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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
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.

So you are refusing to support your position? This is the major problem with this forum - much of the discussion is predicated around finding some means of disallowing a rule to work to gain some advantage rather than openly discuss the rules and their meaning. Often people make wild claims about how English works when asked a clarifying question which illustrates how inaccurate their wild claim is they refuse to answer.Yet maintain their claim as being true. Which is a hugely impolite way to discuss rules. Hence why II've been force to report this comment (and any further you post which don't address the issue but continue to support your debunked stance).

While as a KD player, I'd like the wounds to transfer, sadly, from a RAW perspective, I do not feel they do. I think the pro-transfer crowd is letting the fluff creep into their rules interpretation a bit too much.

"The bearer" is both singular and current. Saying "The bearer of this weapon...." is the EXACT same thing as saying "The current bearer of this weapon...", so there is no need to use the word "current", but it would be necessary to use the word "previous" or "past" in reference to weapon bearer and the wounds caused if it was intended to allow the wound count to transfer. At the very least, a plural form of bearer would be required. Since neither of these options are used, we have to go with the current bearer of the weapon.

Since the Chaos Lord and Daemon Prince are, per the rules, two separate units/models, there really doesn't appear to be any rules support to have the wound count transfer. The rules for the relic specifically reference the wounds caused by Model's melee attacks. There is nothing that indicates the wound count follows the relic.

By saying the wound count transfers because it follows the relic opens up all sorts of shenanigans. Whats to prevent one from saying, "Oh, well, I took that model with the same relic in my game yesterday, and he had 15 wounds, so I start the game with that count, because its the same model, same relic!"

The Chaos Lord and Daemon Prince are the same... The Chaos Lord has transcended to a higher state. Sure it's fluff but it's what actually happens too.

"By saying the wound count transfers because it follows the relic opens up all sorts of shenanigans. Whats to prevent one from saying, "Oh, well, I took that model with the same relic in my game yesterday, and he had 15 wounds, so I start the game with that count, because its the same model, same relic!"

No one would ever agree to that so its pretty much pointless.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The Chaos Lord and Daemon Prince are the same... The Chaos Lord has transcended to a higher state. Sure it's fluff but it's what actually happens too.

"By saying the wound count transfers because it follows the relic opens up all sorts of shenanigans. Whats to prevent one from saying, "Oh, well, I took that model with the same relic in my game yesterday, and he had 15 wounds, so I start the game with that count, because its the same model, same relic!"

No one would ever agree to that so its pretty much pointless.

Yet GW are very clear that the Lord dies and that a new unit is summoned from a rules perspective. Fluff and rules don't always match up in an abstract system. There is nothing here hinting that the intent is supposed to work differently to the RaW (which I assume you have conceded on given recent posts). You're confusing background and your wishes with actual rules.

The Lord doesn't die - he is transformed.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The Lord doesn't die - he is transformed.

The tenets of this sub-forum are pretty clear:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Please follow them, or state 'how you would play it' and then respectfully and politely bow out.

With respect to my moderator friend above, you guys have well overstepped the line on multiple occasions. You have displayed no progress at improving despite several moderator warnings. Now you don't get the thread