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.

Power from pain get you tokens - It's a seperate rule enabling one way of getting tokens... there are other ways including a haemy and the cronos parasite engine.

Then there is a seperate rule stating ANY UNIT with a pain token (regardless of how it got it) has FNP/FC/Fearless.

So if the Prophet Ezekiel appeared and bestowed a pain token on your wyches then they'd have FNP even though they didn't 'get it themselves'

Then there is a seperate rule stating ANY UNIT with a pain token (regardless of how it got it) has FNP/FC/Fearless.

Just to add in...Any unit with the "Power through pain" rule can get the benefits from pain tokens, you can't for example give allies pain tokens so that they get the effects.

If a model without it, but in the same unit as another model with it can benefit is more...debatable.

"Each Beastmaster can be accompanied by one of the following"

It says Each Beastmaster, not each unit.

This a non-rule argument, since I like to believe that rules should make some sense.

On the power through pain side, lets just ask ourselves, what would be the the point of Beastmasters having the rule "power through pain" if they couldn't convey it onto their unit? It'd be reduced to something effectual only in the circumstance that all the beasts are killed and the beastmasters are left standing alone. Now presumably Beastmasters would convey it by virtue of the fact that these animals are only as daring and willing to fight as their masters who lead them on.

I realize the rules may be interpreted to support or reject that notion, but it shows where the rules may or may not be deficient.

There's more than one instance in which the beastmaster having power through pain would apply. Wound allocation from lots of shooting (or even a medium amount), for instance, would place wounds onto beastmaster, especially since every beastmaster can only be accompanied by, at max, 5 beasts.

I still feel that the power through pain rules are ambiguous, the exact wording of the relevant sections are...

"Whenever a Dark Eldar unit with this rule destroys a non-vehicle enemy unit, it immediately gains a 'pain token'. Place a marker... Each pain token confers a special rule to the entire unit"

That statement could be taken 2 ways. It could mean that any unit with a pain token gets the appropriate rules, or when they say "Each pain token confers a special rule to THE entire unit", they are referring to the unit described earlier (the unit with power through pain). It is vague, needs to be FAQ'd, and I don't think anybody here can say for sure if it works one way or another.

For what it's worth I think that if the designers had wanted the entire unit to benefit from power through pain, they would have given the ENTIRE unit the rule, not just the beastmasters.

Adamah wrote:For what it's worth I think that if the designers had wanted the entire unit to benefit from power through pain, they would have given the ENTIRE unit the rule, not just the beastmasters.

They didn't have to, because the PfP rule allows the beasts to benefit so long as a Beastmaster is alive.

Clever, eh?

I still think it doesn't, in the power through pain rule when it says the entire unit gets the effect of the token, it's referencing the unit mentioned earlier which had the power through pain rule. Since this entire unit doesn't have the power through pain rule, the entire unit wouldn't benefit.

Once again, if you could reference me a section where it states that if one model in a unit has a special rule, they confer it to the entire unit, then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but as far as I'm aware, that still only works with non starred universal special rules

I think they did mean for the whole unit to benefit. for this unit, the Beastmasters are the actual unit. The beasts are just models "attached" to the unit, which is stated in the unit entry. Somewhat like wargear.

Adamah wrote:I still think it doesn't, in the power through pain rule when it says the entire unit gets the effect of the token, it's referencing the unit mentioned earlier which had the power through pain rule. Since this entire unit doesn't have the power through pain rule, the entire unit wouldn't benefit.

Nothing suggests that it is refereincing a unit with the PfP rule.

If it was, it would say "a unit with the PfP rule." It doesn't, it just says the entire unit. You may not like it, but that is what the RaW says.

Gwar! wrote:

Adamah wrote:For what it's worth I think that if the designers had wanted the entire unit to benefit from power through pain, they would have given the ENTIRE unit the rule, not just the beastmasters.

They didn't have to, because the PfP rule allows the beasts to benefit so long as a Beastmaster is alive.

Clever, eh?

Holy

Did Gwar just compliment the GW rules writers?

Adamah wrote:...I still feel that the power through pain rules are ambiguous, the exact wording of the relevant sections are...

"Whenever a Dark Eldar unit with this rule destroys a non-vehicle enemy unit, it immediately gains a 'pain token'. Place a marker... Each pain token confers a special rule to the entire unit"

That statement could be taken 2 ways. It could mean that any unit with a pain token gets the appropriate rules, or when they say "Each pain token confers a special rule to THE entire unit", they are referring to the unit described earlier (the unit with power through pain). It is vague, needs to be FAQ'd, and I don't think anybody here can say for sure if it works one way or another.

For what it's worth I think that if the designers had wanted the entire unit to benefit from power through pain, they would have given the ENTIRE unit the rule, not just the beastmasters.

I think the intention of having only the beastmasters have the rule was to keep the unit from generating pain tokens in the event the only the beastmasters are killed leaving the beasts.

I'm a dark eldar player.... of course I WANT the unit to have pfp, I just don't think it does. Obviously I'm outnumbered here, I made my arguments and reserve the right to "I told you so's" when the official FAQ is dropped lol

The two sides of this boil down to it either applies to the whole unit or the way it was written amounts to the fact that it should have just been left off.

There was some obvious intent in not leaving it out.

Can someone qutw the DE dex were it says that the beast do not have PfP?
When i read it i was under the imperssion they had it.

it says Special Rules(entire unit): Night Vision, then gives the beastmasters rule as PfP, Clawed Field rule as bestial fury, Khymera rule as 4+ inv, and Razorwing Flock rule as Whirlwind of Blades

I haven't gotten my codex yet, but from quotes and explanations, I'd say Gwar is correct. The point being that a unit does not have to have the PfP rule to actually get a Pain Token. Acquiring a pain token which is given to a unit from either a different source such as a Haemonoculi/Talos is completely different from a unit generating it's own pain tokens because it has the PfP rule.

Also, not that this has anything to do with RAW, which has been expertly proven so far, the videos done by GW w/ the Phil and Jes interviews has Jes explicitly saying something to this effect. Units w/o PfP can acquire Pain Tokens.

It reminds me of the whole Red Thirst debate though.

1) Dark Eldar Beastmasters have PtP, a non USR, and confer it to the "unit" - which includes the beasts, despite the beasts not having the rule.

2) Blood Angel Assault Squads have Red Thirst, a non USR, and confer it to the "unit" - which includes a Librarian, despite the Librarian not having the rule.

GWAR! says in situation 1, the unit gets the rule: situation 2, they do not.

Clarification would be great.

Firstly, TRT doesn't say "unit", it says "entire Squad".

Secondly, the Librarian is not part of the unit, he is only joined to it via the IC rules, so is not actually part of the unit, only joined to it.

Then if the Painboy's Dok's Tools say "the rule is confered on the unit" (not squad), then why does a Warboss get FNP if he's not actually part of the unit?

Or, why do ICs get Snikrot's Ambush if they're not part of the unit?

They're both ICs attached to a unit with the exact wording. I'm just confused on the justification here. ICs are apparently part of the unit sometimes, but for some rules, they're not.

You are right, it's a hole in the game and I am actually re-thinking the RaW regarding TRT. -shrug-

I suppose if we want to be consistent, then TRT does affect IC's attached to units, as weird as it sounds.

Or it might be that I am just a moron who doesn't know anything.

Taking bets on the latter!

As I just told my friend:

RAW, I'd say they get TRT in the same way everything gets these same "unit conferred" abilities. It's the same wording and concept.

RAI, they do not. Its obvious GW intended for Librarians to not get it, if they do not have the rule itself. However, it IS possible they left out the rule because GW always assumed you would join it to a squad – who knows. As it stands, the fact that they don’t have the rule trumps it.

IMO Beastmasters are different, because it wouldn't make sense for them to have the rule if the Beasts didn't benefit.

HOWEVER, there was a similar errata in the Ork Codex, that stated Runtherds get Waaagh, when it is impossible for them to do so connected to Gretchin, who do not have it.

So who knows :p - wait for the FAQ!

Actually, the Runtherds were errata'd to not have Waaaaagh! at all iirc, so they couldn't benefit from it even if all the Grotz were krumped.

I meant to say "there was a similar errata in the Ork codex, where Runetherds were not meant to have Waaagh"

Ergo, it could be errated out in the case of the Beastmasters.

Ah, true enough. Until then, Lots of Feel No Pain nastiness!