PDA

View Full Version : Collar of Khorne



Jagosaja
03-03-2009, 14:08
Can Collar of Khorne be given to a champion of Chosen unit, effectively bestowing the unit with the Magic Resistance of 2? If it can, is it effective/a good investment.

semersonp
03-03-2009, 14:34
yes.

up to you... but definitely not a terrible choice if you're short on dispel dice...

stripsteak
03-03-2009, 14:37
yes a chosen champion can have a magic item and the collar falls within his point limit and basic magic item restrictions (ie it's not an arcane item) so he can take it.

as for if it affects the unit thats treading into a RAW/RAI situation. RAI he's buying a magic items like a character he should be able to get the benefits of those magic items like a character so it should work. RAW only MR brought into the unit through characters affect the whole unit. the only time a champion counts as a character is during shooting attacks and challenges, so...I'd be ok with it but you probably want to talk to your opponents or try nd get a more official response.

if it does work by giving MR to the unit, then it could be worth the points if you bunker your characters in there as you could spend their points elesewhere since you wouldn't need the collar on them...but ou are also missing out on a 6+ ward save, which might be nice to have on some guys...if you are alreay using your other ward save items that is.

EvC
03-03-2009, 15:30
It does give MR to the whole unit, yes. However if you're taking a Chosen Champion then "Favour of the Gods" is really a must-have...

stripsteak
03-03-2009, 19:28
I'm actually now curious if i am missing a rule.
collar of khorne: the model has MR2 etc
the model in this case is a champion chosen
pg95 under magic resistance states if a character with mr joins a unit the unit benefits from the mr.
and pg81 says champions are not characters but follow 3 specific rules for characters. the closest one to this case being 'ranged attacks'

but i don't think magic counts as a ranged attack. am i missing something?

Neckutter
03-03-2009, 19:57
just another small hole in the rules. since a character who joins a unit has MR and the MR conveys, why wouldnt the unit champs MR convey as well?

stripsteak
03-03-2009, 20:14
because the unit champion is not a character...that is why in my initial post i said i think it should be RAI, but by RAW does not. When other people came out with just a quick yes, I was wondering if there was a rule i was missing somewhere.

Whitehorn
03-03-2009, 20:26
Stop being so bloody pedantic. Yes, it conveys MR, but you have a tough choice when compared to Favour of the Gods or a plain old Biting Blade in case they end up facing something like a Spirit Swarm to tarpit them.

stripsteak
03-03-2009, 22:43
i'm being 'bloody pedantic' because the rule kinda hinges on that one word. But i guess i got my answer, no there isn't a rule i'm missing. so by RAW no it wouldn't. But as I've said before I would allow my opponent to play that way because it seems more RAI.

and sorry about being pedantic about it, but this is a rules forum and i'm trying to get the clearest understanding of the rules, and i was trying to find if there was something i was missing of if everyone was just playing it that way.

Nurgling Chieftain
04-03-2009, 00:50
There's a pretty widely used convention that the rules for characters in units who have different special abilities/psychology/etc. than the unit they're in, should be applied to any models that differ in such respects from their own unit. This is because the rules for characters being different from their unit are frequently the ONLY rules that cover the situation of different models in the same unit having different special rules.

xragg
04-03-2009, 00:58
i'm being 'bloody pedantic' because the rule kinda hinges on that one word. But i guess i got my answer, no there isn't a rule i'm missing. so by RAW no it wouldn't. But as I've said before I would allow my opponent to play that way because it seems more RAI.

and sorry about being pedantic about it, but this is a rules forum and i'm trying to get the clearest understanding of the rules, and i was trying to find if there was something i was missing of if everyone was just playing it that way.

By your logic, a champion can only benefit from using Sword of Striking, Sword of Battle, and Sword of Might (just to name a few) during challenges when he is considered a character, since the rules of those weapons only apply to characters.

stripsteak
04-03-2009, 02:54
sword of battle says wielder. Looking at it by RAW for striking, and might yes they would only work for characters, but like i've stated 3? 4? times in this thread i would play and allow it to be played RAI that they would work for champions. i was just trying to find if there was some rule i was missing, but it appears not it's just convention which again i agree with.

xragg
04-03-2009, 03:27
"The blade confers +1 attack on the character wielding it." Not trying to be nit-picky, but I didnt think I threw any wrong examples out there.

Anyway, This has already been beat to death I suppose. While one may be able to argue by RAW about champions/characters and the usage of items they carry, but it also opens up alot of unintended things that clearly werent intended. Sometimes its best just to let sleeping dogs lie.

EvC
04-03-2009, 12:19
This kind of thing is precisely why RAW is dead. Sometimes you need to make smarter decisions on whether to apply exact wording or not.

stripsteak
04-03-2009, 14:31
ah i was going off the first sentence of the sword of battle "enables it's wielder"

apbevan
04-03-2009, 17:19
I find this all pretty funny as it was ruled that Champions don't count as character so EothG can't be claimed by killing them. I totally disagreed with this ruling especially because they count as characters in a challenge.

Now this discussion comes around and the wording on said items means they are not allowed to use them... again I would disagree as its certainly not the intent of the item but precedence has been set.

I laugh at the stupidity of it all and unless specifically ruled otherwise if a champion is allowed to pick magic items they can use them, gaining their benefits.

... however if a non Khorne marked unit takes a Collar of Khorne you can smack them on the head, especially if its a tzeentch marked unit.

Capt_Ithuriel
04-03-2009, 18:24
A spell that targets a unit, targets all models within the unit, including the collar wearing champion, thus it would trigger MR.
Whether or not a champion is a character or not doesn't actually have anything to do with this particular rules interaction.

Neckutter
04-03-2009, 19:00
i'm being 'bloody pedantic' because the rule kinda hinges on that one word. But i guess i got my answer, no there isn't a rule i'm missing. so by RAW no it wouldn't. But as I've said before I would allow my opponent to play that way because it seems more RAI.

and sorry about being pedantic about it, but this is a rules forum and i'm trying to get the clearest understanding of the rules, and i was trying to find if there was something i was missing of if everyone was just playing it that way.

you arent being pendantic. or well, you ARE, but this forum is a good place for it.

again, its a small hole in the rules. but since a character joins a unit and HIS MR conveys, (then if you opponent argues) just use my argument above.


... however if a non Khorne marked unit takes a Collar of Khorne you can smack them on the head, especially if its a tzeentch marked unit.
what are you talking about? Khorne and Tzeentch are seriously BFFs :)

Hiddius
05-03-2009, 13:13
About Collar of Khorne, does it confer it's 6+ ward save to mounts?

Say, I mount my Chaos Lord on Chaos Dragon, gives him MoT and Collar of Khorne, does the dragon ALSO get a 5+ Ward save?

As it says "The Model gets a 6+ Ward save and 2 MR", does it confer to mounts?

Godgolden
05-03-2009, 13:31
About Collar of Khorne, does it confer it's 6+ ward save to mounts?

Say, I mount my Chaos Lord on Chaos Dragon, gives him MoT and Collar of Khorne, does the dragon ALSO get a 5+ Ward save?

As it says "The Model gets a 6+ Ward save and 2 MR", does it confer to mounts?



i would save yes(maybe) to the first

and definite no to second

the dragon cannot have a mark, and the tzeentch mark does not convey (unlike khorne) to his mount

the collar does say the model bearing it so.. it could possibly tansmit over to mount unless they suddenly become two indipendant models sharing a base.

they both would get MR, and if someone specifically targets the dragon... then being one model i think it would still have the MR

EvC
05-03-2009, 13:33
No, it doesn't. Ward saves do not get transferred from bearer to mounts (Says so in an FAQ somewhere).

Godgolden
05-03-2009, 14:14
then why does armour from elves book transfer immunity to fire to his mount?

same difference... FAQed approved.

nosferatu1001
05-03-2009, 14:15
It says unless otherwise stated

Trouble is the rulebook page 96 (or something) states that the mount and character aer always one model

so the save transfers, if you consider "the model gets..." to be sufficient.

It was also a FAQ, not an errata, therefore is only a suggestion.

So by RAW: Dragon 6+, Rider 5+

EvC
05-03-2009, 14:24
Okay nosferatu1001, you play FAQs as suggestions and ignore any and all that you don't want to...


then why does armour from elves book transfer immunity to fire to his mount?

Because the High Elf army book explicitly says that it does. The Chaos army book does not say this- although they do their best to make it unclear.

Godgolden
05-03-2009, 14:27
i believe NOS made a better argument than my attempt.

its one model, if it was bearer only it would be 'the bearer gets stoned', not 'the model gets stoned'

a good thing to get clear though.. would make a manticore plasuable as it has no save of its own.


edit: even better, the magic item directly under collar of khorne has the (near enough) same description with the addage 'This does not apply to his mount'
the EXACT same thing.. but the statement otherwsie basically means that yes it is definite the mount gets the benefits of the collar.

EvC
05-03-2009, 14:28
If you are using Warriors of Chaos, I really recommend you don't forsake FAQs for the sake of a measly little ward save on your Manticore, as they need their FAQs to simply function on a basic level...

Godgolden
05-03-2009, 14:39
this is not twisting the rules to fit my needs, according to my book the ward and MR effects the unit unless stated otherwise.. otherwise why state it otherwise(lol) on the golden eye of tzeentch.

if it was erratated as a genuine mistake then sure fine, good.

why are you so against this notion? as you said its a measley ward save so why do you care so much?

the errata cleared up a few spots such as book of secrets and champions (can you say disspointment), even one or two about the warshrine.

EvC
05-03-2009, 16:52
1) The main rulebook FAQ explicitly says ward saves don't transfer to mounts. IF you want to ignore that, feel free, but that IS picking and choosing which rules to apply, and is not a good idea.
2) It is only a 5+ ward save for the Manticore, I'm not against that, but the can of worms it opens up. If you and your gaming group decide that this is how it works, just wait until you face a High Elf player with a Star Dragon and a Prince with Vambraces of Defence. If you REALLY want to play against a Star Dragon which has a 3+ re-rollable save and a 4+ ward save on top of its amazing stats and abilities, then, well, you're a braver man than I ;)

Godgolden
05-03-2009, 17:12
1) The main rulebook FAQ explicitly says ward saves don't transfer to mounts. IF you want to ignore that, feel free, but that IS picking and choosing which rules to apply, and is not a good idea.
2) It is only a 5+ ward save for the Manticore, I'm not against that, but the can of worms it opens up. If you and your gaming group decide that this is how it works, just wait until you face a High Elf player with a Star Dragon and a Prince with Vambraces of Defence. If you REALLY want to play against a Star Dragon which has a 3+ re-rollable save and a 4+ ward save on top of its amazing stats and abilities, then, well, you're a braver man than I ;)

its 6+ and gateway solves your problem.

lcfr
05-03-2009, 17:16
edit: even better, the magic item directly under collar of khorne has the (near enough) same description with the addage 'This does not apply to his mount'
the EXACT same thing.. but the statement otherwsie basically means that yes it is definite the mount gets the benefits of the collar.

I think that the Golden Eye of Tzeentch has that little 'disclaimer' because, if I recall correctly, previously it was a 3+ ward save and applied to every Tzeentch player's lvl4 Chaos Lord's Dragon.

Godgolden
05-03-2009, 17:37
I think that the Golden Eye of Tzeentch has that little 'disclaimer' because, if I recall correctly, previously it was a 3+ ward save and applied to every Tzeentch player's lvl4 Chaos Lord's Dragon.

Indeed, that was what was causin me such trouble, before inoticed it i was fine.

Hd a long hard look over the Errata and it seems i was wrong anyway, sorry for the angst.

Chaos need more love :( we even have to take pistoliers to fill in our enorumous gaps =P

nosferatu1001
06-03-2009, 10:46
The mainrule book faq says "ward saves dont apply to mounts unless otherwise specified" - and the trouble is that "the model gains" is specific enough as the BRB defines the mount and rider as one model

It is indeed the same silliness that gives you S9 potion of strength dragons, however you cannot clearly say it is wrong - you are in the realm of RAI at that point as strict RAW allows both.

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 10:46
if the magic item says "the model gets +3 strength" and your DE lord carries it, then the dragon he also rides gets +3 str. this has been explained ad-nauseum.

if it says model, it means the model... the ENITRE model.

Godgolden
06-03-2009, 11:58
unless stated otherwise to my knowledge is 'this includes the characters mount' sorta thing.

nosferatu1001
06-03-2009, 12:47
Godgolden - "unless stated otherwise" would mean instead of saying "the bearer gains..." you write "the model gains"

As has been explianed ad nauseum, the BRB defines monstrous mount and characters as one model - therefore "the model gains" is sufficiently specific.

What you are saying it should add "including the mount" or somesuch - however this is strictly not needed (even though it is helpful) espeically as the very next item excludes the mount - which if "model" did not mean "the entire model" it would not need to do.

Dareus
06-03-2009, 14:13
I really don't think this whole issue concerning the definition of model is clearly playable RAW.
There are too many cases where GW FAQs and also errata simply say that model means only the rider (OR the mount) in case of a character on monstrous mount.
Ward-saves not being transfered onto the mount is one case. But there are some others. For example in the WoC FAQ they say that in case of the glaive of putrefication "model" means "target" while in case of the bloodskull amulet "model" means indeed "model" and NOT target. :wtf:
This is how they would play it. It's reasonable but clearly not RAW. So I think one can assume that this model-stuff is not intended to be played RAW.

Once again my opinion on the "multi-part-model-definition-issue"...

Dareus

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 19:33
As has been explianed ad nauseum

i think ad nauseum is the new en vogue catchphrase. :)

decker_cky
06-03-2009, 19:46
And I think the answers in the first few posts of the thread are needed for any suggestions that model always applies to the mount. It doesn't, regardless of how you can interpret the RAW. Unless otherwise means "this applies to the mount too" and other similar wordings.

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 19:48
the rule is that model refers to the whole model.
the problem arises when some things say "the model gains blah"
and some items say "the model gains blah, except for the mount"
and some items say "the model gains blah, including the mount"

Avian
06-03-2009, 19:59
The mainrule book faq says "ward saves dont apply to mounts unless otherwise specified" - and the trouble is that "the model gains" is specific enough as the BRB defines the mount and rider as one model
I think you must have a different dictionary than I have, because you are not specifying a part of something when you are mentioning the whole. Far from being specific, that is in fact a general mention.

If you say that all norwegians have to pay an additional tax, then you have not specified that I need to pay it, despite me being a norwegian.

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 20:05
If you say that all norwegians have to pay an additional tax, then you have not specified that I need to pay it, despite me being a norwegian.

wow seriously? this is funny. :)

if all norwegians need to pay an additional tax, and you are a norwegian, then.... you need to pay an additional tax.

Avian
06-03-2009, 20:10
Yes, because that is the general rule. :p

You don't have to be specified for a tax to apply to you.

See the difference?


If, due to my excellence, I would only have to pay taxes that specified me, it would not be enough to say that all norwegians have to pay that tax. By mentioning the whole, they have NOT specified any parts.

That is the difference between specific and general. It happens now and then that people get it mixed up, oddly enough.