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.
We have a unit not killed by perils, but by a Psyker exploding which was caused by perils. There is no indication, raw or otherwise, that the status of "perils..." is commutative
Add to that we know already how gw has ruled on a very similar situation, and the side that claims a Psyker exploding to ill another Psyker means that's the second Psyker also died of perils gets ever further from reality.
Raw it does not chain
Likely rai it does not chain
Precedentally it does not chain
The mw come from the perils rule ergo it chains
Raw it chains
Likely rai it chains
Precdentally it entirely depends which precedent you look at
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 18:19:03
Cybtroll wrote: Well, there is an interesting caveat that shows why you interpretation of "what's what's" in the rule is wrong.
Let's make a very simple thought experiment:
A Psyker suffer from Perils and is killed. The resulting MW destroy a nearby vehicles, which then obviously explodes and kills a second Psyker nearby. Will a third Psyker, aside the second one, suffer from Perils and potentially chain again?
I think will be interesting to see how, RAW, you assess this.
1st psyker is killed by the perils rule it explodes due to the perils rule
This kills a vehicle
The explodes due to the vehicles explosion rule the psyker dies to the vehicle explosion rule
The vehicle explosion rule has no sentence stating it makes psykers explode when they are destroyed so the psyker does not explode but if it had died to mw from the perils then it would explode because the perils rule destroyed it and there is a specific sentence stating that if the perils rule destroys a psyker it explodes
U02dah4 wrote: The mw come from the perils rule ergo it chains
Exactly. The mortal wound resulting from perils of the warp kills nearby units. Perils of the warp does not kill nearby units, it's resolution does.
The rule states "psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp", not "pskyer unit destroyed from/due to/because of perils of the warp".
The batter was hit by a ball thrown by the pitcher. The pitcher did not hit the batter - the ball did.
Your argument is the rule does not kill units its resolution does thats ridiculous
So your argument is no psyker ever explodes because no psyker is ever killed by the rule just its resolution then the rule does nothing whats the point in it
Of course a model killed by the resolution of a rule is killed by it thats literally the definition
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: TLDR: The 2nd psyker is destroyed due to perils of the warp, not by perils of the warp.
I'd like to think of the other side of the argument as:
Claim:
-In a game of baseball, if the batter was hit by a ball, then the batter was hit by a game of baseball.
Proof:
-A baseball game is a sport where two opposing teams play against another in series of periods referred to as 'innings'.
-Inning is comprised of pitcher throwing the ball and batter hitting the ball.
-When a pitcher throws the ball, there's a chance that the ball may hit the batter.
-Then, if a batter is hit by a thrown ball, that batter was hit by a game of baseball.
Anyone would argue that this is a valid but unsound conclusion. The batter was definitely hit because of/during/while playing a game of baseball, but it's a hard sell if you're trying to prove that he/she was hit BY a game of baseball.
The 2nd psyker was destroyed as a result of resolving the effects of 'perils of the warp.' It did not, get destroyed by perils of the warp. Rule does not say 'if a psyker unit is destroyed from/due to/because of etc'. Because language is inherently vague, you have to try to arrive at the most valid & sound reading of the rules text, even if you're trying to claim it is RAW.
There is no raw difference between being destroyed by or destroyed due to it or destroyed while resolving the effects of they are all synonymous unless you can provide a RAW quote proving they mean something different if not its just another attempt to ignore the part if the rule you don't like with no evidence
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 18:28:37
U02dah4 wrote: There is no raw difference between being destroyed by or destroyed due to it or destroyed while resolving the effects of they are all synonymous unless you can provide a RAW quote proving they mean something different if not its just another attempt to ignore the part if the rule you don't like with no evidence
Right. Because language is inherently vague, there can be multiple meaning with any given text. Particularly in English, as it so happens to be the language we're discussing in, it is extremely rare for any given sentence (or series of clauses, paragraphs, etc) to have exactly one possible meaning. Therefore, it is the reader's responsibility to internalize the text and arrive at the most valid & sound conclusion possible. Note that even RAW is never truly RAW, because the moment you discuss RAW, there has been certain degree of internalization of the given text at hand.
Given that, we have two reasonably sound RAW interpretation on hand:
1. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is inclusive of units that attain 'destroyed' status as a result of 'suffering' from perils of the warp as well as from any damage incurred as a result of perils of the warp. 2. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is exclusively the unit that has 'suffered' from perils of the warp.
The latter interpretation is a more sound argument because it introduces less assumptions based on the given text at hand into the logical argument. (Main (problematic) assumption here is absolute definition of the word "by" to mean "because of/due to", when we know that "by" by definition is a vague preposition.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 18:54:57
U02dah4 wrote: There is no raw difference between being destroyed by or destroyed due to it or destroyed while resolving the effects of they are all synonymous unless you can provide a RAW quote proving they mean something different if not its just another attempt to ignore the part if the rule you don't like with no evidence
Right. Because language is inherently vague, there can be multiple meaning with any given text. Particularly in English, as it so happens to be the language we're discussing in, it is extremely rare for any given sentence (or series of clauses, paragraphs, etc) to have exactly one possible meaning. Therefore, it is the reader's responsibility to internalize the text and arrive at the most valid & sound conclusion possible. Note that even RAW is never truly RAW, because the moment you discuss RAW, there has been certain degree of internalization of the given text at hand.
Given that, we have two reasonably sound RAW interpretation on hand:
1. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is inclusive of units that attain 'destroyed' status as a result of 'suffering' from perils of the warp as well as from any damage incurred as a result of perils of the warp.
2. By 'psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp', it is exclusively the unit that has 'suffered' from perils of the warp.
The latter interpretation is a more sound argument because it introduces less assumptions based on the given text at hand into the logical argument.
Your first interpretation is way to convoluted and you have added extra restrictions
It should be "any psyker unit" "destroyed by" "perils of the warp"
Or to clarify [any unit that is a psyker] [destroyed by][the perils of the warp rule]
the second one is not a possibile interpretation. the sentence in question makes no reference to a model suffering perils of the warp it would require an extra clause
In order to reach that conclusion you are substantially changing the sentance not interpreting it
(Now it is not unreasonable to think it should say that but it doesn't and all that matters is its exact wording)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 18:59:11
Cybtroll wrote: Well, there is an interesting caveat that shows why you interpretation of "what's what's" in the rule is wrong.
Let's make a very simple thought experiment:
A Psyker suffer from Perils and is killed. The resulting MW destroy a nearby vehicles, which then obviously explodes and kills a second Psyker nearby. Will a third Psyker, aside the second one, suffer from Perils and potentially chain again?
I think will be interesting to see how, RAW, you assess this.
That's the point I was trying to make.
To really bring this example home though, you need to remove the explosion rule (as that has a rule called explosion) to one whereupon death MW are suffered that's not a named rule. I'm sure there are some obscure models that cause MW upon death. For example Pheonix gem on an autarch who gets MW from nearby periling warlock --> Dies and then also --> MW another warlock killing him --> But coz phoenix gem he is not actualy slain.. Does the second Warlock also suffer perils?
But not for perils no MW would have been suffered.
Its a simple "but for" causality test which if you ana RAW lawyer it, you have to go all the way which demonstrably results in absurdity...
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
skchsan wrote: Your argument hinges upon the fact that the word "by" means and only means "because of/due to".
This is factually incorrect, therefore, your argument is valid but unsound (due to false premises).
Yes that is what it means check a dictionary
by
/bʌɪ/
preposition
1.
identifying the agent performing an action.
Why what else do you think it means that changes my premise
I acknowledge by can be used as
Preposition
2. indicating the means of achieving something.
"malaria can be controlled by attacking the parasite"
adverb
so as to go past.
However neither makes sense in the context
Yes, but in your argument, there is an active bias for 'by' to mean the former, and the former only.
When you limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's, you are able to arrive at sound conclusion using either definition of 'by'.
What is the other definition of "by" your saying limiting my definition is bias and that im ignoring the second
But you have not provided a second definition
As to your suggestion that you should limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's that would be fine if a rule told you to do so if not that is an arbitrary change for no reason and when you start making arbitrary changes you can make what you want mean what you want
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 19:30:44
U02dah4 wrote: What is the other definition of "by" your saying limiting my definition is bias and that im ignoring the second
But you have not provided a second definition
As to your suggestion that you should limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's that would be fine if a rule told you to do so if not that is an arbitrary change for no reason and when you start making arbitrary changes you can make what you want mean what you want
Your interpretation: "a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by perils of the warp."
1: perils of the warp is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound was ultimately caused by the perils) 2: perils of the warp is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (strong, cogent - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction; needs additional clauses to make it necessarily true)
My interpretation: "a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by mortal wounds."
1: mortal wound is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound causes the W to fall to/below 0, which causes the said destruction) 2: mortal wound is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (valid, sound - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 19:58:45
Just so I am clear about the point I wanted to make with my example.
To save the chain effect, you have to add an attribute to MW: now we have to differentiate between MW by Perils and MW by Explode (or MW by anything else).
This isn't RAW.
When you have to add ad-hoc hypothesis in order to save your theory, it's a universal indicator that the theory has issues.
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 19:52:17
U02dah4 wrote: What is the other definition of "by" your saying limiting my definition is bias and that im ignoring the second
But you have not provided a second definition
As to your suggestion that you should limit the definition of "destroyed by perils of warp" to mean just the unit that rolled double 1's or 6's that would be fine if a rule told you to do so if not that is an arbitrary change for no reason and when you start making arbitrary changes you can make what you want mean what you want
Your interpretation:
"a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by perils of the warp."
1: perils of the warp is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound was ultimately caused by the perils)
2: perils of the warp is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (strong, cogent - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction; needs additional clauses to make it necessarily true)
My interpretation:
"a psyker unit destroyed by mortal wounds from another psyker that suffers perils of the warp, and is subsequently destroyed and causes mortal wounds to surrounding, is destroyed by mortal wounds."
1: mortal wound is the agent performing the action of destroying (valid, sound - the mortal wound causes the W to fall to/below 0, which causes the said destruction)
2: mortal wound is the means of achieving destruction of the unit (valid, sound - the mortal wound was the means of achieving the said destruction)
So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction. I mean that's pretty out there and makes the rule almost entirely redundant but hey if that's what you believe at least its consistent but I will have to disagree
Of course I imagine your going pick and choose which sentence to arbitrarily apply your logic to so that the first psyker explodes and the second does not but if you were to do that you would only be proving me right that your arbitrarily changing one sentence to suit what you think it should do while taking another verbatim and you have shown no raw reason why you should apply different logic
Ergo the first interpretation is correct as you don't have to apply different logic for no reason to make it work
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: Just so I am clear about the point I wanted to make with my example.
To save the chain effect, you have to add an attribute to MW: now we have to differentiate between MW by Perils and MW by Explode (or MW by anything else).
This isn't RAW.
When you have to add ad-hoc hypothesis in order to save your theory, it's a universal indicator that the theory has issues.
Yes they are different if a rule states x happens if is destroyed by perils of the warp that would not trigger from a vehicle explosion it would trigger from perils the source of the mw explicitly matters.
That is raw rules literally refer to the source of damage
Ion shield models in this unit have a 5+ save vs ranged weapons
Source ranged weapons
Several admech units each time you make an unmodified save throw of 6 against a melee attack ....
Source melee attack
SM chapter champion
Skilful Parry Each time a melee attack is made against this model, subtract 1 from the hit roll
Source melee attack
Perils of the warp
If a psyker unit is destroyed by perils of the warp
Source perils of the warp
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 20:51:17
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
The Drukhari FAQ sets a precedent by showing us how GW would read that passage of text as that is what is in doubt. Do you have a FAQ or some document where GW has read it differently?
GW can always change the rules via a FAQ, but until such time that they do so we take what we have and the Drukhari FAQ clearly shows how they would read the rule in question.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
The Drukhari FAQ sets a precedent by showing us how GW would read that passage of text as that is what is in doubt. Do you have a FAQ or some document where GW has read it differently?
GW can always change the rules via a FAQ, but until such time that they do so we take what we have and the Drukhari FAQ clearly shows how they would read the rule in question.
Ahh that special snowflake that magically knows what GW would think (Roll eyes) knowing what GW think is inherently subjective because they repeatedly contradict themselves its why we don't use rai by default chain exploding pskers has precedent in the literature and the video games set in the grimdark universe - precident
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 20:50:13
BaconCatBug wrote: And, again, an FAQ dealing with the ossefactor has no bearing on anything else, much like how the FAQ about 8th edition Necron Quantum Shielding suggesting you can modify a dice roll to 0 has no bearing on anything else.
Again, it sets a precedent. It shows what GW has ruled in a similar situation. Precedents do have bearing in rules discussions where there is no clear answer in the rules or the FAQs.
So, GW has precedent of having contradictory FAQs and also changing FAQs on a dime after backlash, thus showing that precedent cannot be relied upon when discussing GW's rules, by your own logic.
The Drukhari FAQ sets a precedent by showing us how GW would read that passage of text as that is what is in doubt. Do you have a FAQ or some document where GW has read it differently?
GW can always change the rules via a FAQ, but until such time that they do so we take what we have and the Drukhari FAQ clearly shows how they would read the rule in question.
It's fine to cite this as a precedent to work off of now as a RAI argument (or even which way to interpret RAW), but it could easily change if GW rules differently. I could actually see them liking the idea of the Warp bursting out in the explosion to damage people nearby with the warp energy, and allowing it to chain. They could change their mind from the Drukhari FAQ and let it work like an explosion cascading, possibly causing other explosions.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
Context is an argument if you can provide a rules quote to support it e.g. this rule doesn't work because rule x says it doesnt work "it doesn't work"
If you say context and provide no quote to support or supply a quote that doesn't explicitly change the context of the sentence then the argument is worthless e.g. "if a psyker rolls a double 1 it suffers perils of the warp" is contextual relevant to the question what may suffer perils of the warp it is not contextually relevant to the question what has been destroyed by perils of the warp.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
Context is an argument if you can provide a rules quote to support it e.g. this rule doesn't work because rule x says it doesnt work "it doesn't work"
If you say context and provide no quote to support or supply a quote that doesn't explicitly change the context of the sentence then the argument is worthless e.g. "if a psyker rolls a double 1 it suffers perils of the warp" is contextual relevant to the question what may suffer perils of the warp it is not contextually relevant to the question what has been destroyed by perils of the warp.
I argued your side earlier in the thread. I can see both sides' interpretations and think there are valid arguments for both. Until we get a specific FAQ for this, it's probably best to talk it out with your opponent about how to handle it before a game if you think it might come up, so it doesn't come as a surprise and you find your opponent doesn't agree with your interpretation.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
It is because context matters.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Never said it was, but you can't ignore the context and claim RAW, which is what they are doing. Thier arguments are not correct because of it.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
It is because context matters.
Real context can matter. The trick is seeing whether the "context" you claim actually exists and precludes other interpretations. Ghaz's argument for precedent does more than you just saying "context" without providing such context (which unfortunately seems to be what you tend to do more than you do actually providing the context- you can't just yell "context" and brandish it like someone might a cross against a vampire, there has to be a valid context explained).
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
You're had plenty of arguments in other threads where you've been relying on "context" that wasn't necessarily there and basing your entire argument on it.
It is because context matters.
Real context can matter. The trick is seeing whether the "context" you claim actually exists and precludes other interpretations. Ghaz's argument for precedent does more than you just saying "context" without providing such context
I have provided context, if you think I have not, you have not read my posts.
(which unfortunately seems to be what you tend to do more than you do actually providing the context- you can't just yell "context" and brandish it like someone might a cross against a vampire, there has to be a valid context explained).
Please do not lie and make things up. I do not ever do this.
This sums up the context nicely:
Spoiler:
skchsan wrote: Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 21:49:00
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
So these mw count and these mw don't despite the same wording so as stated in the bit you cut off you admit to arbitrarily applying your argument to one sentence and not to another for no raw reason and therefore argument 1 being correct (well you might not but your argument proves it
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 22:40:50
U02dah4 wrote: So by your definition a model suffering from perils of the warp manifesting a psychic power and rolling double 1 doesnt explode because the mw are merely the means of destruction.
Nope. The psyker unit that actually suffered from perils and gets destroyed by the subsequent resolution of it is destroyed by perils because the unit suffered from perils of the warp to begin with.
If a unit that never suffered perils is destroyed by a unit that causes MW to surrounding due to suffering perils, then that unit did not get destroyed by perils, but by the MW caused by a unit that suffered perils. Nothing more.
Indeed. But most of the thread seems to just be trying to convince U02dah4 who’s being rudely wrong, even though he’s quoted the rule that outright states the exact opposite of his hot take:
PSYCHIC TEST ... If you roll a double 1 or a double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of the Warp.
...
PERILS OF THE WARP When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds.
That’s fairly neatly limited. So the Psyker is the one expressly designated as taking damage from Perils.Let’s go on...
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest. If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,
...note that this tells us what model/unit is destroyed by Peril Of The Warp. So what follows are ancillary effects, else they’d be similarly described.
then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Notably not defined as ‘being killed by Perils’ or similar. Perils damage done, models killed by it removed, special damage aura kicks in. Plus note the two limiting factors highlighted above. All told, nothing in the rule is ambiguous or supports U02dah4’s view. .
Like, it’s all spelt out in the rule that the key naysayer has even quoted. But we’re off into BCB vs Deathereaper ideology sidetracks so who cares about a little comprehension and logic... this is YMDC, where the points are made up and THEY MATTER.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
...so I suppose you usually allow to your Knight players to chain multiple Gauntlet effect to throw stuff around with the same attack?
That's even funnier, because after killing something, then finishing off a monster 9" afar with MW, the newly dead body magically teleport in their gauntlet to be hurled again toward another creature at 9" and so on so forth until they fail to kill something?
Because, you know... it's exactly the same wording of the Perils
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 23:02:13
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
Cybtroll wrote: ...so I suppose you usually allow to your Knight players to chain multiple Gauntlet effect to throw stuff around with the same attack?
That's even funnier, because after killing something, then finishing off a monster 9" afar with MW, the newly dead body magically teleport in their gauntlet to be hurled again toward another creature at 9" and so on so forth until they fail to kill something?
Because, you know... it's exactly the same wording of the Perils
Good example. There is also no break in causality in this case if we apply the same logic as people are advocating in perils IMO. Ergo, chaining gauntlets by RAW is thing...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 23:03:42
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Eldar- 4436 pts
