less than having your unit affected by everything outlined under the rule "Perils of the Warp".
Oh, and the red bullet points are a summary, not the actual rules, as per page 195 in the big book.
Yes type 40's quote only shows that a model rolling a double suffers perils it does not define what perils is and it is not a requirement to suffer perils only to be destroyed by it.
I underlined the none bullet point... (so disingenuous that we can't even acknowledge half of the picture posted XD) ...
The quote I posted defines permissions for what suffers Perils... there are other rules the give permissions to cause something to suffer Perils in the game... With out a rule that says perils is suffered something can not die of perils... unless you have a rule that specifically says otherwise... Again,,, no rule shows what doesn't suffer it, just rules that say what does... can not prove a negative guys.
When a Psyker unit attempts to manifest a psychic power, you must take a Psychic test for that unit by rolling 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the Psychic test is passed.
I'm assuming no one has a problem with this bit
If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test,
that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
As to this bit it says if you role a double you suffer perils no ones arguing with that.
Saying something does something does not mean something else can't also do that or that doing that precludes something else from happening it is permissive not restrictive. It also does not define what that thing is.
Its also irrelevant because there is no requirement to suffer perils of the warp only be destroyed by it and that rule does not interact with being destroyed by it
See you then say that without a rule that says perils is suffered nothing can die from it but that quote doesn't say that anywhere and the perils rule clearly states it deals mw so in the same way models can die from explosions strategems attacks and psychic powers models can die from perils
When a Psyker unit attempts to manifest a psychic power, you must take a Psychic test for that unit by rolling 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the Psychic test is passed.
I'm assuming no one has a problem with this bit
If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test,
that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
As to this bit it says if you role a double you suffer perils no ones arguing with that.
Saying something does something does not mean something else can't also do that or that doing that precludes something else from happening it is permissive not restrictive. It also does not define what that thing is.
precisely,,, no where does it say the models you suggest are suffering from perils are in fact suffering from perils
Its also irrelevant because there is no requirement to suffer perils of the warp only be destroyed by it and that rule does not interact with being destroyed by it
if you arn't suffering from something you can not be destroyed by that something,,, what makes you think you can be ? and again, casual chains arn't a thing in this game, the keeper of secrets cant blow up a tank, kill a model with an explosion, and then get d3 wound back... thats not how the game works...
See you then say that without a rule that says perils is suffered nothing can die from it but that quote doesn't say that anywhere and the perils rule clearly states it deals mw so in the same way models can die from explosions strategems attacks and psychic powers models can die from perils
yes, models can die from perils... and other models can die from the mortal wounds caused by a model dying from perils... that later is not the same as the former.
The title of the section these rules are in doesn't bestow the name of the rule onto everything explained in there... otherwise things that fight first would also "fight last" ... we know what causes models to suffer perils because of very specific rules that say what does... otherwise a model does not have "permission" to suffer from perils.
1) I'm not suggesting they are suffering perils of the warp there has been no quoted requirement to do so only be destroyed by perils of the warp.
2) the perils of the warp rule deals mw in an area around it therefore it can destroy models not suffering perils of the warp
3) what causal chain perils of the warp deals mw killing a psyker that psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp and so explodes just as an exploding vehicle can cause another vehicle to explode by dealing MW to it
4)The title refers to a section of rules .
The rule itdelf refers to the title
if a Psyker unit is destroyed by "the title"
5) You seem to know an awful lot its a pity you are unable to support any of that in rules quotes
I think It's pretty clear what the intention is.
Mortal wounds by means of an explosion resulting from perils of the warp is not the same as suffering perils of the warp and being killed by perils of the warp...
2) No one is saying its the same both camps are saying its different- the requirement as quoted is to be destroyed by it not suffer it
Sentence 1 applies to suffering only sentence 2 suffering while manifesting (as distinct from suffering) and 3 to those destroyed by the perils rule regardless of whether they suffer perils
The rule does not care whether you were suffering perils. The only requirement is being killed by perils of the warp.
How can something be killed by something if it is not suffering from that thing ? XD ? lol really ?
The red part is the only thing you have provided as an counter-argument so far. You deflection to completely unrelated rules is irrelevant to the debate.
Since you clearly failed to understand the difference between suffering perils of the warp and getting killed by perils of the warp I'll explain it once more:
A model that rolls doubles suffers perils of the warp, which means it's affected by the whole rule, including dealing d3 mortal wounds to itself and potentially exploding.
A nearby unit that takes d3 mortal wounds from Perils of the Warp is killed by Perils of the Warp, just like the psyker itself.
If you disagree, you need provide proof that a model killed by the rules in the section called "Perils of the Warp" was indeed not "killed by Perils of the Warp" or that you need to suffer from Perils of the Warp in order to be killed by it.
If you claim that perils didn't kill the nearby model, you tell us what did kill it, and provide proof for that as well.
The burden of proof is with you. Failing to provide that proof means forfeiting your argument.
U02dah4 wrote: 1) the intention does not matter only the RAW
I think you will find to most people, the intention does matter. Purposefully interpreting strict raw just so it results in absurdity doesn't really make for good gaming.
If somebody really tried to force that on their opponent I would just black list them and not arrange games with them personally. Having perils and losing your psyker would suck enough without the extra kick in the nads on top which would very likely decide the game there and then. It's just simply unnecessary..
Its interesting it hasn't been FAQ'd yet but I guess it just hasn't come up often enough.
Type40 wrote: if you arn't suffering from something you can not be destroyed by that something
Please quote a rule for that.
Or would you agree that models cannot be destroyed by shooting because models never suffer from shooting?
,,, what makes you think you can be ? and again, casual chains arn't a thing in this game, the keeper of secrets cant blow up a tank, kill a model with an explosion, and then get d3 wound back... thats not how the game works...
Explosion kill the model. Because the rule dealing the mortal wounds is called "Explosion". When a psyker offs itself, the rule dealing mortal wounds is called "Perils of the Warp".
See you then say that without a rule that says perils is suffered nothing can die from it but that quote doesn't say that anywhere and the perils rule clearly states it deals mw so in the same way models can die from explosions strategems attacks and psychic powers models can die from perils
The title of the section these rules are in doesn't bestow the name of the rule onto everything explained in there...
otherwise things that fight first would also "fight last" ...
Please quote this "fight first" section and its respective title.
Spoiler:
It doesn't exist, the section is called "Always fight/first last" and therefore is never referenced as a whole. Please do not make up arguments and provide quotes for any rules you reference.
@argive This is a rules thread not a what do you think the rules should do thread
RaW trumps RAI because RAI is subjective you say its not intended i say psychic feedback is part of the grimdark universe and nobody can speak for what GW actually intend because they regularly contradict themselves.
So by convention
If there is a problem with RAW and the RAW doesn't work of course we go to RAI and sometimes RAI is unclear so we go to HIWPI
No one is contesting a mechanical problem with the RAW here so there is no reason to go to RAI and that is why the intention does not matter
The RAW is clear enough perhaps it has not been FAQ'd because it is GW intention
Argive wrote: I think It's pretty clear what the intention is.
Mortal wounds by means of an explosion resulting from perils of the warp is not the same as suffering perils of the warp and being killed by perils of the warp...
Is it though? I'm fairly sure that the fluff supports psykers going insane and exploding when a nearby psyker does.
I mean its a very gotcha moment isn't? Because its very easy to avoid.. you'd just not leave psykers 3" of each other... The only time you wouldn't is if you thought the common sense interpretation of raw is that the chain reaction thing doesn't happen because its such a rare occurance.
Lets throw a spanner in the works.
If as result ofperils my psyker explodes, and causes another model to die who unpon death does MW (without a named rule) and kills the second psykers does he also suffer perils and explodes?
By your raw causality interpretation he would because was it not for perils, there would be no mortal wounds cuased at all.
I just think its not the right interpretation of raw in this case.
Of course until FAQ play how you will with your opponents.
I will try to remember to make sure I clear this up before games if and when I get to play again.
The rule does not care whether you were suffering perils. The only requirement is being killed by perils of the warp.
How can something be killed by something if it is not suffering from that thing ? XD ? lol really ?
The red part is the only thing you have provided as an counter-argument so far.
wow,,, way to ignore,,, literally everything XD ,,, ummm not sure but there is other things written in every single one of my posts... maybe you missed them, I suggest a re-read.... as that is literally the only thing that isn't a counter argument
.
You deflection to completely unrelated rules is irrelevant to the debate.
not sure when that happened ? I am only reffering to the rules that specifically specify why Perils of the Warp is suffered (i.e. the entirety of this debate)
Since you clearly failed to understand the difference between suffering perils of the warp and getting killed by perils of the warp I'll explain it once more:
A model that rolls doubles suffers perils of the warp, which means it's affected by the whole rule, including dealing d3 mortal wounds to itself and potentially exploding.
A nearby unit that takes d3 mortal wounds from Perils of the Warp is killed by Perils of the Warp, just like the psyker itself.
again, something that is not suffering from perils can not be killed by it... just because the causual chain exists in the rules SECTION with the title "Perils of the Warp" does not mean every effect causes the "title of the section". in the same way that something that fights first doesnt also fight last... the rules tell us when something is fighting first or last NOT it's section title... In the same way the rules tell us when something is suffering Perils not its section ttile.
If you disagree, you need provide proof that a model killed by the rules in the section called "Perils of the Warp" was indeed not "killed by Perils of the Warp" or that you need to suffer from Perils of the Warp in order to be killed by it.
If you claim that perils didn't kill the nearby model, you tell us what did kill it, and provide proof for that as well.
Again, I have explained over and over again that the "title" of a rules section doesn't magically make every effect in that section triggered by the rule... again, see "fight first/last." What does define if it is a rule are the sections of rules that, in fact, describe what is effected by the rule... i.e. the post I have repeatedly quoted to you. Again, do you have any proof that "titles" of rules sections magically bestow a triggering of effects onto things,,, because everything else in the rule book does not work that way. And I also do not see anything that says the units you suggest are effected by it ... The fact that you are convinced that a unit not suffering from Perils of the warp can be "destroyed" by perils of the warp is baffling ...
As with anything in the game.
Here is what killed that model :
Mortal wounds caused by a model exploding because they were suffering from perils of the warp.
The only way to make it anything more then that is with a casual chain... which is not how the game works.
Again, a keeper of secrets who destroys a tank is not considered to have killed the unit that the tanks explosion killed. The keeper of secrets doesn't get d3 wounds back for that...
if it did, it would be a casual chain...
So again, because you keep ignoring half my my arguments and telling me I don't understand what your saying XD lol A unit suffers perils of the warp and thus explodes,,, then BECAUSE of that a nearby psyker suffers mortal wounds... the nearby psyker DID NOT suffer perils because there is no rule in the game that says they did only a rule that specified the first one did... otherwise it is a casual chain which doesnt happen in 40k rules. Again, simply being in the section "titled" perils of the warp doesn't magically bestow permissions... the actual text outlining the permissions does.
The burden of proof is with you. Failing to provide that proof means forfeiting your argument.
it is not,,, this is your proposition. The permissions are outlined clearly.
The only way to get killed by Perils of the Warp, is this:
"If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp."
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds."
That is how you get killed by perils.
The incidental damage to other units near the Psyker unit that suffers Perils of the Warp, in context, do not suffer Perils of the Warp, and as such just take damage.
You have not established that something cannot be killed by perils if it hasn't suffered it and we have quoted evidence to the contrary
The bits under the perils of the warp explicitly do not apply to everything that refers to the section they apply only to those things they specify
When rules refer to a rule they usual refer to its title the words under the title are the definition of the rule this is not magic its a rulebook
Again there is no raw against causal chains
We only ignore your arguments because you have not made any
You criticise the rules as they are written quote one sentence no one disagrees with then invent a list of rules that that sentence means that are not attached to that sentence anywhere. Then try and say it prevents another section which that rule doesn't apply to.
We are willing to engage with your arguments but only ones supported by RAW
So if you can quote a rule like "a model that does not suffer perils of the warp is not effected by perils of warp" or " a MW caused by perils of the warp can not in turn cause a perils of the warp" we will accept your argument if not you've made up rules that don't exist and then are saying we are ignoring them. We are not ignoring them they are not there.
And yes the burden of proof is on the person suggesting the imaginary rules exist
I mean I could equally argue all space marines die when manifesting psychic powers as to a quote (insert unrelated sentance) "Once you have selected an eligible Psyker unit from your army, you can attempt to manifest one or more psychic powers with it" and the burden of proof is on everyone else - that's basically your argument at this point
When rules refer to a rule they usual refer to its title the words under the title are the definition of the rule this is not magic its a rulebook
Wrong, when a rule refers to a rule they refer to the RULE not the title of the section in the book it appears in... i.e. the permission and triggers specified by the text itself.
But honestly, nevermind, i am going to bed. anyone reading this thread can see what I have posted and see which units do get affected by perils of the warp. You repeatedly insisting the title of the section bestows magic properties onto the text isn't going to change that.
I will play by RAW and do exactly what it tells me to do and you play by osmosis titles.
When rules refer to a rule they usual refer to its title the words under the title are the definition of the rule this is not magic its a rulebook
Wrong, when a rule refers to a rule they refer to the RULE not the title of the section in the book it appears in... i.e. the permission and triggers specified by the text itself.
But honestly, nevermind, i am going to bed. anyone reading this thread can see what I have posted and see what models do, in fact, get effected by perils of the warp. You repeatedly insisting the title of the section bestows magic properties onto the text isn't going to change that.
/
The title and the rule are synonymous the definition of the rule is what lies beneath it. (They don't spell out the entire perils of the warp section everytime they reference it they just write perils of the warp. You then read that section if you want the definition to find out what it does.)
Yes they will see that provided they too can see imaginery rules. You are welcome to play how you want but what you claim the RAW is telling you to do you have been unable to evidence so it is not the RAW for everyone else
@type40: I did not ignore any of your posts. I literally spelled out what you have to prove in order to back up your argument, and what parts of it are unproven. Not only have you chosen to not answer these, but you have also repeated arguments that have unmistakably been shown as false.
Therefore you have failed to provide proof for your core thesis: that a model can only be killed by perils when it has been suffering perils. Without it everything else is just an opinion, not a valid interpretation of the rules.
artific3r wrote: Guys... this really could go either way. It's ambiguous until we get an FAQ. No use writing essays about it.
We have a nearly identical situation that GW has already answered via a FAQ and shows the way GW would likely answer.
That's actually a good point which puts RAI up into the air. Sorry for having missed it.
I also disagree that RAI is irrelevant. However, my reason for starting this was to clarify RAW, as I usually take the RAW interpretation up for discussion in my group and then we decide on these things by forming a consensus. If the guys and gals are for chain-exploding psykers (which I totally can see happening, they love explosions), then so be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I mean its a very gotcha moment isn't? Because its very easy to avoid.. you'd just not leave psykers 3" of each other... The only time you wouldn't is if you thought the common sense interpretation of raw is that the chain reaction thing doesn't happen because its such a rare occurance.
Lets throw a spanner in the works.
If as result ofperils my psyker explodes, and causes another model to die who unpon death does MW (without a named rule) and kills the second psykers does he also suffer perils and explodes?
By your raw causality interpretation he would because was it not for perils, there would be no mortal wounds cuased at all.
I just think its not the right interpretation of raw in this case.
My RAW interpretation is that "perils" is everything in that box, and so far there has been no compelling arguments why a unit killed by the first sentence of that box should be treated any different from a unit killed by the third sentence of that very same paragraph.
For it to work as most people expected the third sentence should read something like:
"If a PSYKER unit is destroyed when suffering from Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds."
or
"If a PSYKER unit is destroyed this way, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds."
or
"If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds. Units killed this way do not cause further mortal wounds."
As it is, it might either be GW's sloppy writing or a case where simply everyone was playing it wrong because the rule is un-intuitive, similar to the objective secured rules.
I will try to remember to make sure I clear this up before games if and when I get to play again.
That was kind of the intention of me creating this thread
Jidmah wrote: @type40: I did not ignore any of your posts. I literally spelled out what you have to prove in order to back up your argument, and what parts of it are unproven. Not only have you chosen to not answer these, but you have also repeated arguments that have unmistakably been shown as false.
Therefore you have failed to provide proof for your core thesis: that a model can only be killed by perils when it has been suffering perils. Without it everything else is just an opinion, not a valid interpretation of the rules.
artific3r wrote: Guys... this really could go either way. It's ambiguous until we get an FAQ. No use writing essays about it.
We have a nearly identical situation that GW has already answered via a FAQ and shows the way GW would likely answer.
That's actually a good point which puts RAI up into the air. Sorry for having missed it.
I also disagree that RAI is irrelevant. However, my reason for starting this was to clarify RAW, as I usually take the RAW interpretation up for discussion in my group and then we decide on these things by forming a consensus. If the guys and gals are for chain-exploding psykers (which I totally can see happening, they love explosions), then so be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I mean its a very gotcha moment isn't? Because its very easy to avoid.. you'd just not leave psykers 3" of each other... The only time you wouldn't is if you thought the common sense interpretation of raw is that the chain reaction thing doesn't happen because its such a rare occurance.
Lets throw a spanner in the works.
If as result ofperils my psyker explodes, and causes another model to die who unpon death does MW (without a named rule) and kills the second psykers does he also suffer perils and explodes?
By your raw causality interpretation he would because was it not for perils, there would be no mortal wounds cuased at all.
I just think its not the right interpretation of raw in this case.
My RAW interpretation is that "perils" is everything in that box, and so far there has been no compelling arguments why a unit killed by the first sentence of that box should be treated any different from a unit killed by the third sentence of that very same paragraph.
For it to work as most people expected the third sentence should read something like:
"If a PSYKER unit is destroyed when suffering from Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds."
or
"If a PSYKER unit is destroyed this way, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds."
or
"If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds. Units killed this way do not cause further mortal wounds."
As it is, it might either be GW's sloppy writing or a case where simply everyone was playing it wrong because the rule is un-intuitive, similar to the objective secured rules.
I will try to remember to make sure I clear this up before games if and when I get to play again.
That was kind of the intention of me creating this thread
Right,
So as I pointed out before... by this logic... and correct me if I am wrong...
The fight last rule is also the fight first rule because the definition of what both rules mean and do exist in a section titled "Fights first/last"
My argument is relatively simple... nothing in the BRB behaves in a way where simply the title of the section of the rule book means more then simply being the title of the section of the rule book. The way the rule works is based on what the actual text says it does and how the text says it should work.
My RAW interpretation is that "perils" is everything in that box,
if you ignore the context, then sure...
and so far there has been no compelling arguments why a unit killed by the first sentence of that box should be treated any different from a unit killed by the third sentence of that very same paragraph.
Except for mine, but you are ignoring the context of the rule, and what being killed by Perils of the Warp actually means, so of course you think there is no compelling arguments against what you have said.
Do not ignore the fact that the only way to get killed by Perils of the Warp, is this:
"If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp."
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds."
That is how you get killed by Perils of the Warp.
The incidental damage is just that incidental from a Psyker rolling a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, and being reduced to 0 wounds through that process.
The incidental damage is not inflicted by suffering from Perils of the Warp, but from a Psyker being destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
Yes we have established that being killed by perils means dieing as a result of MW from any part of the perils box - no other rule definition has been provided by anyone
Suffering perils is irrelevant to being killed as it is not a requirement and that rule is permissive not a definition
There is no rule that has been quoted defining "incidental damage" it is an entirely made up concept that exists only to support your other made up rules
This is an interesting delve into the RAW vs RAI camp, and how the lines can be blurred when something with such clear RAI has such poor RAW!
When a PSYKER unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds. If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest. If a PSYKER unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Seems kinda cut and dry:
RAW, a psyker is killed by perils, nothing says it only applies to the one which tried to cast, so the rules can be followed and psyker 2 blows up as well.
RAI, clearly they only want one psyker to explode. But that ain't how it's written!
Type40 wrote: So as I pointed out before... by this logic... and correct me if I am wrong...
The fight last rule is also the fight first rule because the definition of what both rules mean and do exist in a section titled "Fights first/last"
You are wrong. Here is why:
The section is called "Always fight first/last" and is part of the rare rules section. Neither fight first nor fight last are keyworded in any way, and there is no way to reference a "fight first" or "fight last" rule - which is actually a common point of criticism of this system, because it would not require the wordy rules that the Foul Blightspawn or the Emperor's Legion Trait which always need to point to charging to work.
So, there is no rule called "fight first" or "fight last", which means that your example doesn't actually prove or disprove anything.
My argument is relatively simple... nothing in the BRB behaves in a way where simply the title of the section of the rule book means more then simply being the title of the section of the rule book. The way the rule works is based on what the actual text says it does and how the text says it should work.
Page 195, bullet point 8 strongly suggest that the titles of boxes do indeed name rules.
Even if you ignore that, "nothing" can be disproven by a single counter-example:
Page 219, "Look out, Sir" is one of the most commonly referenced rules in the game. The section title is the only time "Look out, Sir" is called by its name. If it only worked the way you discribe, all sniper rules in the entire game would be defunct, as there is no rule called "Look out, Sir" by your interpretation.
My RAW interpretation is that "perils" is everything in that box,
if you ignore the context, then sure...
You misunderstand, I'm not ignoring context, but I'm ignoring you. Why should I bother with your posts when you can't be bothered to answer my questions?
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
DeathReaper wrote: Except for mine, but you are ignoring the context of the rule, and what being killed by Perils of the Warp actually means, so of course you think there is no compelling arguments against what you have said.
Okay, let's pick this trainwreck apart:
Do not ignore the fact that the only way to get killed by Perils of the Warp, is this:
"If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp."
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds."
You omitted half a rule to have an argument. You are not allowed to leave out the last part of a rule when it is referenced, not for the Look out, Sir, not for Heavy weapons, not for Perils of the Warp.
That is how you get killed by Perils of the Warp.
So, what does kill the models killed that get killed by the third sentence of the only paragraph of the Perils of the Warp rule?
The incidental damage is just that incidental from a Psyker rolling a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, and being reduced to 0 wounds through that process.
The incidental damage is not inflicted by suffering from Perils of the Warp, but from a Psyker being destroyed by Perils of the Warp.
Please provide a rules reference for "incidental damage", as it is clearly a game term relevant to this discussion and not a thing you invented to change the meaning of the rule.
Also provide a rules quote that only models suffering from Perils of the Warp are relevant to dealing d3 mortal wounds to nearby models when killed.
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
By that reasoning, no psykers are ever killed by perils, as the original psyker also is killed by mortal wounds.
I understand that those two rules are very similar, but it might also just have been ruled that way as a safeguard from chaining an entire unit to death.
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
There is no precedent in 40k. A Special Snowflake FAQ applies only to the thing it applies to.
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
There is no precedent in 40k. A Special Snowflake FAQ applies only to the thing it applies to.
So you're saying GW is consistent in their rules?
The Drukhari FAQ answers a very similar question. Therefore it is a precedent until such time as GW deigns to answer the question at hand.
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
There is no precedent in 40k. A Special Snowflake FAQ applies only to the thing it applies to.
So you're saying GW is consistent in their rules?
The Drukhari FAQ answers a very similar question. Therefore it is a precedent until such time as GW deigns to answer the question at hand.
No, I am saying the exact opposite. You're the one asserting that GW are "consistent" via "precedent". I am asserting that GW often give contradictory answers in their FAQs. Off the top of my head I can immediately think of the "Movement after reinforcements" and "Quantum Shielding Damage 1" from 8th edition. You can't claim "Rule X was FAQed to do Y despite ignoring the RaW of X" when we are talking about Rule Z.
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
There is no precedent in 40k. A Special Snowflake FAQ applies only to the thing it applies to.
So if GW's not consistent then what you're considering a 'special snowflake FAQ' isn't always that, otherwise it would be GW being 'consistent'.
Anyway, GW doesn't get to decide what is or is not a precedent. The players do by finding rulings for similar situations that answer a question that is not clearly answered via the rules or a FAQ. The Drukhari FAQ does this for the Perils question whether GW intended it or not.
Far as I can read this thread hasn't changed in 4 pages
Argument A
perils of the warp does exactly what is says it does in the perils box - Which is clear and consistent and completely evidenced by clear RAW quotes - perils chains
Argument B
some of the MW are incidental and some aren't on an arbitrary basis with no RAW quote as to exactly what an incidental MW is- they just have to have some way to ignore the part of the rule they don't like.
You can only be destroyed if you suffer perils backed up by a quote saying you suffer perils if you role a double -that explicitly does not say you can only be destroyed if you suffer perils that bit is made up. (While also ignoring the line that clearly states you don't need to suffer perils you only need to be destroyed because its "incidental" with again no RAW quote about why that line should be ignored)
That the burden on proof is on their opponent's despite all the imaginery lines in their argument. And any attempt to ignore the holes in their argument because they haven't evidenced them are "ignoring the context" (at this point im pretty sure "the context" refers to their imagination because it doesn't resemble the rules)
That chaining can't happen because GW rule against it with no RAW quote to state that. supported by a snowflake FAQ on a different topic that kind of has similar logic while ignoring examples of chaining like explosions
And my personal favourite -that because there are two arguments their is ambiguity despite one argument being RAW and one made up.
I mean the holes in argument B are staggering its like saying trump won by a landslide because incidental Biden votes don't count
There shouldn't be a disagreement here theirs solid fact vs a Swiss cheese argument
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
Ok, it's not killed by perils, it is killed by the mortal wounds caused by the rules found under "perils of the warp".
Would you argue that a unit with a rule saying "if this unit is destroyed by a vehicle which explodes" is destroyed when a vehicle explodes, that it was in fact destroyed by the mortal wounds caused by the explosion, so the rule is not followed?
The mortal wounds which killed it were caused by the perils of the warp - not indirectly, they are a part of the rule itself. It's not like if a model perils>explodes>kills a vehicle>explodes>kills a psyker. The perils of the warp caused those mortal wounds which kileld that psyker - perils inflicted it directly, itself, using its own rules. Therefore, if it does kill a psyker, then it will chain.
We have a unit not killed by perils, but by a Psyker exploding which was caused by perils. There is no indication, raw or otherwise, that the status of "perils..." is commutative
Add to that we know already how gw has ruled on a very similar situation, and the side that claims a Psyker exploding to ill another Psyker means that's the second Psyker also died of perils gets ever further from reality.
Raw it does not chain
Likely rai it does not chain
Precedentally it does not chain
We have a unit not killed by perils, but by a Psyker exploding which was caused by perils. There is no indication, raw or otherwise, that the status of "perils..." is commutative
Add to that we know already how gw has ruled on a very similar situation, and the side that claims a Psyker exploding to ill another Psyker means that's the second Psyker also died of perils gets ever further from reality.
Raw it does not chain
Likely rai it does not chain
Precedentally it does not chain
Yes the psyker explodes, but that does not mean it is a seperate rule. the part which tells you to apply these mortal wounds is in the "perils of the Warp" rules. So it's "Perils of the Warp" causing these mortal wounds. and then "Perils of the Warp" goes on to explain what happens if a psyker unit is slain by "Perils of the Warp" (which for clarity, contains the rules which caused the second psyker to die).
It's 100% certain that the second psyker dies due to Perils in the Warp, and not due to a non-existent "Psyker Exploding" rule. The rule they died due to is in fact called "Perils in the Warp".
I also 100% agree that this isn't how it is supposed to work, and that GW (if they decide to address it) will probably correct it to only the psyker who failed!
TLDR: The 2nd psyker is destroyed due to perils of the warp, not by perils of the warp.
I'd like to think of the other side of the argument as:
Claim: -In a game of baseball, if the batter was hit by a ball, then the batter was hit by a game of baseball.
Proof: -A baseball game is a sport where two opposing teams play against another in series of periods referred to as 'innings'. -Inning is comprised of pitcher throwing the ball and batter hitting the ball. -When a pitcher throws the ball, there's a chance that the ball may hit the batter. -Then, if a batter is hit by a thrown ball, that batter was hit by a game of baseball.
Anyone would argue that this is a valid but unsound conclusion. The batter was definitely hit because of/during/while playing a game of baseball, but it's a hard sell if you're trying to prove that he/she was hit BY a game of baseball.
The 2nd psyker was destroyed as a result of resolving the effects of 'perils of the warp.' It did not, get destroyed by perils of the warp. Rule does not say 'if a psyker unit is destroyed from/due to/because of etc'. Because language is inherently vague, you have to try to arrive at the most valid & sound reading of the rules text, even if you're trying to claim it is RAW.
some bloke wrote: So psyker 2 gets killed by the Perils of the Warp explosion from psyker 1. I'd say that this qualifies, as a psyker unit (not the one which perils'd, but then nothing there says it has to be the one which suffered the effects) was killed by perils of the warp.
Except it wasn't killed by the Perils, but by the Mortal Wounds, just like in the precedent I presented with the Ossefactor in the Codex Drukhari FAQ.
Ok, it's not killed by perils, it is killed by the mortal wounds caused by the rules found under "perils of the warp".
Would you argue that a unit with a rule saying "if this unit is destroyed by a vehicle which explodes" is destroyed when a vehicle explodes, that it was in fact destroyed by the mortal wounds caused by the explosion, so the rule is not followed?
The mortal wounds which killed it were caused by the perils of the warp - not indirectly, they are a part of the rule itself. It's not like if a model perils>explodes>kills a vehicle>explodes>kills a psyker. The perils of the warp caused those mortal wounds which kileld that psyker - perils inflicted it directly, itself, using its own rules. Therefore, if it does kill a psyker, then it will chain.
Again...
Ghaz wrote: GW has always ruled against causal chains. For example, the Ossefactor from Codex Drukhari:
If a model is slain by this weapon, the model’s unit immediately suffers a mortal wound on a D6 roll of 4+.
Q: If a model is slain by an ossefactor, and the mortal wound inflicted by the ossefactor’s ability causes another model in that unit to be slain, do I roll again to see if another mortal wound is inflicted?
A: No.
Should GW get around to answering this question I would expect the same response.
And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Well, there is an interesting caveat that shows why you interpretation of "what's what's" in the rule is wrong.
Let's make a very simple thought experiment:
A Psyker suffer from Perils and is killed. The resulting MW destroy a nearby vehicles, which then obviously explodes and kills a second Psyker nearby. Will a third Psyker, aside the second one, suffer from Perils and potentially chain again?
I think will be interesting to see how, RAW, you assess this.
We have a unit not killed by perils, but by a Psyker exploding which was caused by perils. There is no indication, raw or otherwise, that the status of "perils..." is commutative
Add to that we know already how gw has ruled on a very similar situation, and the side that claims a Psyker exploding to ill another Psyker means that's the second Psyker also died of perils gets ever further from reality.
Raw it does not chain
Likely rai it does not chain
Precedentally it does not chain
The mw come from the perils rule ergo it chains
Raw it chains
Likely rai it chains
Precdentally it entirely depends which precedent you look at
Cybtroll wrote: Well, there is an interesting caveat that shows why you interpretation of "what's what's" in the rule is wrong.
Let's make a very simple thought experiment:
A Psyker suffer from Perils and is killed. The resulting MW destroy a nearby vehicles, which then obviously explodes and kills a second Psyker nearby. Will a third Psyker, aside the second one, suffer from Perils and potentially chain again?
I think will be interesting to see how, RAW, you assess this.
1st psyker is killed by the perils rule it explodes due to the perils rule
This kills a vehicle
The explodes due to the vehicles explosion rule the psyker dies to the vehicle explosion rule
The vehicle explosion rule has no sentence stating it makes psykers explode when they are destroyed so the psyker does not explode but if it had died to mw from the perils then it would explode because the perils rule destroyed it and there is a specific sentence stating that if the perils rule destroys a psyker it explodes
U02dah4 wrote: The mw come from the perils rule ergo it chains
Exactly. The mortal wound resulting from perils of the warp kills nearby units. Perils of the warp does not kill nearby units, it's resolution does.
The rule states "psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp", not "pskyer unit destroyed from/due to/because of perils of the warp".
The batter was hit by a ball thrown by the pitcher. The pitcher did not hit the batter - the ball did.
Your argument is the rule does not kill units its resolution does thats ridiculous
So your argument is no psyker ever explodes because no psyker is ever killed by the rule just its resolution then the rule does nothing whats the point in it
Of course a model killed by the resolution of a rule is killed by it thats literally the definition
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: TLDR: The 2nd psyker is destroyed due to perils of the warp, not by perils of the warp.
I'd like to think of the other side of the argument as:
Claim:
-In a game of baseball, if the batter was hit by a ball, then the batter was hit by a game of baseball.
Proof:
-A baseball game is a sport where two opposing teams play against another in series of periods referred to as 'innings'.
-Inning is comprised of pitcher throwing the ball and batter hitting the ball.
-When a pitcher throws the ball, there's a chance that the ball may hit the batter.
-Then, if a batter is hit by a thrown ball, that batter was hit by a game of baseball.
Anyone would argue that this is a valid but unsound conclusion. The batter was definitely hit because of/during/while playing a game of baseball, but it's a hard sell if you're trying to prove that he/she was hit BY a game of baseball.
The 2nd psyker was destroyed as a result of resolving the effects of 'perils of the warp.' It did not, get destroyed by perils of the warp. Rule does not say 'if a psyker unit is destroyed from/due to/because of etc'. Because language is inherently vague, you have to try to arrive at the most valid & sound reading of the rules text, even if you're trying to claim it is RAW.
There is no raw difference between being destroyed by or destroyed due to it or destroyed while resolving the effects of they are all synonymous unless you can provide a RAW quote proving they mean something different if not its just another attempt to ignore the part if the rule you don't like with no evidence
U02dah4 wrote: There is no raw difference between being destroyed by or destroyed due to it or destroyed while resolving the effects of they are all synonymous unless you can provide a RAW quote proving they mean something different if not its just another attempt to ignore the part if the rule you don't like with no evidence
Right. Because language is inherently vague, there can be multiple meaning with any given text. Particularly in English, as it so happens to be the language we're discussing in, it is extremely rare for any given sentence (or series of clauses, paragraphs, etc) to have exactly one possible meaning. Therefore, it is the reader's responsibility to internalize the text and arrive at the most valid & sound conclusion possible. Note that even RAW is never truly RAW, because the moment you discuss RAW, there has been certain degree of internalization of the given text at hand.
Given that, we have two reasonably sound RAW interpretation on hand:
1. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is inclusive of units that attain 'destroyed' status as a result of 'suffering' from perils of the warp as well as from any damage incurred as a result of perils of the warp. 2. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is exclusively the unit that has 'suffered' from perils of the warp.
The latter interpretation is a more sound argument because it introduces less assumptions based on the given text at hand into the logical argument. (Main (problematic) assumption here is absolute definition of the word "by" to mean "because of/due to", when we know that "by" by definition is a vague preposition.)
U02dah4 wrote: There is no raw difference between being destroyed by or destroyed due to it or destroyed while resolving the effects of they are all synonymous unless you can provide a RAW quote proving they mean something different if not its just another attempt to ignore the part if the rule you don't like with no evidence
Right. Because language is inherently vague, there can be multiple meaning with any given text. Particularly in English, as it so happens to be the language we're discussing in, it is extremely rare for any given sentence (or series of clauses, paragraphs, etc) to have exactly one possible meaning. Therefore, it is the reader's responsibility to internalize the text and arrive at the most valid & sound conclusion possible. Note that even RAW is never truly RAW, because the moment you discuss RAW, there has been certain degree of internalization of the given text at hand.
Given that, we have two reasonably sound RAW interpretation on hand:
1. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is inclusive of units that attain 'destroyed' status as a result of 'suffering' from perils of the warp as well as from any damage incurred as a result of perils of the warp.
2. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is exclusively the unit that has 'suffered' from perils of the warp.
The latter interpretation is a more sound argument because it introduces less assumptions based on the given text at hand into the logical argument.
Your first interpretation is way to convoluted and you have added extra restrictions
It should be "any psyker unit" "destroyed by" "perils of the warp"
Or to clarify [any unit that is a psyker] [destroyed by][the perils of the warp rule]
the second one is not a possibile interpretation. the sentence in question makes no reference to a model suffering perils of the warp it would require an extra clause
In order to reach that conclusion you are substantially changing the sentance not interpreting it
(Now it is not unreasonable to think it should say that but it doesn't and all that matters is its exact wording)
Cybtroll wrote: Well, there is an interesting caveat that shows why you interpretation of "what's what's" in the rule is wrong.
Let's make a very simple thought experiment:
A Psyker suffer from Perils and is killed. The resulting MW destroy a nearby vehicles, which then obviously explodes and kills a second Psyker nearby. Will a third Psyker, aside the second one, suffer from Perils and potentially chain again?
I think will be interesting to see how, RAW, you assess this.
That's the point I was trying to make.
To really bring this example home though, you need to remove the explosion rule (as that has a rule called explosion) to one whereupon death MW are suffered that's not a named rule. I'm sure there are some obscure models that cause MW upon death. For example Pheonix gem on an autarch who gets MW from nearby periling warlock --> Dies and then also --> MW another warlock killing him --> But coz phoenix gem he is not actualy slain.. Does the second Warlock also suffer perils?
But not for perils no MW would have been suffered.
Its a simple "but for" causality test which if you ana RAW lawyer it, you have to go all the way which demonstrably results in absurdity...
skchsan wrote: Your argument hinges upon the fact that the word "by" means and only means "because of/due to".
This is factually incorrect, therefore, your argument is valid but unsound (due to false premises).
Yes that is what it means check a dictionary
by
/bʌɪ/
preposition
1.
identifying the agent performing an action.
Why what else do you think it means that changes my premise
I acknowledge by can be used as
Preposition
2. indicating the means of achieving something.
"malaria can be controlled by attacking the parasite"
adverb
so as to go past.
However neither makes sense in the context
Yes, but in your argument, there is an active bias for 'by' to mean the former, and the former only.
When you limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's, you are able to arrive at sound conclusion using either definition of 'by'.
What is the other definition of "by" your saying limiting my definition is bias and that im ignoring the second
But you have not provided a second definition
As to your suggestion that you should limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's that would be fine if a rule told you to do so if not that is an arbitrary change for no reason and when you start making arbitrary changes you can make what you want mean what you want
U02dah4 wrote: What is the other definition of "by" your saying limiting my definition is bias and that im ignoring the second
But you have not provided a second definition
As to your suggestion that you should limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's that would be fine if a rule told you to do so if not that is an arbitrary change for no reason and when you start making arbitrary changes you can make what you want mean what you want
Your interpretation: "a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by perils of the warp."
1: perils of the warp is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound was ultimately caused by the perils) 2: perils of the warp is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (strong, cogent - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction; needs additional clauses to make it necessarily true)
My interpretation: "a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by mortal wounds."
1: mortal wound is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound causes the W to fall to/below 0, which causes the said destruction) 2: mortal wound is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (valid, sound - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction)
Just so I am clear about the point I wanted to make with my example.
To save the chain effect, you have to add an attribute to MW: now we have to differentiate between MW by Perils and MW by Explode (or MW by anything else).
This isn't RAW.
When you have to add ad-hoc hypothesis in order to save your theory, it's a universal indicator that the theory has issues.
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
U02dah4 wrote: What is the other definition of "by" your saying limiting my definition is bias and that im ignoring the second
But you have not provided a second definition
As to your suggestion that you should limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's that would be fine if a rule told you to do so if not that is an arbitrary change for no reason and when you start making arbitrary changes you can make what you want mean what you want
Your interpretation:
"a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by perils of the warp."
1: perils of the warp is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound was ultimately caused by the perils)
2: perils of the warp is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (strong, cogent - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction; needs additional clauses to make it necessarily true)
My interpretation:
"a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by mortal wounds."
1: mortal wound is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound causes the W to fall to/below 0, which causes the said destruction)
2: mortal wound is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (valid, sound - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction)
So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction. I mean that's pretty out there and makes the rule almost entirely redundant but hey if that's what you believe at least its consistent but I will have to disagree
Of course I imagine your going pick and choose which sentence to arbitrarily apply your logic to so that the first psyker explodes and the second does not but if you were to do that you would only be proving me right that your arbitrarily changing one sentence to suit what you think it should do while taking another verbatim and you have shown no raw reason why you should apply different logic
Ergo the first interpretation is correct as you don't have to apply different logic for no reason to make it work
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: Just so I am clear about the point I wanted to make with my example.
To save the chain effect, you have to add an attribute to MW: now we have to differentiate between MW by Perils and MW by Explode (or MW by anything else).
This isn't RAW.
When you have to add ad-hoc hypothesis in order to save your theory, it's a universal indicator that the theory has issues.
Yes they are different if a rule states x happens if is destroyed by perils of the warp that would not trigger from a vehicle explosion it would trigger from perils the source of the mw explicitly matters.
That is raw rules literally refer to the source of damage
Ion shield models in this unit have a 5+ save vs ranged weapons
Source ranged weapons
Several admech units each time you make an unmodified save throw of 6 against a melee attack ....
Source melee attack
SM chapter champion
Skilful Parry Each time a melee attack is made against this model, subtract 1 from the hit roll
Source melee attack
Perils of the warp
If a psyker unit is destroyed by perils of the warp
Source perils of the warp
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
The Drukhari FAQ sets a precedent by showing us how GW would read that passage of text as that is what is in doubt. Do you have a FAQ or some document where GW has read it differently?
GW can always change the rules via a FAQ, but until such time that they do so we take what we have and the Drukhari FAQ clearly shows how they would read the rule in question.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
The Drukhari FAQ sets a precedent by showing us how GW would read that passage of text as that is what is in doubt. Do you have a FAQ or some document where GW has read it differently?
GW can always change the rules via a FAQ, but until such time that they do so we take what we have and the Drukhari FAQ clearly shows how they would read the rule in question.
Ahh that special snowflake that magically knows what GW would think (Roll eyes) knowing what GW think is inherently subjective because they repeatedly contradict themselves its why we don't use rai by default chain exploding pskers has precedent in the literature and the video games set in the grimdark universe - precident
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
The Drukhari FAQ sets a precedent by showing us how GW would read that passage of text as that is what is in doubt. Do you have a FAQ or some document where GW has read it differently?
GW can always change the rules via a FAQ, but until such time that they do so we take what we have and the Drukhari FAQ clearly shows how they would read the rule in question.
It's fine to cite this as a precedent to work off of now as a RAI argument (or even which way to interpret RAW), but it could easily change if GW rules differently. I could actually see them liking the idea of the Warp bursting out in the explosion to damage people nearby with the warp energy, and allowing it to chain. They could change their mind from the Drukhari FAQ and let it work like an explosion cascading, possibly causing other explosions.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
Context is an argument if you can provide a rules quote to support it e.g. this rule doesn't work because rule x says it doesnt work "it doesn't work"
If you say context and provide no quote to support or supply a quote that doesn't explicitly change the context of the sentence then the argument is worthless e.g. "if a psyker rolls a double 1 it suffers perils of the warp" is contextual relevant to the question what may suffer perils of the warp it is not contextually relevant to the question what has been destroyed by perils of the warp.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
Context is an argument if you can provide a rules quote to support it e.g. this rule doesn't work because rule x says it doesnt work "it doesn't work"
If you say context and provide no quote to support or supply a quote that doesn't explicitly change the context of the sentence then the argument is worthless e.g. "if a psyker rolls a double 1 it suffers perils of the warp" is contextual relevant to the question what may suffer perils of the warp it is not contextually relevant to the question what has been destroyed by perils of the warp.
I argued your side earlier in the thread. I can see both sides' interpretations and think there are valid arguments for both. Until we get a specific FAQ for this, it's probably best to talk it out with your opponent about how to handle it before a game if you think it might come up, so it doesn't come as a surprise and you find your opponent doesn't agree with your interpretation.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
It is because context matters.
Real context can matter. The trick is seeing whether the "context" you claim actually exists and precludes other interpretations. Ghaz's argument for precedent does more than you just saying "context" without providing such context (which unfortunately seems to be what you tend to do more than you do actually providing the context- you can't just yell "context" and brandish it like someone might a cross against a vampire, there has to be a valid context explained).
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
It is because context matters.
Real context can matter. The trick is seeing whether the "context" you claim actually exists and precludes other interpretations. Ghaz's argument for precedent does more than you just saying "context" without providing such context
I have provided context, if you think I have not, you have not read my posts.
(which unfortunately seems to be what you tend to do more than you do actually providing the context- you can't just yell "context" and brandish it like someone might a cross against a vampire, there has to be a valid context explained).
Please do not lie and make things up. I do not ever do this.
This sums up the context nicely:
Spoiler:
skchsan wrote: Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
So these mw count and these mw don't despite the same wording so as stated in the bit you cut off you admit to arbitrarily applying your argument to one sentence and not to another for no raw reason and therefore argument 1 being correct (well you might not but your argument proves it
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
Indeed. But most of the thread seems to just be trying to convince U02dah4 who’s being rudely wrong, even though he’s quoted the rule that outright states the exact opposite of his hot take:
PSYCHIC TEST ... If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
...
PERILS OF THE WARP When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds.
That’s fairly neatly limited. So the Psyker is the one expressly designated as taking damage from Perils.Let’s go on...
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest. If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,
...note that this tells us what model/unit is destroyed by Peril Of The Warp. So what follows are ancillary effects, else they’d be similarly described.
then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Notably not defined as ‘being killed by Perils’ or similar. Perils damage done, models killed by it removed, special damage aura kicks in. Plus note the two limiting factors highlighted above. All told, nothing in the rule is ambiguous or supports U02dah4’s view. .
Like, it’s all spelt out in the rule that the key naysayer has even quoted. But we’re off into BCB vs Deathereaper ideology sidetracks so who cares about a little comprehension and logic... this is YMDC, where the points are made up and THEY MATTER.
...so I suppose you usually allow to your Knight players to chain multiple Gauntlet effect to throw stuff around with the same attack?
That's even funnier, because after killing something, then finishing off a monster 9" afar with MW, the newly dead body magically teleport in their gauntlet to be hurled again toward another creature at 9" and so on so forth until they fail to kill something?
Because, you know... it's exactly the same wording of the Perils
Cybtroll wrote: ...so I suppose you usually allow to your Knight players to chain multiple Gauntlet effect to throw stuff around with the same attack?
That's even funnier, because after killing something, then finishing off a monster 9" afar with MW, the newly dead body magically teleport in their gauntlet to be hurled again toward another creature at 9" and so on so forth until they fail to kill something?
Because, you know... it's exactly the same wording of the Perils
Good example. There is also no break in causality in this case if we apply the same logic as people are advocating in perils IMO. Ergo, chaining gauntlets by RAW is thing...
Ah, but you can, in theory, make a stronger argument for "precedent" here since we're talking about a weapon that inflicts extra mortal wounds when it slays a model.
Perils of the Warp is not a weapon that inflicts extra mortal wounds when it slays a model, so the FAQ isn't even remotely applicable.
Cybtroll wrote: ...so I suppose you usually allow to your Knight players to chain multiple Gauntlet effect to throw stuff around with the same attack?
That's even funnier, because after killing something, then finishing off a monster 9" afar with MW, the newly dead body magically teleport in their gauntlet to be hurled again toward another creature at 9" and so on so forth until they fail to kill something?
Because, you know... it's exactly the same wording of the Perils
Good example.
There is also no break in causality in this case if we apply the same logic as people are advocating in perils IMO. Ergo, chaining gauntlets by RAW is thing...
Yes I had not thought about it but absolutely of course that requires a knight with a gauntlet that kills a vehicle and makes its 4+ and then deals d3 mw which is enough to kill another and then it could throw that again as it has been killed by the the gauntlet however I can't imagine this will come up very often.
I can only conclude from a fluffy perspective that my knight is such a bad ass that it threw the heretic tank hard enough into the second tank that tank was thrown into a third
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
Indeed. But most of the thread seems to just be trying to convince U02dah4 who’s being rudely wrong, even though he’s quoted the rule that outright states the exact opposite of his hot take:
PSYCHIC TEST ... If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
...
PERILS OF THE WARP When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds.
That’s fairly neatly limited. So the Psyker is the one expressly designated as taking damage from Perils.Let’s go on...
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest. If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,
...note that this tells us what model/unit is destroyed by Peril Of The Warp. So what follows are ancillary effects, else they’d be similarly described.
then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Notably not defined as ‘being killed by Perils’ or similar. Perils damage done, models killed by it removed, special damage aura kicks in. Plus note the two limiting factors highlighted above. All told, nothing in the rule is ambiguous or supports U02dah4’s view. .
Like, it’s all spelt out in the rule that the key naysayer has even quoted. But we’re off into BCB vs Deathereaper ideology sidetracks so who cares about a little comprehension and logic... this is YMDC, where the points are made up and THEY MATTER.
Most of this thread has been you failing to prove anything while arguing with u02dah4 proof proving he is correct since you have provided no evidence to counter his arguments just ignoring the bits you can't answer that don't match yours.
So you quote
PSYCHIC TEST ... If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
PERILS OF THE WARP When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds
And conclude the psyker takes the damage so far correct
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest. If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,
"...note that this tells us what model/unit is destroyed by Peril Of The Warp. So what follows are ancillary effects, else they’d be similarly described. "
No this sentence is defined differently because it applies to something different [if a psyker unit is destroyed by perils while a manifesting a power] this phrase recognises that you can be destroyed by perils while not manifesting a power and limits the effect to only those that are manifesting. Its impact causing it to fail to manifest logically makes no difference to a model not manifesting so I would assume that's the reason. No where does it state these are ancillary effects
then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
"Notably not defined as ‘being killed by Perils’ or similar. Perils damage done, models killed by it removed, special damage aura kicks in. Plus note the two limiting factors highlighted above. All told, nothing in the rule is ambiguous or supports U02dah4’s view. . "
It is part of a self contained sentence that 100% supports my view. the only limitation is in the previous quote but you have broken it up to hide the key sentence but the fact you need to do so proves me correct.
The full quote is "If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
We can see what it applies to - a psyker unit destroyed by perils. Note same logic you use in the previous sentence. The previous sentences were also self contained but had different limitations specified in them, they do not apply to this sentence the sentence tells you what it applies to.
Again your argument has ignored the only clause that matters
"If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the warp"
[Any psyker unit] [that is destroyed by - note no limitations just destroyed] [perils of the warp - note no limitations on what part of perils of the warp or requirement to suffer perils]
And it is your inability to prove limitations within that clause or find a separate sentence altering that clause that proves me correct and you wrong. None of your explanation addresses that, because you can't. all you can do is say I'm wrong or make vague and false claims like its ancillary or incidental to justify ignoring the bit you can't answer or adding extra limitations to it that you can't evidence apply to that specific clause. Its why you use the previous sentences clause because if that was the clause you would be correct and I would have agreed but its not there's no requirement to manifest.
Good lord I quote the whole thing annotated and you tell me I’m skipping bits or leaving stuff out? Disingenuous hit a new low. I’m done again haha, why I came back to this thread I have no idea.
If you have to cut off two thirds of the sentences that make up the rule you are discussing to make a point, chances are rather high that your point is invalid. It is possible to have more than one RAW interpretation, but so far no one has provided a real argument why the third sentence should be not be considered to be "Perils of the Warp". All arguments against chaining are artificially inserting the words to change the meaning or attach a dependency to suffering perils which simply isn't there.
Ghaz and Cybtroll made a good point on how it should be played, but that doesn't change that the rule itself by RAW clearly supports chain-reactions. If anything, the existence of a FAQ quite clearly show these mortal wounds chaining is definitely a valid interpretation.
And no, I don't support BCB's snowflake logic, but this forum quite clearly was against having pre-errata boomer shoot twice, despite another weapon in the exact same situation being errataed otherwise. The same logic must be applied here and a FAQ handling mortal wound triggers on weapons cannot be applied to things that are not weapon abilities, and therefore requires it own FAQ/errata to change how the rule works.
There also is nothing absurd or game-breaking about having perils chain, it's the power of chaos going out of control. This "explosion" is caused by warp effects, which might be anything from an actual explosion, gravity reversing, psychic lightning hitting nearby people, mass mind-control by daemons up to actual daemons showing up. I'm fairly sure that at least some of these effects can cause further warp phenomenons when they affect another psyker.
Summary: - RAW absolutely supports chaining - Dark Eldar FAQ and logic behind gauntlet throwing things strongly suggest that chaining is not RAI - Most people's HIWPI is that they don't want perils to chain - Discuss chaining perils with your opponent before the game, don't do gotcha's
Like the knight gauntlet Its also rare that it has any impact. it only effects games with multiple psykers those psykers have to be in close proximity, each psyker then has a 1/18 less with rerolls odds of suffering perils for each manifesting of a psychic power and then when it explodes it has to do enough MW to wipe the psyker. So armies with multiple psykers in close proximity such as GK will likely be unefected because even if it explodes it won't wipe a unit . As a player you can also mitigate this risk by simply spacing your psykers apart.
I would agree with above with the exception of the hiwpi statement that most people do not want it. About half of posters were on each side its just the anti posters and myself posted more frequently which is bias in favour of the loudest.
True all that matters is what the RAW supports after that your dealing with house rules which is not really the place of a rules forum
And as jidah says
It is possible to have more than one RAW interpretation, but so far no one has provided a real argument why the third sentence should be not be considered to be "Perils of the Warp". All arguments against chaining are artificially inserting the words to change the meaning or attach a dependency to suffering perils which simply isn't there.
So another two pages, and still no raw to support a causal chain.
The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.
BCB - precedent is valid until it isn't. That's how precedent works in the legal system as well. You can ignore it if you wish, but that simply reduces the strength of your argument.
The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.
Then what killed them? Mortal wounds. From where? Perils.
As U02dah4 Said, there's currently no reasonable RAW explanation as to why these mortal wounds, which originate from the Perils rule, are not considered part of the Perils rule.
As for the Gauntlet. It's whether you consider the weapons ability part of the weapon or a separate entity. There is no such issue in Perils - the rules causing the mortal wounds are Perils, not an effect or a different rule. Perils of the Warp inflicts those wounds, and kills what it kills. If that's a psyker, the psyker is killed by perils of the warp. And there's a rule for that.
nosferatu1001 wrote: They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.
From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".
nosferatu1001 wrote: They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.
From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".
Stop ignoring the context.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So another two pages, and still no raw to support a causal chain.
The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.
BCB - precedent is valid until it isn't. That's how precedent works in the legal system as well. You can ignore it if you wish, but that simply reduces the strength of your argument.
nosferatu1001 wrote: They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.
From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".
Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.
nosferatu1001 wrote: They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.
From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".
Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.
What you are quoting is not the definition. There are multiple other ways to suffer Perils of the Warp without manifesting an ability, for example the GSC Sanctus' sniper rifle or some narrative battlefield effects and many more that cause perils on other rolls than double 1 or double 6, on denies or on failed tests. Manifesting an ability is merely one of many ways to be suffering from the rule called "Perils of the Warp". This debunks the argument that it's a complete definition.
The one and only definition of Perils of the Warp is the rule explicitly labeled "Perils of the Warp". What you are quoting is called "Manifesting Psychic Powers".
nosferatu1001 wrote: They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.
From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".
Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.
Yes the only definition is everything in the perils of the warp rule box.
No one has provided an alternative definition.
(Note people have tried to infer suffering as a definition and stated that it is a definition but this has not been evidenced in any textual quote as the only reference they come up with states something suffers but does not define what that suffering means leaving us with perils of the warp box)
nosferatu1001 wrote: They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.
From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".
Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.
Yes the only definition is everything in the perils of the warp rule box
Do you have a citation from somewhere in the BRB that says that everything in subsections of the rulebook ARE the "subsection Rule" ?
What this entire thread has come down to is
Position 1: What actually can be killed by perils are only things that suffer from or have perils caused on them. These units are is specifically defined and determined by rules that say something along the lines of "this causes perils of the warp" or "this model suffers perils of the warp" and these types of permissions are not expressly stated for the mortal wounds given out due to a Psyker dying from perils of the warp.
Position 2: by virtue of being in a subsection of the rulebook titled "Perils of the Warp" all mortal wounds or effects in that subsection count as being caused by a rule called "Perils of the Warp" despite specific text that defines what can suffer from perils of the warp and the existence of multiple rules from other datasheets that specifically state a unit can suffer perils of the warp.
Can you actually point to a place in the BRB that says the title of a subsection is a rule name and a binding rule keyword ? Your entire argument rests on an assumption that this is always the case... And no, it is not obviously how it works because many people here are disagreeing with you. Many people here do not believe it can always work that way, especially when there is text that specifically defines what does suffer from Perils...
We can't really point you to a rule that says that you should not interpret the title of subsections the way you are because it is impossible to prove a negative... you propose we SHOULD interpret the subsection titles as a binding rule keywords, it is up to you to provide evidence or a quote that specifically says that this is correct the correct way to apply rules and that we shouldn't just apply perils of the warp to what is specified in the instructions given to us in the text (and only those instructions).
Please,,, we will need a quote or refference that actually proves ?
"Yes the only definition is everything in the perils of the warp rule box" and not ONLY the definition provided in the actual text of what suffers perils/other abilities that specifically make a model suffer perils.
Where in the rules does it say that the titles of a subsection always counts as a binding rules definition keyword ? where does it say that this subsection title means we should interpret the rules this way ? Where does it say subsection titles are always the "name of the rule" and therefore everything in its section is an overarching rule effect ?
Type40 wrote: Do you have a citation from somewhere in the BRB that says that everything in subsections of the rulebook ARE the "subsection Rule" ?
Yes, see my previous response to you for the exact page. In addition, if this weren't the case the rules would stop being functional. The only way to connect the term "Look out, Sir" to it'S corresponding rules is the subsection title. Otherwise the term "Look out, SIr" would be a completely undefined rule that has no effect. This is also true for "Smite", "Embark", "Disembark", and I'm sure there are multiple other rules defined in the exact same way.
Can you actually point to a place in the BRB that says the title of a subsection is a rule name and a binding rule keyword ?
Please,,, we will need a quote or refference that actually proves ?
Where in the rules does it say that the titles of a subsection always counts as a binding rules definition keyword ? where does it say that this subsection title means we should interpret the rules this way ? Where does it say subsection titles are always the "name of the rule." ?
I got you the first time. As explained above, I have proven that the Rules of Warhammer 40k cannot function unless the Subsection Header is not a "binding rule keyword" as you put it.
If "Perils of the Warp" was not a rule keyword, there would be no way to determine what a Sanctus' sniper rifle would do when it damages a psyker.
@ type 40 So in other word position 1 is determined by a definition that does not exist anywhere, has not been quoted with, no quote to state why the MW in the second bit don't count only that they don't meet the non existent definition
Vs position 2 the rule does exactly what it says it does in the text box in the absence of any imaginary definitions materialising
Well its not a keyword keywords have a specific definition
Its a title and rules. the definition of title is covered in the rules key page (p2 of the core rules) sections 1 and 3
1. Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context.
3.This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models.
Yes "perils of the warp" is a title of a rule that is referenced in rules others include " "mission" "army" "datasheet" "keyword" "units" "unit coherency" " engagement range" "battlefield" ....... I could go on theirs a lot
Again you say there is text that specifically defines what perils is and the only definition provided is the perils of the warp box
You want a quote that proves the perils of the warp box are rules keywords i provided one the rules key pg 2 point 1 they are titles not rules keywords and the text following them under Point 3 is the rules and if you want to get explicit the box they are in under Point 8 is to make them easier to locate.
Where does it say we should arbitrarily decide which bits of the rule count and which don't point 3 is quite clear its all rules text no bit is defined as more valuable or important than any other
Type40 wrote: Do you have a citation from somewhere in the BRB that says that everything in subsections of the rulebook ARE the "subsection Rule" ?
Yes, see my previous response to you for the exact page.
In addition, if this weren't the case the rules would stop being functional. The only way to connect the term "Look out, Sir" to it'S corresponding rules is the subsection title. Otherwise the term "Look out, SIr" would be a completely undefined rule that has no effect. This is also true for "Smite", "Embark", "Disembark", and I'm sure there are multiple other rules defined in the exact same way.
Can you actually point to a place in the BRB that says the title of a subsection is a rule name and a binding rule keyword ?
Please,,, we will need a quote or refference that actually proves ?
Where in the rules does it say that the titles of a subsection always counts as a binding rules definition keyword ? where does it say that this subsection title means we should interpret the rules this way ? Where does it say subsection titles are always the "name of the rule." ?
I got you the first time. As explained above, I have proven that the Rules of Warhammer 40k cannot function unless the Subsection Header is not a "binding rule keyword" as you put it.
If "Perils of the Warp" was not a rule keyword, there would be no way to determine what a Sanctus' sniper rifle would do when it damages a psyker.
You have not proven that a subsection title should ALWAYS be treated this way... but yes, you have once again provided examples of how, when lacking specific triggers, applications or identifiers it is.
There many examples where this is not true, like "Fight first/last," the subsection simply titled "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" and, the subsection . "within and wholly within." All of these expect you to read the text in order to know what triggers and applications the specific effects apply to. They do not simply apply the entire title to the entire section.
Also, would you say that a model was removed from play by the "morale tests" 'rule' when they we're removed from play due to combat attrition. The "morale test" subsection specifically tells you to do a combat attrition test.
So again, can you point to where in the rule book it says the definition of a rule is ALWAYS the entirety of a subsection and the rule is ALWAYS the subsection title...
because if there is a rule that says this is how we are supposed to always read the rules then some of those subsection are going to get weird... like how rules that trigger when a model flees from failing combat attrition triggers morale test rules, or how there are no rules that interact with just "heroic interventions" because the only rule is "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" or how every time a model fights first they are also fighting last.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: @ type 40 So in other word position 1 is determined by a definition that does not exist anywhere, has not been quoted with, no quote to state why the MW in the second bit don't count only that they don't meet the non existent definition
Vs position 2 the rule does exactly what it says it does in the text box in the absence of any imaginary definitions materialising
Well its not a keyword keywords have a specific definition
Its a title and rules. the definition of title is covered in the rules key page (p2 of the core rules) sections 1 and 3
1. Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context.
3.This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models.
Yes "perils of the warp" is a title of a rule that is referenced in rules others include " "mission" "army" "datasheet" "keyword" "units" "unit coherency" " engagement range" "battlefield" ....... I could go on theirs a lot
Again you say there is text that specifically defines what perils is and the only definition provided is the perils of the warp box
You want a quote that proves the perils of the warp box are rules keywords i provided one the rules key pg 2 point 1 they are titles not rules keywords and the text following them under Point 3 is the rules and if you want to get explicit the box they are in under Point 8 is to make them easier to locate.
Where does it say we should arbitrarily decide which bits of the rule count and which don't point 3 is quite clear its all rules text no bit is defined as more valuable or important than any other
dude if some one has to show you the double 1s and double 6s rule again,,, I am going to flip.
Automatically Appended Next Post: p.s.
1. Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context.
3.This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models.
this isn't saying that we should interpret the rules the way you are saying we should. In fact it says what we are saying... It says "these will put the rules you are about to read into context" not "after the bold title you will read a word for word application of a rule which shares a name with the title"
You can show me the double 1's and double 6's rule as many times as you like
Its still not a definition
All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp
It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.
It is a single line of text that does only exactly what it says it does if you roll a double you suffer perils nothing more nothing less
As to your second point
Exactly and we are saying you should follow the text that comes after the section title because their as you demonstrate the rules not a portion of them
U02dah4 wrote: You can show me the double 1's and double 6's rule as many times as you like
Its still not a definition
All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp
It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.
It is a single line of text
As to your second point
Exactly and we are saying you should follow the text that comes after the section title because their as you demonstrate the rules not a portion of them
You have not posted a rules quote telling us that after a title of a section we are reading a word for word definition of a rule. Until you do, the only way to interpret RAW is to do EXACTLY what the rules say to do and not add extra context.
The rules tell us exactly what suffers from perils,,, the rules are permissive, so if it doesn't say something else can suffer from perils then something else does not. We can not show you a quote that describes everything in the universe that does not suffer from perils of the warp because proving a negative is impossible. We can show you pieces of text that does say what suffers perils,,, though for what ever reason you keep demanding we prove a negative.
you posted a the rule book quote that says
" Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context. "
but for some reason you say that the title isn't just something that puts the rules into context but it is somehow always the exact title of a rule and is followed by an exact definition of the rule. Even with examples where this would be impossible (like subsection titles that introduce several rules).
You posted the proof that is in our favour and you can't even seem to get it XD lol. A title is a description, indicator or something to "put the rules you are about to read into context." The rules themselves are THE TEXT not the subsection title... it really isn't that hard to understand this.
It's not that all the people arguing with you don't understand what you are saying, this is you refusing to step back and entertain for a second that it is possible that subsection titles have nothing to do with what can and cant suffer perils... WE HAVE RULES THAT SAY WHAT CAN SUFFER PERILS (and for the last time, there is never going to be such thing as a rule that says 'what does not suffer perils' because an infinite amount of things in the universe do not suffer perils),,, stop asking people to prove a negative, no one can prove bigfoot doesnt exist, it is up to you to prove that he does exist... you are the one who is't providing a rule that says something else can, you are the one who keeps repeating that "because it appears in this section of the rule book it does" That doesn't make any sense ? pg2 of the core book sections 1 and 3 do not say that's how it works. In fact it says the complete opposite.
so unless you can somehow find me a piece of text that says anything more then a subsection title being an indication of the rules context to follow, then you are the one who has not demonstrated that these units in fact do also suffer perils. What people have shown you, over and over and over again, is a part of the rules that shows you what DOES suffer it,,, no more ,,, no less... just do what the rules tell you to do.
If you roll a double 1 or 6 you suffer perils of the warp.
Yeah, that's fine.
"If a psyker unit is killed by perils of the warp..."
Not "a psyker unit suffering from perils of the warp is killed by perils of the warp".
The mortal wounds inflicted on the psyker and the mortal wounds inflicted if he dies are both inflicted by the same rule, which is Perils of the Warp. By the logic I'm seeing here, there's no risk of a psyker exploding at all because he dies due to mortal wounds and not due to "perils". Even though perils inflicted the mortal wounds.
Psyker 1: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we all agree on.
then:
Psyker 2: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we don't all agree on, for some reason.
I ask again: If it wasn't mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp, as found under the "Perils of the warp" rule, that killed the second psyker, then what was it that killed him?
some bloke wrote: If you roll a double 1 or 6 you suffer perils of the warp.
Yeah, that's fine.
"If a psyker unit is killed by perils of the warp..."
Not "a psyker unit suffering from perils of the warp is killed by perils of the warp".
The mortal wounds inflicted on the psyker and the mortal wounds inflicted if he dies are both inflicted by the same rule, which is Perils of the Warp. By the logic I'm seeing here, there's no risk of a psyker exploding at all because he dies due to mortal wounds and not due to "perils". Even though perils inflicted the mortal wounds.
Psyker 1: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we all agree on.
then:
Psyker 2: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we don't all agree on, for some reason.
I ask again: If it wasn't mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp, as found under the "Perils of the warp" rule, that killed the second psyker, then what was it that killed him?
This has been explained several times in this thread.
1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.)
2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds.
3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds."
4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.
Those other models are not being destroyed by perils of the warp they are receiving MW as a result of something that has been destroyed by perils.
The title of the section does not indicate the entire box as a whole is the rule. no where does it say subsection titles indicate that. In fact we have a quote that says subsection titles indicate the context of rules.
The rule is specifically what the text says the rule is and not simply just everything that is written in a subsection because its "contextual" title happens to share a name with the rule... i.e. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp ... " THAT IS WHAT PERILS IS nothing extra, nothing else, just follow what it says.
If we can acknowledge that the title has no bearing other then a contextual indicator (as pg2 point 1 of the rule primer says we should use a title) then the only way for those MWs to be caused by Perils is for there to be a causal chain. Causal chains don't trigger things in 40k... my keeper of secretes can not blow up a tank, have that tanks explosion kill non-vehicles and then gain d3 wounds back because those non-vehicles died.
Type40 wrote: You have not proven that a subsection title should ALWAYS be treated this way...
Rules, by definition, have to be deterministic.
And actually, I have. Proving a negative wrong is the same as proving a positive right. That's a basic logical principle. 1) I have proven one positive to be right through the Sanctus unit. Its rifle can only work if the "Perils of the Warp" subsection title can be used as a reference. Therefore my assertion "subsection title define game terms" is right for at least one instance 2) I have proven the negative to be wrong. Sniper rifles in general can only work if subsection titles are treated as a reference. Therefore the assertion "subsection titles do not define game terms" is proven wrong.
but yes, you have once again provided examples of how, when lacking specific triggers, applications or identifiers it is. There many examples where this is not true, like "Fight first/last," the subsection simply titled "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS, CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" and, the subsection . "within and wholly within." All of these expect you to read the text in order to know what triggers and applications the specific effects apply to. They do not simply apply the entire title to the entire section. Also, would you say that a model was removed from play by the "morale tests" 'rule' when they we're removed from play due to combat attrition. The "morale test" subsection specifically tells you to do a combat attrition test.
So again, can you point to where in the rule book it says the definition of a rule is ALWAYS the entirety of a subsection and the rule is ALWAYS the subsection title...
because if there is a rule that says this is how we are supposed to always read the rules then some of those subsection are going to get weird... like how rules that trigger when a model flees from failing combat attrition triggers morale test rules, or how there are no rules that interact with just "heroic interventions" because the only rule is "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS, CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" or how every time a model fights first they are also fighting last.
So many things wrong with this... 1) Heroic Intervention has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Heroic Interventions". Pg 225 2) Pile In has its own has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Pile In". Pg 229 3) Consolidation has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Consolidate". Pg 231 4) Aircraft has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Aircraft" and the AIRCRAFT keyword. Pg 212 5) The rule you are quoting actually references the definitions in 1) 2) and 3) by their section titles, including page references
If anything, this proves that the definition of "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, found in the Perils of the Warp subsection, and not the "Psychic Tests" rule which merely references it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type40 wrote: 1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.) 2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds." Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds. 3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds." 4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.
So, to summarize your argument, I am free to ignore any part of any referenced rule that is not the first sentence? Is this correct?
Why do I have to suffer perils in the first place? After all, according to you, "If you roll a double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of The Warp" is not part of "Psychic test", so it never applies when manifesting psychic powers.
Yes and by that logic you can ignore his original quote because its not the first sentance so doesn't apply
I love how he can't see the contradictions in own argument he tells me I have to follow all the rules then selectively ignores bits that are not relevant
He also repeatedly states the rules tell us what suffers from perils whole ignoring that the sentance in question doesnt refer to suffering perils
He claims the title is in fact not the total of the rules
he seems to think me posting a quote proving that the whole of the perils of the warp box is rules and equally valid supports his argument that you can pick and choose.
We know that double 1's and double 6's rule caused a model to suffer perils we have never disagreed
We disagree that its a definition because it not
All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp
It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.
It is a single line of text that does only exactly what it says it does if you roll a double you suffer perils nothing more nothing less
He will not agree because he cherry picks which text applies and which text does not to suit his definition he also has to add text in to force it to work. Any attempt to read the text as it is will be met by your "ignoring context" or accusations that your ignoring the text because you ignore the bits he has added that arnt actually there.
At this point there are only three explanations 1) he is a troll 2) dunning krugar 3) he can genuinely see rules that are not there
In the perils of the warp box there are 3 bullet points. The first one starts with "Perils of the warp:". Note the colon. What is the purpose of this bullet point if it is not to define Perils of the Warp as "The PSYKER unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds".
The rest of the box describes other interactions, sure, but perils does have a specific description.
If that isn't a specific description of perils, then the "Perils of the Warp:" text in that bullet serves no purpose.
Type40 wrote: You have not proven that a subsection title should ALWAYS be treated this way...
Rules, by definition, have to be deterministic.
And actually, I have. Proving a negative wrong is the same as proving a positive right. That's a basic logical principle.
1) I have proven one positive to be right through the Sanctus unit. Its rifle can only work if the "Perils of the Warp" subsection title can be used as a reference. Therefore my assertion "subsection title define game terms" is right for at least one instance
2) I have proven the negative to be wrong. Sniper rifles in general can only work if subsection titles are treated as a reference. Therefore the assertion "subsection titles do not define game terms" is proven wrong.
I am just going to say No, you are both miss-representing my arguments and ignoring vital parts of my arguments to make yourself seem "more correct." I I am not going to engage in circular argumentation anymore. You have not proven a negative wrong. You have not shown where in the rules it says it ALWAYS works the way you say it does and you have not acknowledged the very real examples of where it isn't working that way. Your arguments are disingenuous and fully ignore parts of what I am saying. p.s. proving that some subsections work that way ignores that other subsections do not work that way,,,, your examples mean nothing when there are factual examples (as i pointed out) and actual rules text (pg 2 point 1 of the rules primer) that say that it is not the only way to read it.
but yes, you have once again provided examples of how, when lacking specific triggers, applications or identifiers it is.
There many examples where this is not true, like "Fight first/last," the subsection simply titled "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" and, the subsection . "within and wholly within." All of these expect you to read the text in order to know what triggers and applications the specific effects apply to. They do not simply apply the entire title to the entire section.
Also, would you say that a model was removed from play by the "morale tests" 'rule' when they we're removed from play due to combat attrition. The "morale test" subsection specifically tells you to do a combat attrition test.
So again, can you point to where in the rule book it says the definition of a rule is ALWAYS the entirety of a subsection and the rule is ALWAYS the subsection title...
because if there is a rule that says this is how we are supposed to always read the rules then some of those subsection are going to get weird... like how rules that trigger when a model flees from failing combat attrition triggers morale test rules, or how there are no rules that interact with just "heroic interventions" because the only rule is "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" or how every time a model fights first they are also fighting last.
So many things wrong with this...
1) Heroic Intervention has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Heroic Interventions". Pg 225
2) Pile In has its own has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Pile In". Pg 229
3) Consolidation has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Consolidate". Pg 231
4) Aircraft has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Aircraft" and the AIRCRAFT keyword. Pg 212
5) The rule you are quoting actually references the definitions in 1) 2) and 3) by their section titles, including page references
Right according to you the rule I am refrencing is the "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" 'rule'.' By your logic anytime a model consolidates into an aircraft they are also piling in and heroically intervening... because its has a rules title that says so.
If anything, this proves that the definition of "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, found in the Perils of the Warp subsection, and not the "Psychic Tests" rule which merely references it.
The definition of "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, found in the Perils of the warp subsection, and not the "Psychic Tests" rule which merely references it. You are totally right here,,, under the Perils of the Warp subsection see the line " When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffersD3 mortal wounds." This line of text defines exactly what it means to be affected by the Perils of the Warp rule. The rules text goes on to describe what happens to a unit that is destroyed by this affect.
So ya, your right, you know exactly what subsection to find the definition in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type40 wrote: 1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.)
2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds.
3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds."
4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.
So, to summarize your argument, I am free to ignore any part of any referenced rule that is not the first sentence? Is this correct?
lol no, not at all XD where are you getting this nonsense from XD. You arn't allowed to ignore any rules text, you are required to do what it says AND ONLY what it says. please re-read this step by step guide on following the text exactly as written XD
Why do I have to suffer perils in the first place? After all, according to you, "If you roll a double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of The Warp" is not part of "Psychic test", so it never applies when manifesting psychic powers.
No, again, this is not what I am saying... Suffering on a 1 or 6 is exactly what the rules text says to do... this isn't by virtue of the title "Psychic test" its by virtue of the text telling us exactly what to do ...
Do you really not understand that you are supposed to do what the text tells you to do and not add extra effects because of a subsection title ?
some bloke wrote: I ask again: If it wasn't mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp, as found under the "Perils of the warp" rule, that killed the second psyker, then what was it that killed him?
This has been explained several times in this thread.
1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.)
2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds.
3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds."
4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.
Those other models are not being destroyed by perils of the warp they are receiving MW as a result of something that has been destroyed by perils.
The title of the section does not indicate the entire box as a whole is the rule. no where does it say subsection titles indicate that. In fact we have a quote that says subsection titles indicate the context of rules.
The rule is specifically what the text says the rule is and not simply just everything that is written in a subsection because its "contextual" title happens to share a name with the rule... i.e. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp ... " THAT IS WHAT PERILS IS nothing extra, nothing else, just follow what it says.
1: yep, agree with this.
2: Yep, they "suffer" perils of the warp, being these rules which we are reading now. Agreed.
3: Yep, continuing to follow the rules for "perils in the warp", we are now inflicting mortal wounds on nearby units because a psyker unit was killed by perils of the warp (well, it was killed by the mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp). These wounds inflicted are being inflicted by perils of the warp, as these are the rules we are following to inflict them.
4: aaand here we disagree. There is a difference between "a psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp" and "a psyker unit destroyed due to suffering from perils of the warp". You are taking the work "Suffering" and from that somehow making a decision, which isn't how it's written, that only the original psyker can be killed by perils, and that the subsequent rules (which are also part of perils) won't qualify, somehow.
Again, what is killing this second psyker? Is it, or is it not, the rules found under "perils of the warp"?
This isn't like if a vehicle-psyker dies and then the subsequent vehicle-explosion (a different rule) kills a nearby psyker; the mortal wounds in question are definitely coming directly from "Perils in the warp". So whatever dies because of that was killed by perils of the warp.
Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
Yes and by that logic you can ignore his original quote because its not the first sentance so doesn't apply
I love how he can't see the contradictions in own argument he tells me I have to follow all the rules then selectively ignores bits that are not relevant
He also repeatedly states the rules tell us what suffers from perils whole ignoring that the sentance in question doesnt refer to suffering perils
He claims the title is in fact not the total of the rules
he seems to think me posting a quote proving that the whole of the perils of the warp box is rules and equally valid supports his argument that you can pick and choose.
We know that double 1's and double 6's rule caused a model to suffer perils we have never disagreed
We disagree that its a definition because it not
All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp
It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.
It is a single line of text that does only exactly what it says it does if you roll a double you suffer perils nothing more nothing less
He will not agree because he cherry picks which text applies and which text does not to suit his definition he also has to add text in to force it to work. Any attempt to read the text as it is will be met by your "ignoring context" or accusations that your ignoring the text because you ignore the bits he has added that arnt actually there.
At this point there are only three explanations 1) he is a troll 2) dunning krugar 3) he can genuinely see rules that are not there
You are either deliberately are mis-representing what I have written or you do not grasp my arguments in the slightest... either way, you can't keep talking about "limitations" as though rules writers are going to write down all of the situations a rule doesn't apply... I am not cherry picking what text to apply , I am only applying the specific text that exists and I am not adding extra context that does not exist... again, you fail to grasp that simply existing in a subsection doesn't magically apply extra properties... ignore the title "perils of the warp" and just do what the text tells you to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, what is killing this second psyker? Is it, or is it not, the rules found under "perils of the warp"?
The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"
A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
Again, it is impossible to prove a negative.
I can not show you a rule that says all the things that are not effected by a written rule because the rules team arn't going to waste their time writing what isn't effected by the rule. We have a permissive rule set that specifically says what is and isn't being effected by things.
The rules writers have used the word "suffers" and "effected" interchangeably. to suffer an effect is to be effected by it . You can not be destroyed by something you are not effected by. We know what is effected by Perils because the rules SAY what exactly is effected by it (i.e. double 1s or 6s). There are other rules that cause the effect on specific datasheets as well. In all cases the rules specifically state something is either effected by it or 'suffers' from it.
the word 'suffers' = to be subjected, effected by or experience something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SolentSanguine wrote: In the perils of the warp box there are 3 bullet points. The first one starts with "Perils of the warp:". Note the colon. What is the purpose of this bullet point if it is not to define Perils of the Warp as "The PSYKER unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds".
The rest of the box describes other interactions, sure, but perils does have a specific description.
If that isn't a specific description of perils, then the "Perils of the Warp:" text in that bullet serves no purpose.
Yes, it is true that the bullet points are not the specific rules text and are not indicative of exactly how rule text operates.
But this is a good point as these bullet points support my exact reading of the text and as SolenSanguine points out there is a colon which indicated what exactly the perils of the warp effect is.
this coincides with my reading of the text. The Perils of the warp definition is "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. " and only this. Just follow the effect and definition as written and stop getting caught up in the title of the subsection.
SolentSanguine wrote: In the perils of the warp box there are 3 bullet points. The first one starts with "Perils of the warp:". Note the colon. What is the purpose of this bullet point if it is not to define Perils of the Warp as "The PSYKER unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds".
The rest of the box describes other interactions, sure, but perils does have a specific description.
If that isn't a specific description of perils, then the "Perils of the Warp:" text in that bullet serves no purpose.
If you check the rules key pg 2 section 4 you will find the rules key defines the Red dot system is a summary summarising the whole paragraph in quick bullet points but of course this loses some detail
In this instance it summarises it in 3 points the interesting part of the summary is it doesn't mention suffering at all (so suffering must not be important) however in a complex rules interaction we use the rules text not the summary because its more precise all 3 bullet points are a summary of perils and all 3 form part of its definition
Its purpose per page 2 section 4 is to give you a quick summary of the rules text that should be sufficient for most rules checks however as there is a dispute the quick version is not appropriate we need the detailed
SolentSanguine wrote: In the perils of the warp box there are 3 bullet points. The first one starts with "Perils of the warp:". Note the colon. What is the purpose of this bullet point if it is not to define Perils of the Warp as "The PSYKER unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds".
The rest of the box describes other interactions, sure, but perils does have a specific description.
If that isn't a specific description of perils, then the "Perils of the Warp:" text in that bullet serves no purpose.
If you check the rules key pg 2 section 4 you will find the rules key defines the Red dot system is a summary summarising the whole paragraph in quick bullet points but of course this loses some detail
In this instance it summarises it in 3 points the interesting part of the summary is it doesn't mention suffering at all (so suffering must not be important) however in a complex rules interaction we use the rules text not the summary because its more precise all 3 bullet points are a summary of perils and all 3 form part of its definition
Except the 3 bullet points support the exact text reading I and others are doing and trying to explain to you. It shows exactly what it means to effected by Perils of the Warp... which is exactly what people keep telling you the text says ... i.e. "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds." AKA the bullet point " Perils of the Warp: The Psyker unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds." The fact that this is synonymous must mean something to you XD . The subsection title doesnt give you the right to add extra context ... again just do what the text tells you to do otherwise you arn't following RAW.
The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"
A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.
I think I understand your thinking now:
"Perils of the Warp" is a title and not saying that all that follows is the rule "perils of the warp"
The rules under "Perils of the Warp" state that the unit suffers perils by taking D3 wounds
it then further says that other things happen if they are killed by perils
QED, the part of "suffering perils of the warp and taking D3 wounds" is the only way the unit can be killed by perils of the warp.
Is that right?
I'm very much on the fence here. On one hand, that logic is fine, but then it still doesn't detract from the fact that the mortal wounds psyker 2 suffers are due to rules found under "Perils of the Warp", and so that has to be what kills them - which then triggers the explosion rules.
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?
Prove to me that I can't roll 3 dice when ever it says to roll 1 ?
You can only show me where it says to do something else... it is impossible for you to point at text that specifically tells me I can't do those things... again, it is impossible to prove a negative.
U02dah4 wrote: Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one
However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one
Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist
U02dah4 wrote: Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one
However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one
Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist
You are asking me to find proof of a rule that says something is NOT included in something... again, I can not prove non-existence...
I can, again, only show you the rule that says WHAT IS effected/suffers from the effect... you keep asking us to prove a negative... the rules writers are not going to write everything in the universe that does not get effected by the rule... sorry, your demands can not be met due to the fact that your demands are a fallacy.
The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"
A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.
I think I understand your thinking now:
"Perils of the Warp" is a title and not saying that all that follows is the rule "perils of the warp"
The rules under "Perils of the Warp" state that the unit suffers perils by taking D3 wounds
it then further says that other things happen if they are killed by perils
QED, the part of "suffering perils of the warp and taking D3 wounds" is the only way the unit can be killed by perils of the warp.
Is that right?
I'm very much on the fence here. On one hand, that logic is fine, but then it still doesn't detract from the fact that the mortal wounds psyker 2 suffers are due to rules found under "Perils of the Warp", and so that has to be what kills them - which then triggers the explosion rules.
Then your not on the fence for his argument to be correct there are three assumptions
That a unit suffering perils is the only unit that can perils he has provided no such quote he is only able to quite that a unit rolling a double perils
one part of the rule does count and part of the rule text doesn't count -so which rule tells you which bit doesnt count. Because if you do not have that quote then there is no reason the title doesn't refer to the whole box and his logic tumbled
It also needs a rule that tells you the last sentance that does not refer to suffering doesn't matter or that it doesn't apply he has not been able to quote such a sentence therefore it does not exist
Unless he can solve these three holes he has no argument if he can solve all 3 he wins so far he has solved none in many attempts
My issue is that you need to introduce an additional feature to Mortal Wound (their "origins" in order to save your chain.
You can't do that and claim at the same time that RAW logic is by your side. It's literally what the Occam's Razor prescribe you to NOT do.
Instead: if you accept provisionally that RAW it doesn't chain, you don't have to introduce any additional feature to Mortal Wound to resolve neither Perils (the subsequent MW are generic MW) neither for the Gauntlet (so, "slay by this weapons" only refers to the attacks made with the weapon profile - exactly where you can find the rule).
Please try to understand that RAW (especially in English) do not equate with the more simplicistic interpretation of a sentence, and often neither with the simpler.
There's a reason why analytical philosophers were native English speaker: they need that in English more than in any other language (because English relies on context more heavily than many other languages).
But, again, instead of big wall of text try to model it in a series of logical relationships(A->B and such) and the underlying reasoning should became much clearer.
BTW, that how it's done in linguistic.
U02dah4 wrote: Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one
However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one
Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist
You are asking me to find proof of a rule that says something is NOT included in something... again, I can not prove non-existence...
I can, again, only show you the rule that says WHAT IS effected/suffers from the effect... you keep asking us to prove a negative... the rules writers are not going to write everything in the universe that does not get effected by the rule... sorry, your demands can not be met due to the fact that your demands are a fallacy.
no we are asking you to provide the definition that exists because it must exist for your argument to be correct
cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
Because that is your premise and its critical to your argument
If that rule does not exist or can't be proven to exist then it is not a requirement.
We can prove that a unit rolling a double suffers perils we all agree it is the second bit we disagree on because you says its correct but obviously can't quote why (because it doesn't exist)
So if you provide quote and we accept your premise or can't and your wrong
The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"
A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.
I think I understand your thinking now:
"Perils of the Warp" is a title and not saying that all that follows is the rule "perils of the warp"
The rules under "Perils of the Warp" state that the unit suffers perils by taking D3 wounds
it then further says that other things happen if they are killed by perils
QED, the part of "suffering perils of the warp and taking D3 wounds" is the only way the unit can be killed by perils of the warp.
Is that right?
Precisely
I'm very much on the fence here. On one hand, that logic is fine, but then it still doesn't detract from the fact that the mortal wounds psyker 2 suffers are due to rules found under "Perils of the Warp", and so that has to be what kills them - which then triggers the explosion rules.
Yes, and if we stop using the subsection title for anything other then an indicator of context then we can just read the rules text. We don't need to add extra context from the title there is no reason to. The RAW tells us exactly what to do.
So when a unit is destroyed by Perils (i.e. exactly what the rules text says perils to be [d3 mortal wounds]) then the rules say it everything within 6" gets d3 mortals.
The second effect is not the effect defined to be "perils of the warp" it is a result of a model who IS effected by "perils of the warp." Causal chains do not trigger rules in 40k... if a keeper of secretes destroys a tank, the tank explodes, and destroys non-vehicle units, then the keeper does not gain d3 wounds. that would be a causal chain. their are specific ways for a model to be effected by the "perils" effect and the mortal wounds dealt out are because of the effect... the keyword is BECAUSE not by it. The non-vehicle units died in the above example BECAUSE of the keeper of secrets not by it. The men playing baseball got hit by a ball because they were playing baseball but the game of baseball itself didn't hit them with the ball.
Cybtroll wrote: My issue is that you need to introduce an additional feature to Mortal Wound (their "origins" in order to save your chain.
You can't do that and claim at the same time that RAW logic is by your side. It's literally what the Occam's Razor prescribe you to NOT do.
Instead: if you accept provisionally that RAW it doesn't chain, you don't have to introduce any additional feature to Mortal Wound to resolve neither Perils (the subsequent MW are generic MW) neither for the Gauntlet (so, "slay by this weapons" only refers to the attacks made with the weapon profile - exactly where you can find the rule).
Please try to understand that RAW (especially in English) do not equate with the more simplicistic interpretation of a sentence, and often neither with the simpler.
There's a reason why analytical philosophers were native English speaker: they need that in English more than in any other language (because English relies on context more heavily than many other languages).
But, again, instead of big wall of text try to model it in a series of logical relationships(A->B and such) and the underlying reasoning should became much clearer.
BTW, that how it's done in linguistic.
There's no extra step only follow what the text says and provide no limitations on that unless another rule tells you to do so
Point 3 of perils specifies what it does just as the gauntlet does you just do exactly what it says
Automatically Appended Next Post: And again at type 40 you say the second effect is not defined to be perils of the warp.
That is only according to your definition
And not any definition you have been able to supply from the rules
And without that definition your rules argument falls flat
So provide the exact quote providing that definition please remembering that rolling a double to suffer perils from the warp only causes you to suffer perils it does not define it or your arguments wrong
Proving a negative means you are attempting to prove the non-existence of something... what you are doing here is proving the possitive... i.e. you are proving educated trump voters do exist... you are showing my exact example. It is literally impossible " if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one"
By continuing to ask me to prove non-existence you can always say "you can't find the proof so you can't prove anything"
Of course I can't ,,, its impossible to prove non-existence you can only prove existence... so again, stop demanding people prove a negative.
U02dah4 wrote: Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one
However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one
Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist
You are asking me to find proof of a rule that says something is NOT included in something... again, I can not prove non-existence...
I can, again, only show you the rule that says WHAT IS effected/suffers from the effect... you keep asking us to prove a negative... the rules writers are not going to write everything in the universe that does not get effected by the rule... sorry, your demands can not be met due to the fact that your demands are a fallacy.
no we are asking you to provide the definition that exists because it must exist for your argument to be correct
cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!
Because that is your premise and its critical to your argument
If that rule does not exist or can't be proven to exist then it is not a requirement.
We can prove that a unit rolling a double suffers perils we all agree it is the second bit we disagree on because you says its correct but obviously can't quote why (because it doesn't exist)
So if you provide quote and we accept your premise or can't and your wrong
FFS
YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE !
I CAN NOT SHOW YOU A RULE THAT SAYS SOMETHING IS NOT EFFECTED BY A RULE IN THE GAME. you can re-range what you are asking all you want but what you are asking for is impossible. You are making the proposition so it is up to you to prove subsection titles work that way.
feth man.
"Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!"
So you want me to show you a rule that says only the thing specifically mentioned in the rules is effected by the rule... for feth sake man,,,, I can not show you that rule, I can just keep showing you that the rules tell us what is and isn't effected by it ... it is impossible to show you a rule that outlines all the things in the universe that are not effected by the rule, I can only show the rules that say exactly what IS effected by it....
Do you really not understand how you are demanding people to prove a negative ? feth i am getting annoyed...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again at type 40 you say the second effect is not defined to be perils of the warp.
That is only according to your definition
And not any definition you have been able to supply from the rules
And without that definition your rules fall flat
So provide the exact quote providing that definition please remembering that rolling a double to suffer perils from the warp only causes you to suffer perils it does not define it
There is no such thing as being "defined by perils of the warp"
There are rules outlined in the subsection titled "perils of the warp"
In that subsection there is a specific line that tells you what it means to suffer/be effected by "perils of the warp"
nothing is falling flat, people are just doing EXACTLY WHAT THE RAW SAYS and not adding extra context based soley on the title of the section.
You cannot show me the rule great we are making progress at last
So when we have the rule
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
And as stated by you that you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it
Then there is no barrier to impacting a second psyker that can be proven by you
As to your second comment again I am merely asking what your definition is according to the rules quotes you say mine is wrong I am mearly asking you to provide the exact rules quotes that supports yours again i am not interested in any definition not in a rules quote
I find it funny that you get annoyed when asked to provide evidence of course when after 6 pages your finally pushed hard enough you admit you don't have any because your arguments can't be proven and that might be why
U02dah4 wrote: You cannot show me the rule great we are making progress at last
So when we have the rule
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
And as stated by you that you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it
Then there is no barrier to impacting a second psyker that can be proven by you
As to your second comment again I am merely asking what your definition is according to the rules quotes you say mine is wrong I am mearly asking you to provide the exact rules quotes that supports yours again i am not interested in any definition not in a rules quote
I find it funny that you get annoyed when asked to provide evidence of course when after 6 pages your finally pushed hard enough you admit you don't have any because your arguments can't be proven and that might be why
I am done. If you can't understand what a logical fallacy is and how someone can not prove a negative you will never understand how to correctly parse these rules. Play the game however you want. I emphasize youll be playing how you want and not by Raw.
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"
Type40 wrote: Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?
Actually that one's simple. There's no such thing as a "melee phase" in 9th edition Warhammer 40K. There's a Fight Phase that comes after the Charge Phase. But, nobody can prove that you can't make shooting attacks in the Assault Phase because it's not true. There are Stratagems that will let people make a shooting attack (or fight) when they die, and it can be used in the Fight Phase.
Type40 wrote: Prove to me that I can't roll 3 dice when ever it says to roll 1 ?
Nothing says you can't roll 3 dice. You should indicate which one of the 3 counts, though, or your opponent might prove that he can "dreadsock" you with an old-school metal dread.
Type40 wrote: You can only show me where it says to do something else... it is impossible for you to point at text that specifically tells me I can't do those things... again, it is impossible to prove a negative.
Actually, "it doesn't tell me I can't do those things" doesn't work as an argument in a game with a permissive ruleset.
The rules can be read to support either side. As I said before, the precedent for a similar rule tends to indicate that GW might intend Perils to work the way you say, but they could easily change their mind and decide that the Warp energy erupting out of a pysker suffering Perils does count as Perils killing something nearby and letting a cascade effect. Best to talk about it with your opponent beforehand so there's no "gotcha" during a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: So other rules like thunderstrike gauntlet chain as well.
Cool.. cool...
Yeah, other rules like vehicles exploding can chain.
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"
You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.
Type40 wrote: Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?
Actually that one's simple. There's no such thing as a "melee phase" in 9th edition Warhammer 40K. There's a Fight Phase that comes after the Charge Phase. But, nobody can prove that you can't make shooting attacks in the Assault Phase because it's not true. There are Stratagems that will let people make a shooting attack (or fight) when they die, and it can be used in the Fight Phase.
Nothing in the rules say there is no melee phase... why are you saying it isn't true ? can you prove it is not true ? do you have proof ? nope, there is absolutely no evidence their is NO melee phase,,, because you can not prove a negative. You can provide evidence for the existence of things but you can not provide evidence for the non-existence of things
Type40 wrote: Prove to me that I can't roll 3 dice when ever it says to roll 1 ?
Nothing says you can't roll 3 dice. You should indicate which one of the 3 counts, though, or your opponent might prove that he can "dreadsock" you with an old-school metal dread.
why should I indicate which one is the one that counts ? can you show me a rule that says I have to ? can you show me a rule that says I can't have all 3 dice ? no you can't because you can't prove a negative. You can only show me rules about what I can do
Type40 wrote: You can only show me where it says to do something else... it is impossible for you to point at text that specifically tells me I can't do those things... again, it is impossible to prove a negative.
Actually, "it doesn't tell me I can't do those things" doesn't work as an argument in a game with a permissive ruleset.
this is precisely what people are arguing... the rules specifically say what you can do in the case of "perils" and people are making a proposition for it to do extra... asking people to prove that perils effects more then the ONLY thing it says suffers perils (excluding things that trigger it on datasheets) This is asking people to prove a negative. We are being asked to show where in the rules it says you can not do something... as you said, it is a permissive rules set. The GW writers arn't going to try and write everything in the universe that is not effected by something, they have only written what IS effected by it. Asking people to show where in the rules that it says that they should "only do what the rule says" is a logical fallacy
The rules can be read to support either side. As I said before, the precedent for a similar rule tends to indicate that GW might intend Perils to work the way you say, but they could easily change their mind and decide that the Warp energy erupting out of a pysker suffering Perils does count as Perils killing something nearby and letting a cascade effect. Best to talk about it with your opponent beforehand so there's no "gotcha" during a game.
agreed, I will most likely insists my opponent follows the rule instructions exactly as written and I will be upset if they insist on adding additional context just because those rules appear in a subsection with a certain title
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: So other rules like thunderstrike gauntlet chain as well.
Cool.. cool...
Yeah, other rules like vehicles exploding can chain.
We are only asking you to prove the rules in your own argument if your answer is you can't prove then they don't exist.
If your contention is that you can't shoot in the fight phase then you need to be able to prove that.
Your counter to our theses is that yours disagree
Therefore you need to prove yours
Our counter to yours is they don't exist and can't be proven if you can prove them you disprove ours.
So far you have proven by your own admission that their is no rule that a model needs to suffer perils to be effected by the last sentance.in perils of warp.
In the joke examples you provide you are asking for proofs we don't maintain and are incorrect infact I can disprove many such as the banners letting you shoot in the fight phase however if I was making your arguments I would need to provide the rules supporting them if I cannot prove it I am wrong.
You are wrong because you cannot provide those proofs the fact you claim it is impossible to prove some just shows the scale of the wrongness of your argument
We deal with rules that can be proven to exist and only rules that can be proven to exist
U02dah4 wrote: We are only asking you to prove the rules in your own argument if your answer is you can't prove then they don't exist.
If your contention is that you can't shoot in the fight phase then you need to be able to prove that.
Your counter to our theses is that yours disagree
Therefore you need to prove yours
Our counter to yours is they don't exist and can't be proven if you can prove them you disprove ours.
So far you have proven by your own admission that their is no rule that a model needs to suffer perils to be effected by the last sentance.in perils of warp.
In the joke examples you provide you are asking for proofs we don't maintain and are incorrect infact I can disprove many such as the banners letting you shoot in the fight phase however if I was making your arguments I would need to provide the rules supporting them if I cannot prove it I am wrong.
You are wrong because you cannot provide those proofs
FFS you are asking people to prove that you shouldn't ONLY do what the RAW says you should do ? Do you really not understand that someone can not give you evidence towards the absence of something ? feth man.
The RAW says those who roll double 6s or double 1s suffer perils. Then the RAW says those who suffer Perils get d3 MWs. There is NO rule that says Perils is anything but the line that defines what the effect is. and you keep insisting that we show you some rule that says you shouldn't ONLY do what it is telling us to do ? wtf No one can give you evidence that purple unicorns arn't effected by Perils of the Warp either, they can only point to rules that say what IS effected by it... what do you not get about this ?
Logically speaking, the issue can be summarized as follows:
we say that
A->B
AND
A->C
So it's straight forward that B does not implies C.
You are saying instead that:
A->B->C
As such, any time B happens C should follow.
There are a number of examples that shows that this is not the case in general.
Warhammer is a much more bland and simplistic system (in part, due to the propensity of the community to rule-lawyering, which paired with inability of GW to wrote in logical notation caused aberration like the bespoken rules).
One of those is the fact that the system is "permissive", so you're not allowed to draw conclusion of the second order based on rules structure or create any interpolation.
You're making up a mountain (and involving new features to save your interpretation) by a literally couple of letters (by) than can easily goes the opposite way. You can't petition for obvious reasons, when half of the world do not agree.
The difference with the chain of vehicle explosion is that the chained vehicle explosion have a structure of
A->B
A->B
A->B
Any time the trigger is entirely satisfied. It's not the same of Perils, whatever interpretation you have.
If I have a CSM Character blow up a Land Raider. The ensuing explosion kills an enemy character, I can now trigger Chaos Boon and get a mutation?
I would not play it this way. My character killed the land raider, the explosion killed the enemy character. In the original example, the Perils of the Warp killed the original psyker. The 2nd psyker was killed by Mortal Wounds caused by the 1st Perils.
With that said, I completely agree it works from a fluff standpoint and would probably allow it in a friendly home game even though I don't agree with it from a rules standpoint.
I am just amazed this rule dispute spawned 7 pages.
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"
You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.
The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured. Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"? Or that "A Triangle does not have more than 3 sides?" How about "I am not a banana slug typing all this in"? (Easily provable with DNA tests if not the evidence of people's eyes). Lunacy to insist that can't be proven.
Type40 wrote: Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?
Actually that one's simple. There's no such thing as a "melee phase" in 9th edition Warhammer 40K. There's a Fight Phase that comes after the Charge Phase. But, nobody can prove that you can't make shooting attacks in the Assault Phase because it's not true. There are Stratagems that will let people make a shooting attack (or fight) when they die, and it can be used in the Fight Phase.
Nothing in the rules say there is no melee phase... why are you saying it isn't true ? can you prove it is not true ? do you have proof ? nope,,, because you can not prove a negative.
Proof is listed on the contents for the Battle Primer. They list the different phases in the battle round. There's the Command Phase, the Movement Phase, the Psychic Phase, the Shooting Phase, the Charge Phase, the Fight Phase and the Morale Phase. There is no "Melee Phase" listed, or even mentioned in the core rules. So yes, I have proof, and I've proven a negative. Realize you're wrong on your statement and don't make yourself look more ridiculous making even more ludicrous denials of fact just to support a false claim.
U02dah4 wrote: We are only asking you to prove the rules in your own argument if your answer is you can't prove then they don't exist.
If your contention is that you can't shoot in the fight phase then you need to be able to prove that.
Your counter to our theses is that yours disagree
Therefore you need to prove yours
Our counter to yours is they don't exist and can't be proven if you can prove them you disprove ours.
So far you have proven by your own admission that their is no rule that a model needs to suffer perils to be effected by the last sentance.in perils of warp.
In the joke examples you provide you are asking for proofs we don't maintain and are incorrect infact I can disprove many such as the banners letting you shoot in the fight phase however if I was making your arguments I would need to provide the rules supporting them if I cannot prove it I am wrong.
You are wrong because you cannot provide those proofs
FFS you are asking people to prove that you shouldn't ONLY do what the RAW says you should do ? Do you really not understand that someone can not give you evidence towards the absence of something ? feth man.
The RAW says those who roll double 6s or double 1s suffer perils. Then the RAW says those who suffer Perils get d3 MWs. There is NO rule that says Perils is anything but the line that defines what the effect is. and you keep insisting that we show you some rule that says you shouldn't ONLY do what it is telling us to do ? wtf No one can give you evidence that purple unicorns arn't effected by Perils of the Warp either, they can only point to rules that say what IS effected by it... what do you not get about this ?
Evidence of the absence of something does not prove it exists only that there is absense of evidence "spock"
And in you argument all there is is the absence of evidence
There is no rule proving that line is the only rule defining perils
You need to prove that to be correct
Whatrule is giving you permission to ignore the other lines or again is it your contention that you pick and choose which to follow. Yeah in that case by that logic I just won't remove my first exploded psyker because pick and mix.
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"
You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.
The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured.
None of this proves that you do not own the vehicle. The evidence you have provided is 1) the DMV has no record of your ownership, 2) you do not have registered insurance for a vehicle. You have not provided evidence of non-existence because you can not prove something does not exist.
Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"?
Correct. You can not provide evidence that you do not own the moon. If you want to try, be my guest.
This is not a ludicrous statement. The logical fallacy of demanding the evidence of absence is well documented you can go ahead and read about it.
Proof is listed on the contents for the Battle Primer. They list the different phases in the battle round. There's the Command Phase, the Movement Phase, the Psychic Phase, the Shooting Phase, the Charge Phase, the Fight Phase and the Morale Phase. There is no "Melee Phase" listed, or even mentioned in the core rules. So yes, I have proof, and I've proven a negative. Realize you're wrong on your statement and don't make yourself look more ridiculous making even more ludicrous denials of fact just to support a false claim.
Wrong, this is evidence that it does not appear on the battle primer or the core rules. Again, you can not prove something does not exist. Again, the logical fallacy of "evidence of absence" is well documented and well known... before you claim that I am making my self look ridiculous please look up this fallacy and understand that the only people who are looking ridiculous are those who insist we prove the non-existence of a rule about "MWs effecting the 2nd psyker." the only thing we can prove is that there is a rule about what IS effected by Perils.
So people need to stop demanding that we somehow prove something does not exist because e very time we point out the rules that do exist we get a resonse along the lines of "That doesn't prove other things can't be effected by perils. show a rule that specifically says these other things cant." Which is impossible. proving non-existence is impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Evidence of the absence of something does not prove it exists only that there is absense of evidence "spock"
I can not show you evidence of something that does not exist. So what are you and spock saying here ? Because the 40k rulebook doesn't specifically have a rule that says that says exploded models don't chain it must mean that they do ? I guess all the purple monkies also explode from perils because we have an absence of evidence on your part XD lol. You can't ask people to prove something does not exist, that's just not possible. We are telling you a rule says something DOES get effected by perils and your response is "show evidence that this other thing isn't effected" ,,, for feth sake man, nothing says that thing gets effected by it, there is no rule thats going to list all the things in the universe that arn't effected by something, just rules that say what IS effected by something.
And in you argument all there is is the absence of evidence
YES , I can not show you a rule that says "the 2nd psyker is effected/not effected by perils of the awrp" BECAUSE my argument is that THIS RULE DOES NOT EXIST. So it is impossible to show you evidence of this. GW does not write rules to outline everything that is not effected by something, just rules that say what IS effected by something. Stop demanding evidence for proof of a negative .
this is your proposition,,, you are the one saying that other psykers then the ones specified ARE in fact effected. the burden of proof is on you to show me where it says that not on me to show you where it says they are not ? I am claiming a rule does not exist and you are claiming it does. I can't prove a rule does not exist, it is up to you to prove that it does exist,,, do you not get that ?
There is no rule proving that line is the only rule defining perils
no gak, there is also no rule proving that only the 1st psyker is effected and not also purple monkey dishwashers... there are only rules that define what IS effected not rules that define what is not effected.
You need to prove that to be correct
it is impossible to prove something does not exist, I can only show you what does exist, and what does exists are lines of text which say what IS effected by Perils of the Warp and what it means to be effected by Perils of the Warp... you keep insisting something exists, we tell you it does not and then you demand we prove it doesn't exist... we can not prove something doesn't exist ,, sorry , its just not in the book I don't know what else to tell you, there is no rule saying it DOES effect the 2nd psyker... that's all there is too it ? So no, you arn't going to see a rule that specifically says it doesn't effect the 2nd psyker in the same way you arn't going to see a rule that says it doesn't effect purple monkeys.
Whatrule is giving you permission to ignore the other lines or again is it your contention that you pick and choose which to follow.
there is no rule giving me permission to ignore anything ? what are you even on about here ? I am following the rules exactly as written .
Yeah in that case by that logic I just won't remove my first exploded psyker because pick and mix.
wtf are you talking about,,, have you read the rule ? Shall we quote them for you
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds"
So if your Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds ... this shouldn't be to hard,,, what does it mean to be effected perils of the warp ? "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds."
That's what the rule says... nothing more , nothing less.
Then the rules describe the next thing
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp (we know what this means to be effected by Perils because of the earlier line of text "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds."), then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds"
The d3 mortal wounds happen as a result of a model being destroyed by perils, we know exactly what perils is because of the line that says what it is and the rules specifically describes when and what causes it ... the line about "every unit within 6" of immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds" happens as a result of the Perils effect... because the perils effect is defined ,,, again "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds." Again,,, all you have to do is what the rules tell you to do, nothing extra.
If you are postulating the the 2nd psyker is being effected by perils ,,, then show evidence and stop asking me to show evidence that the rules say the 2nd one doesn't ... because I can't show you a rule specifically saying something not specified to be effected by something is not effected by that thing... This is like asking me to prove to show you a rule that says only 6 elite slots exist in a battalion ... I can't show you a rule that specifically says that, I can only the show you the rules that say 6 elite slots exist in a battalion ... so stop asking people to prove non-permission... We know what has been given permission to effected and that is ALL that has been given permission to effected.
Type 40 I don't want to copy your monstrosity so I will reply to each of your text points in number order on your appended half of the post
1) I'm asking you to prove what you claim exists if you cannot your claim is wrong. I appreciate this is tough and that im asking you prove something that doesn't exist by your own admission. However it ends the argument when you cannot
2) wow you are now arguing that your own rules do not exist huzzah.
3) so you agree that there is no rule proving that line is the only line defining perils wow again I did not expect you to disprove your argument but awesome
4) so I say you need to prove that to be correct and your response is you can't prove that it doesn't exist I'm glad you admit your wrong as to the second bit you have not supplied those lines and told me they don't exist
5) so you also admit there is no rule giving you permission to ignore anything
6) this was joke based on your apparent logic not a serious point
So in conclusion by your own admission you have just stated across posts
You can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it
You cannot prove that only the first line in perils from warp counts
And that their is no rule giving you permission to ignore anything
So when we apply that to the line in question
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
We have to apply all the text as their is no proof only the first line counts
We can't ignore any part of the later text such as destroyed by a psyker unit because their is no rule giving us permission to ignore anything
and lastly you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils if you first suffer it so any definition that involves suffering is not relevant
So by your own admission all your assumptions have been wrong as we've said from the start
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"
You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.
The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured.
None of this proves that you do not own the vehicle. The evidence you have provided is 1) the DMV has no record of your ownership, 2) you do not have registered insurance for a vehicle. You have not provided evidence of non-existence because you can not prove something does not exist.
Now you're being even more ridiculous, just because you don't want to admit you're wrong on this point.
Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"?
Correct. You can not provide evidence that you do not own the moon. If you want to try, be my guest.
Proof is listed on the contents for the Battle Primer. They list the different phases in the battle round. There's the Command Phase, the Movement Phase, the Psychic Phase, the Shooting Phase, the Charge Phase, the Fight Phase and the Morale Phase. There is no "Melee Phase" listed, or even mentioned in the core rules. So yes, I have proof, and I've proven a negative. Realize you're wrong on your statement and don't make yourself look more ridiculous making even more ludicrous denials of fact just to support a false claim.
Wrong, this is evidence that it does not appear on the battle primer or the core rules. Again, you can not prove something does not exist. Again, the logical fallacy of "evidence of absence" is well documented and well known... before you claim that I am making my self look ridiculous please look up this fallacy and understand that the only people who are looking ridiculous are those who insist we prove the non-existence of a rule about "MWs effecting the 2nd psyker." the only thing we can prove is that there is a rule about what IS effected by Perils.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? The lack of "melee phase" in the core rules or the big rulebook proves that for 9th edition 40K it does not exist. Insisting that something that doesn't exist in the rules can't be proven to not be in the rules is in fact ludicrous. Your posturing that we can't prove it only makes you look like you're arguing merely to contradict and won't let go of something when proven wrong, and that makes any other argument you make less credible since we don't know if that is also something you just don't want to let go of when someone proves you wrong.
U02dah4 wrote: Type 40 I don't want to copy your monstrosity so I will reply to each of your text points in number order on your appended half of the post
1) I'm asking you to prove what you claim exists if you cannot your claim is wrong. I appreciate this is tough and that im asking you prove something that doesn't exist by your own admission. However it ends the argument when you cannot
My claim is what you are claiming doesnt fething exist you house plant. There is no evidence for me to provide for feth sake.
2) wow you are now arguing that your own rules do not exist huzzah.
what fething rules ? what the feth are you talking about ?
3) so you agree that there is no rule proving that line is the only line defining perils wow again I did not expect you to disprove your argument but awesome
of course fething not, because its IS the only fething line defining Perils... you don't need a line right before the definition to say "this is the only definition of perils" that doesn't make any fething sense. There is only going to be rules that point out what DOES exist there is never going to be fething rules that tell you What doesn't exist . Do you also want us to quote a rule that proves that line defining perils only applies to that unit and not purple monkies or anything the feth else in the universe ?
4) so I say you need to prove that to be correct and your response is you can't prove that it doesn't exist I'm glad you admit your wrong as to the second bit you have not supplied those lines and told me they don't exist
again, I can not point to a rule that says ONLY WHAT IS DEFINED AS HAVING PARILS HAS PARILS. I can only show the rules that says what HAS parils... what you are asking for is impossible and simply doesn't exist. The fact that you can't grasp this is just fething baffeling... the GW design team are never going to throw rules on paper describing all the things in the universe that is not what their rules apply to... what they do, is write rules that define what it DOES apply to. What do you not get ? there is no rule telling you the 2nd psycher has perils... thats all there is to it, WTF else do you want ?
5) so you also admit there is no rule giving you permission to ignore anything
no gak, you are also not allowed to add context, permissions and additions to the RAW
6) this as joke based on your apparent logic not a serious point
So in conclusion by your own admission you have just stated across posts
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
ya, you do exactly what the fething rules text says, what does this have to do with the 2nd psyker gaining the effect of perils ?
You can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it
how the feth can something be killed by something it is not effected by ? wtf are you asking people to prove ? there is no fething rule, and never will be, that is going to be like "by the way this thing that doesn't get effected by perils, it doesn't get killed by it." No gak it doesn't.
You cannot prove that only the first line in perils from warp counts
what the feth does this even mean, the whole rules text fething counts as rules, what the feth are you saying ? Are you trying to say that a fething title somehow applies additional meaning to the fething definition of what it means to be effected by perils?
And that their is no rule giving you permission to ignore anything
no fething gak
So when we apply that to the line in question
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
yes , do what it fething says
We have to apply all the text as their is no proof only the first line counts
ya, again, no gak
We can't ignore any part of the later text such as destroyed by a psyker unit because their is no rule giving us permission to ignore anything
what ? what line that says destroyed by a psyker unit ? there is no fething rule that says gak all about being destroyed by a psyker unit. There is only rules for what to do when the defined effect destroys a fething psyker unit... how the feth does the line "If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds" make the thing it kills killed by a specifically defined effect ? how ? because of some subsection title ? where the feth in the rules does it say subsection titles magically give fething properties ?
and lastly you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils if you first suffer it so any definition that involves suffering is not relevant
HOW THE feth CAN YOU BE KILLED BY SOMETHING IF YOU ARNT BEING EFFECTED BY IT ? wtf ?
So by your own admission all your assumptions have been wrong as we've said from the start
WHAT THE ACTUAL feth.
talking to you is like talking to a wall. We are done. You are either deliberately playing stupid, being disingenuous or you actually are incapable of grasping what people are explaining to you. Either because of stubbornness or because you are incapable of comprehending things I do not believe you have the capacity to parse these rules correctly. You have done nothing, at all, in this thread but misrepresent peoples arguments and demand to see evidence for the absence of a rule banning you from arbitrarily adding context where it doesn't exist...
I am sorry, this is a lost cause and I am not going to keep trying to explain to you
Jidmah wrote: It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.
Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?
He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"
You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.
The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured.
None of this proves that you do not own the vehicle. The evidence you have provided is 1) the DMV has no record of your ownership, 2) you do not have registered insurance for a vehicle. You have not provided evidence of non-existence because you can not prove something does not exist.
Now you're being even more ridiculous, just because you don't want to admit you're wrong on this point.
Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"?
Correct. You can not provide evidence that you do not own the moon. If you want to try, be my guest.
Proof is listed on the contents for the Battle Primer. They list the different phases in the battle round. There's the Command Phase, the Movement Phase, the Psychic Phase, the Shooting Phase, the Charge Phase, the Fight Phase and the Morale Phase. There is no "Melee Phase" listed, or even mentioned in the core rules. So yes, I have proof, and I've proven a negative. Realize you're wrong on your statement and don't make yourself look more ridiculous making even more ludicrous denials of fact just to support a false claim.
Wrong, this is evidence that it does not appear on the battle primer or the core rules. Again, you can not prove something does not exist. Again, the logical fallacy of "evidence of absence" is well documented and well known... before you claim that I am making my self look ridiculous please look up this fallacy and understand that the only people who are looking ridiculous are those who insist we prove the non-existence of a rule about "MWs effecting the 2nd psyker." the only thing we can prove is that there is a rule about what IS effected by Perils.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? The lack of "melee phase" in the core rules or the big rulebook proves that for 9th edition 40K it does not exist. Insisting that something that doesn't exist in the rules can't be proven to not be in the rules is in fact ludicrous. Your posturing that we can't prove it only makes you look like you're arguing merely to contradict and won't let go of something when proven wrong, and that makes any other argument you make less credible since we don't know if that is also something you just don't want to let go of when someone proves you wrong.
I am the one being asked to prove non-existence ... seriously,,, wtf XD .
Stux wrote: Absolutely. You Absolutely can prove the absence of something provided you have a clear, finite/definable and fully accessible scope.
So then how about we accept that if GWsRAW actually said the 2nd psyker got effected by Perils that they would have infact written that. Instead of demanding proof of an extra rule that they didn't mean it, how about we stop and actually prove the 2nd psyker is effected by perils... Stop asking me to show a rule about disallowing something to happen when there isn't a rule that allows it to happen.
Nothing says it is... why the hell would it be,,, I can't provide evidence that nothing says it is BECAUSE NOTHING SAYS THAT IT IS. So asking me to show a rule that says nothing says this is just getting fething irritating .
If people actually want to believe in osmosis subsection titles then prove that's how sections always work... because as is , there are subsections that WE KNOW do not work that way. there is no rules that say they do
Type40, step away from the keyboard if you're going to just be posting "fething" "gak" as replies to someone (not the replies to me, but to U02dah4) . You're just going to spiral further down if you don't take a break from it.
As to your comment "you have now proved that your ownership is not recognized by international treaty... congradulations... you can not prove non-existence ",if supposed ownership is not recognized by any of the official bodies then there isn't actual ownership,
If you model a single rule as three separate interaction, then you're wrong. You're essentially denying that those three are the same thing: simple as that.
GW rules are not written like that.
By the way, writing ABC -> 123 is a completely different things from writing A->1; B->2 and C->3.
So, unfortunately... I don't think we can discuss using logical notation, there is a minimum bar to use it proficiently.
But there's an easier proof.
Apply the same logic to any of the numerous multi-faceted rules (those that applies different effects under the same activator with different accessory conditions) and you will realize this position is untenable (any extra condition in your interpretation became necessary and sufficient, rather than only necessary).
I think that, for example, Reinforcement, Redeploy and Deep Strike broke immediately, but there are others for sure.
And to be valid, an interpretation should be universal without additional caveat... If broke somewhere else it's wrong in general (yes, there are special cases, because GW isn't even above that... But luckily those are always explicit by definition).
The only issue about the interpretation of no chain is that someone don't like it, and consider it illogical (it's blatantly not, since multiple people disagree: unless you invoke stupidity or trolling).
The interpretation in favour of the chain, instead, require to introduce entity and conditions that do not exist in the rule (propagation of the sources of MW), have various counterintuitive repercussions (gauntlet) that otherwise aren't a problem... and the disagreements about it can be explained without bad faith, simply as an unfortunate (however clear when you parse it) formulation in a notoriously vague language.
doctortom wrote: Type40, step away from the keyboard if you're going to just be posting "fething" "gak" as replies to someone (not the replies to me, but to U02dah4) . You're just going to spiral further down if you don't take a break from it.
As to your comment "you have now proved that your ownership is not recognized by international treaty... congradulations... you can not prove non-existence ",if supposed ownership is not recognized by any of the official bodies then there isn't actual ownership,
Untrue
Ownership: defined:
"the act, state, or right of possessing something."
Also, maybe some body of governance that you have no idea about or do not have access to has acknowledged your ownership. If this official body is required, then I postulate one you don't know about exists prove that this official body doesn't exist ?
Nothing in the definition says ownership must be recognized by any official bodies ... sorry... you can not prove non-existence ... it is impossible. If you want to keep trying to prove you don't own the moon you can... but all you can actually do is prove things that do exist, not what does not exist. Sorry.
This argument is not about 40k any more. This thread is done, there no possibility of either side convicing the other at this point. Y'all need to let it go and agree to disagree.
Stux wrote: This argument is not about 40k any more. This thread is done, there no possibility of either side convicing the other at this point. Y'all need to let it go and agree to disagree.
Honestly, I agree, we are definitely at an impasse and have been for a while.
conclusion :
Position 1: all things under the subsection titled "Perils of the Warp" count as the perils of the warp rule and thus cause a chain reaction
Position 2: subsection titles do not have a bearing on this rule. Following the text exactly the rules define what is Perils and when it is triggered as specific lines of text. When looked at in this way their is no chain reaction because a 2nd psyker is not being effected by perils, They are getting mortal wounds as a result of a destroyed model who was killed by the effects of perils but they are not effected by perils themselves.
This closing set of positions is to sum up the two positions as objectively as I could. I do not intend to argue this anymore.
Cybtroll wrote: If you model a single rule as three separate interaction, then you're wrong. You're essentially denying that those three are the same thing: simple as that.
GW rules are not written like that.
By the way, writing ABC -> 123 is a completely different things from writing A->1; B->2 and C->3.
So, unfortunately... I don't think we can discuss using logical notation, there is a minimum bar to use it proficiently.
But there's an easier proof.
Apply the same logic to any of the numerous multi-faceted rules (those that applies different effects under the same activator with different accessory conditions) and you will realize this position is untenable (any extra condition in your interpretation became necessary and sufficient, rather than only necessary).
I think that, for example, Reinforcement, Redeploy and Deep Strike broke immediately, but there are others for sure.
And to be valid, an interpretation should be universal without additional caveat... If broke somewhere else it's wrong in general (yes, there are special cases, because GW isn't even above that... But luckily those are always explicit by definition).
The only issue about the interpretation of no chain is that someone don't like it, and consider it illogical (it's blatantly not, since multiple people disagree: unless you invoke stupidity or trolling).
The interpretation in favour of the chain, instead, require to introduce entity and conditions that do not exist in the rule (propagation of the sources of MW), have various counterintuitive repercussions (gauntlet) that otherwise aren't a problem... and the disagreements about it can be explained without bad faith, simply as an unfortunate (however clear when you parse it) formulation in a notoriously vague language.
Pick your poison.
The problem is their are three different activators and three different effects all of which come under the same rule i mean yes if you want proper annotation you suppose 1a 1b 1c could be used but we are arguing about annotation not the point they represent. Comparing them to rules with a single activator is incorrect 1c can trigger without the criteria forc1a to trigger and 1a can trigger without 1b triggering or all three can trigger depending on the circumstances because each is conditional. By over simplifying your eliminating essential information it might be simpler but its less accurate.
"all of which come under the same rule" Citation needed. There is no evidence that this entire section constitutes a single/same rule by any kind of single unified name. It is true that some subsections are treated this way and some are not. In particular sections with specific definitions of rules triggers and definitions do not.. see fight first/last, attrition tests or moral tests for example.
Its hilarious that you can copy my direct rules quote
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
Then dismiss it for having magic properties, having stated that all your assumptions against it have no proof and having again confirmed that you can't ignore it and that you have no proof that only the first line counts or that the definition of suffering counts.
The rest of your scrawl is now irrelevant unless you can prove points that you have now confirmed on multiple occasions that you can't.
Its hilarious that you can copy my direct rules quote
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
Then dismiss it for having magic properties, having stated that all your assumptions against it have no proof and having again confirmed that you can't ignore it and that you have no proof that only the first line counts or that the definition of suffering counts.
The rest of your scrawl is now irrelevant unless you can prove points that you have now confirmed on multiple occasions that you can't.
Again,,, where in this rules quote,,, you keep repeating, over and over, does it say that the second unit is being effected by Perils of the Warp ? Again, I am not the one making assumptions... you are the one applying extra context. I am advocating for following what the text says. I don't intend on ignoring anything. I do not think only the first line counts as rules. I can't understand why you keep insisting that is what I am saying. I do not intending on ignoring anything but unlike you, I do not intend on doing anything extra or applying context where none exists.
I
Type40 wrote: "all of which come under the same rule" Citation needed. There is no evidence that this entire section constitutes a single/same rule by any kind of single unified name. It is true that some subsections are treated this way and some are not. In particular sections with specific definitions of rules triggers and definitions do not.. see fight first/last, attrition tests or moral tests for example.
The title pg2 section 1 and the fact its in a white box pg 2section8 tell you its all one rule.
The fact there are three bullet points in the summary tell you there are 3 effects.
The detail of three sentences that those bullet points summarise give you the different definition of what triggers
First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. ( trigger psyker unit suffering perils) (effect it suffers d3 mortal wounds
Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( trigger a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power) ( it automatically fails to manifest the power)
Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(Trigger all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp) ( effect 6"explosion before removing)
A psyker unit suffering perils from a gun with the ability to make psykers peril would trigger the first sentence wouldn't trigger the second and might trigger the third depending on if it survived
Type40 wrote: "all of which come under the same rule" Citation needed. There is no evidence that this entire section constitutes a single/same rule by any kind of single unified name. It is true that some subsections are treated this way and some are not. In particular sections with specific definitions of rules triggers and definitions do not.. see fight first/last, attrition tests or moral tests for example.
The title pg2 section 1 and the fact its in a white box pg 2section8 tell you its all one rule.
The fact there are three bullet points in the summary tell you there are 3 effects.
The detail of three sentences that those bullet points summarise give you the different definition of what triggers
Ya,,, you are reading those pages wrong... that 100% not what that says ...
Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to readinto context.
This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models
Not sure what about these two quotes seem to tell you that the title of a subsection dictates what is and isn't a rules effect ? The only thing I see here is that the titles of subsections help put the rules you are about to read into context ? ....
So again, you have no evidence that the entire section is something called "the perils of the warp rule"
What we do have is actual rules text that says exactly what is the effects of perils of the warp
When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,
as specifically defined in the line above and nothing else
then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
As you can see the second half of this line does not also apply the perils of the warp effect and thus perils of the warp can not kill something.
Again, unless you have a citation that says the entire sub section is something you keep calling the "Perils of the Warp" and not just a subsection titled "Perils of the Warp."
Stux wrote: This argument is not about 40k any more. This thread is done, there no possibility of either side convicing the other at this point. Y'all need to let it go and agree to disagree.
in order to save your chain.
I am done. If you can't understand what a logical fallacy is and how someone can not prove a negative you will never understand how to correctly parse these rules. Play the game however you want. I emphasize youll be playing how you want and not by 
