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.

U02dah4 wrote:
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

My claim is what you are claiming doesnt fething exist you house plant. There is no evidence for me to provide for feth sake.

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

what fething rules ? what the feth are you talking about ?

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

of course fething not, because its IS the only fething line defining Perils... you don't need a line right before the definition to say "this is the only definition of perils" that doesn't make any fething sense. There is only going to be rules that point out what DOES exist there is never going to be fething rules that tell you What doesn't exist . Do you also want us to quote a rule that proves that line defining perils only applies to that unit and not purple monkies or anything the feth else in the universe ?

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

again, I can not point to a rule that says ONLY WHAT IS DEFINED AS HAVING PARILS HAS PARILS. I can only show the rules that says what HAS parils... what you are asking for is impossible and simply doesn't exist. The fact that you can't grasp this is just fething baffeling... the GW design team are never going to throw rules on paper describing all the things in the universe that is not what their rules apply to... what they do, is write rules that define what it DOES apply to. What do you not get ? there is no rule telling you the 2nd psycher has perils... thats all there is to it, WTF else do you want ?

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

no gak, you are also not allowed to add context, permissions and additions to the RAW

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


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

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

ya, you do exactly what the fething rules text says, what does this have to do with the 2nd psyker gaining the effect of perils ?

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

how the feth can something be killed by something it is not effected by ? wtf are you asking people to prove ? there is no fething rule, and never will be, that is going to be like "by the way this thing that doesn't get effected by perils, it doesn't get killed by it." No gak it doesn't.

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

what the feth does this even mean, the whole rules text fething counts as rules, what the feth are you saying ? Are you trying to say that a fething title somehow applies additional meaning to the fething definition of what it means to be effected by perils?

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

no fething gak

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

yes , do what it fething says

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

ya, again, no gak

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

what ? what line that says destroyed by a psyker unit ? there is no fething rule that says gak all about being destroyed by a psyker unit. There is only rules for what to do when the defined effect destroys a fething psyker unit... how the feth does the line "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" make the thing it kills killed by a specifically defined effect ? how ? because of some subsection title ? where the feth in the rules does it say subsection titles magically give fething properties ?

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

HOW THE feth CAN YOU BE KILLED BY SOMETHING IF YOU ARNT BEING EFFECTED BY IT ? wtf ?

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

WHAT THE ACTUAL feth.

talking to you is like talking to a wall. We are done. You are either deliberately playing stupid, being disingenuous or you actually are incapable of grasping what people are explaining to you. Either because of stubbornness or because you are incapable of comprehending things I do not believe you have the capacity to parse these rules correctly. You have done nothing, at all, in this thread but misrepresent peoples arguments and demand to see evidence for the absence of a rule banning you from arbitrarily adding context where it doesn't exist...

I am sorry, this is a lost cause and I am not going to keep trying to explain to you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 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.

this is a pretty common logical fallacy,,, this is pretty basic stuff man, I recommend this link https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence

 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.

you have now proved that your ownership is not recognized by international treaty... congradulations... you can not prove non-existence .

 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.

I am the one being asked to prove non-existence ... seriously,,, wtf XD .

again, this is impossible, please have a read through https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence .
I wont be expected to engage in a logical fallacy because you guy want me to provide evidence that your non-existent rule in fact does not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

So then how about we accept that if GWs RAW actually said the 2nd psyker got effected by Perils that they would have infact written that. Instead of demanding proof of an extra rule that they didn't mean it, how about we stop and actually prove the 2nd psyker is effected by perils... Stop asking me to show a rule about disallowing something to happen when there isn't a rule that allows it to happen.

Nothing says it is... why the hell would it be,,, I can't provide evidence that nothing says it is BECAUSE NOTHING SAYS THAT IT IS. So asking me to show a rule that says nothing says this is just getting fething irritating .

If people actually want to believe in osmosis subsection titles then prove that's how sections always work... because as is , there are subsections that WE KNOW do not work that way. there is no rules that say they do

Type40, step away from the keyboard if you're going to just be posting "fething" "gak" as replies to someone (not the replies to me, but to U02dah4) . You're just going to spiral further down if you don't take a break from it.

As to your comment "you have now proved that your ownership is not recognized by international treaty... congradulations... you can not prove non-existence ",if supposed ownership is not recognized by any of the official bodies then there isn't actual ownership,

If you model a single rule as three separate interaction, then you're wrong. You're essentially denying that those three are the same thing: simple as that.
GW rules are not written like that.

By the way, writing ABC -> 123 is a completely different things from writing A->1; B->2 and C->3.
So, unfortunately... I don't think we can discuss using logical notation, there is a minimum bar to use it proficiently.

But there's an easier proof.
Apply the same logic to any of the numerous multi-faceted rules (those that applies different effects under the same activator with different accessory conditions) and you will realize this position is untenable (any extra condition in your interpretation became necessary and sufficient, rather than only necessary).

I think that, for example, Reinforcement, Redeploy and Deep Strike broke immediately, but there are others for sure.
And to be valid, an interpretation should be universal without additional caveat... If broke somewhere else it's wrong in general (yes, there are special cases, because GW isn't even above that... But luckily those are always explicit by definition).


The only issue about the interpretation of no chain is that someone don't like it, and consider it illogical (it's blatantly not, since multiple people disagree: unless you invoke stupidity or trolling).

The interpretation in favour of the chain, instead, require to introduce entity and conditions that do not exist in the rule (propagation of the sources of MW), have various counterintuitive repercussions (gauntlet) that otherwise aren't a problem... and the disagreements about it can be explained without bad faith, simply as an unfortunate (however clear when you parse it) formulation in a notoriously vague language.

Pick your poison.

 doctortom wrote:
Type40, step away from the keyboard if you're going to just be posting "fething" "gak" as replies to someone (not the replies to me, but to U02dah4) . You're just going to spiral further down if you don't take a break from it.

As to your comment "you have now proved that your ownership is not recognized by international treaty... congradulations... you can not prove non-existence ",if supposed ownership is not recognized by any of the official bodies then there isn't actual ownership,

Untrue
Ownership: defined:
"the act, state, or right of possessing something."
Also, maybe some body of governance that you have no idea about or do not have access to has acknowledged your ownership. If this official body is required, then I postulate one you don't know about exists prove that this official body doesn't exist ?

Nothing in the definition says ownership must be recognized by any official bodies ... sorry... you can not prove non-existence ... it is impossible. If you want to keep trying to prove you don't own the moon you can... but all you can actually do is prove things that do exist, not what does not exist. Sorry.

again I recommend this link, please read up on this, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence ... proving non-existence is impossible.

This argument is not about 40k any more. This thread is done, there no possibility of either side convicing the other at this point. Y'all need to let it go and agree to disagree.

 Stux wrote:
This argument is not about 40k any more. This thread is done, there no possibility of either side convicing the other at this point. Y'all need to let it go and agree to disagree.

Honestly, I agree, we are definitely at an impasse and have been for a while.

conclusion :

Position 1: all things under the subsection titled "Perils of the Warp" count as the perils of the warp rule and thus cause a chain reaction

Position 2: subsection titles do not have a bearing on this rule. Following the text exactly the rules define what is Perils and when it is triggered as specific lines of text. When looked at in this way their is no chain reaction because a 2nd psyker is not being effected by perils, They are getting mortal wounds as a result of a destroyed model who was killed by the effects of perils but they are not effected by perils themselves.

This closing set of positions is to sum up the two positions as objectively as I could. I do not intend to argue this anymore.

 Cybtroll wrote:
If you model a single rule as three separate interaction, then you're wrong. You're essentially denying that those three are the same thing: simple as that.
GW rules are not written like that.

By the way, writing ABC -> 123 is a completely different things from writing A->1; B->2 and C->3.
So, unfortunately... I don't think we can discuss using logical notation, there is a minimum bar to use it proficiently.

But there's an easier proof.
Apply the same logic to any of the numerous multi-faceted rules (those that applies different effects under the same activator with different accessory conditions) and you will realize this position is untenable (any extra condition in your interpretation became necessary and sufficient, rather than only necessary).

I think that, for example, Reinforcement, Redeploy and Deep Strike broke immediately, but there are others for sure.
And to be valid, an interpretation should be universal without additional caveat... If broke somewhere else it's wrong in general (yes, there are special cases, because GW isn't even above that... But luckily those are always explicit by definition).


The only issue about the interpretation of no chain is that someone don't like it, and consider it illogical (it's blatantly not, since multiple people disagree: unless you invoke stupidity or trolling).

The interpretation in favour of the chain, instead, require to introduce entity and conditions that do not exist in the rule (propagation of the sources of MW), have various counterintuitive repercussions (gauntlet) that otherwise aren't a problem... and the disagreements about it can be explained without bad faith, simply as an unfortunate (however clear when you parse it) formulation in a notoriously vague language.

Pick your poison.

The problem is their are three different activators and three different effects all of which come under the same rule i mean yes if you want proper annotation you suppose 1a 1b 1c could be used but we are arguing about annotation not the point they represent. Comparing them to rules with a single activator is incorrect 1c can trigger without the criteria forc1a to trigger and 1a can trigger without 1b triggering or all three can trigger depending on the circumstances because each is conditional. By over simplifying your eliminating essential information it might be simpler but its less accurate.

"all of which come under the same rule" Citation needed. There is no evidence that this entire section constitutes a single/same rule by any kind of single unified name. It is true that some subsections are treated this way and some are not. In particular sections with specific definitions of rules triggers and definitions do not.. see fight first/last, attrition tests or moral tests for example.

@ type 40

Its hilarious that you can copy my direct rules quote

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

Then dismiss it for having magic properties, having stated that all your assumptions against it have no proof and having again confirmed that you can't ignore it and that you have no proof that only the first line counts or that the definition of suffering counts.

The rest of your scrawl is now irrelevant unless you can prove points that you have now confirmed on multiple occasions that you can't.

U02dah4 wrote:
@ type 40

Its hilarious that you can copy my direct rules quote

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

Then dismiss it for having magic properties, having stated that all your assumptions against it have no proof and having again confirmed that you can't ignore it and that you have no proof that only the first line counts or that the definition of suffering counts.

The rest of your scrawl is now irrelevant unless you can prove points that you have now confirmed on multiple occasions that you can't.

Again,,, where in this rules quote,,, you keep repeating, over and over, does it say that the second unit is being effected by Perils of the Warp ? Again, I am not the one making assumptions... you are the one applying extra context. I am advocating for following what the text says. I don't intend on ignoring anything. I do not think only the first line counts as rules. I can't understand why you keep insisting that is what I am saying. I do not intending on ignoring anything but unlike you, I do not intend on doing anything extra or applying context where none exists.
I

 Type40 wrote:
"all of which come under the same rule" Citation needed. There is no evidence that this entire section constitutes a single/same rule by any kind of single unified name. It is true that some subsections are treated this way and some are not. In particular sections with specific definitions of rules triggers and definitions do not.. see fight first/last, attrition tests or moral tests for example.

The title pg2 section 1 and the fact its in a white box pg 2section8 tell you its all one rule.

The fact there are three bullet points in the summary tell you there are 3 effects.

The detail of three sentences that those bullet points summarise give you the different definition of what triggers

First sentance
"When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers
D3 mortal wounds. ( trigger psyker unit suffering perils) (effect it suffers d3 mortal wounds

Second sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp while attempting to manifest a psychic power, that power automatically fails to manifest.
( trigger a psyker unit destroyed by perils while attempting to manifest a psychic power) ( it automatically fails to manifest the power)

Third sentence
If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp, then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds
(Trigger all psyker units destroyed by perils of the warp) ( effect 6"explosion before removing)

A psyker unit suffering perils from a gun with the ability to make psykers peril would trigger the first sentence wouldn't trigger the second and might trigger the third depending on if it survived

U02dah4 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
"all of which come under the same rule" Citation needed. There is no evidence that this entire section constitutes a single/same rule by any kind of single unified name. It is true that some subsections are treated this way and some are not. In particular sections with specific definitions of rules triggers and definitions do not.. see fight first/last, attrition tests or moral tests for example.

The title pg2 section 1 and the fact its in a white box pg 2section8 tell you its all one rule.

The fact there are three bullet points in the summary tell you there are 3 effects.

The detail of three sentences that those bullet points summarise give you the different definition of what triggers

Ya,,, you are reading those pages wrong... that 100% not what 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.

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

Not sure what about these two quotes seem to tell you that the title of a subsection dictates what is and isn't a rules effect ? The only thing I see here is that the titles of subsections help put the rules you are about to read into context ? ....

So again, you have no evidence that the entire section is something called "the perils of the warp rule"

What we do have is actual rules text that says exactly what is the effects of perils of the warp

When a Psyker unit suffers Perils of the Warp, it suffers D3 mortal wounds

If a Psyker unit is destroyed by Perils of the Warp,

as specifically defined in the line above and nothing else

then just before removing the last model in that unit, every unit within 6" of it immediately suffers D3 mortal wounds

As you can see the second half of this line does not also apply the perils of the warp effect and thus perils of the warp can not kill something.

Again, unless you have a citation that says the entire sub section is something you keep calling the "Perils of the Warp" and not just a subsection titled "Perils of the Warp."


['

 Stux wrote:
This argument is not about 40k any more. This thread is done, there no possibility of either side convicing the other at this point. Y'all need to let it go and agree to disagree.

Indeed.

Poor, poor show folks.