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.

Ah, but you can, in theory, make a stronger argument for "precedent" here since we're talking about a weapon that inflicts extra mortal wounds when it slays a model.

Perils of the Warp is not a weapon that inflicts extra mortal wounds when it slays a model, so the FAQ isn't even remotely applicable.

 Argive wrote:

 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...

Yes I had not thought about it but absolutely of course that requires a knight with a gauntlet that kills a vehicle and makes its 4+ and then deals d3 mw which is enough to kill another and then it could throw that again as it has been killed by the the gauntlet however I can't imagine this will come up very often.

I can only conclude from a fluffy perspective that my knight is such a bad ass that it threw the heretic tank hard enough into the second tank that tank was thrown into a third

One could perhaps therefore argue that intention and context is relevant to applying rules on occasions lest it results in absurdity?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

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.

Most of this thread has been you failing to prove anything while arguing with u02dah4 proof proving he is correct since you have provided no evidence to counter his arguments just ignoring the bits you can't answer that don't match yours.

So you quote

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

And conclude the psyker takes the damage so far correct

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. "

No this sentence is defined differently because it applies to something different [if a psyker unit is destroyed by perils while a manifesting a power] this phrase recognises that you can be destroyed by perils while not manifesting a power and limits the effect to only those that are manifesting. Its impact causing it to fail to manifest logically makes no difference to a model not manifesting so I would assume that's the reason. No where does it state these are ancillary effects

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. . "

It is part of a self contained sentence that 100% supports my view. the only limitation is in the previous quote but you have broken it up to hide the key sentence but the fact you need to do so proves me correct.

The full quote is "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.

We can see what it applies to - a psyker unit destroyed by perils. Note same logic you use in the previous sentence. The previous sentences were also self contained but had different limitations specified in them, they do not apply to this sentence the sentence tells you what it applies to.

Again your argument has ignored the only clause that matters
"If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the warp"
[Any psyker unit] [that is destroyed by - note no limitations just destroyed] [perils of the warp - note no limitations on what part of perils of the warp or requirement to suffer perils]

And it is your inability to prove limitations within that clause or find a separate sentence altering that clause that proves me correct and you wrong. None of your explanation addresses that, because you can't. all you can do is say I'm wrong or make vague and false claims like its ancillary or incidental to justify ignoring the bit you can't answer or adding extra limitations to it that you can't evidence apply to that specific clause. Its why you use the previous sentences clause because if that was the clause you would be correct and I would have agreed but its not there's no requirement to manifest.

Good lord I quote the whole thing annotated and you tell me I’m skipping bits or leaving stuff out? Disingenuous hit a new low. I’m done again haha, why I came back to this thread I have no idea.

If you have to cut off two thirds of the sentences that make up the rule you are discussing to make a point, chances are rather high that your point is invalid.
It is possible to have more than one RAW interpretation, but so far no one has provided a real argument why the third sentence should be not be considered to be "Perils of the Warp". All arguments against chaining are artificially inserting the words to change the meaning or attach a dependency to suffering perils which simply isn't there.

Ghaz and Cybtroll made a good point on how it should be played, but that doesn't change that the rule itself by RAW clearly supports chain-reactions. If anything, the existence of a FAQ quite clearly show these mortal wounds chaining is definitely a valid interpretation.

And no, I don't support BCB's snowflake logic, but this forum quite clearly was against having pre-errata boomer shoot twice, despite another weapon in the exact same situation being errataed otherwise.
The same logic must be applied here and a FAQ handling mortal wound triggers on weapons cannot be applied to things that are not weapon abilities, and therefore requires it own FAQ/errata to change how the rule works.

There also is nothing absurd or game-breaking about having perils chain, it's the power of chaos going out of control. This "explosion" is caused by warp effects, which might be anything from an actual explosion, gravity reversing, psychic lightning hitting nearby people, mass mind-control by daemons up to actual daemons showing up. I'm fairly sure that at least some of these effects can cause further warp phenomenons when they affect another psyker.

Summary:
- RAW absolutely supports chaining
- Dark Eldar FAQ and logic behind gauntlet throwing things strongly suggest that chaining is not RAI
- Most people's HIWPI is that they don't want perils to chain
- Discuss chaining perils with your opponent before the game, don't do gotcha's

Like the knight gauntlet Its also rare that it has any impact. it only effects games with multiple psykers those psykers have to be in close proximity, each psyker then has a 1/18 less with rerolls odds of suffering perils for each manifesting of a psychic power and then when it explodes it has to do enough MW to wipe the psyker. So armies with multiple psykers in close proximity such as GK will likely be unefected because even if it explodes it won't wipe a unit . As a player you can also mitigate this risk by simply spacing your psykers apart.

I would agree with above with the exception of the hiwpi statement that most people do not want it. About half of posters were on each side its just the anti posters and myself posted more frequently which is bias in favour of the loudest.

Impact isn't really relevant to what the rule says though. It just means that GW is more likely to have missed the issue because it happens so rarely.

True all that matters is what the RAW supports after that your dealing with house rules which is not really the place of a rules forum

And as jidah says

It is possible to have more than one RAW interpretation, but so far no one has provided a real argument why the third sentence should be not be considered to be "Perils of the Warp". All arguments against chaining are artificially inserting the words to change the meaning or attach a dependency to suffering perils which simply isn't there.

So another two pages, and still no raw to support a causal chain.

The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.

BCB - precedent is valid until it isn't. That's how precedent works in the legal system as well. You can ignore it if you wish, but that simply reduces the strength of your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.

What makes you think that? The mortal wounds are inflicted as part of a rule called "Perils of the Warp".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.

Then what killed them? Mortal wounds. From where? Perils.

As U02dah4 Said, there's currently no reasonable RAW explanation as to why these mortal wounds, which originate from the Perils rule, are not considered part of the Perils rule.

As for the Gauntlet. It's whether you consider the weapons ability part of the weapon or a separate entity. There is no such issue in Perils - the rules causing the mortal wounds are Perils, not an effect or a different rule. Perils of the Warp inflicts those wounds, and kills what it kills. If that's a psyker, the psyker is killed by perils of the warp. And there's a rule for that.

They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".

 Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".

Stop ignoring the context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So another two pages, and still no raw to support a causal chain.

The second Psyker wasn't killed by perils. They weren't.

BCB - precedent is valid until it isn't. That's how precedent works in the legal system as well. You can ignore it if you wish, but that simply reduces the strength of your argument.

This is 100% correct.

 Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".

Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".

Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.

What you are quoting is not the definition. There are multiple other ways to suffer Perils of the Warp without manifesting an ability, for example the GSC Sanctus' sniper rifle or some narrative battlefield effects and many more that cause perils on other rolls than double 1 or double 6, on denies or on failed tests. Manifesting an ability is merely one of many ways to be suffering from the rule called "Perils of the Warp". This debunks the argument that it's a complete definition.

The one and only definition of Perils of the Warp is the rule explicitly labeled "Perils of the Warp". What you are quoting is called "Manifesting Psychic Powers".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".

Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.

Yes the only definition is everything in the perils of the warp rule box.

No one has provided an alternative definition.

(Note people have tried to infer suffering as a definition and stated that it is a definition but this has not been evidenced in any textual quote as the only reference they come up with states something suffers but does not define what that suffering means leaving us with perils of the warp box)

U02dah4 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were killed by the Psyker dying. The Psyker died by potw, the second Psyker did not. Because you're told what suffering potw is, and only is.

From the "Look out, Sir" example we know that everything under the header "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, "Perils of the Warp". If a model that takes d3 mortal wounds from any part of "Perils of the Warp" and has 0 wounds left, it was killed by "Perils of the Warp".

Which doesn't work here, because wording matters. You're given a definition of what PotW is, and it's a complete definition.

Yes the only definition is everything in the perils of the warp rule box

Do you have a citation from somewhere in the BRB that says that everything in subsections of the rulebook ARE the "subsection Rule" ?

What this entire thread has come down to is

Position 1: What actually can be killed by perils are only things that suffer from or have perils caused on them. These units are is specifically defined and determined by rules that say something along the lines of "this causes perils of the warp" or "this model suffers perils of the warp" and these types of permissions are not expressly stated for the mortal wounds given out due to a Psyker dying from perils of the warp.

Position 2: by virtue of being in a subsection of the rulebook titled "Perils of the Warp" all mortal wounds or effects in that subsection count as being caused by a rule called "Perils of the Warp" despite specific text that defines what can suffer from perils of the warp and the existence of multiple rules from other datasheets that specifically state a unit can suffer perils of the warp.

Can you actually point to a place in the BRB that says the title of a subsection is a rule name and a binding rule keyword ? Your entire argument rests on an assumption that this is always the case... And no, it is not obviously how it works because many people here are disagreeing with you. Many people here do not believe it can always work that way, especially when there is text that specifically defines what does suffer from Perils...

We can't really point you to a rule that says that you should not interpret the title of subsections the way you are because it is impossible to prove a negative... you propose we SHOULD interpret the subsection titles as a binding rule keywords, it is up to you to provide evidence or a quote that specifically says that this is correct the correct way to apply rules and that we shouldn't just apply perils of the warp to what is specified in the instructions given to us in the text (and only those instructions).

Please,,, we will need a quote or refference that actually proves ?

"Yes the only definition is everything in the perils of the warp rule box" and not ONLY the definition provided in the actual text of what suffers perils/other abilities that specifically make a model suffer perils.

Where in the rules does it say that the titles of a subsection always counts as a binding rules definition keyword ? where does it say that this subsection title means we should interpret the rules this way ? Where does it say subsection titles are always the "name of the rule" and therefore everything in its section is an overarching rule effect ?

 Type40 wrote:
Do you have a citation from somewhere in the BRB that says that everything in subsections of the rulebook ARE the "subsection Rule" ?

Yes, see my previous response to you for the exact page.
In addition, if this weren't the case the rules would stop being functional. The only way to connect the term "Look out, Sir" to it'S corresponding rules is the subsection title. Otherwise the term "Look out, SIr" would be a completely undefined rule that has no effect. This is also true for "Smite", "Embark", "Disembark", and I'm sure there are multiple other rules defined in the exact same way.

Can you actually point to a place in the BRB that says the title of a subsection is a rule name and a binding rule keyword ?

Please,,, we will need a quote or refference that actually proves ?

Where in the rules does it say that the titles of a subsection always counts as a binding rules definition keyword ? where does it say that this subsection title means we should interpret the rules this way ? Where does it say subsection titles are always the "name of the rule." ?

I got you the first time. As explained above, I have proven that the Rules of Warhammer 40k cannot function unless the Subsection Header is not a "binding rule keyword" as you put it.

If "Perils of the Warp" was not a rule keyword, there would be no way to determine what a Sanctus' sniper rifle would do when it damages a psyker.

@ type 40 So in other word position 1 is determined by a definition that does not exist anywhere, has not been quoted with, no quote to state why the MW in the second bit don't count only that they don't meet the non existent definition

Vs position 2 the rule does exactly what it says it does in the text box in the absence of any imaginary definitions materialising

Well its not a keyword keywords have a specific definition

Its a title and rules. the definition of title is covered in the rules key page (p2 of the core rules) sections 1 and 3

1. Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context.
3.This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models.


Yes "perils of the warp" is a title of a rule that is referenced in rules others include " "mission" "army" "datasheet" "keyword" "units" "unit coherency" " engagement range" "battlefield" ....... I could go on theirs a lot

Again you say there is text that specifically defines what perils is and the only definition provided is the perils of the warp box

You want a quote that proves the perils of the warp box are rules keywords i provided one the rules key pg 2 point 1 they are titles not rules keywords and the text following them under Point 3 is the rules and if you want to get explicit the box they are in under Point 8 is to make them easier to locate.

Where does it say we should arbitrarily decide which bits of the rule count and which don't point 3 is quite clear its all rules text no bit is defined as more valuable or important than any other

 Jidmah wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Do you have a citation from somewhere in the BRB that says that everything in subsections of the rulebook ARE the "subsection Rule" ?

Yes, see my previous response to you for the exact page.
In addition, if this weren't the case the rules would stop being functional. The only way to connect the term "Look out, Sir" to it'S corresponding rules is the subsection title. Otherwise the term "Look out, SIr" would be a completely undefined rule that has no effect. This is also true for "Smite", "Embark", "Disembark", and I'm sure there are multiple other rules defined in the exact same way.

Can you actually point to a place in the BRB that says the title of a subsection is a rule name and a binding rule keyword ?

Please,,, we will need a quote or refference that actually proves ?

Where in the rules does it say that the titles of a subsection always counts as a binding rules definition keyword ? where does it say that this subsection title means we should interpret the rules this way ? Where does it say subsection titles are always the "name of the rule." ?

I got you the first time. As explained above, I have proven that the Rules of Warhammer 40k cannot function unless the Subsection Header is not a "binding rule keyword" as you put it.

If "Perils of the Warp" was not a rule keyword, there would be no way to determine what a Sanctus' sniper rifle would do when it damages a psyker.

You have not proven that a subsection title should ALWAYS be treated this way... but yes, you have once again provided examples of how, when lacking specific triggers, applications or identifiers it is.
There many examples where this is not true, like "Fight first/last," the subsection simply titled "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" and, the subsection . "within and wholly within." All of these expect you to read the text in order to know what triggers and applications the specific effects apply to. They do not simply apply the entire title to the entire section.
Also, would you say that a model was removed from play by the "morale tests" 'rule' when they we're removed from play due to combat attrition. The "morale test" subsection specifically tells you to do a combat attrition test.

So again, can you point to where in the rule book it says the definition of a rule is ALWAYS the entirety of a subsection and the rule is ALWAYS the subsection title...

because if there is a rule that says this is how we are supposed to always read the rules then some of those subsection are going to get weird... like how rules that trigger when a model flees from failing combat attrition triggers morale test rules, or how there are no rules that interact with just "heroic interventions" because the only rule is "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" or how every time a model fights first they are also fighting last.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
@ type 40 So in other word position 1 is determined by a definition that does not exist anywhere, has not been quoted with, no quote to state why the MW in the second bit don't count only that they don't meet the non existent definition

Vs position 2 the rule does exactly what it says it does in the text box in the absence of any imaginary definitions materialising

Well its not a keyword keywords have a specific definition

Its a title and rules. the definition of title is covered in the rules key page (p2 of the core rules) sections 1 and 3

1. Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context.
3.This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models.


Yes "perils of the warp" is a title of a rule that is referenced in rules others include " "mission" "army" "datasheet" "keyword" "units" "unit coherency" " engagement range" "battlefield" ....... I could go on theirs a lot

Again you say there is text that specifically defines what perils is and the only definition provided is the perils of the warp box

You want a quote that proves the perils of the warp box are rules keywords i provided one the rules key pg 2 point 1 they are titles not rules keywords and the text following them under Point 3 is the rules and if you want to get explicit the box they are in under Point 8 is to make them easier to locate.

Where does it say we should arbitrarily decide which bits of the rule count and which don't point 3 is quite clear its all rules text no bit is defined as more valuable or important than any other

dude if some one has to show you the double 1s and double 6s rule again,,, I am going to flip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s.

1. Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context.
3.This is an example of main rules text. This text will cover the key concepts and instructions you will need to play the game, such as moving and making attacks with your models.

this isn't saying that we should interpret the rules the way you are saying we should. In fact it says what we are saying... It says "these will put the rules you are about to read into context" not "after the bold title you will read a word for word application of a rule which shares a name with the title"

The rule is THE TEXT not the subsection title.

You can show me the double 1's and double 6's rule as many times as you like

Its still not a definition

All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp

It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.

It is a single line of text that does only exactly what it says it does if you roll a double you suffer perils nothing more nothing less

As to your second point
Exactly and we are saying you should follow the text that comes after the section title because their as you demonstrate the rules not a portion of them

U02dah4 wrote:
You can show me the double 1's and double 6's rule as many times as you like

Its still not a definition

All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp

It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.

It is a single line of text

As to your second point
Exactly and we are saying you should follow the text that comes after the section title because their as you demonstrate the rules not a portion of them

You have not posted a rules quote telling us that after a title of a section we are reading a word for word definition of a rule. Until you do, the only way to interpret RAW is to do EXACTLY what the rules say to do and not add extra context.

The rules tell us exactly what suffers from perils,,, the rules are permissive, so if it doesn't say something else can suffer from perils then something else does not. We can not show you a quote that describes everything in the universe that does not suffer from perils of the warp because proving a negative is impossible. We can show you pieces of text that does say what suffers perils,,, though for what ever reason you keep demanding we prove a negative.

you posted a the rule book quote that says
" Many sections in the Basic Rules start with a bold title and brief introduction. Together, these will put the rules you are about to read into context. "
but for some reason you say that the title isn't just something that puts the rules into context but it is somehow always the exact title of a rule and is followed by an exact definition of the rule. Even with examples where this would be impossible (like subsection titles that introduce several rules).

You posted the proof that is in our favour and you can't even seem to get it XD lol. A title is a description, indicator or something to "put the rules you are about to read into context." The rules themselves are THE TEXT not the subsection title... it really isn't that hard to understand this.
It's not that all the people arguing with you don't understand what you are saying, this is you refusing to step back and entertain for a second that it is possible that subsection titles have nothing to do with what can and cant suffer perils... WE HAVE RULES THAT SAY WHAT CAN SUFFER PERILS (and for the last time, there is never going to be such thing as a rule that says 'what does not suffer perils' because an infinite amount of things in the universe do not suffer perils),,, stop asking people to prove a negative, no one can prove bigfoot doesnt exist, it is up to you to prove that he does exist... you are the one who is't providing a rule that says something else can, you are the one who keeps repeating that "because it appears in this section of the rule book it does" That doesn't make any sense ? pg2 of the core book sections 1 and 3 do not say that's how it works. In fact it says the complete opposite.

so unless you can somehow find me a piece of text that says anything more then a subsection title being an indication of the rules context to follow, then you are the one who has not demonstrated that these units in fact do also suffer perils. What people have shown you, over and over and over again, is a part of the rules that shows you what DOES suffer it,,, no more ,,, no less... just do what the rules tell you to do.

If you roll a double 1 or 6 you suffer perils of the warp.

Yeah, that's fine.

"If a psyker unit is killed by perils of the warp..."

Not "a psyker unit suffering from perils of the warp is killed by perils of the warp".

The mortal wounds inflicted on the psyker and the mortal wounds inflicted if he dies are both inflicted by the same rule, which is Perils of the Warp. By the logic I'm seeing here, there's no risk of a psyker exploding at all because he dies due to mortal wounds and not due to "perils". Even though perils inflicted the mortal wounds.

Psyker 1: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we all agree on.
then:
Psyker 2: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we don't all agree on, for some reason.


I ask again: If it wasn't mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp, as found under the "Perils of the warp" rule, that killed the second psyker, then what was it that killed him?

 some bloke wrote:
If you roll a double 1 or 6 you suffer perils of the warp.

Yeah, that's fine.

"If a psyker unit is killed by perils of the warp..."

Not "a psyker unit suffering from perils of the warp is killed by perils of the warp".

The mortal wounds inflicted on the psyker and the mortal wounds inflicted if he dies are both inflicted by the same rule, which is Perils of the Warp. By the logic I'm seeing here, there's no risk of a psyker exploding at all because he dies due to mortal wounds and not due to "perils". Even though perils inflicted the mortal wounds.

Psyker 1: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we all agree on.
then:
Psyker 2: took 3 mortal wounds, and those were inflicted by perils because that's where the rules for inflicting them come from. This made him die, and the phrase "if a psyker is killed by perils of the warp" kicks in, which we don't all agree on, for some reason.


I ask again: If it wasn't mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp, as found under the "Perils of the warp" rule, that killed the second psyker, then what was it that killed him?

This has been explained several times in this thread.

1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.)
2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds.
3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds."
4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.

Those other models are not being destroyed by perils of the warp they are receiving MW as a result of something that has been destroyed by perils.

The title of the section does not indicate the entire box as a whole is the rule. no where does it say subsection titles indicate that. In fact we have a quote that says subsection titles indicate the context of rules.

The rule is specifically what the text says the rule is and not simply just everything that is written in a subsection because its "contextual" title happens to share a name with the rule... i.e. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp ... " THAT IS WHAT PERILS IS nothing extra, nothing else, just follow what it says.

If we can acknowledge that the title has no bearing other then a contextual indicator (as pg2 point 1 of the rule primer says we should use a title) then the only way for those MWs to be caused by Perils is for there to be a causal chain. Causal chains don't trigger things in 40k... my keeper of secretes can not blow up a tank, have that tanks explosion kill non-vehicles and then gain d3 wounds back because those non-vehicles died.

 Type40 wrote:
You have not proven that a subsection title should ALWAYS be treated this way...

Rules, by definition, have to be deterministic.

And actually, I have. Proving a negative wrong is the same as proving a positive right. That's a basic logical principle.
1) I have proven one positive to be right through the Sanctus unit. Its rifle can only work if the "Perils of the Warp" subsection title can be used as a reference. Therefore my assertion "subsection title define game terms" is right for at least one instance
2) I have proven the negative to be wrong. Sniper rifles in general can only work if subsection titles are treated as a reference. Therefore the assertion "subsection titles do not define game terms" is proven wrong.

but yes, you have once again provided examples of how, when lacking specific triggers, applications or identifiers it is.
There many examples where this is not true, like "Fight first/last," the subsection simply titled "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" and, the subsection . "within and wholly within." All of these expect you to read the text in order to know what triggers and applications the specific effects apply to. They do not simply apply the entire title to the entire section.
Also, would you say that a model was removed from play by the "morale tests" 'rule' when they we're removed from play due to combat attrition. The "morale test" subsection specifically tells you to do a combat attrition test.

So again, can you point to where in the rule book it says the definition of a rule is ALWAYS the entirety of a subsection and the rule is ALWAYS the subsection title...

because if there is a rule that says this is how we are supposed to always read the rules then some of those subsection are going to get weird... like how rules that trigger when a model flees from failing combat attrition triggers morale test rules, or how there are no rules that interact with just "heroic interventions" because the only rule is "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" or how every time a model fights first they are also fighting last.

So many things wrong with this...
1) Heroic Intervention has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Heroic Interventions". Pg 225
2) Pile In has its own has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Pile In". Pg 229
3) Consolidation has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Consolidate". Pg 231
4) Aircraft has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Aircraft" and the AIRCRAFT keyword. Pg 212
5) The rule you are quoting actually references the definitions in 1) 2) and 3) by their section titles, including page references

If anything, this proves that the definition of "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, found in the Perils of the Warp subsection, and not the "Psychic Tests" rule which merely references it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.)
2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds.
3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds."
4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.

So, to summarize your argument, I am free to ignore any part of any referenced rule that is not the first sentence? Is this correct?

Why do I have to suffer perils in the first place? After all, according to you, "If you roll a double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of The Warp" is not part of "Psychic test", so it never applies when manifesting psychic powers.

Yes and by that logic you can ignore his original quote because its not the first sentance so doesn't apply

I love how he can't see the contradictions in own argument he tells me I have to follow all the rules then selectively ignores bits that are not relevant

He also repeatedly states the rules tell us what suffers from perils whole ignoring that the sentance in question doesnt refer to suffering perils

He claims the title is in fact not the total of the rules

he seems to think me posting a quote proving that the whole of the perils of the warp box is rules and equally valid supports his argument that you can pick and choose.

We know that double 1's and double 6's rule caused a model to suffer perils we have never disagreed

We disagree that its a definition because it not

All it says is that if you role a double 1 or a 6 you suffer perils of the warp

It has no other rules text, it doesnt provide any limitation on what applies in a future section, it doesn't define exactly what suffering perils of the warp is, it doesnt limit any other instances of perils of the warp occurring, and it has 0 impact on any part of this argument.

It is a single line of text that does only exactly what it says it does if you roll a double you suffer perils nothing more nothing less

He will not agree because he cherry picks which text applies and which text does not to suit his definition he also has to add text in to force it to work. Any attempt to read the text as it is will be met by your "ignoring context" or accusations that your ignoring the text because you ignore the bits he has added that arnt actually there.

At this point there are only three explanations 1) he is a troll 2) dunning krugar 3) he can genuinely see rules that are not there

In the perils of the warp box there are 3 bullet points. The first one starts with "Perils of the warp:". Note the colon. What is the purpose of this bullet point if it is not to define Perils of the Warp as "The PSYKER unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds".

The rest of the box describes other interactions, sure, but perils does have a specific description.

If that isn't a specific description of perils, then the "Perils of the Warp:" text in that bullet serves no purpose.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
You have not proven that a subsection title should ALWAYS be treated this way...

Rules, by definition, have to be deterministic.

And actually, I have. Proving a negative wrong is the same as proving a positive right. That's a basic logical principle.
1) I have proven one positive to be right through the Sanctus unit. Its rifle can only work if the "Perils of the Warp" subsection title can be used as a reference. Therefore my assertion "subsection title define game terms" is right for at least one instance
2) I have proven the negative to be wrong. Sniper rifles in general can only work if subsection titles are treated as a reference. Therefore the assertion "subsection titles do not define game terms" is proven wrong.

I am just going to say No, you are both miss-representing my arguments and ignoring vital parts of my arguments to make yourself seem "more correct." I I am not going to engage in circular argumentation anymore. You have not proven a negative wrong. You have not shown where in the rules it says it ALWAYS works the way you say it does and you have not acknowledged the very real examples of where it isn't working that way. Your arguments are disingenuous and fully ignore parts of what I am saying. p.s. proving that some subsections work that way ignores that other subsections do not work that way,,,, your examples mean nothing when there are factual examples (as i pointed out) and actual rules text (pg 2 point 1 of the rules primer) that say that it is not the only way to read it.

but yes, you have once again provided examples of how, when lacking specific triggers, applications or identifiers it is.
There many examples where this is not true, like "Fight first/last," the subsection simply titled "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" and, the subsection . "within and wholly within." All of these expect you to read the text in order to know what triggers and applications the specific effects apply to. They do not simply apply the entire title to the entire section.
Also, would you say that a model was removed from play by the "morale tests" 'rule' when they we're removed from play due to combat attrition. The "morale test" subsection specifically tells you to do a combat attrition test.

So again, can you point to where in the rule book it says the definition of a rule is ALWAYS the entirety of a subsection and the rule is ALWAYS the subsection title...

because if there is a rule that says this is how we are supposed to always read the rules then some of those subsection are going to get weird... like how rules that trigger when a model flees from failing combat attrition triggers morale test rules, or how there are no rules that interact with just "heroic interventions" because the only rule is "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" or how every time a model fights first they are also fighting last.

So many things wrong with this...
1) Heroic Intervention has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Heroic Interventions". Pg 225
2) Pile In has its own has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Pile In". Pg 229
3) Consolidation has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Consolidate". Pg 231
4) Aircraft has its own sub-section, containing the rules and the definition of "Aircraft" and the AIRCRAFT keyword. Pg 212
5) The rule you are quoting actually references the definitions in 1) 2) and 3) by their section titles, including page references

Right according to you the rule I am refrencing is the "HEROIC INTERVENTIONS, PILE INS,CONSOLIDATIONS AND AIRCRAFT" 'rule'.' By your logic anytime a model consolidates into an aircraft they are also piling in and heroically intervening... because its has a rules title that says so.

If anything, this proves that the definition of "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, found in the Perils of the Warp subsection, and not the "Psychic Tests" rule which merely references it.

The definition of "Perils of the Warp" is, in fact, found in the Perils of the warp subsection, and not the "Psychic Tests" rule which merely references it. You are totally right here,,, under the Perils of the Warp subsection see the line " When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffersD3 mortal wounds." This line of text defines exactly what it means to be affected by the Perils of the Warp rule. The rules text goes on to describe what happens to a unit that is destroyed by this affect.
So ya, your right, you know exactly what subsection to find the definition in.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
1. Psyker suffer perils because of rolling 1s or 6s (or some datasheet abilitiy that triggers it.)
2. "When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
Here we see what it means to suffer perils of the warp ... it means a psyker will suffer d3 mortal wounds.
3. "if a psyker unit is destroyed by perrils of the warp (that is the d3 mortal wounds it just took as defined by the text above) then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers d3 mortal wounds."
4. Because a psyker has been destroyed by perils of the warp (we know that suffering from perils of the warp specifically means d3 mortal wounds) other units near by suffer d3 mortal wounds.

So, to summarize your argument, I am free to ignore any part of any referenced rule that is not the first sentence? Is this correct?

lol no, not at all XD where are you getting this nonsense from XD. You arn't allowed to ignore any rules text, you are required to do what it says AND ONLY what it says. please re-read this step by step guide on following the text exactly as written XD

Why do I have to suffer perils in the first place? After all, according to you, "If you roll a double 1 or double 6 when taking a Psychic test, that unit immediately suffers Perils of The Warp" is not part of "Psychic test", so it never applies when manifesting psychic powers.

No, again, this is not what I am saying... Suffering on a 1 or 6 is exactly what the rules text says to do... this isn't by virtue of the title "Psychic test" its by virtue of the text telling us exactly what to do ...

Do you really not understand that you are supposed to do what the text tells you to do and not add extra effects because of a subsection title ?