Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.