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.

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.