A dark eldar character generates a pain token each time a living creature is stunned close to them and can also take takedown at 1st level.

With these two facts, a dark eldar could setup in its quarters a range of adorable space puppies (preferably with low toughness) and then proceed to punch (takedown) each of them in turn. The attack does no damage, but is likely to stun them and so grant a pain token. Assuming there is enough time at the start of each session, the dark eldar could amass thousands of pain tokens (usable as fate point rerolls) every game.

I know that obviously the GM can rule against this or put a cap in place, but is there anything in the rules that actually stops this?

rule 1: GM is always right

rule 2: when in doubt, refer to rule 2

I am tempted to say, "Fine, if you want to run your character this way…". Yes, let him re-roll all the tests he likes.

If the crew of the vessel find the space puppies adorable, then they might have a problem with it. It does note that abuse of the crew - which could include making pets suffer - can reduce the ship's Morale by 1 per instance.

Yes, this would be a **** move on the part of the GM to stop a **** move on the part of the DE player, but if your group can't work things out like adults, the GM needs to be prepared to be the bigger ****.

One, where will you find adorable space puppies in the Grimdark!?! Nothing is adorable in 40k

That being said, I don't see a big problem with this (he could capture a bunch of gretchin and do the same, Orks do it all the time so why not?) the issue would be that the tokens are only per session. Sure, each game session begins and ends on ship, with time to wrack up plenty of tokens, then yes, he's going to have infinite tokens BUT, if you cliffhanger your sessions (ending right before a 'boss fight', in the middle of a speeder chase, etc) then your DE player will be back to 0 tokens at the start of next session.

HappyDaze said:

This seems to be the only actual limit in the rules, so it's good to point it out. The trouble is, if you're only using Takedown to stun the hypothetical space puppies (or even crewmembers), how much objection can be raised? No harm done.

Sure, you could come up with fluff reasons why people would have a problem with it, and how it would cause issues for the Dark Eldar and/or the command crew, but shouldn't there be something hard and fast in the rules? It shouldn't be incumbent on the GM to come up with game mechanics (and the first thing that comes to mind here is ditching Pain Tokens equalling Temporary Fate Points and just using them to fuel other Dark Eldar abilities, for which having two or fifty-two makes little difference).

As a player, I would not want a fellow player trotting around with 10 Fate Points when I have the usual two or three. It's daft.

BrotherHostower said:

The space puppies are only there to make you hate the dark eldar more, each time they punch one, you only hate them more (or less, depends where you stand on puppies (on the head in the case of most dark eldar)).

Coming back to the pain tokens, even if it was just the occasional session, having infinite pain tokens causes the following problems.

* Have +1000 to every test (just spend 100 fate points before the test is rolled)

* Add 100 degrees of success to any test (just spend 100 fate points after the test is rolled)

* Heal 100d5 damage at the start of each round (just spend 100 fate points)

All of these thing means the dark eldar is basically the most powerful creature in the sector, as long as he has the time to prepare, completely breaking that session.

And I used the idea of the dark eldar skulking back to his room to do this, but through the patented use of the pocket puppy, as soon as the game has moved out of combat time, the dark eldar can start punching the puppy in the pocket (or box or anything else plausible to bring to a planet/space station/dinner party) and start amassing tokens again.

Now, I don't want to be down on the dark eldar class, I personally really like the class otherwise and the pain token thing is a nice adaptation of the tabletop rules. It just that mechanically it seems to be open to abuse (infinite pain tokens and the fact that the wasting effect of not having pain tokens is never going to happen) without any guide on how many pain tokens a dark eldar should be able to gain when in narrative time.

Personally, I'd treat such an act as torturing helpless creatures, which is covered separately from the other sources of pain tokens. I'd allow the character to pick up a single pain token from such routine tormenting, and I'd probably knock a point off the crew's Morale, as who knows what that vile alien is doing to those animals…

Crude brutality (such as kicking puppies) is no substitute for the agony and dread of thinking beings cultivated by a master of the arts of pain., and the adrenaline of the hunt makes for particularly satisfying torments.

The rules are designed to allow for out-of-combat torture as a source of Pain Tokens, at a rate controlled by the GM (1 Pain Token per X amount of time). Indeed, I encourage such a use as a means of speeding the recovery of injured Dark Eldar - feast upon pain and dread to rejuvenate the flesh and spirit.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

That certainly seems like a fair interpretation of the situation, but what about the following. The crew of the rogue trader know about the dark eldar and are a pretty dodgy bunch. The dark eldar, when not fighting for the rogue trader (and his own pleasure) engages in pit fights on the lower decks. The combatants win a months paid shore leave (or freedom depending on the type of ship) if they can hit the dark eldar. The dark eldar does a lot of show boating (takedowns) as well as being able to fight a range of combatants. This again would allow the dark eldar to amass a lot of pain tokens during the course of a voyage or even a few hours before making planetfall.

Ultimately this is just an example, as you said yourself, there are ways for a GM to balance any situation. My concern as a GM of a rogue trader game is what is the fair amount of pain tokens for the character to gain. It seems like what is a very core mechanic to one of the player character is relying on a lot of GM intervention and tweaking to make it work (players will after all be looking for any scenerio they can think of to amass pain tokens as it gives them a benefit). Given that the dark eldar only starts with 1 fate point and takes stat damage but have no cap on the pain tokens that can be gained, the dark eldar could end up lagging behind the rest of the crew (or even dead) or overpowered with lots of rerolls if the GM doesn't get it right.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Are there any guidelines on what this rate should be? When you say rules are designed to allow for out-of-combat torture, does that mean that the other sources of pain tokens (stunning, pinning checks, fear, e.t.c) only apply in combat and not narrative time (with the 1 Pain Token per X amount of time taking precedent in narrative time)?

Naviward said:

My rules knowledge comes from DH, but form there I remember you can only use ONE Fate Point on a given action.

Gregorius21778 said:

My rules knowledge comes from DH, but form there I remember you can only use ONE Fate Point on a given action.

That thing aside, if FFG really build such a limetless rule I would assume that they would fix it within a year or three. Till then, I would houserule that you cannot have more "pain tokens" then…well, then your Willpower Bonus. Or something like this.

….gosh, those new rules REALLY are getting stupid recently….

Naviward said:

It would, and the Dark Eldar are well-inclined towards gladiatorial combat, but those terms seem frankly tame - an attempt more to 'game the system' than playing to type. Further, if the crew figure out that he's only fighting to stun, they're hardly going to fear him… and fear and pain are literally the food and drink of the Dark Eldar.

Naviward said:

I would say so, yes, particularly if you're trying to deal with a protracted period of time. Pain Tokens are session-by-session, exchanged automatically for Fate Points when you accumulate the right amount (which increases as you gain Corruption - a particular worry if you habitually use combat drugs), and those Fate Points vanish at the end of the session if not used. In essence, they're not a resource that can be endlessly stockpiled. Further, the talents that key off Pain Tokens work only when gaining Pain Tokens during that encounter - stockpiling beforehand doesn't help use those abilities.

Broadly speaking, a Dark Eldar character should have opportunities to accumulate Pain sufficient to give him two to four Fate Points a session if you want parity with the rest of the group). That's typically 20-30 Pain Tokens, though some of that can easily come from simply hanging around the rest of the party during combat and feeding off of the consequences of their mishaps, and it's not too hard to pick up several in a short space of time with the right tools and talents. For any given bout of torture, I'd use the Interrogation, Medicae or Intimidate Skills to moderate the amount - a Test takes an hour (less 10 minutes per Degree of Success) and yields a Pain Token if successful. The "Artful Torment" option in the Xenos Origins: Vile Pleasures section doubles this for would-be torturers.

As a rule of thumb I'd say that any given Pain Token, if unspent, fades after 24 hours (looking back on my original notes, that was originally the case, but there were a few details that got shoved out of the manuscript over successive drafts as I tried to turn a concept that was simple in my head to one that was clearly explained on the page… not always an easy task). That serves well to prevent stockpiling Pain Tokens over long voyages, while still encouraging those sorts of activities as a means to keep the Dark Eldar 'fed' (though 'feeding' off the crew reduces Morale).

I don't think I'd ever allow someone who'd waste game time like that even look at the Dark Eldar rules, let alone play one. Then again, I'm pretty careful about who I allow around my table.

Honestly it sounds less like sh*tty rules, and someone instead latching on to an incredibly specific and (even more) cheesy loophole, like the famous "Creation Slaying Oblivion Kick", of Exalted. The idea of John Chung that started the downhill slide that nothing but a whole new edition is going to take the game out of.

Basically, there was a Charm (Talent) that let you attack everyone within your current line of sight. Chung's genius discovered how overpowered this was by realizing all you need to do is climb the highest mountain in the (flat) world, and either be a type of creature that can learn, but has never been taught, this martial arts style, or find some super artifact that lets you 'see to forever', and finally use that Charm to kill everyone in the world (but what about objects blocking line of sight? custom artifact to get around that). And that's how the stupidest **** in the world ruined one of my favourite games.

Getting back on topic, if it concerns you so much Naviward, the first step would be to stop obsessively trying to 'perfect' this idea in the face of all the previously mentioned reasons why it shouldn't work. And allow me to add one more, and that is if your Dark Eldar thinks that they can make a million combat attacks to wrack up points while the ship is sailing around, then they better roll them all. And once that begins you just have to wait for another player to slap them in the head with one of their hardcovers, or for them to botch a roll and have all of the puppies, or whatever, break free and maul them to death. Once either of those has been accomplished you look your player in the eye and ask them if they're ready to stop being a ****?

Being a bit more serious, this takedown thing. Sweeping the leg shouldn't, by far, be worth a pain point. Just where is the delicious agony to feast upon in the sight of some stupid mon keigh falling on his butt? There is none. Now, if you were to kill every fifth man who couldn't land a hit on the Dark Eldar. But friendly sparring events aren't going to cut it. There's nothing remotely friendly about the Dark Eldar. Hell, wandering around the darkened reaches of the ship is just asking to get jumped by the crew, since you can bet someone out there knows what he is (and the Captain may be understanding, but a horde of 100 angry ratings are less likely to be so).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Thank you for those answers. I'll probably also put a cap of no more than 5 fate point (between temporary and actually), following the limits from ascension, to stop any accidentally abuses, but the rest of it sounds great.

With limits, it does sound sensible. My lingering concern would be that having 1 Fate Point means the character is likely to be short-lived.

Blood Pact said:

I totally agree with you. It's part of the reason I mentioned this loophole here, firstly because I wanted to check I was reading it right, and secondly to discuss what to do about it that would still make the character fun and non abusable. It's much better to say up front to a player that there is a slight change to the rules than for them to think they've got a cool way to play there character and then have it blow up the game. It's also helpful for other players to read the suggestion here if they come across the same problem.

Blood Pact said:

To be fair I was using an extreme example to prove the point (much like you're using an extreme example to prove the counter), I doubt any player would actually try it (I hope). That said, when an ability is as open as this, what are the limits? Is it fair to a character to say 'you can only have 1 pain token from torturing'? Ultimately this is why we buy books, to have rules provided by professionals (books also have an air of authority (not the talent) which means players are less likely to argue about a particular rule if it's written official in a book rather than one the GM has just come up with).

Blood Pact said:

I agree, fluff wise, but the rules are pretty clear. Stun a creature, get a pain token.

Blood Pact said:

Ultimately I'm not trying the obsessively perfect this idea, more just discuss the pitfalls of the rules as currently written and look at alternatives which address the scenarios that have been brought up.

Niqvah said:

If you're already dealing with the Dark Eldar, then take the dead body of the Kabalite Warrior back to a DE enclave and perform a service for a homonculus in exchange for them bringing him back from the dead. Yes, they can do that, and a given Dark Eldar can potentially live many such lives.

HappyDaze said:

If the Kabalite is sufficiently well-off, he may well have already made such an arrangement. You don't even need much of the body - there are tales of an Archon being regrown from a single hand - but you do need to get the remains to the Haemonculus within a day or so of death.

Remember, however, that Haemonculi are beings for whom death is a transitory nuisance at worst, and an experience to be savoured at best. Brokering a deal with a Haemonculus requires more than mere coin, for what use is coin to those who have transcended mortality and who can sculpt life itself with unmatched artistry…

N0-1_H3r3 said:

That "day or so of death" can be extended to near-infinite with stasis fields - such as the ones commonly seen in a Trophy Room component.

I like the idea of being resurrected by a haemonculus from a story perspective, but would find the in-game mechanics tricky.

Firstly, I'm not sure how many haemonculi there are drifting around outside Commorragh. Some, no doubt, but finding them might be tricky (especially if one is dead). You'd be relying on your Rogue Trader (and their crew), and that would involve them actually knowing such a thing is possible, being willing to do it, being able to find a haemonculus and then managing to strike a bargain that's acceptable to both parties. I guess that could work in some games, but it is a pretty big ask.

Secondly though, more importantly, it goes against the established rule that when you reach zero Fate Points and die, it's permanent.

Niqvah said:

The rules for the DE PC are in the same product where you can form an alliance with a Kabalite Archon and interact with a DE outpost, so if you go that route, it's all set-up to have a chance of occurring and being known to the PCs. Besides, that's the kind of thing when having Forbidden Lore (Xenos) +20 can really be helpful.

As for breaking established rules - which are primarily made for human PCs - that's kind of what the xenos races do.

HappyDaze said:

My feeling is that when xenos become PCs, they need to follow the rules. There are differences between races, but these are written in their descriptions. If you begin making things up, you risk causing arguments (for example, I'd be quite cheesed off if my character got to zero Fate Points and died, then a Dark Eldar did the same thing and just got resurrected). A game has to be fair.

Niqvah said:

No, it doesnt.

If your character died before you knew that you could be raised, that is just tough luck. Complaining about it is petty.

If your character died after you knew that you could be raised, and the Dark Eldar said 'I dont do animals'. that is just tough luck. Complaing about it is petty.

If your character died after you knew that you could be raised, and the Dark Eldar was feeling …. well, lets not go there… and you got raised, bully for you and nothing could possible go wrong with that.

Besides, I would just consider it a hidden perk of being a Dark Eldar. I would also consider it a great roleplaying op to see how far I could push the players into commiting exotic suicide by Dark Eldar by having every single one be as offensive as possible, knowing that if the players so much as look like they are going to start something, very bad things will happen.

But to get to the point, the game has to be fun, not fair. They are not the same thing. They do go hand in hand most of the time, but sometimes unfair is fun.

Niqvah said:

A non-competitive game does not have to be fair. Even a competitive game does not have to be fair (but it really should be.)

A non-competitive game only has to be enjoyable (usually via fun). Depending on the group and the players present this can be achieved in a variety of ways and it's very hard to pinpoint the source of something like fun or enjoyability.
Of course the game (or more specifically the game master) being fair usually does not hurt, but this does not mean that being fair is more important than the game being enjoyable.