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.

@ type 40 What are you on about

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

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.

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.

Good night guys, good chat.

@ ghaz There's no ambiguity there is one clear RAW answer and one ambiguous RAI answer

Perils chains by RAW

By RAI you can argue it either way

Rai is irrelevant when RAW is clear


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

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

 Ghaz wrote:

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 is a good example actually.

Its a good RAI example and evidenced based RAI is a better argument than pure RAI

But its still RAI and so not relevant

@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.

 Ghaz wrote:

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.

 Ghaz wrote:

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.

 Jidmah wrote:

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

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes we have established that being killed by perils means dieing as a result of MW from any part of the perils box

Good thing the rule doesnt say 'dieing as a result of MW from any part of the perils box'

Do not ignore the context of the rule.

Screeching "Context" is not an argument.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

That is true

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.

artific3r wrote:
Guys... this really could go either way. It's ambiguous until we get an FAQ. No use writing essays about it.

It’s also not ambiguous... one guy not parsing a rule correctly doesn’t make it unclear.

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

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

Yep, no change

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, no change

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:

 Ghaz wrote:

 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+.

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.

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.