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.

Simply put,

Does Daemonkin Goredrinker retain its wound count when lord turns into a demon prince?

Reading the rule for Goredrinker it simply says keep a count when its bearer does such and such.

In the blood tithe rule for turning into a demon prince it says they retain all artifacts of slaughter bypassing any restricting rules.

Now for HIWPI, it would make sense that Goredrinker would still be full of rage and bloodlust and wouldn't simply go back to calm and cool when its bearer becomes a demon prince.

But RAW...not sure what rules would explain what happens here.

Thoughts?

I think the dp would keep the current count.

The bearer of the weapon has changed from Chaos Lord to Daemon Prince, so the count resets.

Quite frankly a powerfist would be better, and means when you spawn a DP you get him at S10 ignoring unwieldy...

Daemon Prince doesn't ignore unwieldy plus it's the ascended Lord so the count doesn't reset.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Daemon Prince doesn't ignore unwieldy plus it's the ascended Lord so the count doesn't reset.

DP is a MC so ignores unwieldy. DP is a new unit and new bearer so the count does indeed reset. A power fist is not better as the DP doesn't retain that, he only retains relics.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Daemon Prince doesn't ignore unwieldy plus it's the ascended Lord so the count doesn't reset.

1) Monstrous Creature rules state youre incorrect in your assertion. Please check before posting next time
2) Cool, so when you point to the "bearer" and its now a different model with a different unit entry, youre claiming it is the same model because...nothing? Some rules support would be good.

POwerfist - entitrely forgot it was only relics that stayed. Ah well

That's why the axe of two free bloodthirsters is the only way to go

Hmm technically though yes its a diff model but its the same bearer because its the same guy holding the same axe.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Hmm technically though yes its a diff model but its the same bearer because its the same guy holding the same axe.

Whilst narrative wise it is the same guy, rules wise this is not the case. The previous bearer was removed as a casualty and a new bearer was summoned.

The count is a property of the artifact, not of the bearer. Since the artifact is retained, the count should also be retained.

the blood tithe table says:

"the test is passed, a Daemon Prince equipped with Warp-forged armour (and Daemonic Flight if the model being used to represent it has wings) is summoned within 6” of that character. In either case, the chosen character is removed as a casualty. If the chosen character was your Warlord, your opponent does not earn the Slay the Warlord Secondary Objective until the newly summoned model is removed as a casualty. Furthermore, the Daemon Prince will retain any Warlord Trait and Artefacts of Slaughter your Warlord had (ignoring the usual restrictions on these items).

Games Workshop Ltd. Codex - Khorne Daemonkin (Kindle Locations 2875-2879). Games Workshop Ltd. "

fluff-wise, yeah, it's the same dude. it's an oddity that he has to deep strike in instead of just hulking out on the spot though…

rules-wise, it's a new model. it does not refer to the model as being the "chosen character", but it does use the word "retain"… so i dunno.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The count is a property of the artifact, not of the bearer. Since the artifact is retained, the count should also be retained.

The count is based on the bearer. New bearer, new count.

I didn't realize MC ignore unwieldy but the count does not reset.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The count is a property of the artifact, not of the bearer. Since the artifact is retained, the count should also be retained.

The count is based on the bearer. New bearer, new count.

The count is wounds inflicted by the bearer. Although the bearer is gone those wounds have still been inflicted. Who the current bearer is should not matter and we are not given permission to reduce or reset the count if the bearer dies.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The count is a property of the artifact, not of the bearer. Since the artifact is retained, the count should also be retained.

The count is based on the bearer. New bearer, new count.

The count is wounds inflicted by the bearer. Although the bearer is gone those wounds have still been inflicted. Who the current bearer is should not matter and we are not given permission to reduce or reset the count if the bearer dies.

The bearer not bearers. How many wounds has the bearer done in CC? When the DP is summoned the answer to this question is zero. So the bearer doesn't get any effects. The effects apply to the bearer based on how many wounds he has done. This is what the rules say. New Bearer? New count. Read the actual rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The count is a property of the artifact, not of the bearer. Since the artifact is retained, the count should also be retained.

The count is based on the bearer. New bearer, new count.

The count is wounds inflicted by the bearer. Although the bearer is gone those wounds have still been inflicted. Who the current bearer is should not matter and we are not given permission to reduce or reset the count if the bearer dies.

The bearer not bearers. How many wounds has the bearer done in CC? When the DP is summoned the answer to this question is zero. So the bearer doesn't get any effects. The effects apply to the bearer based on how many wounds he has done. This is what the rules say. New Bearer? New count. Read the actual rule.

Bearers would only be necessary if there where two simultaneously. Because of the summoning, 'the bearer of goredrinker ' is a title that describes a set of individuals. That set may have caused more wounds then any individual member of that set but those wound have still been caused by the bearer of goredrinker. Example: 'The host of the tonight show has interviewed both Seth Rogan and Elvis Presley'. This statement works because the host of the tonight show is referring to a set of individuals and describing actions taken by one or more of them while they held that title. If the 1st bearer or goredrinker causes 4 wounds and the second causes 2 wounds then the statement 'The bearer of goredrinker has caused 6 wounds' is equally true.

DP whomever summoned it . Stop being a jerk - okay ?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The count is a property of the artifact, not of the bearer. Since the artifact is retained, the count should also be retained.

The count is based on the bearer. New bearer, new count.

The count is wounds inflicted by the bearer. Although the bearer is gone those wounds have still been inflicted. Who the current bearer is should not matter and we are not given permission to reduce or reset the count if the bearer dies.

The bearer not bearers. How many wounds has the bearer done in CC? When the DP is summoned the answer to this question is zero. So the bearer doesn't get any effects. The effects apply to the bearer based on how many wounds he has done. This is what the rules say. New Bearer? New count. Read the actual rule.

Bearers would only be necessary if there where two simultaneously. Because of the summoning, 'the bearer of goredrinker ' is a title that describes a set of individuals. That set may have caused more wounds then any individual member of that set but those wound have still been caused by the bearer of goredrinker. Example: 'The host of the tonight show has interviewed both Seth Rogan and Elvis Presley'. This statement works because the host of the tonight show is referring to a set of individuals and describing actions taken by one or more of them while they held that title. If the 1st bearer or goredrinker causes 4 wounds and the second causes 2 wounds then the statement 'The bearer of goredrinker has caused 6 wounds' is equally true.

That would be more convincing if it didn't include this "That set may have caused more wounds then any individual member". The the claim that the singular The Host can refer to multiple people at which point it just got ridiculous.

Not from a background point of view... Not at all.

Yes I think it's pretty clear that both RAW and RAI it retains its wounds count. It's the same weapon and a weapon can have more than one bearer; whoever is holding it at the time. The Lord dies but the DP retains the same weapon. This doesn't reduce the number of wounds inflicted by the bearer so there's no justification for the count being reset.

The bearer (singular) of the weapon is different to the previous bearer of the weapon. How many wounds were inflicted by this bearer?

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yes I think it's pretty clear that both RAW and RAI it retains its wounds count. It's the same weapon and a weapon can have more than one bearer; whoever is holding it at the time. The Lord dies but the DP retains the same weapon. This doesn't reduce the number of wounds inflicted by the bearer so there's no justification for the count being reset.

So we count how many wounds the bearer causes right? Not a bearer, not bearers but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned we need to answer these 2 questions;

1) who is "the bearer"
2) how many wounds have they caused

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The bearer (singular) of the weapon is different to the previous bearer of the weapon. How many wounds were inflicted by this bearer?

Why is this the number of wounds inflicted by its current bearer relevant? Only the number of wounds inflicted by its bearer are counted. Both models are the weapons bearer, wounds inflicted by both models need to be counted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yes I think it's pretty clear that both RAW and RAI it retains its wounds count. It's the same weapon and a weapon can have more than one bearer; whoever is holding it at the time. The Lord dies but the DP retains the same weapon. This doesn't reduce the number of wounds inflicted by the bearer so there's no justification for the count being reset.

So we count how many wounds the bearer causes right? Not a bearer, not bearers but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned we need to answer these 2 questions;

1) who is "the bearer"
2) how many wounds have they caused

Actually the blood titthe summoning and the wound count for the turn both happen at the start of the turn. Assuming the wounds do reset, a clever daemonkin player is going to count the wounds 1st, then summon the prince.

Keep a count of all unsaved Wounds caused by the bearer’s Melee attacks. At the start of each of your turns, consult the table below to see what effects Goredrinker will have on its bearer. These effects are cumulative.

Games Workshop Ltd. Codex - Khorne Daemonkin (Kindle Locations 3226-3227). Games Workshop Ltd.

perhaps off topic, but does this mean gore drinker only applies its effects during your turns? so only half of the combats would even be affected?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yes I think it's pretty clear that both RAW and RAI it retains its wounds count. It's the same weapon and a weapon can have more than one bearer; whoever is holding it at the time. The Lord dies but the DP retains the same weapon. This doesn't reduce the number of wounds inflicted by the bearer so there's no justification for the count being reset.

So we count how many wounds the bearer causes right? Not a bearer, not bearers but "the bearer". Thus immediately after the DP is summoned we need to answer these 2 questions;

1) who is "the bearer"
2) how many wounds have they caused

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 youre counting wounds caused by the bearers? Rules citation allowing that please.

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.

Hell, if youre allowing "the bearer" to mean "any and all previous bearers" (again with the bold to point out the literal change in wording required to support such an interpretation) why stop with "this game"? How about if we can consider any prior, removed as a casualty bearer I get to count the ones caused in my game 3 weeks ago? AFter all, at the end of that game my model was removed as a casualty, and had caused wounds while being "a" beaer

Or, because it really IS NOT at ALL complicated, except by those rewriting the rule, you realise "the bearer" is present tense, so cannot consider any prior bearers of the relic.

It's not rewriting it's just you don't like it really.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's not rewriting it's just you don't like it really.

Any chance you can contribute to the discussion at any point? Something constructive would help

I'm a khorne player. First army. Stop insinuating bias in others , it's a telling sign that your (non existent) argument is lacking

Again: you're saying the bearers wounds count. Please show permission. Further posts failing to follow the tenets will be reported.