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.

 Type40 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
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.

1: yep, agree with this.
2: Yep, they "suffer" perils of the warp, being these rules which we are reading now. Agreed.
3: Yep, continuing to follow the rules for "perils in the warp", we are now inflicting mortal wounds on nearby units because a psyker unit was killed by perils of the warp (well, it was killed by the mortal wounds inflicted by perils of the warp). These wounds inflicted are being inflicted by perils of the warp, as these are the rules we are following to inflict them.
4: aaand here we disagree. There is a difference between "a psyker unit destroyed by perils of the warp" and "a psyker unit destroyed due to suffering from perils of the warp". You are taking the work "Suffering" and from that somehow making a decision, which isn't how it's written, that only the original psyker can be killed by perils, and that the subsequent rules (which are also part of perils) won't qualify, somehow.

Again, what is killing this second psyker? Is it, or is it not, the rules found under "perils of the warp"?

This isn't like if a vehicle-psyker dies and then the subsequent vehicle-explosion (a different rule) kills a nearby psyker; the mortal wounds in question are definitely coming directly from "Perils in the warp". So whatever dies because of that was killed by perils of the warp.

Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

U02dah4 wrote:

Spoiler:

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

You are either deliberately are mis-representing what I have written or you do not grasp my arguments in the slightest... either way, you can't keep talking about "limitations" as though rules writers are going to write down all of the situations a rule doesn't apply... I am not cherry picking what text to apply , I am only applying the specific text that exists and I am not adding extra context that does not exist... again, you fail to grasp that simply existing in a subsection doesn't magically apply extra properties... ignore the title "perils of the warp" and just do what the text tells you to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again, what is killing this second psyker? Is it, or is it not, the rules found under "perils of the warp"?

The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"

A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

Again, it is impossible to prove a negative.
I can not show you a rule that says all the things that are not effected by a written rule because the rules team arn't going to waste their time writing what isn't effected by the rule. We have a permissive rule set that specifically says what is and isn't being effected by things.

The rules writers have used the word "suffers" and "effected" interchangeably. to suffer an effect is to be effected by it . You can not be destroyed by something you are not effected by. We know what is effected by Perils because the rules SAY what exactly is effected by it (i.e. double 1s or 6s). There are other rules that cause the effect on specific datasheets as well. In all cases the rules specifically state something is either effected by it or 'suffers' from it.

the word 'suffers' = to be subjected, effected by or experience something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SolentSanguine wrote:
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.

Yes, it is true that the bullet points are not the specific rules text and are not indicative of exactly how rule text operates.
But this is a good point as these bullet points support my exact reading of the text and as SolenSanguine points out there is a colon which indicated what exactly the perils of the warp effect is.

this coincides with my reading of the text. The Perils of the warp definition is "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. " and only this. Just follow the effect and definition as written and stop getting caught up in the title of the subsection.

SolentSanguine wrote:
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.

If you check the rules key pg 2 section 4 you will find the rules key defines the Red dot system is a summary summarising the whole paragraph in quick bullet points but of course this loses some detail

In this instance it summarises it in 3 points the interesting part of the summary is it doesn't mention suffering at all (so suffering must not be important) however in a complex rules interaction we use the rules text not the summary because its more precise all 3 bullet points are a summary of perils and all 3 form part of its definition

Its purpose per page 2 section 4 is to give you a quick summary of the rules text that should be sufficient for most rules checks however as there is a dispute the quick version is not appropriate we need the detailed

It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

U02dah4 wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
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.

If you check the rules key pg 2 section 4 you will find the rules key defines the Red dot system is a summary summarising the whole paragraph in quick bullet points but of course this loses some detail

In this instance it summarises it in 3 points the interesting part of the summary is it doesn't mention suffering at all (so suffering must not be important) however in a complex rules interaction we use the rules text not the summary because its more precise all 3 bullet points are a summary of perils and all 3 form part of its definition

Except the 3 bullet points support the exact text reading I and others are doing and trying to explain to you. It shows exactly what it means to effected by Perils of the Warp... which is exactly what people keep telling you the text says ... i.e. "When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds." AKA the bullet point " Perils of the Warp: The Psyker unit manifesting the power suffers D3 mortal wounds." The fact that this is synonymous must mean something to you XD . The subsection title doesnt give you the right to add extra context ... again just do what the text tells you to do otherwise you arn't following RAW.

 Type40 wrote:

The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"

A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.

I think I understand your thinking now:

"Perils of the Warp" is a title and not saying that all that follows is the rule "perils of the warp"
The rules under "Perils of the Warp" state that the unit suffers perils by taking D3 wounds
it then further says that other things happen if they are killed by perils
QED, the part of "suffering perils of the warp and taking D3 wounds" is the only way the unit can be killed by perils of the warp.

Is that right?

I'm very much on the fence here. On one hand, that logic is fine, but then it still doesn't detract from the fact that the mortal wounds psyker 2 suffers are due to rules found under "Perils of the Warp", and so that has to be what kills them - which then triggers the explosion rules.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?


Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?
Prove to me that I can't roll 3 dice when ever it says to roll 1 ?

You can only show me where it says to do something else... it is impossible for you to point at text that specifically tells me I can't do those things... again, it is impossible to prove a negative.

U02dah4 wrote:
Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one

However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one

Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist

So other rules like thunderstrike gauntlet chain as well.

Cool.. cool...

U02dah4 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one

However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one

Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist

You are asking me to find proof of a rule that says something is NOT included in something... again, I can not prove non-existence...

I can, again, only show you the rule that says WHAT IS effected/suffers from the effect... you keep asking us to prove a negative... the rules writers are not going to write everything in the universe that does not get effected by the rule... sorry, your demands can not be met due to the fact that your demands are a fallacy.

 some bloke wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"

A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.

I think I understand your thinking now:

"Perils of the Warp" is a title and not saying that all that follows is the rule "perils of the warp"
The rules under "Perils of the Warp" state that the unit suffers perils by taking D3 wounds
it then further says that other things happen if they are killed by perils
QED, the part of "suffering perils of the warp and taking D3 wounds" is the only way the unit can be killed by perils of the warp.

Is that right?

I'm very much on the fence here. On one hand, that logic is fine, but then it still doesn't detract from the fact that the mortal wounds psyker 2 suffers are due to rules found under "Perils of the Warp", and so that has to be what kills them - which then triggers the explosion rules.

Then your not on the fence for his argument to be correct there are three assumptions

That a unit suffering perils is the only unit that can perils he has provided no such quote he is only able to quite that a unit rolling a double perils

one part of the rule does count and part of the rule text doesn't count -so which rule tells you which bit doesnt count. Because if you do not have that quote then there is no reason the title doesn't refer to the whole box and his logic tumbled

It also needs a rule that tells you the last sentance that does not refer to suffering doesn't matter or that it doesn't apply he has not been able to quote such a sentence therefore it does not exist

Unless he can solve these three holes he has no argument if he can solve all 3 he wins so far he has solved none in many attempts

My issue is that you need to introduce an additional feature to Mortal Wound (their "origins" in order to save your chain.

You can't do that and claim at the same time that RAW logic is by your side. It's literally what the Occam's Razor prescribe you to NOT do.

Instead: if you accept provisionally that RAW it doesn't chain, you don't have to introduce any additional feature to Mortal Wound to resolve neither Perils (the subsequent MW are generic MW) neither for the Gauntlet (so, "slay by this weapons" only refers to the attacks made with the weapon profile - exactly where you can find the rule).

Please try to understand that RAW (especially in English) do not equate with the more simplicistic interpretation of a sentence, and often neither with the simpler.
There's a reason why analytical philosophers were native English speaker: they need that in English more than in any other language (because English relies on context more heavily than many other languages).

But, again, instead of big wall of text try to model it in a series of logical relationships(A->B and such) and the underlying reasoning should became much clearer.
BTW, that how it's done in linguistic.

 Type40 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one

However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one

Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist

You are asking me to find proof of a rule that says something is NOT included in something... again, I can not prove non-existence...

I can, again, only show you the rule that says WHAT IS effected/suffers from the effect... you keep asking us to prove a negative... the rules writers are not going to write everything in the universe that does not get effected by the rule... sorry, your demands can not be met due to the fact that your demands are a fallacy.

no we are asking you to provide the definition that exists because it must exist for your argument to be correct

cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

Because that is your premise and its critical to your argument

If that rule does not exist or can't be proven to exist then it is not a requirement.

We can prove that a unit rolling a double suffers perils we all agree it is the second bit we disagree on because you says its correct but obviously can't quote why (because it doesn't exist)

So if you provide quote and we accept your premise or can't and your wrong

 some bloke wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

The second psyker is being killed by rules found in the subsection "perils of the warp"

A subsection title doesn't indicate what the rule is, the actual text stating what the rule is indicates what the rule is.
We know this because of pg 2. point 1 of the rules primer where it specifically states that the bold text gives us an indication of the context of the rules to follow.
This is what it means to suffer from perils of the warp:
"When a psyker suffers perils of the warp, it suffers d3 mortal wounds."
As this is the text. The text tells us what to do, that is the RAW... otherwise we are adding additional context and the subsection title doesn't get to magically apply additional context.. just follow the RAW and do what it says.

I think I understand your thinking now:

"Perils of the Warp" is a title and not saying that all that follows is the rule "perils of the warp"
The rules under "Perils of the Warp" state that the unit suffers perils by taking D3 wounds
it then further says that other things happen if they are killed by perils
QED, the part of "suffering perils of the warp and taking D3 wounds" is the only way the unit can be killed by perils of the warp.

Is that right?

Precisely

I'm very much on the fence here. On one hand, that logic is fine, but then it still doesn't detract from the fact that the mortal wounds psyker 2 suffers are due to rules found under "Perils of the Warp", and so that has to be what kills them - which then triggers the explosion rules.

Yes, and if we stop using the subsection title for anything other then an indicator of context then we can just read the rules text. We don't need to add extra context from the title there is no reason to. The RAW tells us exactly what to do.
So when a unit is destroyed by Perils (i.e. exactly what the rules text says perils to be [d3 mortal wounds]) then the rules say it everything within 6" gets d3 mortals.

The second effect is not the effect defined to be "perils of the warp" it is a result of a model who IS effected by "perils of the warp." Causal chains do not trigger rules in 40k... if a keeper of secretes destroys a tank, the tank explodes, and destroys non-vehicle units, then the keeper does not gain d3 wounds. that would be a causal chain. their are specific ways for a model to be effected by the "perils" effect and the mortal wounds dealt out are because of the effect... the keyword is BECAUSE not by it. The non-vehicle units died in the above example BECAUSE of the keeper of secrets not by it. The men playing baseball got hit by a ball because they were playing baseball but the game of baseball itself didn't hit them with the ball.

Because
Causal effects.

 Cybtroll wrote:
My issue is that you need to introduce an additional feature to Mortal Wound (their "origins" in order to save your chain.

You can't do that and claim at the same time that RAW logic is by your side. It's literally what the Occam's Razor prescribe you to NOT do.

Instead: if you accept provisionally that RAW it doesn't chain, you don't have to introduce any additional feature to Mortal Wound to resolve neither Perils (the subsequent MW are generic MW) neither for the Gauntlet (so, "slay by this weapons" only refers to the attacks made with the weapon profile - exactly where you can find the rule).

Please try to understand that RAW (especially in English) do not equate with the more simplicistic interpretation of a sentence, and often neither with the simpler.
There's a reason why analytical philosophers were native English speaker: they need that in English more than in any other language (because English relies on context more heavily than many other languages).

But, again, instead of big wall of text try to model it in a series of logical relationships(A->B and such) and the underlying reasoning should became much clearer.
BTW, that how it's done in linguistic.

There's no extra step only follow what the text says and provide no limitations on that unless another rule tells you to do so

Point 3 of perils specifies what it does just as the gauntlet does you just do exactly what it says


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again at type 40 you say the second effect is not defined to be perils of the warp.

That is only according to your definition

And not any definition you have been able to supply from the rules

And without that definition your rules argument falls flat

So provide the exact quote providing that definition please remembering that rolling a double to suffer perils from the warp only causes you to suffer perils it does not define it or your arguments wrong

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

This is not an example of proving a negative.

Proving a negative means you are attempting to prove the non-existence of something... what you are doing here is proving the possitive... i.e. you are proving educated trump voters do exist... you are showing my exact example. It is literally impossible " if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one"

By continuing to ask me to prove non-existence you can always say "you can't find the proof so you can't prove anything"
Of course I can't ,,, its impossible to prove non-existence you can only prove existence... so again, stop demanding people prove a negative.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Their are no educated trump voters - if you find one it proves they exist if you can't find one it does not prove they don't exist - only that you can't find one

However in the case at hand we are asking for a positive proof not a negative one

Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

If the rule exists you can quote it and it is positively proven if no one can provide that quote then we have proven it doesn't exist

You are asking me to find proof of a rule that says something is NOT included in something... again, I can not prove non-existence...

I can, again, only show you the rule that says WHAT IS effected/suffers from the effect... you keep asking us to prove a negative... the rules writers are not going to write everything in the universe that does not get effected by the rule... sorry, your demands can not be met due to the fact that your demands are a fallacy.

no we are asking you to provide the definition that exists because it must exist for your argument to be correct

cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!

Because that is your premise and its critical to your argument

If that rule does not exist or can't be proven to exist then it is not a requirement.

We can prove that a unit rolling a double suffers perils we all agree it is the second bit we disagree on because you says its correct but obviously can't quote why (because it doesn't exist)

So if you provide quote and we accept your premise or can't and your wrong

FFS
YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE !
I CAN NOT SHOW YOU A RULE THAT SAYS SOMETHING IS NOT EFFECTED BY A RULE IN THE GAME. you can re-range what you are asking all you want but what you are asking for is impossible. You are making the proposition so it is up to you to prove subsection titles work that way.
feth man.

"Please cite the rules which state that a psyker is only "killed by perils of the warp" if it first suffers it!"
So you want me to show you a rule that says only the thing specifically mentioned in the rules is effected by the rule... for feth sake man,,,, I can not show you that rule, I can just keep showing you that the rules tell us what is and isn't effected by it ... it is impossible to show you a rule that outlines all the things in the universe that are not effected by the rule, I can only show the rules that say exactly what IS effected by it....

Do you really not understand how you are demanding people to prove a negative ? feth i am getting annoyed...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And again at type 40 you say the second effect is not defined to be perils of the warp.

That is only according to your definition

And not any definition you have been able to supply from the rules

And without that definition your rules fall flat

So provide the exact quote providing that definition please remembering that rolling a double to suffer perils from the warp only causes you to suffer perils it does not define it

There is no such thing as being "defined by perils of the warp"
There are rules outlined in the subsection titled "perils of the warp"
In that subsection there is a specific line that tells you what it means to suffer/be effected by "perils of the warp"

nothing is falling flat, people are just doing EXACTLY WHAT THE RAW SAYS and not adding extra context based soley on the title of the section.

You cannot show me the rule great we are making progress at last

So when we have the rule

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

And as stated by you that you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it

Then there is no barrier to impacting a second psyker that can be proven by you



As to your second comment again I am merely asking what your definition is according to the rules quotes you say mine is wrong I am mearly asking you to provide the exact rules quotes that supports yours again i am not interested in any definition not in a rules quote

I find it funny that you get annoyed when asked to provide evidence of course when after 6 pages your finally pushed hard enough you admit you don't have any because your arguments can't be proven and that might be why

U02dah4 wrote:
You cannot show me the rule great we are making progress at last

So when we have the rule

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

And as stated by you that you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it

Then there is no barrier to impacting a second psyker that can be proven by you



As to your second comment again I am merely asking what your definition is according to the rules quotes you say mine is wrong I am mearly asking you to provide the exact rules quotes that supports yours again i am not interested in any definition not in a rules quote

I find it funny that you get annoyed when asked to provide evidence of course when after 6 pages your finally pushed hard enough you admit you don't have any because your arguments can't be proven and that might be why

I am done. If you can't understand what a logical fallacy is and how someone can not prove a negative you will never understand how to correctly parse these rules. Play the game however you want. I emphasize youll be playing how you want and not by Raw.

 Type40 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?

He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"

 Type40 wrote:
Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?

Actually that one's simple. There's no such thing as a "melee phase" in 9th edition Warhammer 40K. There's a Fight Phase that comes after the Charge Phase. But, nobody can prove that you can't make shooting attacks in the Assault Phase because it's not true. There are Stratagems that will let people make a shooting attack (or fight) when they die, and it can be used in the Fight Phase.

 Type40 wrote:
Prove to me that I can't roll 3 dice when ever it says to roll 1 ?

Nothing says you can't roll 3 dice. You should indicate which one of the 3 counts, though, or your opponent might prove that he can "dreadsock" you with an old-school metal dread.

 Type40 wrote:
You can only show me where it says to do something else... it is impossible for you to point at text that specifically tells me I can't do those things... again, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Actually, "it doesn't tell me I can't do those things" doesn't work as an argument in a game with a permissive ruleset.


The rules can be read to support either side. As I said before, the precedent for a similar rule tends to indicate that GW might intend Perils to work the way you say, but they could easily change their mind and decide that the Warp energy erupting out of a pysker suffering Perils does count as Perils killing something nearby and letting a cascade effect. Best to talk about it with your opponent beforehand so there's no "gotcha" during a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
So other rules like thunderstrike gauntlet chain as well.

Cool.. cool...

Yeah, other rules like vehicles exploding can chain.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?

He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"

You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.

 Type40 wrote:
Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?

Actually that one's simple. There's no such thing as a "melee phase" in 9th edition Warhammer 40K. There's a Fight Phase that comes after the Charge Phase. But, nobody can prove that you can't make shooting attacks in the Assault Phase because it's not true. There are Stratagems that will let people make a shooting attack (or fight) when they die, and it can be used in the Fight Phase.

Nothing in the rules say there is no melee phase... why are you saying it isn't true ? can you prove it is not true ? do you have proof ? nope, there is absolutely no evidence their is NO melee phase,,, because you can not prove a negative. You can provide evidence for the existence of things but you can not provide evidence for the non-existence of things

 Type40 wrote:
Prove to me that I can't roll 3 dice when ever it says to roll 1 ?

Nothing says you can't roll 3 dice. You should indicate which one of the 3 counts, though, or your opponent might prove that he can "dreadsock" you with an old-school metal dread.

why should I indicate which one is the one that counts ? can you show me a rule that says I have to ? can you show me a rule that says I can't have all 3 dice ? no you can't because you can't prove a negative. You can only show me rules about what I can do

 Type40 wrote:
You can only show me where it says to do something else... it is impossible for you to point at text that specifically tells me I can't do those things... again, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Actually, "it doesn't tell me I can't do those things" doesn't work as an argument in a game with a permissive ruleset.

this is precisely what people are arguing... the rules specifically say what you can do in the case of "perils" and people are making a proposition for it to do extra... asking people to prove that perils effects more then the ONLY thing it says suffers perils (excluding things that trigger it on datasheets) This is asking people to prove a negative. We are being asked to show where in the rules it says you can not do something... as you said, it is a permissive rules set. The GW writers arn't going to try and write everything in the universe that is not effected by something, they have only written what IS effected by it. Asking people to show where in the rules that it says that they should "only do what the rule says" is a logical fallacy

The rules can be read to support either side. As I said before, the precedent for a similar rule tends to indicate that GW might intend Perils to work the way you say, but they could easily change their mind and decide that the Warp energy erupting out of a pysker suffering Perils does count as Perils killing something nearby and letting a cascade effect. Best to talk about it with your opponent beforehand so there's no "gotcha" during a game.

agreed, I will most likely insists my opponent follows the rule instructions exactly as written and I will be upset if they insist on adding additional context just because those rules appear in a subsection with a certain title

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
So other rules like thunderstrike gauntlet chain as well.

Cool.. cool...

Yeah, other rules like vehicles exploding can chain.

We are only asking you to prove the rules in your own argument if your answer is you can't prove then they don't exist.

If your contention is that you can't shoot in the fight phase then you need to be able to prove that.

Your counter to our theses is that yours disagree

Therefore you need to prove yours

Our counter to yours is they don't exist and can't be proven if you can prove them you disprove ours.

So far you have proven by your own admission that their is no rule that a model needs to suffer perils to be effected by the last sentance.in perils of warp.

In the joke examples you provide you are asking for proofs we don't maintain and are incorrect infact I can disprove many such as the banners letting you shoot in the fight phase however if I was making your arguments I would need to provide the rules supporting them if I cannot prove it I am wrong.

You are wrong because you cannot provide those proofs the fact you claim it is impossible to prove some just shows the scale of the wrongness of your argument

We deal with rules that can be proven to exist and only rules that can be proven to exist

U02dah4 wrote:
We are only asking you to prove the rules in your own argument if your answer is you can't prove then they don't exist.

If your contention is that you can't shoot in the fight phase then you need to be able to prove that.

Your counter to our theses is that yours disagree

Therefore you need to prove yours

Our counter to yours is they don't exist and can't be proven if you can prove them you disprove ours.

So far you have proven by your own admission that their is no rule that a model needs to suffer perils to be effected by the last sentance.in perils of warp.

In the joke examples you provide you are asking for proofs we don't maintain and are incorrect infact I can disprove many such as the banners letting you shoot in the fight phase however if I was making your arguments I would need to provide the rules supporting them if I cannot prove it I am wrong.

You are wrong because you cannot provide those proofs

FFS you are asking people to prove that you shouldn't ONLY do what the RAW says you should do ? Do you really not understand that someone can not give you evidence towards the absence of something ? feth man.

The RAW says those who roll double 6s or double 1s suffer perils. Then the RAW says those who suffer Perils get d3 MWs. There is NO rule that says Perils is anything but the line that defines what the effect is. and you keep insisting that we show you some rule that says you shouldn't ONLY do what it is telling us to do ? wtf No one can give you evidence that purple unicorns arn't effected by Perils of the Warp either, they can only point to rules that say what IS effected by it... what do you not get about this ?

Logically speaking, the issue can be summarized as follows:

we say that

A->B
AND
A->C

So it's straight forward that B does not implies C.


You are saying instead that:

A->B->C

As such, any time B happens C should follow.

There are a number of examples that shows that this is not the case in general.
Warhammer is a much more bland and simplistic system (in part, due to the propensity of the community to rule-lawyering, which paired with inability of GW to wrote in logical notation caused aberration like the bespoken rules).
One of those is the fact that the system is "permissive", so you're not allowed to draw conclusion of the second order based on rules structure or create any interpolation.

You're making up a mountain (and involving new features to save your interpretation) by a literally couple of letters (by) than can easily goes the opposite way. You can't petition for obvious reasons, when half of the world do not agree.

The difference with the chain of vehicle explosion is that the chained vehicle explosion have a structure of

A->B
A->B
A->B

Any time the trigger is entirely satisfied. It's not the same of Perils, whatever interpretation you have.

So, by this interpretation:

If I have a CSM Character blow up a Land Raider. The ensuing explosion kills an enemy character, I can now trigger Chaos Boon and get a mutation?

I would not play it this way. My character killed the land raider, the explosion killed the enemy character. In the original example, the Perils of the Warp killed the original psyker. The 2nd psyker was killed by Mortal Wounds caused by the 1st Perils.

With that said, I completely agree it works from a fluff standpoint and would probably allow it in a friendly home game even though I don't agree with it from a rules standpoint.

I am just amazed this rule dispute spawned 7 pages.

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?

He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"

You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.

The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured. Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"? Or that "A Triangle does not have more than 3 sides?" How about "I am not a banana slug typing all this in"? (Easily provable with DNA tests if not the evidence of people's eyes). Lunacy to insist that can't be proven.

 Type40 wrote:
Prove to me that I can't make shooting attacks in the melee phase ?

Actually that one's simple. There's no such thing as a "melee phase" in 9th edition Warhammer 40K. There's a Fight Phase that comes after the Charge Phase. But, nobody can prove that you can't make shooting attacks in the Assault Phase because it's not true. There are Stratagems that will let people make a shooting attack (or fight) when they die, and it can be used in the Fight Phase.

Nothing in the rules say there is no melee phase... why are you saying it isn't true ? can you prove it is not true ? do you have proof ? nope,,, because you can not prove a negative.

A not = C is irrelevant no side has proven A needs to =C in fact type 40 contention is that it is impossible to prove

Infact it is the contention of our side that a doesnt A doesnt=C


No we saying

The rule has 3 sentences with 3 definitions of whose effected one for each and 3 effects

Perils =ABC effects =123
A ->1
B->2
C->3
All effects are independent and not reliant on each

The general case is irrelevant we resolve a specific

In gauntlet there is an if clause

A If damages destroys vehicle do B 4+ causing more damage if kills vehicle go to A if not end


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
We are only asking you to prove the rules in your own argument if your answer is you can't prove then they don't exist.

If your contention is that you can't shoot in the fight phase then you need to be able to prove that.

Your counter to our theses is that yours disagree

Therefore you need to prove yours

Our counter to yours is they don't exist and can't be proven if you can prove them you disprove ours.

So far you have proven by your own admission that their is no rule that a model needs to suffer perils to be effected by the last sentance.in perils of warp.

In the joke examples you provide you are asking for proofs we don't maintain and are incorrect infact I can disprove many such as the banners letting you shoot in the fight phase however if I was making your arguments I would need to provide the rules supporting them if I cannot prove it I am wrong.

You are wrong because you cannot provide those proofs

FFS you are asking people to prove that you shouldn't ONLY do what the RAW says you should do ? Do you really not understand that someone can not give you evidence towards the absence of something ? feth man.

The RAW says those who roll double 6s or double 1s suffer perils. Then the RAW says those who suffer Perils get d3 MWs. There is NO rule that says Perils is anything but the line that defines what the effect is. and you keep insisting that we show you some rule that says you shouldn't ONLY do what it is telling us to do ? wtf No one can give you evidence that purple unicorns arn't effected by Perils of the Warp either, they can only point to rules that say what IS effected by it... what do you not get about this ?

Evidence of the absence of something does not prove it exists only that there is absense of evidence "spock"

And in you argument all there is is the absence of evidence

There is no rule proving that line is the only rule defining perils

You need to prove that to be correct

Whatrule is giving you permission to ignore the other lines or again is it your contention that you pick and choose which to follow. Yeah in that case by that logic I just won't remove my first exploded psyker because pick and mix.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?

He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"

You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.

The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured.

None of this proves that you do not own the vehicle. The evidence you have provided is 1) the DMV has no record of your ownership, 2) you do not have registered insurance for a vehicle. You have not provided evidence of non-existence because you can not prove something does not exist.

Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"?

Correct. You can not provide evidence that you do not own the moon. If you want to try, be my guest.
This is not a ludicrous statement. The logical fallacy of demanding the evidence of absence is well documented you can go ahead and read about it.

Proof is listed on the contents for the Battle Primer. They list the different phases in the battle round. There's the Command Phase, the Movement Phase, the Psychic Phase, the Shooting Phase, the Charge Phase, the Fight Phase and the Morale Phase. There is no "Melee Phase" listed, or even mentioned in the core rules. So yes, I have proof, and I've proven a negative. Realize you're wrong on your statement and don't make yourself look more ridiculous making even more ludicrous denials of fact just to support a false claim.

Wrong, this is evidence that it does not appear on the battle primer or the core rules. Again, you can not prove something does not exist. Again, the logical fallacy of "evidence of absence" is well documented and well known... before you claim that I am making my self look ridiculous please look up this fallacy and understand that the only people who are looking ridiculous are those who insist we prove the non-existence of a rule about "MWs effecting the 2nd psyker." the only thing we can prove is that there is a rule about what IS effected by Perils.

So people need to stop demanding that we somehow prove something does not exist because e very time we point out the rules that do exist we get a resonse along the lines of "That doesn't prove other things can't be effected by perils. show a rule that specifically says these other things cant." Which is impossible. proving non-existence is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evidence of the absence of something does not prove it exists only that there is absense of evidence "spock"

Type 40 I don't want to copy your monstrosity so I will reply to each of your text points in number order on your appended half of the post

1) I'm asking you to prove what you claim exists if you cannot your claim is wrong. I appreciate this is tough and that im asking you prove something that doesn't exist by your own admission. However it ends the argument when you cannot

2) wow you are now arguing that your own rules do not exist huzzah.

3) so you agree that there is no rule proving that line is the only line defining perils wow again I did not expect you to disprove your argument but awesome

4) so I say you need to prove that to be correct and your response is you can't prove that it doesn't exist I'm glad you admit your wrong as to the second bit you have not supplied those lines and told me they don't exist

5) so you also admit there is no rule giving you permission to ignore anything

6) this was joke based on your apparent logic not a serious point


So in conclusion by your own admission you have just stated across posts

You can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils of the warp if you first suffer it

You cannot prove that only the first line in perils from warp counts

And that their is no rule giving you permission to ignore anything

So when we apply that to the line in question

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 have to apply all the text as their is no proof only the first line counts

We can't ignore any part of the later text such as destroyed by a psyker unit because their is no rule giving us permission to ignore anything

and lastly you can prove no rule that a psyker is only killed by perils if you first suffer it so any definition that involves suffering is not relevant

So by your own admission all your assumptions have been wrong as we've said from the start

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's perfectly possible to prove a negative. If you can't prove it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

Ok, prove to me that big foot doesn't exist ?
prove to me that god doesn't exist ?

He didn't say it's possible to prove all negatives, but some can be proven, for example "I do not own an Aston Martin DB-7"

You havn't proven anything... there is no way to prove you do not own an Aston Martin DB-7... you can only prove that "you don't know if you own one" or "that I haven't seen you with one." We know the likely answer, but you can't prove a negative.

The Department of Motor Vehicles would have records of car purchases, and someone (like police) can access those records to know exactly what vehicles I own. And, you have to have insurance for vehicles, so there's records of what vehicles I have insured.

None of this proves that you do not own the vehicle. The evidence you have provided is 1) the DMV has no record of your ownership, 2) you do not have registered insurance for a vehicle. You have not provided evidence of non-existence because you can not prove something does not exist.

Now you're being even more ridiculous, just because you don't want to admit you're wrong on this point.

 Type40 wrote:

Saying I can only prove "I don't know if I own one" is a ludicrous statement on the face of it, and shows you grasping at it. So I guess I can only prove" I don't own the Moon"? Or "I am not the ruler of the world"?

Correct. You can not provide evidence that you do not own the moon. If you want to try, be my guest.

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty



By international treaty no one person or goverment can claim the Moon.

 Type40 wrote:

Proof is listed on the contents for the Battle Primer. They list the different phases in the battle round. There's the Command Phase, the Movement Phase, the Psychic Phase, the Shooting Phase, the Charge Phase, the Fight Phase and the Morale Phase. There is no "Melee Phase" listed, or even mentioned in the core rules. So yes, I have proof, and I've proven a negative. Realize you're wrong on your statement and don't make yourself look more ridiculous making even more ludicrous denials of fact just to support a false claim.

Wrong, this is evidence that it does not appear on the battle primer or the core rules. Again, you can not prove something does not exist. Again, the logical fallacy of "evidence of absence" is well documented and well known... before you claim that I am making my self look ridiculous please look up this fallacy and understand that the only people who are looking ridiculous are those who insist we prove the non-existence of a rule about "MWs effecting the 2nd psyker." the only thing we can prove is that there is a rule about what IS effected by Perils.

Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? The lack of "melee phase" in the core rules or the big rulebook proves that for 9th edition 40K it does not exist. Insisting that something that doesn't exist in the rules can't be proven to not be in the rules is in fact ludicrous. Your posturing that we can't prove it only makes you look like you're arguing merely to contradict and won't let go of something when proven wrong, and that makes any other argument you make less credible since we don't know if that is also something you just don't want to let go of when someone proves you wrong.

Absolutely. You Absolutely can prove the absence of something provided you have a clear, finite/definable and fully accessible scope.