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.

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.

Almost certainly unintentional but sounds fun. I'll allow it.

No, the second psyker didnt suffer perils of the warp, and he wasnt attempting to manifest a psychic power.

See underlined:

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.

 skchsan wrote:
See underlined:

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.

What did destroy the second psyker then?

The quoted rule is the content of the "Perils of the Warp" box in the psychic phase rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
No, the second psyker didnt suffer perils of the warp, and he wasnt attempting to manifest a psychic power.

Suffering perils of the warp is not a requirement for exploding a psyker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Perils of the Warp is defined as "the result of rolling double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test."

I'd argue that Perils of the Warp is defined by the box that says "Perils of the Warp" on it.

 skchsan wrote:
The second psyker is destroyed as a result of the mortal wounds from a psyker who suffers Perils of the Warp.

The first psyker also is destroyed by the mortal wounds, not by suffering perils of the warp itself.

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.

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.

 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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

Agreed.

Yep, agreed with all saying the second Psyker wasn’t destroyed by Perils for the reasons posted, so it doesn’t chain.

It was destroyed by perils

It didn't suffer perils

They are two different things

Suffering is rolling doubles

Destroyed by perils means dieing as a result of the text in the perils box

It is quite clear check the rulebook


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 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

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

 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.

@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

 BaconCatBug 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.

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.

Ok, this argument boils down to one thing. |

"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.

Perils SAYS who is suffering from it.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug 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.

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.

@ ps freak

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)

 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.

 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 wrote:
@ ps freak

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.

@ TYPE 40

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.