That answer does not indicate where in the rules that states it's the same damage as the weapon type.

The related question does not address the apparent contradiction between gwf ruling where the damage is not the weapon's damage.

Colin, that ruling and the rules in the book do not set up a contradiction, since nobody is bound by the ruling, and I know of a number of DM's and players who do not accept it. (I think it's a reasonable ruling, but not one I'll die in a ditch to defend)

@Rubiksmoose I don't know the answer, so I can't improve upon the other questions answer.

@KorvinStarmast not being bound by any rules does not mean a contradiction does not exist. It means we can ignore the ruling that creates the contradiction.

@Rubiksmoose probably a good plan. I'll try that.

@Rubiksmoose Is that more clearly stated?

I'm voting to put this on hold as unclear as I feel you've now introduced a new element that should probably be asked as a seperate question and it appears from comments that things are getting even more muddied and need to be workshopped, probably on Role-playing Games Meta. Whether "GWF re-rolls would be applicable to sneak attack damage" seems like a completely seperate issue to whether Sneak Attack is considered magic damage.

It's the implication of the GWF ruling. You could frame challenge JC's ruling on GWF that prompted this question.

As a librarian nit pick, you citation is invalid. That is a fan site. I think I recall that ruling on GWF being in the published SA compendium. Suggest you cite that, since those are 'official rulings'

@KorvinStarmast that's the link V2Blast cited on a related question about an item. I was under the impression that it was aggregating JC tweets.

@Grosscol it is an aggregate site. But we try to avoid only linking to it when possible to try to avoid link rot problems. Far more likely that the aggregate site disappears than twitter itself. Even better is to quote the relevant parts yourself which avoids the problem entirely.

@Grosscol Not all of Jeremy's tweets make it into published SA compendium, so official rulings have a status that other tweets don't. If you cite the SA compendium, IMO, it makes your case a better on, but again that's a little nitpicky ... I'll get you the link.

@Grosscol JC's tweets can sometimes clarify RAW and sometimes they give RAI, but his tweets are never RAW in and of themself.

They are rulings not rules.