Dark Eldar: Sharing the Pain

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.

**Dashofpepper**

A question that will have to be addressed and FAQed sooner or later....

-------------
Do models without the "Power from Pain" special rule in a unit with models *with* the "Power from Pain" special rule, or led by an Independent Character benefit from the rule?"
-------------

The relevant piece of the rule....

...."Each pain token confers a special rule to the entire unit, as shown in the list below. For example...."

And in the Sharing the Pain entry:

"If a Dark Eldar unit is joined by one or more characters with pain tokens, all of the pain tokens for the unit and the characters that have joined it are pooled. We call this 'sharing the pain.' For instance a unit of Grotescques (one pain token) is joined by a Haemonculus (one pain token) - all models in that unit will therefore have Feel No Pain and Furious Charge.

Example:

A Dark Eldar Beastmaster has the "Power from Pain" special rule, but the beasts that he may take do not. If the beastmaster acquires a pain token, is the special rule conferred to the "entire unit" as seems to be specified, or not shared because the model itself doesn't have the "Power from Pain" rule?

**Morans**

While I know Gwar! seems to be a hate figure here (as far as I can tell from the comments I have seen the moderators and other people post here while lurking in any case), the best you will find atm is his FAQ, which, in my opinion, correctly lists the RaW.

DE.25.01 – Q: How exactly does the “Power from Pain” special rule work for a unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule which has been joined by an Independent Character with the “Power from Pain” special rule? Can they generate Pain Tokens? Do they benefit from the rule at all? What happens if the Independent Character leaves the unit or is killed?

A: Units without the “Power from Pain” special rule which have been joined by an Independent Character with the “Power from Pain” special rule are unable to generate Pain Tokens on their own from the destruction of enemy units unless all models in the unit somehow have the “Power from Pain” special rule. This is because the “Power from Pain” special rule requires “a Dark Eldar unit with this rule” to do the destroying, which the unit as a whole does not have. However, should they somehow get a Pain Token from another source “the entire unit”, including models without the “Power from Pain” rule, will benefit from any effects granted by the Pain Tokens so long as at least one model with the “Power from Pain” rule is still alive in the unit. If the Independent Character leaves the unit, the Pain Tokens must be split evenly, as per the “Power from Pain” special rule, even though the unit does not have the “Power from Pain” special rule. If the Independent Character is killed, the Pain Tokens are not lost, they simply remain with the unit.[R.a.W]

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is also the part about the beastmasters:

DE.30.01 – Q: How exactly does the “Power from Pain” special rule work for a unit of Beastmasters that have some models with the “Power from Pain” special rule and some without? Can they generate Pain Tokens? Do they benefit from the rule at all?

A: Units of Beastmasters that have some models with the “Power from Pain” special rule and some without are unable to generate Pain Tokens on their own from the destruction of enemy units until all models in the unit have the “Power from Pain” special rule. This is because the “Power from Pain” special rule requires “a Dark Eldar unit with this rule” to do the destroying, which the unit as a whole does not have. However, should they somehow get a Pain Token from another source “the entire unit”, including models without the “Power from Pain” rule, will benefit from any effects granted by the Pain Tokens so long as at least one model with the “Power from Pain” rule is still alive in the unit. [R.a.W]

**penek**

Second quote makes Power from Pain on Beastmasters 100% useless.

**bored1**

1. I haven't seen any hate towards Gwar!. That said, I don't know him, and I could care less about his faqs. I don't mean that maliciously. I mean that in the sense that I have no way of "enforcing" his faqs. I read them out of interest, not because they govern my games. Note that I feel much the same about INAT. The only difference is that some tourneys I may attend may adopt INAT, in which case I'll live with it and play accordingly. But in the end, it's about concensus, and whatever you and the person across the table agree to play.

2. I personally just assume that PfP on beastmasters does nothing, unless the unit gets a token from elsewhere, and even then only for the beastmaster. But that is not even close to RAW.

**Magnalon**

Beastmaster PtP can be solved in a decent number of ways.

Attach a Haemonculi to the Beastmaster unit, throw him away.

Use the Chronos to aura-them a token.

If the Beastmasters themselves actually do the killing of the unit (roll separate dice), a lot of opponents will RAI to let them have it, as the Beastmasters, who have the rule, actually did the killing. According to the StP/PtP rule, the unit would benefit regardless.

I'm sure it will be FAQed anyway.

**Dashofpepper**

The question isn't whether beastmasters can get a token or whether they benefit from PtP.....but rather if once they *do* have a token, if their unit (including non-beast master models without the PtP special rule) benefit from the token the unit has.

**Mannahnin**

This question is definitely in need of a FAQ/errata.

We really don't know whether "a Dark Eldar unit with this rule" means every model in the unit has to have it, or if some of them having it is enough.

The "entire unit" phrasing may be intended to support the rule benefitting mixed units of PFP/non-PFP models, but I'm really not sure.

Morans, I don't know how many people actually hate Gwar, but as noted, his FAQ is an (admittedly comprehensive) collection of his personal opinions. The GW FAQs and the INAT are used at many events, and are commonly referenced here for that reason. Gwar's opinion holds no more weight than your own, though it is courteous of you to credit him if you're going to copy & paste his interpretation as your own.

**Morans**

Could not the same be said of the INAT (Yakface and co's personal opinion) or the GW faqs(whoever wrote them's personal opinion)?

**Dracos**

It certainly could be said that INAT is the opinion of those authors, and I'm sure that you will find no one denying that. GW's FAQ is also just their opinion on how the rules work.

However, Gwar's FAQ is done by him alone and used by a handful of people at best. INAT is used by many tournaments and as is GW's FAQ. Furthermore GW FAQ are from the company that published the rules to begin with, so they hold the most weight when considering how the game "should" be played. Should is a very loose term though. If you like Gwar's opinion, feel free to use it.

Quoting Gwar's opinion as being any kind of authority, however, is not correct.

**Mannahnin**

As noted, GW's FAQs are given authority by being issued by GW, and widely adhered to by players around the world; including at every GW tournament, and virtually every independant tournament. If you read the "Tenets of You Make Da Call" thread stickied at the top of the forum, you will see that they are considered official rules for the purposes of this forum.

The INAT FAQ is not "just" a set of personal opinions. It is a collection of rulings debated and collectively agreed upon by a group of experienced tournament players and organizers, who have been assembled by one of the world's preeminent tournaments. Rulings are discussed exhaustively and with a specific rationale, and voted on.

That being said, it still does not come from GW so is not considered official for the purposes of this forum. What authority it possesses comes from the good reputation and integrity of the people involved, from the size and prominence of Adepticon, and from the number of other tournaments which make use of it.

**Magnalon**

Mannahnin wrote:
The "entire unit" phrasing may be intended to support the rule benefitting mixed units of PFP/non-PFP models, but I'm really not sure.

I'm pretty sure it's intended as every unit in the codex can benefit if it somehow gets it - IE attaching a Haemonculi to a unit that doesn't have it.

**yakface**

I voted 'yes' because the rule specifies that ALL models in the unit, which is a pretty specific notation.

Of course, the follow-up question that also has to be asked and answered is whether a unit made up of some models with and without the 'Power From Pain' rule is able to generate pain tokens.

The argument against that is that the rules specify that it requires 'a unit with this rule', but only if you interpret that to mean 'a unit made up entirely of models with the rule' as opposed to 'a unit containing at least one model with the rule'. Frankly either interpretation could be correct.

**BloodThirSTAR**

This will have to be FAQd. I could honestly see it going either way. The corresponding rules from the new codex are ambiguous at best in my opinion.

My only comment on Gwar and the INAT FAQ is that the group of gamers I play with use neither. Gwar's is one person's opinion and the INAT FAQ is a huge document. For me it's easier to just use the official rules, errata and FAQs published by GW. I prefer the simple approach - the less rules the better. I've always been of the opinion that if it requires two or mote lengthy paragraphs to support an opinion it just makes things more murky in general. Also when it comes to any home grown FAQ I think it's only fair to say the road to hell is paved with many goof intentions. That's unfortunate but then again we are all only human at the end of any given day.

**BuFFo**

Yes, any unit that happens to have a Pain Token gets it's effects. This is rather blatantly obvious in the Power from Pain rule.

**Steelmage99**

Can you elaborate as to why it is blatantly obvious?

**ChrisCP**

The codex makes it blindingly plain.

**nosferatu1001**

Because it states the "entire unit" gains the benefits, not "all members of the unit with the PtP rule"

**Steelmage99**

Buffo and CrisCP.

Blanket statements are.....well, blanket.

Thanks, Nos.

**BuFFo**

Steelmage99 wrote:Buffo and CrisCP.

Blanket statements are.....well, blanket.

Thanks, Nos.

What Nos said was already said, what, 4 times in this thread?

Just read the entire thread, and you'll be fine!

**Steelmage99**

I am actually not disagreeing with you on any point.

I simply hate blanket statements in a rules discussion.
It is the first rule of YMDC.

**balthydes**

While I agree that RAW the entire unit benefits from the pain token, I think that RAI they shouldn't. If the beasts in the beastmaster unit were meant to get FNP and FC then they would have been giving the PfP rule in their individual unit entries. The codex specifically states that only the beastmasters themselves have PfP so RAI I think only they should benefit.
Allowing pain tokens to benefit the entire unit also allows Harlequins to benefit from PfP which fluff-wise doesn't make sense because they aren't Dark Eldar and their souls don't get regenerated by inflicting pain (this fluff explanation also applies to beasts and the members of the court of the archon who get FNP/FC instead of PfP).

**ChrisCP**

Steelmage99 wrote:I am actually not disagreeing with you on any point.

I simply hate blanket statements in a rules discussion.
It is the first rule of YMDC.

balthydes wrote:While I agree that RAW the entire unit benefits from the pain token, I think that RAI they shouldn't. If the beasts in the beastmaster unit were meant to get FNP and FC then they would have been giving the PfP rule in their individual unit entries. The codex specifically states that only the beastmasters themselves have PfP so RAI I think only they should benefit.
Allowing pain tokens to benefit the entire unit also allows Harlequins to benefit from PfP which fluff-wise doesn't make sense because they aren't Dark Eldar and their souls don't get regenerated by inflicting pain (this fluff explanation also applies to beasts and the members of the court of the archon who get FNP/FC instead of PfP).

It's because there is no discussion to be had steelmage, if people either owned the codex, or went to their FLGS and asked to glance at one, flicked to page 25 and read it - it spelled out plain and simple RAW and RAI in a nice bundle. Yet people are still saying FAQ or things like above.

But to sum it up, Pain Tokens confer special rules, not PfP.

**Steelmage99**

The issue here isn't one of what confers what.

It is an issue of whether a unit that isn't composed entirely of models with PfP gain benefits from Pain Tokens (where ever they get them from).

And saying that that is perfectly clear is a bit of a stretch.

**nosferatu1001**

Um, actually that bit IS clear - as it states the "entire unit" gains the benefits. There is no criteria even implied that every model in the unit has to *have* PtP in order to benefit.

**FlingitNow**

I think RaW is obvious that the entire unit gains the benefits including the models without PfP. RaI could be either way but, if I was a betting man, my money would be on models without PfP gain no benefit. However I don't think RaI is obvious enough to justify it overuling RaW in this instance and I'd probably tend to go with the RaW in most instances.

On the question on whether mixed units can generate pain tokens I'd tend to say they could. But it seems a perfectly reasonable answer either way. The RaW is not clear.

But lets be honest if GW FaQ this it is about 80% certain that Beastmasters would generate pain tokens that only the beastmaster gains benefits from. Likewise any mixed unit would generate pain tokens that only those with PfP would gain benefit from. It is the most balanced and obvious meaning to the rule as a whole. However RaW this is not the case and therefore I'd advise discussing this with your opponent/TO before any game/tournament.

**Steelmage99**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Um, actually that bit IS clear - as it states the "entire unit" gains the benefits. There is no criteria even implied that every model in the unit has to *have* PtP in order to benefit.

After reading a bit more throughly, I totally agree.

I retract any and all statements to the contrary.

**BloodThirSTAR**

One thing to consider from a RAI POV is that dark eldar have access to xenos units that are obviously not dark eldar, so I can see why units such as beasts would not benefit from PfP. I'm certain this will eventually be addressed in the FAQ.

**pinkcarson**

The benefit of having PfP is the ability to collect pain tokens, and "each pain token confers a special rule to the entire unit" etc. It's the token that grants the special rule to the unit, not PfP. PfP just allows collection of tokens. The RAW will give any unit with 1 or more pain tokens the appropriate special rules.

Now, when it comes to the beastmasters and mixed units (harlequins and haemonculus for example) the entire unit must have PfP to COLLECT a token when they destroy an enemy unit. To me it's like the haemonculus joining an incubi squad and taking their fleet away. If the whole squad can't do it then they can't do it...

But in the case of the Pain Token, the token confers the benefit, not the PfP ability. So throwing a token on your harlequins or beastmaster squad from a haemonculus or from a cronos would give them the appropriate special rule.

**carmachu**

Mannahnin wrote:The INAT FAQ is not "just" a set of personal opinions. It is a collection of rulings debated and collectively agreed upon by a group of experienced tournament players and organizers, who have been assembled by one of the world's preeminent tournaments. Rulings are discussed exhaustively and with a specific rationale, and voted on.

No offense, at the end of the day, the INAT FAQ is still just a bunch of opinions voted on by a bunch of folks, experienced or not, tournment folks and organizers or not. Its not different if all the folks at my old game club sat down and discussed and voted on which way the rulings went.

**Mannahnin**

While semantically you may have a point, in practice it is a bit different, for the reasons I listed.