Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 p5freak wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You can only suffer perils on a roll of double 1 or double 6. The quote has already been provided by Deathreaper.

Please quote the rule which says that you must suffer perils of the warp to explode.

Please quote the rule that says psykers can explode without suffering perils of the warp.

U02dah4 did that and broke it down 2 posts above your post that I quoted.

Yes its in the post 14:04:18

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).

So what killed the second Psyker?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what killed the second Psyker?

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).

So it was directly a result of Perils.

Had Perils not happened, the Psyker would be alive.

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+.

And from the Codex: Drukhari FAQ v1.2:

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.

 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+.

And from the Codex: Drukhari FAQ v1.2:

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.

fair. Good citation.

@U02dah4

I disagree due to the quote I posted above.

"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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So it was directly a result of Perils.

Had Perils not happened, the Psyker would be alive.

This isn’t how the rules work.

U02dah4 wrote:

@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.

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

@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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

The RAW explicitly supports my 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 RAI FAQ 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.

U02dah4 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

@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.

Yes, it did.

U02dah4 wrote:
The RAW explicitly supports my 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

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.

@psfreak Then supply the quote copy and paste

The quote is in your post FFS. Third Sentence as you post it, if that helps you.

 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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
The RAW explicitly supports my 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

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

The burden of proof is on you.

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.

This made me LOL for realz.

 Type40 wrote:
The burden of proof is on you.

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