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.

U02dah4 wrote:

 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

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.

Exactly the only definition

Also kudos on being the first to supply a quote

Actually, I started the thread with a quote, as the tenets of YMDC dictate. Too bad this part hasn't been enforced in years.

LOL ok, guys,

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.

1 again no quote

2 the previous section provides no definition

If it does quote it

Again,,,

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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 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

U02dah4 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

What bit are we ignoring

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

U02dah4 wrote:
What bit are we ignoring

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...

1) the intention does not matter only the RAW

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

 Type40 wrote:

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.

Seconded

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

@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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

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.

Guys... this really could go either way. It's ambiguous until we get an FAQ. No use writing essays about it.

Do not ignore context.

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.