Can Ahriman use the same psychic power three times in a row? Nothing seems to forbid it, but it doesn't feel right. 9 BS 5 Str 4 AP3 shots leave a mark!

Zoned

Zoned wrote:... Nothing seems to forbid it...

That's not the way rules work. You have to find a rule that allows it.

Ahriman can use up to three psychic powers, not one power three times.

Nurglitch wrote:Ahriman can use up to three psychic powers, not one power three times.

I need to check out Ahry's rules then, as the majority of people I've seen / read about using him use 3x BoC, 3x DB, 3x GoC ...

- Salvage

After careful reading of the rules, I would say Ahriman cannot cast the same power multiple times for the following reason:

codex CSM, p51

"...and in addition, it allows Ahriman to make up to three Psychic tests in the same turn...It even allows him to use several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase..."

The bit that stops him is the "several powers" part from p.51. If he casts Doombolt three times, has he cast "several powers?" I would say no.

As an analogy, if I pick up a pencil three times, have I picked up 1 pencil or several pencils? Clearly, the answer is one.

Anyone agree/disagree?

Zoned

You are correct. In logic this is known as the type/token distinction. Psychic powers are types, i.e.: Winds of Chaos, Warptime, etc. Casting psychic powers are tokens of those types.

I disagree. He is allowed to make three psychic tests, while being able to make three psychic tests "even allows him to use several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase" the ability is simply to make three psychic tests and even allows him to make several shooting powers. There is no indication that this would be a token system as opposed to simply making three psychic tests (in whatever order and combination).

Ghaz wrote:

Zoned wrote:... Nothing seems to forbid it...

That's not the way rules work. You have to find a rule that allows it.

It's very simple, his special rules allow it.

Question, Can Ahriman use Three psychic powers in the same turn?
Correct "it allows Ahriman to make upto three psychic tests in the same turn"

Question, can these all be the same psychic power?
Answer, does the above rule limit what power he can choose from his list? No, he can cast any of them if allowed to. If you say that he cannot cast the same one three times then you are saying he cannot cast a psychic power at all, because he cannot pick the power he wants to use.


Question, can Ahriman use Three psychic powers in a turn that count as a shooting attack?
Answer, Yes. The "allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same shooting phase" rule is there so he may do so. If that rule was not there, he would unable to do so because an infantry model can only shoot one weapon per turn normally.

His rules do no allow him to use the same power. Here's why:

A Chaos Sorcerer can normally only have 1 power (unless they have a familiar.)
A Chaos Sorcerer with the Mark of Tzeentch may take an additional power and use it in the same turn, provided they aren't both shooting attacks.
Ahriman has several powers, and may use "several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase."

Does casting Doombolt three times count as using "several powers?" No, he has used one power three times, just as picking up the same pencil three times does not count as picking up several pencils.

Therefore, he may not use the same power repeatedly in the same phase.

Pity, though I still plan on using him in my Chaos army.

Zoned

Zoned wrote:His rules do no allow him to use the same power. Here's why:

A Chaos Sorcerer can normally only have 1 power (unless they have a familiar.)
A Chaos Sorcerer with the Mark of Tzeentch may take an additional power and use it in the same turn, provided they aren't both shooting attacks.
Ahriman has several powers, and may use "several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase."

Does casting Doombolt three times count as using "several powers?" No, he has used one power three times, just as picking up the same pencil three times does not count as picking up several pencils.

Therefore, he may not use the same power repeatedly in the same phase.

Pity, though I still plan on using him in my Chaos army.

Zoned

Nope, his special rule allows him to make multiple psychic tests, which can also be several shooting powers. "even allows him to use several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase" is not the same as "even allows him to use several different powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase". Regular sorcerers are not able to fire twice with the same power (even Tzeentch ones) due to the restriction on only being able to fire once in the shooting phase.

I still don't understand why people equate the purchasing of a psychic power to be the same as purchasing multiple uses like scrolls in RPGs or regular weapons from the armory (which even a Chaos dreadnaught has the ability to fire twice in a single round when raged so it is not a physical limit).

To snoogums:

I agree that he can make multiple psychic tests. But as you wrote:

"his special rule allows him to make multiple psychic tests, which can also be several shooting powers"

Ask yourself, does casting Doombolt 3 times count as casting several shooting powers or one shooting power 3 times?

Does picking up a pencil 3 times count as picking up several pencils or one pencil?

Maybe I'm wrong and my analogy is poor in some way. But no one has shown me so. Can you?

Zoned

Page 88 of the CSM codex, under 'Psychic Powers':

"A psyker may only attempt to use one psychic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the Mark of Tzeentch, which can attempt to use up to two psychic powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon)"

Reading Ahrimans entry, I would say that he can make up to 3 "shooting" type psychic attacks, using three different abilities ( ie: doombolt, bolt of change, winds of change), and NOT the same one 3X.

My reasoning? "like is like". The Eldar Farseer can have up to 4 psychic powers. With the Spirit Stone upgrade, he can use 2 in a turn, but "A Farseer cannot use the same psychic power twice in the same turn." (Eldar Codex, pg. 26)

Zoned wrote:To snoogums:

I agree that he can make multiple psychic tests. But as you wrote:

"his special rule allows him to make multiple psychic tests, which can also be several shooting powers"

Ask yourself, does casting Doombolt 3 times count as casting several shooting powers or one shooting power 3 times?

The bit that stops him is the "several powers" part from p.51. If he casts Doombolt three times, has he cast "several powers?" I would say no.

Casting doom bolt 3 times counts as several shooting attacks, as a psychic attack follows every single shooting rule unless it says otherwise.

If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.
Does it say he may cast several different powers? Nope.

From the Ahriman entry under 'The Black Staff'

"It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same shooting phase."

"use several powers"......

several
1 a: separate or distinct from one another b (1): individually owned or controlled : exclusive — compare common (2): of or relating separately to each individual involved c: being separate and distinctive : respective <specialists in their several fields>
2 a: more than one; b: more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches> cchiefly dialect : being a great many

Does picking up a pencil three times count as picking up several pencils? No.
Does casting Doombolt three times count as using "several powers?" No.
Casting Doombolt three times means using one power several times, which is different than using several powers.

Zoned? I think we are debating the same side, no? I am agreeing with you that he would NOT be able to use the same power 3X

Laserbait wrote:My reasoning? "like is like". The Eldar Farseer can have up to 4 psychic powers. With the Spirit Stone upgrade, he can use 2 in a turn, but "A Farseer cannot use the same psychic power twice in the same turn." (Eldar Codex, pg. 26)

That's the Eldar codex, not the Chaos codex.

From the Ahriman entry under 'The Black Staff'

"It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same shooting phase."

"use several powers"......

several
1 a: separate or distinct from one another b (1): individually owned or controlled : exclusive — compare common (2): of or relating separately to each individual involved c: being separate and distinctive : respective <specialists in their several fields>
2 a: more than one; b: more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches> cchiefly dialect : being a great many

I'm going to go with definition 2 since that is common usage in my experience, looks like you are working with the same. How does that work in context?

In psychic powers it gives the restriction that you may only use one shooting power per turn because of the shooting restriction that a model can only fire one per turn. The black staff bypasses this, and in addition also allows the multiple shooting powers but it does not limit him to distinct powers unless you go with definition part 1. At that point you have to decide if there has to be a self imposed restriction on being able to use a power a single time in a turn since they do not have to be automatically distinct, so you could use a power more than once in a turn. As an aside monstrous Tzeentch creatures that can cast psychic powers would logically be able to use two powers since the reason for the restriction is false.

Casting Doombolt three times is casting several powers: Doombolt, Doombolt, Doombolt.

And for the guy with the pencil fetish: Your analogy is poor, because the act of picking up the pencil is the action of the power, the pencil is the power. The act of picking up the pencil three times is the act of casting three times. So if you picked up three number 2 pencils instead of a number two and a number four pencil you still picked up three pencils. The choice of powers is what pencils you have available to pick up. The staff allows you to pick up multiple pencils, and even several shooting pencils.

Actually, definition 1 and 2 would apply.

Separate and distinct powers, more than one, being used in the same player turn.

Laserbait wrote:Actually, definition 1 and 2 would apply.

Separate and distinct powers, more than one, being used in the same player turn.

Why would they both apply? Not all definitions are always used in word usage, they usually confer different meanings:
Please use all 32 definitions of 'powers' as it applies to this rule to prove your point that both parts are automatically applicable:

pow·er /?pa??r/ –noun

1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
2. political or national strength: the balance of power in Europe.
3. great or marked ability to do or act; strength; might; force.
4. the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: power over men's minds.
5. political ascendancy or control in the government of a country, state, etc.: They attained power by overthrowing the legal government.
6. legal ability, capacity, or authority: the power of attorney.
7. delegated authority; authority granted to a person or persons in a particular office or capacity: the powers of the president.
8. a document or written statement conferring legal authority.
9. a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence.
10. a state or nation having international authority or influence: The great powers held an international conference.
11. a military or naval force: The Spanish Armada was a mighty power.
12. Often, powers. a deity; divinity: the heavenly powers.
13. powers, Theology. an order of angels. Compare angel (def. 1).
14. Dialect. a large number or amount: There's a power of good eatin' at the church social.
15. Physics.
a. work done or energy transferred per unit of time. Symbol: P
b. the time rate of doing work.
16. mechanical energy as distinguished from hand labor: a loom driven by power.
17. a particular form of mechanical or physical energy: hydroelectric power.
18. energy, force, or momentum: The door slammed shut, seemingly under its own power.
19. Mathematics.
a. the product obtained by multiplying a quantity by itself one or more times: The third power of 2 is 8.
b. (of a number x) a number whose logarithm is a times the logarithm of x (and is called the ath power of x). Symbolically, y =xa is a number that satisfies the equation log y = a log x.
c. the exponent of an expression, as a in xa.
d. cardinal number (def. 2).
20. Optics.
a. the magnifying capacity of a microscope, telescope, etc., expressed as the ratio of the diameter of the image to the diameter of the object. Compare magnification (def. 2).
b. the reciprocal of the focal length of a lens.
–verb (used with object)
21. to supply with electricity or other means of power: Atomic energy powers the new submarines.
22. to give power to; make powerful: An outstanding quarterback powered the team in its upset victory.
23. to inspire; spur; sustain: A strong faith in divine goodness powers his life.
24. (of a fuel, engine, or any source able to do work) to supply force to operate (a machine): An electric motor powers this drill.
25. to drive or push by applying power: She powered the car expertly up the winding mountain road.
–adjective
26. operated or driven by a motor or electricity: a power mower; power tools.
27. power-assisted: His new car has power brakes and power windows.
28. conducting electricity: a power cable.
29. Informal. expressing or exerting power; characteristic of those having authority or influence: to host a power lunch.
—Verb phrases
30. power down, Computers. to shut off.
31. power up, Computers. to turn on.
—Idiom
32. the powers that be, those in supreme command; the authorities: The decision is in the hands of the powers that be.

I agree that not all definitions of a word are applicable at the same time. However, in this case, they do.

Look at it this way:
Ahriman is already able to "fire" his powers 3X. Twice more than any other psychic in the game, no?
He has 3 DIFFERENT shooting powers, yes?
Why make an issue out of it?

Or, put another way, suppose a model other than Ahriman could do the same, and had Lash of Submission in his power roster. Would you accept that the model could use Lash 3X in a turn? Would you be willing to play against that model?

Laserbait wrote:I agree that not all definitions of a word are applicable at the same time. However, in this case, they do.

Look at it this way:
Ahriman is already able to "fire" his powers 3X. Twice more than any other psychic in the game, no?
He has 3 DIFFERENT shooting powers, yes?
Why make an issue out of it?

Or, put another way, suppose a model other than Ahriman could do the same, and had Lash of Submission in his power roster. Would you accept that the model could use Lash 3X in a turn? Would you be willing to play against that model?

I would happily play against that model if that was the case as that is how I read the rules. Just because it may make him uber powerful (as a special character is supposed to be) doesn't mean it is somehow wrong. I would allow Tzeentch Sorcerers to use Gift of Chaos twice if they purchased it.

Editted: So then we are back to my statement that "Like is Like".
If the Eldar cannot use the same power twice in a turn, and there is no rule in the CSM codex that says sorcerers can use the same power twice, why would you assume they can?
Tigurius of the Ultramarines can use "Any two powers..."

So, unless there is a rule that states a single power may be used multiple times in a turn, I stand by my position.

You have a different concept. So be it.
However, what if your opponent across the table thinks differently about than you do? How would you decide the issue?

davidson wrote:If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.

No. He only cast one power multiple times. He did not use 'several powers', only one power.

Ghaz wrote:

davidson wrote:If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.

No. He only cast one power multiple times. He did not use 'several powers', only one power.

Doesn't mater.

"it allows Ahriman to make upto three psychic tests in the same turn" period. Can he cast 3 powers in the same turn? Yes, can I say I'm casting bolt of change 3 times? Yes.

The only limit of this? "(one of these may be to use his special ablity of his force weapon) If there was any other limit it would have been said right there.


The "use several powers" rule is there so he can "shoot" 3 times in a turn.

Even for powers that do not count as shooting attacks his "three pyshic tests in the same turn" can cast other things more than once that do not count as shooting attacks. Like Gift of Chaos and Warp Time.

There is nothing there that says you cannot gift of chaos 3 times in the same turn, that easily overrides the double meaning word several. It is clearly RAI and RAW.

Laserbait:

If the Eldar cannot use the same power twice in a turn, and there is no rule in the CSM codex that says sorcerers can use the same power twice, why would you assume they can?

Well, the entry for Spirit Stones does specifically state that you may not use the same power twice, so that's not too relevant either way.

Ghaz wrote:

davidson wrote:If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.

No. He only cast one power multiple times. He did not use 'several powers', only one power.

"It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same shooting phase."

This reads like an example, not a limitation. The thing everyone seems to be overlooking in their rush to define "several" is the word "even". It doesn't say "this ONLY allows him to use several" it says "even...several." It is not an exclusive statement, so no matter what 'several' means, this rule alone will not stop him from using the same power more than once unless there is a more general game rule stating that the same power cannot be used more than once in a phase/turn. Is there any such rule?

Trent wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

davidson wrote:If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.

No. He only cast one power multiple times. He did not use 'several powers', only one power.

"It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same shooting phase."

This reads like an example, not a limitation. The thing everyone seems to be overlooking in their rush to define "several" is the word "even". It doesn't say "this ONLY allows him to use several" it says "even...several." It is not an exclusive statement, so no matter what 'several' means, this rule alone will not stop him from using the same power more than once unless there is a more general game rule stating that the same power cannot be used more than once in a phase/turn. Is there any such rule?

I'm in agreement with you obviously.

Even if it was a limitation as the other side argues, you could still do three Winds of Chaos to make three spawn a turn since it is not a shooting power and it only has you do "several shooting powers" where as three Winds of Chaos would just require three psychic tests. Why would they restrict the shooting powers to distinctly different ones and not WoC? Because they did not, they worded it as definition 2: multiple powers, not multiple distinct powers. After the Blood Angels and the Eldar codex it is clear that if they wanted a special charicter to be limited in the number of castings of each power they would have worded it as such. The counter argument replies on an uncommon usage of "several" in a clarifying sentence about the ability to take multiple psychic tests. Using one Doom Bolt and two Bolts of Change would even satisfy the several requiring more than one distinct power. Hopefully a FAQ will address this by 2009.

I''ll also note that the previous version of Tzeentch allowed for multiple castings of the same power through thralls, so the ability to only cast a power once per round has not been an absolute. As expensive as Ahriman is, three Bolts of Change or 3 Doombolts are not overpowering.

davidson wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

davidson wrote:If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.

No. He only cast one power multiple times. He did not use 'several powers', only one power.

Doesn't mater.

"it allows Ahriman to make upto three psychic tests in the same turn" period. Can he cast 3 powers in the same turn? Yes, can I say I'm casting bolt of change 3 times? Yes.

The only limit of this? "(one of these may be to use his special ablity of his force weapon) If there was any other limit it would have been said right there.


The "use several powers" rule is there so he can "shoot" 3 times in a turn.

Even for powers that do not count as shooting attacks his "three pyshic tests in the same turn" can cast other things more than once that do not count as shooting attacks. Like Gift of Chaos and Warp Time.

There is nothing there that says you cannot gift of chaos 3 times in the same turn, that easily overrides the double meaning word several. It is clearly RAI and RAW.

Yes, it does matter. Just because you're allowed to take multiple psychic tests in a turn is inconsequential. You could be permitted to take all the psychic tests that you want, but if you only have one psychic power and if you're not allowed to use that power more than once then you can only use that power once. Your entire argument is flawed because you're equating 'psychic test' with 'psychic power'. They are NOT the same thing. So it does not matter how many 'psychic tests' Ahriman can take, you must find a rule that specifically allows multiple uses of the same power.

Ghaz wrote: you must find a rule that specifically allows multiple uses of the same power.

I think in this case you are wrong, Ghaz. His rule lets him do this by activating multiple powers in one turn. That is, UNLESS there is a general rule stating that a model can't use the same power more than once.

He can use psychic powers more than one time per phase. His specific rule admittedly doesn't clearly allow him to use the same power more than once per turn, but it doesn't need to specifically allow that exception unless there is a general rule against it for it to be an exception to.

The "several" argument is somewhat interesting, but immaterial unless such a general rule exists.

Ghaz wrote:If he cast 3 doom bolts did he cast several powers? Yes.
Yes, it does matter. Just because you're allowed to take multiple psychic tests in a turn is inconsequential. You could be permitted to take all the psychic tests that you want, but if you only have one psychic power and if you're not allowed to use that power more than once then you can only use that power once. Your entire argument is flawed because you're equating 'psychic test' with 'psychic power'. They are NOT the same thing. So it does not matter how many 'psychic tests' Ahriman can take, you must find a rule that specifically allows multiple uses of the same power.

"In order to use one of his powers the Pysker must make a Pyshic test" 40k main rule book.
My aurgment is not flawed but is in fact solid as stone. In order to use a psychic power you must make a psychic test.

There is no restriction on being able to use the same power only once in the 40k mail rule book.
The only one mentioned at all in the Chaos book is that Models with the mark of Tzerentch "which can attempt to use upto two psychic powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon, a models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase)
Even they could double chaos spawn or double wind of chaos. A pratical example would be if the player failed a warp time test they may wish to try again. And that Ahriman may only use his force weapon ability once.

Can Ahirman attempt to cast three psychic tests per turn? Yes
Can the power picked on a successful be anything you want from his list while following the rules for in what turn phase they can be cast? Yes
Is there anything that even hints that he could not cast doom bolt 3 times? No but there his special rule that supports it and totaly allows it.

Prove me wrong. RAW doesn't say anything about it but only supports Ahriman casting 3 psychic tests and choosing to use doom bolts in the same shooting phase.

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!

It's not freaking rocket science, people.

He can't. Period. As much as I'd like for him to, since I play chaos...

HE.
CAN.
NOT.

Why?
Because 40K is a game of permissions. It gives him permission to cast "several POWERS" not "several TIMES."


Here's the deal.

The rules say you can't move & fire a heavy weapon in the same turn. Right?
Can an obliterator?

The rules say you can't fire a rapid fire weapon and assault.
Can a Thousand Son?

The rules say you can only move in the movement phase.
Can you charge?

The answers are Yes to all 3... because there are rules that SPECIFICALLY ALLOW IT. THEY SAY IT SPECIFICALLY.


Now... Look at Ahriman's special rule for his staff. Look at the wording.

It says he can make 3 tests per turn (I think we all agree that several = 3... Shoot... Let's say 2 or 3) and that he may "even use several" that count as shooting (I think we agree on this, as well).

The problem is in the interpretation.

One side is reading the text. The other side is interpreting it.
Interpreting it when you can read it "as is" is where you're making your mistake.

The text as INTERPRETED says he can cast doombolt multiple times because, essentially, multiple = several.
The problem with that logic is that you're using a word from the text and not a term (or idea) from it.
The term (or idea) is "several powers" not "several times."

If I tell you that same joke 3 times in a row, did I tell you several jokes? No. I told you ONE joke several times.
If a schoolyard bully beats a kid up Monday, again on Tuesday, and a thrid time on Friday, did he beat up several kids, or one kid several times?
If I use DOOMBOLT 3 times in a row, did I use several powers OR did I use ONE power several times?

If you're here to discuss this REASONABLY, you have to admit that "Doombolt, Doombolt, Doombolt" is one power several times and NOT several powers. To be several powers, each would have to be its' own, distinct power.

Here's the deal. What it boils down to is that you're ignoring the parts of the rulebook and of people's posts that you can't deny. Either that, or you say their example doesn't matter because you're discussing THIS aspect and they're discussing THAT aspect (when, in fact, it is the WHOLE TEXT that applies, not one aspect or the other). If you take text out of context, then you invalidate your position.

It says (loose quote), "he can even use several powers that count as shooting..."

The word "even" is of no consequence in this. It isn't referring to WHAT powers he can use. It is exclaiming that he can break the "one shooting power" rule.

The key idea here is "several powers." Some of us are READING it and others are INTERPRETING IT, as I said.
Until those who are INTERPRETING it begin to READ it, this debate will NOT be closed short of a FAQ or boredom.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:If you're here to discuss this REASONABLY, you have to admit that "Doombolt, Doombolt, Doombolt" is one power several times and NOT several powers. To be several powers, each would have to be its' own, distinct power.

Question:

I've got three squads of Thousand Sons, each led by a Sorcerer.

Each Sorcerer casts Doom Bolt in the same shooting phase, that is the only psychic powers that were used.

Are you saying that the statement "My army cast several powers last turn" is false because I used the same power each time?

MagickalMemories wrote:AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!

Because 40K is a game of permissions. It gives him permission to cast "several POWERS" not "several TIMES."

It's very very simple, as the rules are written can he cast Gift of Chaos 3 times. NOTE that Gift of Chaos is not a shooting attack.
Given that fact, it sharply leads to the meaning of several meaning he can cast the same power several times.

He has permission to make three psychic tests per turn, it does not limit him to what powers he can then choose to use. The only one limited is the force weapon. Hence, he has permission to not only cast Gift of Chaos three times per turn, or Warp Time 3 times per turn and, due to his special rule of being able to cast several powers that count as shooting attacks he has permission to cast 3 doom bolts. As he used several powers that several powers. Infact each cast of doom bolt is it's own weapon. It's not Doom bolt assault 3. It's doom bolt, doom bolt, doom bolt.

He used several powers that count as firing a weapon.


The burden of proof is met, he has permission via raw.

End of story.

Here's some questions for someone with the relevant texts in front of them:

Is there an actual rule anywhere that a model can't use the same power more than once per turn, or are most models restricted simply by only being able to use one power per turn anyway?

How many non-shooting powers does Ahirman have access to?

MagickalMemories wrote: The word "even" is of no consequence in this. It isn't referring to WHAT powers he can use. It is exclaiming that he can break the "one shooting power" rule.

The key idea here is "several powers." Some of us are READING it and others are INTERPRETING IT, as I said.
Until those who are INTERPRETING it begin to READ it, this debate will NOT be closed short of a FAQ or boredom.

I see that you've decided for us what "even" means in this case. I remain unconvinced, though the answers to the questions above may help your argument.

However, YOUR ranting and SCREAMING doesn't HELP your ARGUMENT any, just fyi.

Trent wrote:Here's some questions for someone with the relevant texts in front of them:

Is there an actual rule anywhere that a model can't use the same power more than once per turn, or are most models restricted simply by only being able to use one power per turn anyway?

How many non-shooting powers does Ahirman have access to?

The Eldar rules for Eldrad say "If eldrad is not in an assault it can allow eldrad to use a thrid pyshic power per turn, which may be a spyshic power he has already used that turn"

But that's the eldar book and not the chaos book.

There is nothing in the main rule book about it.

He has two non shooting powers, Gift of Chaos, Warp Time... I guess you could say his force weapon is as well.
Also in his rules (one of these may be used to use the special ability of his force weapon). I believe I already typed out the full rule above in the thread if you wish to read it.




The rules for Mark of Tzeentch say s"a Pysker may only attempt to use one pyshic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the mark of tzeencht, which can attempt to use upto two psychic powers per turn (but not tow powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase)

I guess via RAW Ahriman might not even cast a 3rd power... but the rule is wrong in that a daemon prince with mark of Tzeentch could fire two weapons per turn. But that's something maybe best left for another thread about what takes priority the rules for Mark of Tzeencth that he has or his special rules for allowing three tests per turn.



And Since Ahriman is 250 points... being able to cast 3 powers of the same type per turn is not just RAW it's RAI.

snooggums wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:If you're here to discuss this REASONABLY, you have to admit that "Doombolt, Doombolt, Doombolt" is one power several times and NOT several powers. To be several powers, each would have to be its' own, distinct power.

Question:

I've got three squads of Thousand Sons, each led by a Sorcerer.

Each Sorcerer casts Doom Bolt in the same shooting phase, that is the only psychic powers that were used.

Are you saying that the statement "My army cast several powers last turn" is false because I used the same power each time?

Yes. I am.
Your army didn't cast SEVERAL powers. it cast ONE power SEVERAL TIMES.

Now, I wouldn't correct your grammar in a game. In real life, I couldn't care less. it would, technically, be incorrect, however.


Eric

Trent wrote:However, YOUR ranting and SCREAMING doesn't HELP your ARGUMENT any, just fyi.

In most circles, capitalizing one or 2 words is understood as emphasis on that/those words. Not picking out particular words from a sentence and screaming them.
I say "most" but, in fact, you're the first person to ever say that to me.

As for the extended AARRGGHH... Certain things are meant humorously. Have you ever been in a friendly, though oppositional, discussion (that wasn't getting anywhere because nobody would give an iota on either side) where you did that? You know, kind of went "AARGH. Let me try to explain it to you THIS way..."

If not, you're among the few.

Thanks for the though. That was nice.

Eric

davidson wrote:
The rules for Mark of Tzeentch say s"a Pysker may only attempt to use one pyshic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the mark of tzeencht, which can attempt to use upto two psychic powers per turn (but not tow powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase)

I guess what it comes down to RAW-wise, is whether two activations of the same power are "two powers" or "one power twice", which I think is an unwinnable argument because the english language itself isn't that accurate, let alone anything GW writes.

I know people will give 1097 more examples about pencils telling jokes about beating up kids or whatever, but examples can go both ways. If I run all the way around a track twice, did I run two laps, or the same lap twice? Hmm.... Maybe a psychic power is an event more like a lap, as opposed to an object like a pencil. Who knows? I'm sure the dictionary probably won't help us with that one.

It's very very simple, as the rules are written can he cast Gift of Chaos 3 times. NOTE that Gift of Chaos is not a shooting attack.
Given that fact, it sharply leads to the meaning of several meaning he can cast the same power several times.

No. He can't.
Unless specifically stated in the unit/psykers rule text, they can NOT use one power multiple times.

That IS in the rules somewhere... BGB, I think.

I WILL look up the rule tonight and quote the text, verbatim, with a page number for reference.
I WON'T quote rules for any model aside from Ahriman, because we're only discussing Ahriman.


Eric

P.S. I WISH I could use my Ahriman that way. I'd love it. In fact, until we looked something up in the rules and came across the psyker rules (which set us straight), that's how we USED to play him in our group.

MagickalMemories wrote:

snooggums wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:If you're here to discuss this REASONABLY, you have to admit that "Doombolt, Doombolt, Doombolt" is one power several times and NOT several powers. To be several powers, each would have to be its' own, distinct power.

Question:

I've got three squads of Thousand Sons, each led by a Sorcerer.

Each Sorcerer casts Doom Bolt in the same shooting phase, that is the only psychic powers that were used.

Are you saying that the statement "My army cast several powers last turn" is false because I used the same power each time?

Yes. I am.
Your army didn't cast SEVERAL powers. it cast ONE power SEVERAL TIMES.

Now, I wouldn't correct your grammar in a game. In real life, I couldn't care less. it would, technically, be incorrect, however.


Eric

So if I went to the store an bought several fruit, and it turned out I had three apples you would say that I did not have 'several fruit'? You are saying that several always means in every circumstance multiple distinct items as opposed to being a seperate definition ie: definition 2:a) one or more b)two or more? How come 'powers' doesn't have to fit all 32 definitions in every usage?

MagickalMemories wrote:

It's very very simple, as the rules are written can he cast Gift of Chaos 3 times. NOTE that Gift of Chaos is not a shooting attack.
Given that fact, it sharply leads to the meaning of several meaning he can cast the same power several times.

No. He can't.
Unless specifically stated in the unit/psykers rule text, they can NOT use one power multiple times.

That IS in the rules somewhere... BGB, I think.

Nope that is not the rule. The rule you are thinking about is that a pyschic power counts as a shooting attack unless otherwise specified.
If Ahriman did not have his special rule for allowing him to use three shooting attacks *heck lets even say two different ones* He could only shoot/use a power that was a shooting attack.

Have fun looking for it though.. but please don't try to put up such a fuss when you don't even have the books infront of you.

I'll just let my opponent cast Doombolt three times if he wants. Just like I'll cast Mind War twice with Eldrad's staff...

"I used several tools to modify & sculpt my model"

Which of the following statements is an accurate description of the above sentence?

"I used a hobby knife, file, and scribing tool to modify & sculpt my model"
"I used a hobby knife, hobby knife, hobby knife to modify and sculpt my model"

I'm not sure I get this. The argument seems to be on the definition of several - seems a little nit-picky based on the dictionary and common usage.

"I cast several doombolts" and "I cast doombolt several times" both seem to be correct usages. The first seems to fit in the wording of the rules for Ahriman - the rule is just pointing out that not only can you take 3 psychic tests, but those 3 psychic tests can even be for multiple shooting powers. I don't think they meant to make it a restriction on the re-use of doombolt or something else. Otherwise it would mean he could use non-shooting powers repeatedly, but not shooting powers. Of course, this is GW...maybe thats exactly what they wanted. But it doesn't appear to me that of the many usages and definitons of several that is is obviously restricting you to one use of doombolt.

There doesn't appear to be any rule in the BGB against re-using a psychic power more than once either. And the fact that they put a specific clause in the eldar codex against using the same power twice would also indicate that there is no general rule against it.

So...unless it is FAQ'd, I don't think the "several" means "several different" really holds water. But I think it's going to cause arguments unless it is FAQ'd.

read the entry for chaos sorcerers. It specifically limits them to ONE shooting type sorcerous attack.

And, if GW had included the sentence: "Ahriman may even use a specific power more than once", this would not be an arguement.

As to someone who said my Eldar reference was irrelevant,I put forth that it is.
In the Eldrad entry under his Staff, it specifically indicates "... which may be a psychic power he has already used that turn". Why make this distinction if multiple uses of the same power is generally accepted?

My reference to Tigurius (SM codex) indicates that he can use "Any 2 powers" further indicating that one power may not be used more than once by a single model in the same turn. UNLESS...... that power or character has a specific rule indicating otherwise.

IMO, Ahrimans entry does NOT allow him to use the same SHOOTING power more than once.


Gods, I feel like I'm back in court............

I think the reason it mentions that Eldrad's staff allows him to re-use a power for power #3 is because the wargear that allows him to cast power #2 specifically mentions that you can't re-cast a power (see the spirit stones entry for farseers). Admittedly the reading could just mean that farseers in general cannot re-use powers, and it has nothing to do wth spirit stones themselves...but that would just lend more credence to the idea that some units can re-use powers, and that there is no BBB rule against it.

So we have items in the Eldar book that say different things - one that feels it needs to specify that you can't re-use a power, and one that explicitly says you can. Like I said, I think the rule for the staff is written because farseers have a rule saying they cannot use the same power twice...not because in general you cannot use the same power twice.

Tigurius's rule would also imply that there is no general rule against it, so they felt the need to say he can use any two powers, as opposed to just take multiple psychic tests.

But...I understand your position. I think it is confusing because of the way they wrote the second clause about shooting powers. I just don't agree that every definition of several means that he cannot use the same power twice...and due to this there will be arguments, since at least one definition or usage of several, to me, would allow him to use the same shooting power twice.

Man I hate the rules sometimes, they are so poorly written and so slow to be FAQ'd.

Laserbait wrote:"I used several tools to modify & sculpt my model"

Which of the following statements is an accurate description of the above sentence?

"I used a hobby knife, file, and scribing tool to modify & sculpt my model"
"I used a hobby knife, hobby knife, hobby knife to modify and sculpt my model"

Both if you are talking about two knives and not naming the same. Two hobby knives would count as two separate items. If you used three identical knives (same manufacturer/model/sharpness etc) you could say you used several tools/knives/instruments or whatever because you used more than one, or more commonly used in English, more than two tools/knives/instruments. Just like if you used several pencils to write your poem, even if they are all yellow number 2 pencils of the same make.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

I'm just glad I won't find myself opposite you on a gaming table.


Happy gaming.

Laserbait wrote:read the entry for chaos sorcerers. It specifically limits them to ONE shooting type sorcerous attack.
.

It limits sorcerers to one shooting power on the condition that a model can only fire one weapon per shooting phase. The rest of your blather has nothing to do with the Chaos Codex as some special characters have clarifying restrictions or allowances like can use multiple times or have restrictions such as Mephiston being able to use all his powers once and the force weapon in a single turn. Their special rules do not have an effect on Ahriman since he has his own special rule, the ability to make multiple psychic tests.

Laserbait wrote:whatever snoogums.

Altho I do beleive to are being deliberately obdurate in your claims.

Happy gaming.

I'm not, I am completely serious.

Apologies for that. After I submitted it, it seemed harsh, so I editted it.


I really, really need to remember to use the preview function..........

snooggums wrote:So if I went to the store an bought several fruit, and it turned out I had three apples you would say that I did not have 'several fruit'? You are saying that several always means in every circumstance multiple distinct items as opposed to being a seperate definition ie: definition 2:a) one or more b)two or more? How come 'powers' doesn't have to fit all 32 definitions in every usage?

Did you purchase the psychic power multiple times? No, you did not. Therefore a more appropriate analogy would be you went to the store and purchased ONE apple and you're now trying to claim that you have several apples because you cut it into multiple pieces.

It does not matter how many psychic tests you can make in a single turn if you can only use a psychic power once per turn. So far no one has provided an iota of proof that a model can use a psychic power more than once in a single turn.

Ghaz wrote:
It does not matter how many psychic tests you can make in a single turn if you can only use a psychic power once per turn. So far no one has provided an iota of proof that a model can use a psychic power more than once in a single turn.

I see you didn't even read the thread, try again. Someone quoted the rules for a model that can use a psychic power more than once in a single turn. Heck it says he can use a power three times in plain english. I'll give you a hint, it's not even in the chaos codex. I've already proven that Ahriman can cast Gift of Chaos three times in the same phase with no issue at all.

Stop with the analogies people, it just clutters things up. Unless it's written in a rule book, it doesn't belong in a rule debate.

Guys, the part you are missing is the reference to multiple powers. It says 'several powers', right? Look in the parantheses where it then goes on to say 'all'.

You get to use multiple shooty powers, but you aren't given permission to use multiples of the same one.

That's how the English reads. You can 'interprete' it all you want, but it's still based on English and nowhere is there a presumption of single powers several TIMES, it's multiple powers ALL allowed once even if they are SHOOTING powers (an exception made to the 40K rules else you could not use multiple shooting powers).

And in 2011, the FAQ will clarify what I just said.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT RAW:

Ahriman costs 250 points. If my opponent took him with the understanding that he can slam out 3x bolt of change, 3x doombolt, 3x wind of chaos or 3x gift of chaos a turn - frankly a very cool ability, and really all he's got going for 250 points - I would let him/her play it that way.

But I'm crazy and like to think Chaos (& Tzeentch in particular) still has some tzap left in it.

- Salvage

Ghaz wrote:

snooggums wrote:So if I went to the store an bought several fruit, and it turned out I had three apples you would say that I did not have 'several fruit'? You are saying that several always means in every circumstance multiple distinct items as opposed to being a seperate definition ie: definition 2:a) one or more b)two or more? How come 'powers' doesn't have to fit all 32 definitions in every usage?

Did you purchase the psychic power multiple times? No, you did not. Therefore a more appropriate analogy would be you went to the store and purchased ONE apple and you're now trying to claim that you have several apples because you cut it into multiple pieces.

It does not matter how many psychic tests you can make in a single turn if you can only use a psychic power once per turn. So far no one has provided an iota of proof that a model can use a psychic power more than once in a single turn.

Why do you insist that there is a restriction on how many times a round a power can be cast in general? Why isn't it a per game restriction? Why not a per player turn restriction? Why have you settled on once per turn?

Purchasing a psychic power gives you the ability to cast that power. Eldar have rules for how many of each powers they purchase can be used a turn for each model type. Other psykers have rules on how many they can cast per unit of game time (Mephistons rules are different than Sorcers which are different from Librarians which are different from etc) in their respective codexes. The army specific rules tell you how many powers you can use a turn.

Sorcerers can cast one power per turn because of the limit and can only cast one shooting power even if they can normally do two as a model is restricted to a single shooting attack in the shooting phase (and is written conditionally). Tzeentch Sorcers can purchase and make two powers in a turn but are still restricted on the shooting powers because thy do not have an exception to the Sorcerer specific rule.

Ahriman has an exception, he can make three psychic tests which are used to cast powers, which even allows him to use multiple shooting attack powers (an exception to the general rule).

Stelek wrote:Guys, the part you are missing is the reference to multiple powers. It says 'several powers', right? Look in the parantheses where it then goes on to say 'all'.

"(he must target the same unit with all of them, however)."

Is that the all you're referring to? This sentence is restricting you from targeting multiple units in the same shooting phase with his shooting powers. It doesn't seem to be addressing the ability to use the same power more than once at all.

For what it's worth, I think I'm falling in on the side of Ahriman using the same power (shooting or otherwise) 2-3 times in the same turn. Here's why:

He is not unequivocally restricted from doing so by the Chaos codex.
Another recent codex (Eldar) is very clear in their restrictions on doing so.
There is no general rule disallowing it in the BBB or anywhere else.

So I think by RAW he's allowed to do it. I feel the same way about the aspiring sorcerers as well.

Lord Byron wrote:He is not unequivocally restricted from doing so by the Chaos codex.
Another recent codex (Eldar) is very clear in their restrictions on doing so.
There is no general rule disallowing it in the BBB or anywhere else.

Wrong approach though, don't look for rules against it but the rules that allow it.

He may make multiple psychic tests. Psychic tests allow him to use psychic powers. He can even use several shooting powers in the shooting phase, a bypass of the normal restriction in the Chaos Codex.

That's what he can do as that is what is in the rules. The other side's "only once a turn' restriction is not in the rules, and therefore not a restriction on how many times he may make psychic tests to use his powers. He can use three of in a turn with no restrictions.

davidson wrote:I see you didn't even read the thread, try again. Someone quoted the rules for a model that can use a psychic power more than once in a single turn. Heck it says he can use a power three times in plain english. I'll give you a hint, it's not even in the chaos codex. I've already proven that Ahriman can cast Gift of Chaos three times in the same phase with no issue at all.

Stop with the analogies people, it just clutters things up. Unless it's written in a rule book, it doesn't belong in a rule debate.

Then perhaps you should actually use that as your argument instead of the claiming that since he can perform multiple psychic tests that allows him to use multiple psychic powers. We're all here waiting.

snooggums wrote:
Wrong approach though, don't look for rules against it but the rules that allow it.

Oh, yeah, actually I agree. I just didn't say anything because you seemed to be doing a good job of going over it.

I kinda look at it like this: whenever a character is using a psychic power (equivalent to making a psychic test) you just choose one power from the list they have available and cast it. If they can cast 2 or 3 in the same turn, they just repeat this process multiple times. This, of course, would mean they can choose the same power twice in a row (unless a rule states otherwise, as in Eldar).

snooggums wrote:So if I went to the store an bought several fruit, and it turned out I had three apples you would say that I did not have 'several fruit'? You are saying that several always means in every circumstance multiple distinct items as opposed to being a seperate definition ie: definition 2:a) one or more b)two or more? How come 'powers' doesn't have to fit all 32 definitions in every usage?

I wouldn't say anything of the sort. Your grammar is incorrect. Strictly speaking, in the English language, there is no such thing as "several fruit."
It would be "several fruits" or "several pieces of fruit" or something similar... but not "several fruit."

not being nitpicky, but it matters.

I am saying that "several" means multiple distinct items. Note that these items MAY be the same TYPE of item but not the same INDIVIDUAL item.
If you bought ONE apple, you did not buy "several fruits" (or pieces of fruit, etc). You only bought one. If you bought 3 apples, you DID buy several pieces of fruit but not several fruits...you only bought 1 fruit; an apple. If you bought an apple, an orange and a banana, you bought several fruits AND several pieces of fruit.

Your definition above, "2:a) one or more" isn't accurate. Several can never = "one or more," as several means multiple. ONE is not multiple. It is singular.

What is the point of your example?


Eric

davidson wrote:Have fun looking for it though.. but please don't try to put up such a fuss when you don't even have the books infront of you.

Some things, like simple common sense, don't require a rulebook, just an understanding of the English language as written, as opposed to "as interpreted."

Now, according to my rulebook (which is sitting at my desk right now), the passage, in completion, is as follows:

Page 51, Chaos Space Marine Codex wrote:
The Black Staff of Ahriman: The Black Staff is a potent focus of psychic energy. It counts as a force weapon, and in addition it allows Ahriman to make up to three Psychic tests in the same turn (one of these may be to use the special ability of his force weapon). It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase (he must target the same unit with all of them, however).

Okay. So, we're crystal clear, now, on the words, if not the meaning.
Now, to give more info.

page 51 again wrote:..."Ahriman has the following psychic powers: Doombolt, Warptime, Wind of Chaos, Gift of Chaos, Bolt of Change."

Please, note the word POWERS in the above quote, which is followed by MORE THAN ONE power.

Additionally:

Page 88, CSM Codex wrote:
PSYCHIC POWERS
A psyker may only attempt to use one psychic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the Mark of Tzeentch, which can attempt to use up to two powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase).

Again. That is straight from the codex.

I will be generous (in your favor, actually) with my definition of "several" to simply mean "more than one." That is, simply, so that we don't have to argue about exactly how many "several" is when, for our purposes, it can't be more than 3 (he only gets 3 psychic powers per turn) and can't be less than 2 (less than 1 is ONE, which is singular, NOT plural).

Should you wish it to mean "2" or "3" or "2 or 3" or "more than one but not more than X (you may decide the value of X)" I will accept that without rebuttal.


Okay. Let's start at the bottom and work our way up. I realize that I'm wasting my breath, as I believe that nothing short of a FAQ would change your mind, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Per pg 88.

One power per turn, unless you are MoT. With MoT, you can use 2 powers but only one shooting because "models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase."
Note that, when referring to ONE power, it uses the singular. When referring to different powers, it uses the plural. One = single, 2 = plural.
Page 51, Re; Ahriman's psychic powers, is uses the word POWERS, then lists several distinct powers... MORE THAN ONE.

The explanation of the powers clearly define when one counts as firing "A WEAPON."

Now...
Re: The Black Staff:
"...It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase..."

The codex clearly defines when it is discussing singular and plural. In the instance above, It says "several powers." Under NO DEFINITION that you will find in ANY LEGITIMATE DICTIONARY, using any combination of definitions for those 2 words will you be able to find that phrase to mean ONE POWER.

Look at the psyker rule... "But not two powers that both count as firing a weapon..."
"BOTH" It even separates and individualizes the powers. ONE power can't be "two powers."
Ahriman's text simply informs you that the powers CAN break the "shooting phase" limitations and can use THREE powers, instead of the usual MoT 2 power rule.

I realize I went a long way to get to my point.
I felt a need to post ALL RELEVANT information. I'm even kind of bored, myself. I hope you were able to stay with me.

If you disagree, I'd like you to do something for me...
I've shown you where the EXACT WORDS are used to say exactly what he can do in support of my stance. Please explain where the EXACT WORDS for psychic powers, Ahriman, etc can be used to support your stance.

Please, do not "interpret" meanings. Please use dictionary, cited, definitions for anything that you think can mean anything OTHER than the obvious, cited, examples.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:Some things, like simple common sense, don't require a rulebook, just an understanding of the English language as written, as opposed to "as interpreted."

40k doesn't follow common sense, it follows raw. I thought you knew that.

I'll sort through your mess of a post with capitalized words after I do some more important stuff.

Okay. Let's start at the bottom and work our way up. I realize that I'm wasting my breath, as I believe that nothing short of a FAQ would change your mind, but I'm going to do it anyway.

I realize I went a long way to get to my point.
I felt a need to post ALL RELEVANT information. I'm even kind of bored, myself. I hope you were able to stay with me.

Please, do not "interpret" meanings. Please use dictionary, cited, definitions for anything that you think can mean anything OTHER than the obvious, cited, examples.

Spouting arrogance does not help you make your point. It actually makes your point look more like a temper tantrum than a contribution to the discussion.

Your examples of comparing shooting to casting psychic Powers is fundamentally flawed. A psychic Power is not a weapon and it is not an object, it is a power, an ability. You keep stating that Powers cannot ever mean more that one of the same type as you treat a psychic powers as an object that can only be used once (per round). As the 'several powers' argument hinges entirely on several meaning distinct and only applies to shooting powers as it states "even allows several shooting powers that count as weapons" then you would have no issue with three uses of Wind of Chaos by Ahhriman in a single turn right? I want to make it clear that you have no problem with multiple uses of Wind of Chaos (or Warptime as redundant as that would be).

MagickalMemories wrote: Please, do not "interpret" meanings. Please use dictionary, cited, definitions for anything that you think can mean anything OTHER than the obvious, cited, examples.

The thing about that is, we're talking about psychic powers. They aren't in a dictionary. I find everything you're saying reasonable and well thought out. However, I also find a counterpoint equally reasonable. It is certainly possible that an event such as the use of a psychic power constitutes a singular, unique occurrance, much like my earlier example of running a lap. If I run the entire circumference of a track three times, I have run three laps. By common usage, I have not run the same lap three times even though I traveled an identical path and aside from the time spent, everything else was identical. This is mostly an idiomatic convention - it's just how we're used to saying it.

Personally, when reading about psychic powers, I tend to automatically see use of a psychic power to be an individual unique event, even if the same power is used over and over again. There is certainly nothing wrong with saying that you've used one power three times, but I also see no gramatical neccessity for saying it that way rather than saying you've used three psychic powers. This leads me to be open to either side.

Granted that when faced with an ambiguity the best course of action is to use the weaker interpretation, but I don't think there is really a RAW answer to this, and I feel I'm being perfectly reasonable about why.

whether you are talking psychic powers, or any other item is immaterial.

There have been numerous allegories to illustrate the issue.

I provided a dictionary entry for "several" which was largely ignored, or linguistically twisted as to be unrecognizable.

"discrete and separate"

Not to be offensive to anyone, but it is very humorous to see the lengths people go to prove their point. Over a game of toy soldiers.

Well, this is a discussion forum. One would expect there to be discussion. Incidentally there are a few people posting in this thread that could do with a review of a certain sticked thread at the top of the forum...

Laserbait wrote:whether you are talking psychic powers, or any other item is immaterial.

There have been numerous allegories to illustrate the issue.

I provided a dictionary entry for "several" which was largely ignored, or linguistically twisted as to be unrecognizable.

"discrete and separate"

And it is perfectly reasonable that each USE of a psychic power is a "discreet and seperate" psychic power also, as they may very well have different targets, levels of effectiveness, etc. Language isn't as rigid as you seem to want it to be.

Laserbait wrote:
Not to be offensive to anyone, but it is very humorous to see the lengths people go to prove their point. Over a game of toy soldiers.

LOLZ@ getting the last word in with this little bit of irony.

davidson wrote:
40k doesn't follow common sense, it follows raw. I thought you knew that.

I wasn't talking about 40K in that sense... I was talking about the English language.

davidson wrote:I'll sort through your mess of a post with capitalized words after I do some more important stuff.

Well, don't bother to respond until you can put together a more intelligent response than that. It's a waste of space.

snooggums wrote:Spouting arrogance does not help you make your point. It actually makes your point look more like a temper tantrum than a contribution to the discussion.

No arrogance there, my man. You have the wrong guy for that. I honeltly don't have any arrogance. I'm too aware of my faults as a human being to be arrogant. More people (not directed at you) should be so aware.

Let me explain, from the passage you quoted...
Re: "Start from the bottom"
I was trying to be polite and show you my starting point, rather than make you look for it (as it's more logical to start at the top & work your way down).

Re: "Wasting my breath...etc..."
No arrogance or insult intended. Simply stating an opinion. Was it wrong? That same sentence applies to my point of view in this case.

Re: ..."Don't interpret..."
Look at the posts on here. MANY examples and rule quotes cited in FAVOR of allowing it more than 1x have misquoted the rules or used only a partial quote, taken the quote out of context, or have had non-rule text included in with the rules. THAT was what I was referring to.

(BTW, thanks for not being a about the ALL CAP words that occasionally get in, and focusing on the actual discussion. I sincerely appreciate that from you. At least you're keeping "your head in the game."


Now, to cover the actual "meat" of your post:

Your examples of comparing shooting to casting psychic Powers is fundamentally flawed. A psychic Power is not a weapon and it is not an object, it is a power, an ability

First off, it is FAR less flawed than comparing it to buying apples. I don't mind you criticizing my standards of comparison... but hold yourself to them as well, please.

That being said, IMO, you're wrong. A Psychic power becomes a weapon when it is used to inflict harm or place someone in a situation so as to make it easier to cause them harm.
In real life, kitchen plate is not considered a weapon. Break it in half and stab someone with the jagged edge, and it's assault with a deadly weapon. The same could be said for the 3 apples you mentioned, if you put them in a canvas bag & pummeled someone with them (I'm NOT trying to be a smarta55. I'm serious.).

snooggums wrote:As the 'several powers' argument hinges entirely on several meaning distinct and only applies to shooting powers as it states "even allows several shooting powers that count as weapons" then you would have no issue with three uses of Wind of Chaos by Ahhriman in a single turn right? I want to make it clear that you have no problem with multiple uses of Wind of Chaos (or Warptime as redundant as that would be).

LOL
We've found something we agree on. It WOULD be redundant.
LOL

That being said, however... No. I don't believe that. I believe that the RAI, supported by OTHER RAW mean that each power can only be used once per turn. I believe that the phrase/part we're debating is only meant to show that Ahriman can break the (loose quote) "one shooting power per turn" rule.

Trent wrote:The thing about that is, we're talking about psychic powers. They aren't in a dictionary

Umm...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychic

psy·chic /?sa?k?k/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-kik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective Also, psy·chi·cal.

1. of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental (opposed to physical).
2. Psychology. pertaining to or noting mental phenomena.
3. outside of natural or scientific knowledge; spiritual.
4. of or pertaining to some apparently nonphysical force or agency: psychic research; psychic phenomena.
5. sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature.
–noun 6. a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1855–60; < Gk psy?chikós of the soul. See Psyche, -ic]

Definition 4 is probably the best fit for how we're using it here. Anyone disagree?

Trent wrote:...much like my earlier example of running a lap. If I run the entire circumference of a track three times, I have run three laps. By common usage, I have not run the same lap three times even though I traveled an identical path and aside from the time spent, everything else was identical. This is mostly an idiomatic convention - it's just how we're used to saying it

Well put but, IMO, your logic is flawed.
In this instance, lap=/= power
Track=Power
Lap = usage

In other words, you're using the LAP as the power when, in fact, each lap around the track is a single usage of the same track.
Three castings of a power are 3 usages of the same power.

Cast is to Power as lap is to track.

KWIM?

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just making sure I described it right.

Trent wrote:I tend to automatically see use of a psychic power to be an individual unique event

I agree... but this supports my side.
It is a unique EVENT, but not a unique POWER. It is the same power.

Trent wrote:Granted that when faced with an ambiguity the best course of action is to use the weaker interpretation, but I don't think there is really a RAW answer to this, and I feel I'm being perfectly reasonable about why.

Well said.
I agree with the first half. I disagree with the second half, but not my much.
I believe there IS a RAW but that it is poorly represented.
... and I don't find you unreasonable at all.

Trent wrote:And it is perfectly reasonable that each USE of a psychic power is a "discreet and seperate" psychic power also, as they may very well have different targets, levels of effectiveness, etc. Language isn't as rigid as you seem to want it to be.

But it's not.
I agree that each use is a "discreet and separate" use (well, maybe not "discreet," so much LOL), but not a "d and s" POWER.

Let's do something. Pick a noun to replace "psychic power" in this phrase:

...And it is perfectly reasonable that each USE of a psychic power is a "discreet and seperate" psychic power...

(note to SOME people... try to pick a noun that makes SENSE in the context)

For mine, I will choose "Hammer"

For this to work, we have to agree that, OUTSIDE of the context of this discussion, Bolt of Change (or any other psychic power) is ONE power. That should be obvious, but I didn't want to leave anything unsaid. If you think that ANY of the Psychic powers, on their own, are not singular and/or individual powers... just stop reading now...


...And it is perfectly reasonable that each USE of a hammer is a "discreet and seperate" hammer...

Does that make sense to you still? If I have a hammer and I use it 3 separate times, did I use separate hammers?

For those who would disagree on my use of "hammer" instead of "Psychic power," I provide the following:

tool /tul/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun 1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2. any instrument of manual operation.
3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
4. the machine itself; a machine tool.
5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success.
6. a person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends; cat's-paw.
7. the design or ornament impressed upon the cover of a book.
8. Underworld Slang. a. a pistol or gun.
b. a pickpocket.

9. Slang: Vulgar. penis.
–verb (used with object) 10. to work or shape with a tool.
11. to work decoratively with a hand tool.
12. to ornament (the cover of a book) with a bookbinder's tool.
13. to drive (a vehicle): He tooled the car along the treacherous path.
14. to equip with tools or machinery.
–verb (used without object) 15. to work with a tool.
16. to drive or ride in a vehicle: tooling along the freeway.
—Verb phrase17. tool up, to install machinery designed for performing a particular job: manufacturers tooling up for production.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tool

I believe that definition # 5 best describes a hammer.
Does it not also adequately describe how this Psychic power is being used?

All the weapons and abilities a unit has are TOOLS at the disposal of the unit.

I can't really do anything more than this.
Feel free to refute the above we can discuss it further...
I am not going to cite any more examples, however, as I believe I, as well as those who agree with me, have poured enough FACTS into this thread to outweight the OPINIONS I believe are being defended against us.


Eric

Oops. Sorry. I Do have one more thing to add (I fogot during all those responses).

Take a look at Ahriman in the previous codex.

Yes, I'm aware that it is no longer a valid codex. I'm merely doing it for reference.

In the previous edition, he COULD use the same power multiple times.

...they also SAID that he could, and gave specific rules on how it happened.

Although the rules aren't valid, IMO, it's still a valid example to show that, when the writers intend for something to be allowed, they specifically mention it (as 40K is a permission based game).

Okay.
Done.


Eric

Hey I'm new and i may be totally off base but i check with my local GW clerck today and he said that you COULD use the same power three times if theres an arguement just roll dice dont waste time debating it

welcome to Dakka SorcererZim.

I think if you read the sticky entitled "How to have an intelligent rules debate", you will find that the word of a GW redshirt doesn't mean much.

Yep. After reading this entire annoying thread, I have to say the right answer (RAW) was posted by several people back on the first page. He can't cast the same power three times. He can cast three powers- they just have to be different ones. The opposition just hasn't proven their case nearly enough to over-ride (or wordsmith) the RAW to their interpretation.

Snoogums has it right.

The phrase "powers that count as shooting" is a specific grammatical structure called a restrictive clause. The use of the word "that" in the relative clause means "that count as shooting" defines "power" in this case, and the whole phrase is a single semantic unit.

So those who are trying to separate out "powers" from the whole phrase "powers that count as shooting" and claim that the same power three times is not "several" are missing the meaning of the grammatical structure. Because "powers that count as shooting" is all one thing, an argument that separates "powers" out from the rest of its restrictive clause is giving the wrong conclusion.

Each instance of, for example, Doombolt is a "power that counts as shooting." So several Doombolts is "several powers that count as shooting."

Flavius Infernus wrote:Snoogums has it right.

The phrase "powers that count as shooting" is a specific grammatical structure called a restrictive clause. The use of the word "that" in the relative clause means "that count as shooting" defines "power" in this case, and the whole phrase is a single semantic unit.

So those who are trying to separate out "powers" from the whole phrase "powers that count as shooting" and claim that the same power three times is not "several" are missing the meaning of the grammatical structure. Because "powers that count as shooting" is all one thing, an argument that separates "powers" out from the rest of its restrictive clause is giving the wrong conclusion.

Each instance of, for example, Doombolt is a "power that counts as shooting." So several Doombolts is "several powers that count as shooting."

You were really strong coming out of the gate there.
What lost you your credibility was the error:

So several Doombolts is "several powers that count as shooting."

(emphasis mine)

Doombolts is plural, so it should be "are" emboldened, not "is."

Not that I care if you make an error in your grammar. Under typical circumstances, I'd have just ignored it. I don't care if people make errors in grammar, spelling, typos, etc. Lord knows I make enough typos myself... But you came on to support the sentence structure, then committed such a grievous error during your post. That reduces the effect your post might have had otherwise.

I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out facts.

Plus:

The use of the word "that" in the relative clause means "that count as shooting" defines "power" in this case, and the whole phrase is a single semantic unit.

(empasis mine again)

Another error. The word "that" defines "powers," not "power." Plural. Regardless of the restrictive clause, plural will always be plural. It is restricting it to multiple powers by inclusion of the plural "powers." Your post actually supports the side of those who say that you cannot cast it 3 times.


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
Plus:

The use of the word "that" in the relative clause means "that count as shooting" defines "power" in this case, and the whole phrase is a single semantic unit.

(empasis mine again)

Another error. The word "that" defines "powers," not "power." Plural. Regardless of the restrictive clause, plural will always be plural. It is restricting it to multiple powers by inclusion of the plural "powers." Your post actually supports the side of those who say that you cannot cast it 3 times.


Eric

Excellent point Eric. I noticed that myself, but wasn't sufficiently interested in the thread to argue it... But since you did... well good on you.

Page 88, CSM Codex wrote:
PSYCHIC POWERS
A psyker may only attempt to use one psychic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the Mark of Tzeentch, which can attempt to use up to two powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase).

Page 51, Chaos Space Marine Codex wrote:
The Black Staff of Ahriman: The Black Staff is a potent focus of psychic energy. It counts as a force weapon, and in addition it allows Ahriman to make up to three Psychic tests in the same turn (one of these may be to use the special ability of his force weapon). It even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase (he must target the same unit with all of them, however).

page 51 again wrote:..."Ahriman has the following psychic powers: Doombolt, Warptime, Wind of Chaos, Gift of Chaos, Bolt of Change."

In the three quotes above, the word “powers” is used four times.

In the passage from page 88 it’s used twice. The first usage “can attempt to use up to two powers per player turn” is potentially ambiguous. It does not make clear whether it’s referring to multiple separate and distinct powers. The second use, OTOH, “but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon” is clearly referring to two different powers.

In Ahriman’s list of powers (under his rule “Master of Sorcery”) the phrase is “the following psychic powers”, in which the word refers to five separate and distinct powers.

In the description of the Black Staff, the phrase “several powers that count as firing a weapon” lacks an immediate context to make it obvious whether it means separate and distinct powers or not.

P1: Two of the four uses of the word “powers” in the relevant sections of Codex: CSM clearly use it to refer to separate and distinct powers.
P2: The other two uses of the word “powers” do not use it in a fashion which makes clear one way or the other.
P3: There is no rule explicitly stating that Ahriman (or any other CSM sorcerer) may cast the same power multiple times in a given player turn.

C: Ahriman may not cast the same power multiple times in the same player turn.

At present the most I feel I can grant the opposite view is that there is some ambiguity. That said, the general rule of thumb in ambiguous cases is to err on the side of the less-powerful interpretation.

I think I have to (with reluctance) disagree with Flavius on this one.

Mannahnin wrote:

P1: Two of the four uses of the word “powers” in the relevant sections of Codex: CSM clearly use it to refer to separate and distinct powers.

Powers are not items, they are abilities. You are assuming the correct defintion is separate and distinct as opposed to "more than one" or "more than two" which are equally valid definitions. There is nothing that allows the psyker to make multiple attempts at a power during a game any more than there is allowing it to make multiple uses in a turn.

P2: The other two uses of the word “powers” do not use it in a fashion which makes clear one way or the other.

I'm not sure why this is important.

P3: There is no rule explicitly stating that Ahriman (or any other CSM sorcerer) may cast the same power multiple times in a given player turn.

There is also nothing saying he can cast a power (as a distinct power) multiple times in a game, therefore any arbitrary limit is being imposed by the person giving the limit.

C: Ahriman may not cast the same power multiple times in the same player turn.

Ahriman has the ability to use multiple powers in a turn, and as your entire argument centers on separate powers needing to be distinct then your actual conclusion should be that Ahriman may not cast the same power multiple times in the same game.

Honestly you are adding in limitations that are not present to contruct an argument that will fail because it was written by GW. Where do you come up with this once per turn and not a once per game limit?

whoops. Actually my error was not in subject-verb agreement, but rather in not including enough quotation marks. My sentence should have read this way:

"Several doombolts" is "several powers that count as shooting."

In other words, the phrase "several doombolts" is the semantic equivalent of "several powers that count as shooting."

So you get this argument:

P1: Ahriman may use "several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase"
P2: several Doombolts = several powers that count as firing a weapon

C: Ahriman may use several Doombolts in the same Shooting phase

P1 is the permissive rule. It gives Ahriman permission to use several shooting powers. Then, because there is no explicit restriction on this abiltiy, and because (P2) the meaning of "several" is not--automatically or explicitly--restricted to mean "several different," the permissive rule carries through.

Mannahnin wrote:
P3: There is no rule explicitly stating that Ahriman (or any other CSM sorcerer) may cast the same power multiple times in a given player turn.

Yah, Ragnar, your P3 is off. The rule that explicitly states Ahriman can cast the same power multiple times is the one that says, "[The Black Staff] even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase."

Because "several powers" can explicitly mean "several of the same power(s)."

snooggums wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:P1: Two of the four uses of the word “powers” in the relevant sections of Codex: CSM clearly use it to refer to separate and distinct powers.

Powers are not items, they are abilities. You are assuming the correct defintion is separate and distinct as opposed to "more than one" or "more than two" which are equally valid definitions.

Why would they be opposed?

“Several” can and does have multiple definitions. I believe both “more than one” and “separate and distinct” apply in this case, based on the way the word is used in the text, as I’ve cited.

snooggums wrote:There is nothing that allows the psyker to make multiple attempts at a power during a game any more than there is allowing it to make multiple uses in a turn.

Except that the default expectation is that a “normal” psyker has only one power, and can cast said power once each player turn, per the main rulebook and the FAQ. The more general psychic rules make it very clear that a given power can be used repeatedly on subsequent turns. There is no rule stating that any psyker can cast any one given power multiple times in the same player turn, except for Eldrad, whose rules explicitly permit it.

Flavius wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
P3: There is no rule explicitly stating that Ahriman (or any other CSM sorcerer) may cast the same power multiple times in a given player turn.

Yah, Ragnar, your P3 is off. The rule that explicitly states Ahriman can cast the same power multiple times is the one that says, "[The Black Staff] even allows him to use several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase."

Because "several powers" can explicitly mean "several of the same power(s)."

But where does it explictly say that? Only Eldrad has a rule saying explicitly that he may cast the same power multiple times in a given turn.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Because "several powers" can explicitly mean "several of the same power(s)."

Only if you have several of the same powers. Ahriman does not, unless somehow when you were choosing his psychic powers you chose the same power more than once. Using the same power multiple times does not make it 'several powers' or even 'several of the same powers'. It is still only one power.

Ghaz wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Because "several powers" can explicitly mean "several of the same power(s)."

Only if you have several of the same powers. Ahriman does not, unless somehow when you were choosing his psychic powers you chose the same power more than once. Using the same power multiple times does not make it 'several powers' or even 'several of the same powers'. It is still only one power.

Ahriman's basic Black Staff ability is to make multiple psychic tests, not several powers. It 'even' lets him use 'several shooting powers'. Therefore even if you were correct in your narrow definition that several must mean different shooting powers he can use Wind of Change three times in a single round correct? This is on topic since the thread is using the same power, not just shooting powers.

Mannahnin wrote:
But where does it explictly say that? Only Eldrad has a rule saying explicitly that he may cast the same power multiple times in a given turn.

It's right here:

P1: Ahriman may use "several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase"
P2: several Doombolts = several powers that count as firing a weapon

C: Ahriman may use several Doombolts in the same Shooting phase

The rules "say" both what they explicitly say, and also they say conclusions that can be derived from sound arguments based on rules like this one. If this weren't true, you wouldn't be able to apply even the most basic rule.

For example, nowhere in the rules does it say explicitly that Ahriman moves 6" per turn. So the only explicit statement of this rule is this argument:

P1: Ahriman is listed as unit type "Infantry"
P2: Infantry models move 6" per turn

C: Ahriman moves 6" per turn

If you're going to require a rule that explicitly says "Ahriman moves 6" per turn" then the rules don't work because that rule isn't there. The general rules have to be allowed to apply explicitly to specific cases.

Similarly if you're going to apply extra, unstated restrictions to the rules, such as, for example, "the rules don't explicitly state that individual character infantry models move 6"," then the rules don't work again. This is like the case of saying "several" could mean "several different." You have to allow the rules to say what they say--and nothing more--or else they can't work anymore.

No, because being allowed to take multiple psychic tests or using several shooting powers doesn't change anything. Several shooting powers is still more than one power. One power used multiple times is not 'several powers'.

Multiple psychic test still have absolutely noting to do with the question at hand either. You can perform all of the psychic tests you want but it has no effect on how many powers you're allowed to use.

Ghaz wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Because "several powers" can explicitly mean "several of the same power(s)."

Only if you have several of the same powers. Ahriman does not, unless somehow when you were choosing his psychic powers you chose the same power more than once. Using the same power multiple times does not make it 'several powers' or even 'several of the same powers'. It is still only one power.

Strawman, Ghaz. I never claimed that using the same power more than once makes it more than one power. That would be obviously false.

I am arguing that using a power more than once fits the conditions of "to use several powers that count as firing a weapon."

Once you start introducing restrictions that aren't explicit in the rules, then the rules can't work anymore.

Ghaz wrote: One power used multiple times is not 'several powers'.

This phrase is horribly misleading, Ghaz. The rules in this case don't talk about multiple powers. They talk about multiple *uses* of powers.

"to use several Doombolts in the same shooting phase" = "to use several powers that count as firing in the same Shooting phase."

Flavius Infernus wrote:whoops. Actually my error was not in subject-verb agreement, but rather in not including enough quotation marks. My sentence should have read this way:

"Several doombolts" is "several powers that count as shooting."

In other words, the phrase "several doombolts" is the semantic equivalent of "several powers that count as shooting."

So you get this argument:

P1: Ahriman may use "several powers that count as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase"
P2: several Doombolts = several powers that count as firing a weapon

C: Ahriman may use several Doombolts in the same Shooting phase

P1 is the permissive rule. It gives Ahriman permission to use several shooting powers. Then, because there is no explicit restriction on this abiltiy, and because (P2) the meaning of "several" is not--automatically or explicitly--restricted to mean "several different," the permissive rule carries through.

The problem with your logic here is that Doombolt is a power. it is a singular, individual power.

By pluralizing it, you're changing it. The description you wrote is inaccurate.
"Several Doombolts" states that there is more than one Doombolt... like arrows in a quiver.
"Several powers," on the other hand, states that there is more than one power... Which there is.

C: Ahriman may use several Doombolts in the same Shooting phase

Again, it's a grammatical inaccuracy. If Doombolt is singular (which it is), then you cannot use several of it.
You cannot own several "Hope" diamonds... because there is only one.
You cannot use "several hammers" if you're only armed with one.
He's only armed with Doombolt.

I'm not asking you to agree... but do you understand where I'm coming from?
( BTW That isn't an insult... It's just that some people don't seem to "get it," even if they disagree. You have sure come across as better than that.)


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

I'm not asking you to agree... but do you understand where I'm coming from?
( BTW That isn't an insult... It's just that some people don't seem to "get it," even if they disagree. You have sure come across as better than that.)


Eric

Yes, I understand perfectly, thanks for the courtesy

But, again, the rules here aren't talking about multiple powers. It's talking about the *use* of powers. Yes, the power is singular. The question is whether Ahriman's rules allow him to *use* his (singular) powers more than once.

You know what? After writing out a big long argument for why I was right, I decided I'm not sure that I'm right anymore. The argument didn't pan out in the end the way I expected.

Okay I'm going with Ragnar, then, and saying that it's ambiguous.

I personally lean toward the reading that more than one use of a single power counts as "to use several powers that count as firing." I think the argument that assumes "several" = "several different" is not well supported by the rules and is weaker than the other side. But I wasn't able to build an airtight argument for my position in the end either.

Ghaz wrote:No, because being allowed to take multiple psychic tests or using several shooting powers doesn't change anything. Several shooting powers is still more than one power. One power used multiple times is not 'several powers'.

Multiple psychic test still have absolutely noting to do with the question at hand either. You can perform all of the psychic tests you want but it has no effect on how many powers you're allowed to use.

So where do you get your allowance/restriction of one use per power per turn unless noted otherwise? Are you saying that Ahriman cannot cast Wind of Change and Doombolt in the same round because it says "three psychic tests" but only allows "several shooting powers" and not simply several powers?

why wouldnt he be able to?
there is no restriction about using a power more than once.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Strawman, Ghaz. I never claimed that using the same power more than once makes it more than one power. That would be obviously false.

I am arguing that using a power more than once fits the conditions of "to use several powers that count as firing a weapon."

Your two statements are contradictory. First you claim that you can't take multiples of the same power, then you claim that multiple uses of a power makes it more than one power. By your reasoning, a model could not take several Doombolts, but by using it more than once it becomes several Doombolts. So which is it?

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Ghaz wrote: One power used multiple times is not 'several powers'.

This phrase is horribly misleading, Ghaz. The rules in this case don't talk about multiple powers. They talk about multiple *uses* of powers.

"to use several Doombolts in the same shooting phase" = "to use several powers that count as firing in the same Shooting phase."

And how many times do we have to repeat ourselves that no matter how you look at it one power can NOT in any way, shape or form be considered several powers. Unless you purchased Doombolt more than once it can NEVER be considered several powers. Several uses of a single power is NOT several powers.

Ghaz, I think I understand what you mean. However, I believe you are missing the point of what Flavius is saying.

Ghaz wrote:By your reasoning, a model could not take several Doombolts, but by using it more than once it becomes several Doombolts. So which is it?

The simple answer would be that it's both, or rather, he's arguing that there is nothing exclusive about these two statements. I think what's going on here is you're arguing against a statement Flavius never actually made. Flavius is not arguing that doombolt is several types of powers. He is arguing that "using several doombolt powers" is equivalent to "using several powers". It's subtle, but they are in fact different arguments.

This whole thing seems to be boiling down to an argument over what the word several means. I'm a Dungeons and Dragons player, so this may be an odd example, but this statement is very similar to saying something like "I cast several spells". If my sorcerer just cast the sleep spell three times in a row, have I "cast several spells"? Absolutely. If I'm holding three identical knives, am I "holding several utensils"? Clearly so. If I draw the exact same thing three times, have I "drawn several pictures"? I'd say yes. In this case, several seems to mean something like "multiple instances of".

There is a strong mental urge to turn "several powers" into "several different types of powers". And you know what? That's completely justified. There are many times when several has just this meaning. For example, if I was asked to choose three colors, and I choose green, green, and green, have I chosen several colors? Not at all. So, at the end of a turn, if Ahriman has used doombolt three times, has he used several powers? Maybe. The rule does not say "several types of powers", nor does it specify "this even allows him to use the same power up to three times in a single shooting phase". So who can say exactly what several is supposed to mean here?

What I don't get is why everyone hasn't reached the same conclusion: that several means more than one thing. It's equivocal. It can be interpreted in at least two opposing ways. Deciding which of the interpretations is the right one is probably impossible without the intervention of someone who has the authority to say what's actually meant by this rule, I.E., GW. I'm not necessarily saying this discussion is pointless, but trying to decide it on the basis of the definition of several just seems like a long road to nowhere.

Yeah, Byron has the most concise gist of what makes the rule ambiguous.

"Power" can be the thing you pay points for when you create your army, or "power" can denote the *use* of a power during gameplay.

So if you assume "power" is the thing you pay points for, then Ahriman is restricted to one of each. But if you assume "power" refers to the use of a power during the game, then there's no prohibition against multiple uses in Ahriman's rules.

Lord Byron wrote: Deciding which of the interpretations is the right one is probably impossible without the intervention of someone who has the authority to say what's actually meant by this rule, I.E., GW. I'm not necessarily saying this discussion is pointless, but trying to decide it on the basis of the definition of several just seems like a long road to nowhere.

Although I don't completely agree with you, I will agree that in the case where there is ambiguity, GW needs to make a ruling. In the absence of that ruling we are advised by them to take the least powerful (for the owning player- Ahriman) interpretation. That least powerful interpretation would be that he may not use the same power 'several' times in the same turn.

IMHO, I don't really see that there is all that much ambiguity here unless one is looking to create it. In this case, I think the rule is fairly decently written. But one can make ambiguity out of almost anything if one tries hard enough.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Yeah, Byron has the most concise gist of what makes the rule ambiguous.

"Power" can be the thing you pay points for when you create your army, or "power" can denote the *use* of a power during gameplay.

So now we're resorting to making up our own defintions to support our claims? Sorry, but that doesn't wash. A psychic power is a 'power'. A use of a power is a 'use of a power'. It doesn't make it a 'power' in it's own right.

I tend to concur (with the argument, if not the tone). Doombolt is a power. It's also something a model is equipped with, sort of like a weapon. If I have three weapons, and I stab you with each of them in a given period of time, that's different from using one of those weapons to stab you three times.

The rules for the staff say he can "use several powers". I just don't see a basis in the rules or in English for equating "several powers" with "several uses of psychic powers". They're not semantically equivalent. Using a power is an action. But a power itself is a thing; not an action.

I don't see why he can't use the same power three times in a row, he's bad ass and special....
he's not a generic dude that should follow the one power per turn type rules....

Panic wrote:I don't see why he can't use the same power three times in a row, he's bad ass and special....
he's not a generic dude that should follow the one power per turn type rules....

He is not a generic dude. You are correct in that. But his rules don't let him use the same power three times in the same turn. Just because he is bad a$$ and special doesn't mean he can do everything some might wish for him to be able to do...

Mannahnin wrote:I tend to concur (with the argument, if not the tone).

What, the incredulity that someone would actually try and use that as a basis for their argument?

I only read the first and last page of this discussion.

RAW says:
He can use more than one shooting power per turn.
He can use up to three powers per turn.
Nothing is written about not being able to pick the same power more than once. ("several" = 2+)

I say:
Doombolt, doombolt, doombolt! Ghaz is left with one wound, due to me rolling an eleven on the third psychic test.

vogelfrei wrote:I only read the first and last page of this discussion.

You fail.

Next time, if you'd like to add something useful that hasn't already been stated, it helps to read the entire thread and make sure you're not parrotting something that has already been said. It's also respectful to everyone else that has already made the effort to make real arguments based on rules.

Um. It's hard since everything is already said and the discussion is on an equilibrium.
So I just called in my opinion, in wich I didn't fale...cause I think Ahriman can actually cast three doombolts a turn.

This is four pages of discussion about the meanings of "several" and "power", wich doesn't solve the problem. People start to look at the rules out of context anyway...so this might never end.

Sorry in my failure to sum up my opinion.

Some people think that a "Psychic Power" is what happens when a model passes a psychic test. Other people think that a "Psychic Power" is the rule from a list of psychic powers, which gets applied after a model passes a psychic test. Both are true.

What happens: a psychic power rule is applied to game. A psychic power rule is applied when a player happens to pass a psychic test.

If you look up psychic powers in the rulebook you'll notice they are a rule, not the effects of how another rule is applied. A psychic power rule is like a weapon rule. Using a psychic power is not like using a bolter. Using a psychic power is like using a weapon. If everyone else is limited to using one weapon per turn, and you can use three weapons per turn, that does not license you to use one weapon three times, or one weapon once and one weapon twice. 'Weapon' is a type-indicator, and any weapon you find will be a token of that type. If everyone else is limited to using one weapon per turn, and you can use three weapons, that ambiguity suggests that it could be used as either type or token reference. Taking as granted that 'weapon' as a token reference means that if everyone else is limited to using one weapon each once per turn, and you're limited to using three weapons each once per turn, then the tokens are the amount of things. Taken as a type reference it means that if everyone else is limited to using one weapon once per turn, and you're limited to using three weapons once per turn, then the amount of weapons are per turn are types of things getting applied rather than their number of applications.

They are like a weapon. You say it yourself. More precicely they are wargear!

From that point on you try to argue "psychic powers are weapons and therefore...". Hey! You just told us, they are like weapons. This does not include that they are the same and they actually do not follow weapon rules anyway...

Another hint:
Look at Mephiston's rules. Then look at Arhriman's.
Then think about the difference and cast triple doombolt...

Since vogelfrel brought up mephiston.....

Why then, in the Eldrad staff entry does it say
' May use up to three powers in a turn. One of which may be a power already used.'

Does this, in a sense, suggest that psychic powers are a one use per turn item?

PS: I don't have the BA codex. Could someone post the relevant section of Mephistons rules please?

Laserbait wrote:Since vogelfrel brought up mephiston.....

Why then, in the Eldrad staff entry does it say
' May use up to three powers in a turn. One of which may be a power already used.'

Does this, in a sense, suggest that psychic powers are a one use per turn item?

PS: I don't have the BA codex. Could someone post the relevant section of Mephistons rules please?

The Eldrad question is easily answered:
Otherwise the Souldstone rules would forbid it. They wanted to show the difference between normal Farseers who may not cast a power twice and Übereldrad who can do everything...but for the Eldrad comparision: Look at the point values. (This doesn't proove anything though...)


BA Codex is downloadable. I only got the german rules with me...so they might not help you a lot.
It's like "Mephiston can use every BA power once each turn..."

So then, with Mephistons rules, Eldrads rule, the normal 'can't use a power twice' rules for normal CSM sorcerors & farseers, and Tigerius thrown in for luck, it would seem that the trend is one power once per turn unless stated otherwise, no?

No. It's the other way around.

And there is no

normal 'can't use a power twice' rules for normal CSM sorcerors

rule anyway...where did you get that from? *lol*

excuse me, I misquoted.

page 88 of the Chaos codex regarding tzeentch sorcerors:
'but not two powers that count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase'

Really…4 pages all over parsing of the word “several”.

I know we all go by RAW here, but come on. If there was a rule that stopped him from using a power 3 times in a row, would it have not been spelled out like it is for Farseers/Eldrad in the Eldar codex?

There is a limitation on a model that is not monstrous can only fire one weapon a turn, and they explicitly over rode that rule. If they did not want him casting the same power 3 times, would they not have said it?

I wonder who is going to pay 250 points for a sorcerer that can cast 3 different powers, when you can save 100 points and get one that can cast 2, and have the option for a lot of wargear. For those that don’t know, three different powers are a total waste since if you are shooting at tanks, then you only want Bolt of Change, and for Infantry Doombolt.

Hell, Abaddon is only 20 points more, and he is an army unto himself.

But to make everyone happy we will have to wait 3 years for the FAQ.

I will return you guys to debate the meaning of “several”.

Yeah i'm going with Blackmoor here. There's been good arguments either way but so far the only thing that's held water is the fact that you have Mephiston stipulating the use of Each power only once, and every other Psycher with specific limitations on his powers.

Whereas we have Arihman with no such limitations.

Honestly I'm wondering how many people are saying "no" to him using the same three powers because it sounds "broken" or "powerful"?

Also to prove a final point "doombolt" "Doombolt" "bolt of change" is several powers as well

strange_eric wrote:
Also to prove a final point "doombolt" "Doombolt" "bolt of change" is several powers as well

Good shot! Maybe that one ends the 'several' discussion.

Laserbait wrote:excuse me, I misquoted.

page 88 of the Chaos codex regarding tzeentch sorcerors:
'but not two powers that count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per shooting phase'

Yeah, that's why Ahriman's staff specifically allows more than one shooting power.
Already thought you just misquoted...however you never know...and I was afraid you believed a Tzeentch Sorceror couldn't use two <put power here> in a row...

strange_eric wrote:Yeah i'm going with Blackmoor here. There's been good arguments either way but so far the only thing that's held water is the fact that you have Mephiston stipulating the use of Each power only once, and every other Psycher with specific limitations on his powers.

Whereas we have Arihman with no such limitations.

Honestly I'm wondering how many people are saying "no" to him using the same three powers because it sounds "broken" or "powerful"?

Also to prove a final point "doombolt" "Doombolt" "bolt of change" is several powers as well

You're wrong on that one.
"Doombolt," "Doombolt," "Bolt of Change" is not several powers. It's a pair of powers. Doombolt & Bolt of Change. It is, however, several uses of psychic powers... but that doesn't support your point.

As for what other characters are or aren't allowed... it simply doesn't matter. We aren't discussing those characters.
As has been stated, 40K is a game of permissions and, while he has permission to user several powers that count as shooting, it doesn't specifically permit him to use the same one several times.
The wording is ambiguous, at best.
Ambiguous rules, per GW, should be interpreted in the LEAST powerful way.

As for people arguing the point because they're thinking he's broken or too powerful... I'm not one of those.
I like Ahriman and have used him on more than a few occasions. If anything, I think he might be TOO expensive, as I'd rather take a couple of Daemon Princes for a similar cost.


Eric

I have been trying to avoid commenting but I have been sucked in. Here are two points that make the "you can't cast the same power more than once" arguement wrong.

1. The definition of several - There is no clarifying adjectives for several, I.E. he may use several distinct powers or several of the same powers. There is no clarification so the base use of the word several can imply any definition there of. I have never seen in common usage of the word that several always mean multiple different things. If anything it means both uses. I.E. "I have several donuts" could mean, "I have several different donuts" or "I have several of the same donuts". Several only implies quantity. Furthermore the word is in a clarifing statement after the rule.

2. You must prove that you can use the same power more then once - The impetuis should be on the other side to prove you can only use one power at a time, per the main rule book. All it says in there is that you follow the shooting rules unless told otherwise. Follow this line of reasoning, a model has 3 guns. Now per the shooting rules the model may only shoot one gun a turn. Now we have a rule that says "the model may fire a weapon three times". Where would the restriction be that disallows the model from firing one of his weapons multiple times? You have to prove per the BGB that a model may only use a single power a turn.

This is a permissive ruleset. So per the BGB we are told that we can use a power by making a test. And you can only do that once. Now we have Ahriman that can do three tests. Which means that for each test that he does he may use any power that is availible to him. Regardless of whether he used it in the previous test. Such a restriction would have to be given.

MagickalMemories wrote:
As for what other characters are or aren't allowed... it simply doesn't matter. We aren't discussing those characters.
As has been stated, 40K is a game of permissions and, while he has permission to user several powers that count as shooting, it doesn't specifically permit him to use the same one several times.

Eric

You only need permission when you are breaking a basic game mechanic.

For example: A non-monstrous sized model may only fire one weapon. To circumvent it, you need to have a rule that gives you permission to break it. ”...It even allows him to use several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase..."

If you are allowed (permitted) to use 3 psychic powers, then you need a rule that explicitly states that you may not use the same power multiple times. For an example of this I refer you to the Eldar codex where it rescinds the permission to use multiples of the same power when it states that you can’t use the same power more than once. It then gives Eldrad permission to use the same power twice, but not a third time overriding the Farseers restriction.

Mahu wrote:I have been trying to avoid commenting but I have been sucked in. Here are two points that make the "you can't cast the same power more than once" arguement wrong.

1. The definition of several - There is no clarifying adjectives for several, I.E. he may use several distinct powers or several of the same powers. There is no clarification so the base use of the word several can imply any definition there of. I have never seen in common usage of the word that several always mean multiple different things. If anything it means both uses. I.E. "I have several donuts" could mean, "I have several different donuts" or "I have several of the same donuts". Several only implies quantity. Furthermore the word is in a clarifing statement after the rule.

2. You must prove that you can use the same power more then once - The impetuis should be on the other side to prove you can only use one power at a time, per the main rule book. All it says in there is that you follow the shooting rules unless told otherwise. Follow this line of reasoning, a model has 3 guns. Now per the shooting rules the model may only shoot one gun a turn. Now we have a rule that says "the model may fire a weapon three times". Where would the restriction be that disallows the model from firing one of his weapons multiple times? You have to prove per the BGB that a model may only use a single power a turn.

This is a permissive ruleset. So per the BGB we are told that we can use a power by making a test. And you can only do that once. Now we have Ahriman that can do three tests. Which means that for each test that he does he may use any power that is availible to him. Regardless of whether he used it in the previous test. Such a restriction would have to be given.

Your logic is full of holes.

1. You don't need a clarification for several. Several refers directly to powers... as in the plural form of the word "power." Your Donut example is completely off-kilter for this discussion and partly disproves your own stance.

I have never seen in common usage of the word that several always mean multiple different things.

I agree.
Several means multiple. In essence, that is it. Multiple powers. Multiple donuts. Multiple guns. Several. I'm not saying it means several different, just that it means multiple.
Surely, you don't disagree with that?

If anything it means both uses. I.E. "I have several donuts" could mean, "I have several different donuts" or "I have several of the same donuts". Several only implies quantity.

Agreed... and this is where you start to undermine yourself...
You see, in the example YOU STATED, you have, either, multiple DIFFERENT types of donuts or MULTIPLES of the same Donut.
Replace "donut' with "power" and you have Ahriman's dilemma. Ahriman has different TYPES of donuts... err... powers (LOL), but he does not have multiples of the same power. If, per YOUR reasoning, he can cast is because he has multiples of it, then he can't, because he doesn't.

2.Additionally, your example on guns does not use that same formatting as psychic powers. If it did, your rule would say that he may fire several weapons in the shooting phase. Again, plural for weapon is weapons. the same restriction, then, would be in place. You cannot present a valid "argument" if you are going to change the wording and/or terminology involved. On the flip side, your example, "the model may fire a weapon three times" would mean the exact opposite of your point... that he must choose a (note: singular) weapon and fire that (one) weapon multiple times, per the wording you have presented.

You are misinterpreting "permissive" and "permission." "Permissive" means everything is allowed unless stated otherwise. "Permission based" means that you cannot do it unless specifically allowed to. If we're playing a "Permissive" game, I will just declare myself the winner of the game (and be right) as, "permissive" would mean it's allowed, as the rules don't say I can't. We wouldn't need to disagree on Ahriman, then.



Eric

Blackmoor wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
As for what other characters are or aren't allowed... it simply doesn't matter. We aren't discussing those characters.
As has been stated, 40K is a game of permissions and, while he has permission to user several powers that count as shooting, it doesn't specifically permit him to use the same one several times.

Eric

You only need permission when you are breaking a basic game mechanic.

For example: A non-monstrous sized model may only fire one weapon. To circumvent it, you need to have a rule that gives you permission to break it. ”...It even allows him to use several powers that counts as firing a weapon in the same Shooting phase..."

If you are allowed (permitted) to use 3 psychic powers, then you need a rule that explicitly states that you may not use the same power multiple times. For an example of this I refer you to the Eldar codex where it rescinds the permission to use multiples of the same power when it states that you can’t use the same power more than once. It then gives Eldrad permission to use the same power twice, but not a third time overriding the Farseers restriction.

Incorrect.

You need permission to do anything in the game. Everything from movement to shooting to how we fight combat is done on the basic premise that, since it's in the BGB, you have permission. Anything not specifically stated in the BGB (or codex) is what you need permission on.

I reiterate. If you are allowed to use THREE (your example) Psychic Powers, then you may use THREE psychic powers. unfotunately for your stance, Doombolt is only ONE Psychic power. Doombolt is not and never will be three psychic powers. If you use it a hundred times... it'll still only be ONE psychic power.

As far as the Eldar codex is concerned... Whether arguing in FAVOR or AGAINST the issue at hand, a codex for a different army is never a good example. Different armies have different rules. Additionally, different writers and different editors have different styles. What gets by one set of people doesn't necessarily get by a different set.

Shoot! We've done a good job of illustrating that point in the thread right here. LOL

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
I reiterate. If you are allowed to use THREE (your example) Psychic Powers, then you may use THREE psychic powers. unfotunately for your stance, Doombolt is only ONE Psychic power. Doombolt is not and never will be three psychic powers. If you use it a hundred times... it'll still only be ONE psychic power.

Sorry, I ment to say three psychic tests. Better?

As far as the Eldar codex is concerned... Whether arguing in FAVOR or AGAINST the issue at hand, a codex for a different army is never a good example. Different armies have different rules. Additionally, different writers and different editors have different styles. What gets by one set of people doesn't necessarily get by a different set.

Shoot! We've done a good job of illustrating that point in the thread right here. LOL

Eric

The anti-single power arguments all hinge around the use of word “several” in a sentance that is used to give permission to use more than one shooting power in a single turn.

Is that it? Is that all you’ve got?


Again, the Chaos Codex gives Ahriman permission to take 3 psychic tests a turn. Is there anywhere that explicitly rescinds permission to use the same power more than once?

You can take other codex’s to illustrate where the rules support BGB’s use of the same psychic power more than once, and the need to explicitly state when the same power can’t be used more than once. I guess you can stick your fingers in your ears and go nananananananananananaan and pretend that the chaos codex exists in a vacuum, and nothing else is relevant except the parsing of the word several.

Even more RAW fun: The codex says that Psykers can use the psychic powers listed.

Sorcerers are designated as Psykers in their entry.

Ahriman is not designated to be a psyker, but has powers listed.

Ahriman's staff allows him to take psychic tests (not use psychic powers) one of which may power his force staff. He may even use several Psychic powers that count as shooting.

Therefore: Ahriman may only use his tests to power his staff or several shooting powers so he can either use his staff or cast three different shooting powers.

Ahriman cannot use Warp time or Gift of Chaos (and maye a third power) because although he is noted as having the psychic powers at his disposal he is not given the ability to actually cast them.

Blackmoor wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
I reiterate. If you are allowed to use THREE (your example) Psychic Powers, then you may use THREE psychic powers. unfotunately for your stance, Doombolt is only ONE Psychic power. Doombolt is not and never will be three psychic powers. If you use it a hundred times... it'll still only be ONE psychic power.

Sorry, I ment to say three psychic tests. Better?

For me? Yeah.
For you? No.

The description in contention here doesn't refer to tests. It refers to "several powers."

Blackmoor wrote:

As far as the Eldar codex is concerned... Whether arguing in FAVOR or AGAINST the issue at hand, a codex for a different army is never a good example. Different armies have different rules. Additionally, different writers and different editors have different styles. What gets by one set of people doesn't necessarily get by a different set.

Shoot! We've done a good job of illustrating that point in the thread right here. LOL

Eric

The anti-single power arguments all hinge around the use of word “several” in a sentance that is use to give permission to use more than one shooting power.

Is that it? Is that all you’ve got?

It's all I need. I have ELAW (English Language As Written) on my side. All you've got is ELAI (English Language As Interpreted).
My position doesn't hinge on a single word. it hinges on the entirety of the entry. The most specific part being TWO words ("Several Powers"). No matter how you try to "spin" it, several powers will never EVER refer to one power used multiple times. That is still only one power. That is all there is to it. You can't argue on the basis of fact, only on your opinion on how to interpret the phrasing. You can never "win" this debate of facts when your position relies on opinion.

Blackmoor wrote:[Again, the Chaos Codex gives Ahriman permission to take 3 psychic tests a turn. Is there anywhere that explicitly rescinds permission to use the same power more than one?

You can take other codex’s to illustrate where the rules support BGB’s use of the same psychic power more than once, and the need to explicitly state when the same power can’t be used more than once. I guess you can stick your fingers in your ears and go nananananananananananaan and pretend that the chaos codex exists in a vacuum, and nothing else is relevant except the parsing of the word several.

I don't think anything rescinds his permission to make 3 psychic tests. I can give that much to you. He has permission to make 3 psychic test.
Given.

Now, since this is a PERMISSION BASED game, show me where it (The BGB, Codex, or any other official and valid rule pertaining specifically to Ahriman) explicitly says he may reuse a power more than once in a turn.
Show me where he is given SPECIFIC permission for that SPECIFIC action, and I will rescind my position.
Please, quote books and page #'s, as well as quoting the entire text here, for posterity.

Now, where your point on cedices is concerned... Your point of bringing up non-Chaos 40K codices is as valid as mine would be if I used the previous codex to support MY position... BTW, that codex gave him specific permission to use the same power multiple times with specific rules for it... That book specified it.
If we're going to use the codices YOU want to rely on, then that codex must be allowed, as well. Yes, it is the previous codex, but it is, at least, Chaos and is no farther away from current chaos than current Eldar are.

Eric

snooggums wrote:Even more RAW fun: The codex says that Psykers can use the psychic powers listed.

Sorcerers are designated as Psykers in their entry.

Ahriman is not designated to be a psyker, but has powers listed.

Ahriman's staff allows him to take psychic tests (not use psychic powers) one of which may power his force staff. He may even use several Psychic powers that count as shooting.

Therefore: Ahriman may only use his tests to power his staff or several shooting powers so he can either use his staff or cast three different shooting powers.

Ahriman cannot use Warp time or Gift of Chaos (and maye a third power) because although he is noted as having the psychic powers at his disposal he is not given the ability to actually cast them.

See, now you're just being a troll (see below).
That's ridiculous.

Take that nonsense somewhere else.
It has no purpose, other than an attempt to inflame the situation and throw the debaters off track.

MagickalMemories wrote:
Now, where your point on cedices is concerned... Your point of bringing up non-Chaos 40K codices is as valid as mine would be if I used the previous codex to support MY position... BTW, that codex gave him specific permission to use the same power multiple times with specific rules for it... That book specified it.
If we're going to use the codices YOU want to rely on, then that codex must be allowed, as well. Yes, it is the previous codex, but it is, at least, Chaos and is no farther away from current chaos than current Eldar are.

Eric

Oh yeah...I remember 3rd edition...good times. The rules where different then. The Eldar codex was written well after 4th edition.


This reminds me of the synapse insta-death rule in the Tyranid codex. It stated that they were immune to insta-death from weapons over twice their toughness. We all knew what they meant, but a strict reading of the rule meant that you can insta-kill them with a strength 8 weapons.

I know quoting RAW in a RAW argument is stupid. I'm obviously a troll for quoting some rules.

This whole thread is stupid because the people that stammer "one psychic powers use per turn!" are also the ones who keep saying there is a "several powers" clause but don't understand that even if it was a restriction it is only applied to shooting powers, not ones like Gift of Chaos or Warp Time.

Are you going to stick with the one power per turn as an absolute (with no evidence to back it up other than your interpretation of 'several') with a rule? Are you limiting Gift of Chaos to one use per turn by the comment about being able to use 'several shooting powers' when Gift of Chaos isn't a shooting power?

MagickalMemories wrote:
It's all I need. I have ELAW (English Language As Written) on my side. All you've got is ELAI (English Language As Interpreted).
My position doesn't hinge on a single word. it hinges on the entirety of the entry. The most specific part being TWO words ("Several Powers"). No matter how you try to "spin" it, several powers will never EVER refer to one power used multiple times. That is still only one power. That is all there is to it. You can't argue on the basis of fact, only on your opinion on how to interpret the phrasing. You can never "win" this debate of facts when your position relies on opinion.

Shame shame, MagickalMemories, for resorting to this. The "I'm right because I'm right!" argument is always bogus.

Saying that your own arguments are factual doesn't make it so. You can't win a disagreement by declaring yourself the winner.

You must always actually support your arguments with actual evidence.

MagickalMemories wrote:
It's all I need. I have ELAW (English Language As Written) on my side. All you've got is ELAI (English Language As Interpreted).
My position doesn't hinge on a single word. it hinges on the entirety of the entry. The most specific part being TWO words ("Several Powers"). No matter how you try to "spin" it, several powers will never EVER refer to one power used multiple times. That is still only one power. That is all there is to it. You can't argue on the basis of fact, only on your opinion on how to interpret the phrasing. You can never "win" this debate of facts when your position relies on opinion.

Eric

You speak as if English language is like math, but English is more like art.


More fun with RAW!!!

Warptime!
Page 88 of the CSM codex it states "the psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn."

So he has to re-roll all rolls? Not just the misses? Also whose rolls do we re-roll? Without permission to re-roll the psychers rolls, can we re-roll our opponents? It does say that we can re-roll all rolls!!! See what fun we can have just by examining the word all?

Yes I know…see your signature.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
It's all I need. I have ELAW (English Language As Written) on my side. All you've got is ELAI (English Language As Interpreted).
My position doesn't hinge on a single word. it hinges on the entirety of the entry. The most specific part being TWO words ("Several Powers"). No matter how you try to "spin" it, several powers will never EVER refer to one power used multiple times. That is still only one power. That is all there is to it. You can't argue on the basis of fact, only on your opinion on how to interpret the phrasing. You can never "win" this debate of facts when your position relies on opinion.

Shame shame, MagickalMemories, for resorting to this. The "I'm right because I'm right!" argument is always bogus.

Saying that your own arguments are factual doesn't make it so. You can't win a disagreement by declaring yourself the winner.

You must always actually support your arguments with actual evidence.

My first reaction was to say, "Have you even read the entire thread?" Except that I know you have. If you look back and reread the posts I've put up here, as well as those who are on the "no" side of the discussion, you'll see that, time and again, we've put forward explanation after explanation.
We've used examples, only to have them shot down as being unrelated, then offered an explanation about "several donuts" (or something else) whose context is incorrect.
The text of the codex has been misquoted by those on the "yes" side.
They've ignored points that make absolute sense.

Your quote of mine needs to be taken into context of what I responded to. He claimed that the specific wording of the codex didn't matter, basically.
My reaction was not that I'm right because I'm right... it was "I'm right because I'm reading the codex and not interpreting it."
You are right. Saying my arguments are factual isn't what makes them factual. It's the FACT that they're facts that makes them factual.

The "no" side has stood by the reading of the codex, using the English language definitions of the words involved in the text combined with and as supported by the words used along with them.

The "yes" side has shown examples of other codices (which don't matter, as they define specific instances not governed by the Chaos Codex), pointed out that it means "x" if you read it a certain way and have stated that the ruleset is permissive, when it is not.

Go back and look at the post you quoted in connection with the posts of myself and other "nay-sayers." You will see that it is not a lone document, but a supporting document referring to what we've been saying all along.
Go back and re-read the "yes-men" posts, now. Compare facts vs. facts.

I stand by that post.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:You can never "win" this debate of facts when your position relies on opinion.

Putting something out of context and declaring your only argument about that little piece of the whole paragraph, based on the ignorance which holds you back from reading the entire rule, as the final truth...no...that's not a very solid point for any rule discussion.

If I see you construct a sound deductive argument that leads to your conclusion, Eric, I'll concede that your reading is a "fact." But so far, nobody in this thread has constructed a sound deductive argument that reaches one conclusion or another.

I tried, but couldn't do it because I found the language too ambiguous to support a deductive argument. Doesn't mean somebody else can't do it, but nobody has done it yet.

So we're in a place where both sides are making assumptions about the meanings of the words (i.e. interpretations) and then assembling *inductive* arguments based on those assumptions. In this case, none of the assumptions are more justified than any other. They're all equally arbitrary because there's not enough information in the rules to indicate one reading over the other.

So you're not justified in claiming the status of "fact" for your conclusions. The conclusions are still based on your opinion of what the rule says.