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.

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.