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.

It has already been explained why. You do not intimidate me btw .

 FlingitNow wrote:

No, we count how many wounds already caused by the bearer. Not the current bearer, but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned, although the DP has caused 0 unsaved wounds so far, we need to answer the following questions: 

1) Who else has been "the bearer"? 
2) how many wounds did they cause? 

It's really not complicated.

So wounds caused by the bearer right? Which leads to:

1) who is The Bearer?
2) how many wounds has he caused?

Show permission to look at previous bearers. Please hoghlight exactly where it says bearers.

The bearer is whoever has used the weapon in that game, i.e. the Lord and the DP. Show permission to disregard previous bearers. Please highlight exactly where it says current bearers.

Dozer Blades wrote:It has already been explained why. You do not intimidate me btw .

Reported. You haven't complied with the tenets by supporting your assertions with rules, at any point, and have ridiculed others who have done so.

No intimidation, just tired of your inability to discuss honestly.

Tonberry7 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

No, we count how many wounds already caused by the bearer. Not the current bearer, but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned, although the DP has caused 0 unsaved wounds so far, we need to answer the following questions: 

1) Who else has been "the bearer"? 
2) how many wounds did they cause? 

It's really not complicated.

So wounds caused by the bearer right? Which leads to:

1) who is The Bearer?
2) how many wounds has he caused?

Show permission to look at previous bearers. Please hoghlight exactly where it says bearers.

The bearer is whoever has used the weapon in that game, i.e. the Lord and the DP. Show permission to disregard previous bearers. Please highlight exactly where it says current bearers.

Again: the rule states the bearer. You are asking us to determine the number of wounds caused by the bearers , plural. Your entire sentence is a nonsense - the bearer is present tense. You cannot dispute this. It is singular. You cannot dispute this. You are trying to turn it into continuing tense and plural. That is simply wrong, and Has been explained why a number of times now

Again, bearer. Not bearers. Show permission to consider ALL bearers, and not just the bearer, the present one, as the rule actually states.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

No, we count how many wounds already caused by the bearer. Not the current bearer, but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned, although the DP has caused 0 unsaved wounds so far, we need to answer the following questions: 

1) Who else has been "the bearer"? 
2) how many wounds did they cause? 

It's really not complicated.

So wounds caused by the bearer right? Which leads to:

1) who is The Bearer?
2) how many wounds has he caused?

Show permission to look at previous bearers. Please highlight exactly where it says bearers.

The bearer is whoever has used the weapon in that game, i.e. the Lord and the DP. Show permission to disregard previous bearers. Please highlight exactly where it says current bearers.

The Bearer is both present tense and singular. So that is the same as saying the current bearer. I assume this is you conceding?

Do we agree you count the "wounds caused by the bearer"? Notice how my question 1 repeats the exact wording of the rule and yours has nothing to do with the written rule?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

No, we count how many wounds already caused by the bearer. Not the current bearer, but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned, although the DP has caused 0 unsaved wounds so far, we need to answer the following questions: 

1) Who else has been "the bearer"? 
2) how many wounds did they cause? 

It's really not complicated.

So wounds caused by the bearer right? Which leads to:

1) who is The Bearer?
2) how many wounds has he caused?

Show permission to look at previous bearers. Please highlight exactly where it says bearers.

The bearer is whoever has used the weapon in that game, i.e. the Lord and the DP. Show permission to disregard previous bearers. Please highlight exactly where it says current bearers.

The Bearer is both present tense and singular. So that is the same as saying the current bearer. I assume this is you conceding?

Do we agree you count the "wounds caused by the bearer"? Notice how my question 1 repeats the exact wording of the rule and yours has nothing to do with the written rule?

No, it doesn't say the current bearer and your assumption is incorrect.
You're now saying my argument has nothing to do with the rule? Outstanding.

Question with a yes or no. Does the rule ask us to count wounds caused by the bearer?

It is the artifact that is being "charged", thus the change of bearer does not cause these "charges" to be lost, as the rule states the artifacts are retained.

is there another incident of an artifact being passed from one model to another that may set a precedent?

Naw wrote:
It is the artifact that is being "charged", thus the change of bearer does not cause these "charges" to be lost, as the rule states the artifacts are retained.

The artifact is changed based on properties of the bearer. A change in bearer changes that property and thus changes the artifact.

It's just the bearer - a change doesn't affect the count.

Surely the bearer is the one currently wielding Goredrinker? In which case the count would restart. If the wording was along the lines of 'models killed by Goredrinker', then the count wouldn't be reset. I'd hazard a guess that the RAI was that it would continue, however the RAW is that it resets

As long as there is a bearer that's all that matters.

Yes and the wounds the bearer caused is what you count...

A bearer is a bearer.

Does the rule say "a bearer" or does it say "the bearer".

There's no difference .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There's no difference .

Well there is. "A bearer" refers to any bearer, "the bearer" refers to the specific current bearer. That is how English works. If I ask you to tell me the name of "a President", Bush would be a correct response. If I asked you the name of "the President" it would not.

There's no difference no matter how much you want it to be

I can repeat it ad nauseous too

can't argue with that. haha

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There's no difference no matter how much you want it to be

I can repeat it ad nauseous too

So are you saying

1) Can you name me a President of America? Can not be correctly answered by "George Bush"

Or

2) Can you name me the President of America? Can be correctly answered by "George Bush"

Which are you saying?

I've already given my answer several times now. If you missed you can scroll back.

Just give a number 1 or 2 which is true?

There are some very borderline posts in this threads which have generated several independent alerts. Please remember that Rule #1 of Dakka is "be polite"! Attack the argument, not the poster... thanks.

Fling - I wouldn't bother with dozer. They don't follow the tenets and seemingly have no interest in debating honestly.

The actual written rule is clear. You count wounds caused by THE bearer. That may on,y, in actual English, refer to the current bearer.

Trying to argue otherwise requires one of two changes to the written rule: changing "bearer" to "bearers", or "the bearer" to "a bearer" (or "any" bearer). This cannot be raw.

Those arguing the count does not get reset are not arguing raw. This has been proven beyond doubt.

For what it's worth I played several games this weekend and everyone agreed it's both RAW and RAI.

The bearer is the the person bearing it. The prior bearer dies when the new bearer is created. The new bearer has not killed anyone, therefore the bearer has not killed anyone, therefore the count restarts

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For what it's worth I played several games this weekend and everyone agreed it's both RAW and RAI.

Worth nothing, of course

Please mark your posts "hywpi", as you have failed utterly to follow the tenets.

Please dial down the overt aggression. Thanks

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For what it's worth I played several games this weekend and everyone agreed it's both RAW and RAI.

So they all agreed that atleast one of these statements is true? If so please once again I ask you which.

1) Can you name me a President of America? Can not be correctly answered by "George Bush"

Or

2) Can you name me the President of America? Can be correctly answered by "George Bush"

Can you please answer the question now? It is very impolite to refuse to actually engage in discussion when commenting on a rules debate. So please either leave the debate explaining that you are not wishing to discuss the rules on this matter or answer the question.

This is the major problem with this forum - much of the discussion is predicated around finding some means of disallowing a rule to work as intended rather than openly looking at both sides.

I am under no circumstances required to answer any of your questions.