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.

I just noticed something hilarious that can allow you to summon 600 points of bloodthirsty goodness on to the table at once for only 60 points and 8 blood tithe points. So in the KDK artifacts section there is a weapon called the Axe of Ruin it states in its Caged Fury special rule that, "If the bearer of the Axe of Ruin is reduced to 0 Wounds or is OTHERWISE REMOVED AS A CASUALTY, a Bloothirster of Unfettered Fury (pg 77) is summoned (pg 111) within 6" of that character before he is REMOVED AS A CASUALTY.

Now if we look at the blood tithe table the result for 8 blood tithe points is as follows, Fury Unbound: Choose one friendly character with the Blood for the Blood God! special rule who does not have the Daemon of Khorne special rule on the board. That character must imediately take a Leadership test. If the test is failed, that model is immediately removed as a casualty. If the test is passed, a Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury is summoned (see below) within 6" of that character, and then the chosen character IS REMOVED AS A CAUSALITY.

After it states that it goes on to state how the BT is your warlord... So if in the first case when the BT is summoned would he also be your warlord? Would you now have 2 bloodthirsters that were both your warlord? I don't know, but this is hilarious.

How would you get 8 blood tithe points on turn 1?

Not on turn one, read carefully I said, "In one turn" not on turn one, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted.

I'm going to say the same thing I said to FlingItNow 2 weeks ago when he brought it up.

This isn't scary as both bloodthirsters are the mediocre basic version so are easy to kill and don't do that much damage. Then you have to deep strike both of them within 6" of the lord and his unit making it easy to mishap, especially the second bloodthirster since there is now a giant FMC near the Lord too. Also they arrive deep striking so arrive swooping and can't change modes until next turn so won't get to assault for two turns meaning the earliest you can assault with both of them is turn 4 and that's only if you got 8 points by turn 2.

Also the one summoned by the Axe of Ruin takes d3 wounds every turn so will probably be dead before it even assaults something.

Aww.. You guys can take the fun out of a toaster oven... Still I think that 1 bt might not be scary, but 2 come on now that has to count for something.

only the Fury Unbound bloodthirster will be your warlord. The axe of ruin one does not retain anything.

This is pretty good for 'free' stuff, as the axe of ruin, is only 30 pts more than a regular axe of khorne. The real cost is not getting FNP on your army, in the time taken to save up the 8 pts.

Also a better summon would be a wingless DP. He gets into the game quicker (if summoned in a good position) and gets to KEEP the axe, which is nice.

It's better to sacrafice your lord and create a Daemon Prince instead. Daemon princes keep all the artifacts - means you got a Bloodthirster and a Daemon Prince with an Axe. And if the DP dies, he summons another thirster.

Besides, DP can be without wings that's somewhat an advantage as it's emidiately a target and can charge the next turn. And a DP is more likely to get killed on the opponent's turn summoning a thirster that can allready land on your turn.

It's a matryoshka axe.

It's possible to generate enough BT points by the beginning of turn 3 if you're running msu and Decurin-style formation that gives you a BT point every turn. You can basically get everything in the face turn 1 and charging/getting killed turn 2 with all the fast dogs, bikers, spawns, squishy cultists and whatnot.

The "no assaulting for 2 turns" bit is still actually debatable and not resolved. And ofcourse, obviously not intended.

If someone is legitimately demanding the Daemonkin player to assault only after 2 turns then quite frankly said player is a douche and nothing more, would be the last time I play such a person and were it a tournament match, I would stall the game incase I was winning in order to ensure an equally painful situation.

That's a bit strong. There are strong arguments on both sides , to both RAW and indeed RAI. .

Sadly I doubt this one will be solved without an FAQ.definitely one to get ruled by the TO before you start .

 RunicFIN wrote:
The "no assaulting for 2 turns" bit is still actually debatable and not resolved. And ofcourse, obviously not intended.

If someone is legitimately demanding the Daemonkin player to assault only after 2 turns then quite frankly said player is a douche and nothing more, would be the last time I play such a person and were it a tournament match, I would stall the game incase I was winning in order to ensure an equally painful situation.

Why is it "obviously not intended" when every other instance of deepstriking FMCs (regular reserves, conjuration, etc.) has to wait two turns to assault? Why does Khorne Daemonkin get to be the special little snowflakes on the issue?

And if your response to someone expecting you to follow the rules is to cheat by stalling the game just to spite them, then you should really reevaluate your priorities.

Because its not coming down from the sky its materialising out of all th blood and gore

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
Because its not coming down from the sky its materialising out of all th blood and gore

Conjurations don't come from the sky either. So they can assault the turn after right?

 RunicFIN wrote:
The "no assaulting for 2 turns" bit is still actually debatable and not resolved. And ofcourse, obviously not intended.

If someone is legitimately demanding the Daemonkin player to assault only after 2 turns then quite frankly said player is a douche and nothing more, would be the last time I play such a person and were it a tournament match, I would stall the game incase I was winning in order to ensure an equally painful situation.

Yes, your opponent won't let you cheat. What a bastard! And since your first attempt at cheating was foiled, you'll just cheat in other ways instead. Genius! Now you'll show everyone how you are the reasonable one!

 Thud wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
The "no assaulting for 2 turns" bit is still actually debatable and not resolved. And ofcourse, obviously not intended.

If someone is legitimately demanding the Daemonkin player to assault only after 2 turns then quite frankly said player is a douche and nothing more, would be the last time I play such a person and were it a tournament match, I would stall the game incase I was winning in order to ensure an equally painful situation.

Yes, your opponent won't let you cheat. What a bastard! And since your first attempt at cheating was foiled, you'll just cheat in other ways instead. Genius! Now you'll show everyone how you are the reasonable one!

Niether of these are cheating, the form is a rules issue which could prove to be one way or another. The second is not cheating, but extremly bad sportmanship.

 arinnoor wrote:

 Thud wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
The "no assaulting for 2 turns" bit is still actually debatable and not resolved. And ofcourse, obviously not intended.

If someone is legitimately demanding the Daemonkin player to assault only after 2 turns then quite frankly said player is a douche and nothing more, would be the last time I play such a person and were it a tournament match, I would stall the game incase I was winning in order to ensure an equally painful situation.

Yes, your opponent won't let you cheat. What a bastard! And since your first attempt at cheating was foiled, you'll just cheat in other ways instead. Genius! Now you'll show everyone how you are the reasonable one!

Niether of these are cheating, the form is a rules issue which could prove to be one way or another. The second is not cheating, but extremly bad sportmanship.

Stalling is a form of soft cheating and is against the rules at every tournament.

Does it state anywhere in the ruling that the BT comes in flying?I don't have the codex in front of me but the game were played with it we resolved the issue on the spot and assumed he comes in in glide mode.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Does it state anywhere in the ruling that the BT comes in flying?I don't have the codex in front of me but the game were played with it we resolved the issue on the spot and assumed he comes in in glide mode.

FMCs that arrive from deep strike reserves arrive swooping. That's why conjured FMCs from the Possesion malific power arrive swooping

The problem is is that with Blood Tithe just says they arrive via deep strike which is arguably not the same as deep strike reserves. The problem is is that GW wrote the rules so poorly that it is impossible to determine if deep strike and deep strike reserves are the same thing or if that are mutually exclusive. If they are mutually exclusive then the above rule doesn't apply and you can choose which mode you arrive in.

 CrownAxe wrote:
[Stalling is a form of soft cheating and is against the rules at every tournament.

Only at a tournament in which case whoever was playing daemonkin should have asked how it would be ruled well in advanced and shouldn't be having any arguments about that if they decided to play. Similarly the other player, whether they agree or not with the TO should take the ruling and play on, or leave if they so desire. To me I just understand why some things need to be argued.

Not that I expect it to hold a lot of weight, but has anyone called GW? I know they give multiple answers, but I would find it interesting to know if they did so here.

I summoned a Bloodthirster once. It got taken down to one Wound by lasguns and punched to death by a Krieg officer. Making a second itsn't about to make an individual Bloodthirster better.

All cool. A reason to paint up a second Bloodthirster.

I think going for the bloodthrister in blood tithe is a trap choice. Ok, so you summon two BTs in turn 3. They won't even do anything interesting until turn 5 (assuming they live that long) at which point the game is most likely already decided.

Much better to go for the lower picks to boost your combat effectiveness throughout the game. Now, if GW faqs (haha) it so the BTs can charge when they are summoned now you got something there, otherwise pass.

I've never understood the thought that one - let alone two- Bloodthirster(s) in a late game situation would be powerless to impact the game at all.

Anything that is left surviving in turns 5-7 should be ripe for being slaughtered provided you played a somewhat decent game.

the_hanged_man wrote:
I think going for the bloodthrister in blood tithe is a trap choice. Ok, so you summon two BTs in turn 3. They won't even do anything interesting until turn 5 (assuming they live that long) at which point the game is most likely already decided.

Much better to go for the lower picks to boost your combat effectiveness throughout the game. Now, if GW faqs (haha) it so the BTs can charge when they are summoned now you got something there, otherwise pass.

Wait. What? Two bloodthirters on turn 5 isn't going to impact a game?! In the spirit of not saying you're wrong, I'll just say that you're being really silly.

 Lobukia wrote:

the_hanged_man wrote:
I think going for the bloodthrister in blood tithe is a trap choice. Ok, so you summon two BTs in turn 3. They won't even do anything interesting until turn 5 (assuming they live that long) at which point the game is most likely already decided.

Much better to go for the lower picks to boost your combat effectiveness throughout the game. Now, if GW faqs (haha) it so the BTs can charge when they are summoned now you got something there, otherwise pass.

Wait. What? Two bloodthirters on turn 5 isn't going to impact a game?! In the spirit of not calling that a stupid comment, I'll just say that you're being really silly.

No he is right. Bloodthirsters aren't a good unit at all. They are easy to kill and the basic one (the only one that can be summoned) has terrible damage output against most units in the game. Considering that they can't even contribute to the game until the game is almost over (and one of them has been melting d3 wounds so can easily be dead by then) means they basically do nothing.

I'm not saying they're the best unit in the game, but I run bloodthirters quite often. I can honestly say the only times they haven't earned their points back is when too much stuff was already dead for that to be an option.

In a mixed chaos list, BTs should be passed on. In a pure Khorne list with Legacies of Ruin and Grimorie running around, bloodthirters start to seriously make hay. In this new Khorne book, even more so. Two fast, tough, FMCs on the charge at end game is going to shift objectives, threaten warlords, remove line breakers, cap maelstrom, etc.

Is this the final, best use of your Blood Tithe, maybe not, but it can certainly be a game changer and done right, would have a huge impact on the final two turns (on average) of the game.

Does everyone just play in tournaments, and never just take units and wargear for fun or novelty's sake in a friendly game?

Summoning bloodthirsters is pretty damn cool, to me. Pulling shenanigans with the artefact and blood tithe will be greatly amusing, and I'm sure, frustrating.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Does everyone just play in tournaments, and never just take units and wargear for fun or novelty's sake in a friendly game?

Nope, but when the OP claims something is 'broken' that tends to get interpreted as 'powerful and competitive' instead of 'cool'.