If a character has a characteristic permanently reduced (due to a failed malignancy test for example) and as a result does not meet the requirements for a talent that he already has, does this mean that this talent cannot be used anymore?

I think yes, but cannot find anything in the rulebook. Can you direct me where this is explained please?

The Rulebook does not say anything on that topic (at least nothing that comes to my mind for now).

However, I'd probably not simply forbid the player from not using the talent again, after all he did pay XP and, in fact, learned whatever he wanted to learn, no? I would, however, consider this talent as non-existent for the purpose of learning further talents having this one as prerequisite.

Of course, if you feel it's right to do so, by all means do so, but be aware that players might be a lot more frustrated with not being able to use a talent they spend XP for then when you simply steal their gear.

There's no RAW on it that I know of, in any of the WH40kRP games. I'd make it an individual call on a per-talent basis, based on just how much someone lost on a characteristic.

For example, if someone is 3 points short on Strength qualifying for that Bulging Biceps he's already got, I'm not going to stop him from using Bulging Biceps, it's just not worth it. But if he loses, say, 10 points? No way. Can't use Bulging Biceps simply because they're not that bulging any more.

Let's say, Catfall, though? I don't think I'd ever take that down, since it's a technique he learned back when he had above 30 Agility. Just because he now lacks the characteristics to learn that technique doesn't mean that he suddenly loses the knowledge of how to pull it off.

...maybe if he got grossly fat. Maybe.

So, individual judgement. The worst kind of judgement when it comes to pissing off players. The kind of judgement where you can't say "But the RAW says...".

"...but be aware that players might be a lot more frustrated with not being able to use a talent they spend XP for then when you simply steal their gear."

Actually I am the player that faced this issue and I do not mind if the GM feels that I will lose it.

It's just that it is always nice to know if it is RAW or not.

As it happened I rolled Palsy on the malignancy test and rolled a "2" so I now have Agility 40 so it was a close call .

"...but be aware that players might be a lot more frustrated with not being able to use a talent they spend XP for then when you simply steal their gear."

Actually I am the player that faced this issue and I do not mind if the GM feels that I will lose it.

It's just that it is always nice to know if it is RAW or not.

As it happened I rolled Palsy on the malignancy test and rolled a "2" so I now have Agility 40 so it was a close call .

Well, I'm always assuming I have a whole group of minmaxing, powergaming that-guys in my group - luckily not the case, but being prepared for the worst-case scenario always helps^^

But ultimately I'd probably handle it like Fdgsfg on an ad-hoc base. Cause, as the Imperial Law dictates: Abstraction is a crime! Although that'd probably outlaw RPGs...

I am not sure if I would follow Fdgsfg's suggestion as I feel that talents are not about knowing how to do something. They are about being able to do things rather than knowing how to do them. The things that a character knows I think are reflected by the Skills rather than the Talents.

So for example my character has the Dual Strike talent which has a prerequisite of Agility 40. If by getting Palsy I had rolled a 3 or more I would have agility less than 40. The description of Palsy says:

"The character suffers from numerous minor tics, shakes and tremors with no medical cause. Reduce his Agility by 1d10".

I think that it would be fair to say that after such a result the character is no longer fit enough to use Dual Strike.

Also I would prefer in my GM ruled a clear "yes" or "no" in general so that we do not have to argue over this each time on an ad-hoc basis.

I am not sure if I would follow Fdgsfg's suggestion as I feel that talents are not about knowing how to do something. They are about being able to do things rather than knowing how to do them. The things that a character knows I think are reflected by the Skills rather than the Talents.

Technically, you still have to learn the techniques, or you'd be able to do anything any Talent ever can by simply hitting the prerequisite if we would define it as being "able" to do something... I know, semantics, feel free to ignore them

So for example my character has the Dual Strike talent which has a prerequisite of Agility 40. If by getting Palsy I had rolled a 3 or more I would have agility less than 40. The description of Palsy says:

"The character suffers from numerous minor tics, shakes and tremors with no medical cause. Reduce his Agility by 1d10".

I think that it would be fair to say that after such a result the character is no longer fit enough to use Dual Strike.

A Problem coming with the abstractions of RPGs: Would a 3 Point loss in Agility really qualify for being an Argument? I'm assuming that'd be a fall from 42 to 39, meaning a total loss of Agility of some 10%. Now, speaking of Personal Experience, I lost probably far more then 10% of my physical capabilities compared to when I did Martial Arts... I can still perform a few of the tricks though, in game-terms I'd have probably lost the right to have the Talent unarmed Warrior, but I might just still have it.

TL/DR: I do see the necessity for abstraction when it comes to RPGs, but ultimately, there's going to be a lot of ad-hoc decisions to make the game more fun/fluid/whatever. Just my personal opinion though.

Also I would prefer in my GM ruled a clear "yes" or "no" in general so that we do not have to argue over this each time on an ad-hoc basis.

Foolish player, one does not "Argue" with a GM, one gives praise to this divine being in order to calm it's anger and appease it so it will be benevolent!

I can see your desire to have something solid you can count on in this case, but I'd probably suggest "assume you'll lose the talent, see how the GM thinks about this special case anyway". Worst case, you lose the talent, best case, you keep it.

Also, I should totally head to bed, I think I start making no sense.

I am not sure if I would follow Fdgsfg's suggestion as I feel that talents are not about knowing how to do something. They are about being able to do things rather than knowing how to do them. The things that a character knows I think are reflected by the Skills rather than the Talents.

So for example my character has the Dual Strike talent which has a prerequisite of Agility 40. If by getting Palsy I had rolled a 3 or more I would have agility less than 40. The description of Palsy says:

"The character suffers from numerous minor tics, shakes and tremors with no medical cause. Reduce his Agility by 1d10".

I think that it would be fair to say that after such a result the character is no longer fit enough to use Dual Strike.

Also I would prefer in my GM ruled a clear "yes" or "no" in general so that we do not have to argue over this each time on an ad-hoc basis.

You are right in that many if not most Talents reflect you knowledge of how to do something as in your example of Unarmed Master. But, still Unarmed Master would most likely be classified as a Talent rather than a Skill based on the definition I provided. Note that I am not saying that this definition is a rule or anything like that. It just feels to me that Skills have more to do with what a character knows whereas Talents have more to do with the character's abilities.

Regarding my comment on Palsy, I may not have phrased it correctly in my previous post, but I meant that since Palsy makes you shaky, if that brings you lower than the talent requirement then it is fair to say that you cannot use it anymore.

I agree that the Characteristics damage rarely brings you below the prerequisites for a talent, but what triggered me asking this question is that if my character dropped below 40 Agility I would not meet the requirements for Dual Shot, Dual Strike, Hip Shooting, Hard Target and Step Aside. These are talents that I have already spent XP on so you can see that in this case it was quite important to know the answer to this.

I never personally thought of this. Here are two ideas that come to mind
1: Say yes or no depending on what characteristic it is. Strength, Toughness, Agility Bs/WS, ? No, you are simply not agile enough to do so anymore. Int, fel, will. maybe perception? sure you can still use them.
2. (I would probably use this one) I would say they can still use them, as long as it is not more then 5 points away (the amount could change depending on what you feel). If they could get it back in a single advance, they can keep it. It would also not count for taking further talents in that path.

There is also the idea of possibly a time limit. Say they have 2 months in game time, after that they start to forget them. I would avoid making it case specific, as that seems like a massive layer of needless complications, that is probably going to tick someone off. "Oh that one ability only I have? Yeah apparently I cant use it but all those abilities THEY have? Totally fine." That would tick me off.

It seems to me that more or less we all agree that loss of prerequisites means that the talent cannot be used. What we seem not to agree to is the degree of loss that triggers the effect of not being able to use the talent.

I think that in order to keep it simple it is better to respect the RAW threshold. So in the example that I provided earlier the character would not be able to use Dual Shot, Dual Strike, Hip Shooting, Hard Target and Step Aside as his Agility would be lower than 40.

Of course as Fgdsfg already said the character cannot unlearn how to Step Aside for example. He simply cannot pull it off anymore as he is not agile enough. Therefore the talent should remain in the player's character sheet so that if for example he spends XP to increase the relevant characteristic above the requirement threshold the talent can be used again.

How does this sound?

I am merciful at times, and if the stat could not be repaired enough to qualify for the talent I would refund the points.