Aurynn's Fandex - Power from Pain

Hi guys. I have been thinking about the PFP rule for my Fandex. After reading some threads here I am inclined to believe that something like the Khornate system would be the best. However I am faced with several issues:

1. Kabals, Cults and Coven should have different tables for PFP. Each has different style of warfare and the bonuses should go along with it. However I am afraid that keeping track of that in mixed army might be an issue.
   
2. Generating tokens with which you can buy the PFP buffs is an issue as it should be based on inflicting physical or psychological pain (wounds, morale checks). Ergo it should be less effective against mech armies and monster mashes for logical reasons.
   
3. The new system should keep pace with the current one, only tune it up a bit to reflect the "modern" mechanics and being really useful.
   
4. After reaching the top of the table, VPs should be generated in exchange for several PTs. As pain siphoning is a part of every succesful DE raid, no? :-)
   

What I am thinking is that a DE player generates Pain Tokens. Some automatically, some are earned through effort - inflicting wounds or morale check fails. My first suggestion is PT per 10 unsaved wounds or 1 morale check failed. Now, how much of these can one generate in one turn? I am looking for some balanced PT generation/buff cost. Also for opinions on the points above. Would appreciate any input.

1. THen keep it simpler. Provie three short lists of upgrades themed for Kabalites, Covens and Cults, but use the same pool of tokens. The entire army as a whole would generate tokens into a central pool, but each unit type can only use the chart associated with their faction.

2. Would it have to be useless against mech? Don't forget that most vehicles have crew who can feel pain too, so I wouldn't be surprised if you could generate tokens from destroying vehicles too.

3. Ok?

4. I would disagree. No other army has a built-in mechanic which generates VPs like that, and I think it would unbalance things a little. And I think you forget that if you're basing it on the Daemonkin systen, the points don't just reach the top of a table. They are spent on upgrades and then go away. I would be amused by maybe making the top of the list: "For X points, until the end of the turn generate one VP for each enemy unit destroyed". That would work, but not a straight buying of VPs.


On generating, I think 10 unsaved wounds is too much. That could very easily mean you're only getting one token a turn.
I think its best to make it simpler, maybe every failed Morale, Pinning or Fear, and maybe every successful shooting or assault round in which one of your units did SOME damage. One point regardless of how much.

POWER FROM PAIN
Well, here are the three short lists. Everything is in a very early stage including the names of the paths. Feel free to come up with better ones. :-)

EDITED ACCORDING TO SOME SUGGESTIONS

Marksman Path (Archon - both paths together, Warriors, Trueborn, Scourges)
1 - FNP
2 - Split Fire
3 - Relentless
4 - Twin-Linked
5 - Fearless
6 - ???

Martial Path (Archon - both paths together, Succubus, Wyches, Bloodbrides, Beastmasters, Reavers, Hellions, Incubi)
1 - FNP
2 - Furious Charge
3 - Crusader
4 - Fearless
5 - Rage
6 - HOW (Units with HOW add +1S to their HOW attacks)

Fleshcraft Path (Haemi, Wracks, Grots, Talos, Cronos)
1 - Fearless
2 - Furious Charge
3 - IWND
4 - Zealot
5 - Rage
6 - Eternal Warrior

The system should be cascading as the current one. As you acquire Pain Tokens, you should get all the benefits up to your current total. The buffs were chosen to kinda compensate for diminishing numbers we suffer as glass cannons, to keep us in the fight even with lower numbers. I believe it will not make us OP or anything near that. We still should die to a breeze, but our hitting power needs a bump.

Squidmaster wrote:

1. THen keep it simpler. Provie three short lists of upgrades themed for Kabalites, Covens and Cults, but use the same pool of tokens. The entire army as a whole would generate tokens into a central pool, but each unit type can only use the chart associated with their faction.

True. Only since Kabals include Incubi and Archon would not get what he needs from Kabal path (shooty), I decided to split the table according to the styles of combat employed by each path.

Squidmaster wrote:

2. Would it have to be useless against mech? Don't forget that most vehicles have crew who can feel pain too, so I wouldn't be surprised if you could generate tokens from destroying vehicles too.

Yes, but it is the problem with balancing. If you generate one pain token per Venom destroyed and per Land Raider destroyed, things can get very unbalanced from battle to battle. That was the beauty of getting PFP improved by turns spent fighting, rather than killing. Against IK army, PFP would be total bust.

Squidmaster wrote:

4. I would disagree. No other army has a built-in mechanic which generates VPs like that, and I think it would unbalance things a little. And I think you forget that if you're basing it on the Daemonkin systen, the points don't just reach the top of a table. They are spent on upgrades and then go away. I would be amused by maybe making the top of the list: "For X points, until the end of the turn generate one VP for each enemy unit destroyed". That would work, but not a straight buying of VPs.

True. This is kinda reflected in our racial Maelstrom cards, no need to emphasise on this in PFP.

Squidmaster wrote:

On generating, I think 10 unsaved wounds is too much. That could very easily mean you're only getting one token a turn.
I think its best to make it simpler, maybe every failed Morale, Pinning or Fear, and maybe every successful shooting or assault round in which one of your units did SOME damage. One point regardless of how much.

1 token per turn, maximum 2 is what I am aiming for. I dont want anyone to keep piles of tokens. You do not spend them as Khornates as that system would not give us what we need and would only cause too much time spent on selecting and keeping track.

Meditate on this, I will... :-D

Meanwhile what do you think about the buff spread?

I like the three tables, one pool concept. I'd suggest adding another table for our vehicles though; our pilots want to feel other's suffering as well! If you're concerned about generating tokens too quickly through your units dying, here's a suggestion: Require two tokens to go up to the next level, and have six or so levels (highest being Eternal Warrior for Fleshcraft, for example). If I make some additional suggestions for your tables...

Marksman (Path of the Kabal?): I'd add a bonus to BS (as their eyes and reflex sharpen), and Precision Shots (see previous statement).

Martial (Path of the Cult?): Looks solid; maybe add Hammer of Wrath as the ultimate?

Fleshcraft (Path of the Flesh?): Needs more Eternal Warrior; Wracks should have two wounds to benefit from IWND though.

Good suggestions. I was toying with vehicle PFP. But I feel that they are priced right and dont want to add anything that should be reflected in pts cost on so easy-to-boom vehicles. In addition PFP should balance the Mechalists vs Footlists so I wouldnt go that far.

Balancing cost vs gain ratio would be most difficult unless it will be fixed on turn-by-turn basis. I still didnt discount the option for the obvious balancing reasons.

BS bonus - na-ah. Simply because it would emphasize on the damage output too much if combined with other options. Splinter racks will be reworked to add pinning to splinter weaponry as TL will be included in the table and we do need some pinning stuff.

HoW might be nice. Redundant on Reavers and Hellions but can add +1 S on units with HOW.

Stats of units will be considered later but 2W on wracks is a matter to consider. Wait for the rest of the dex. Context will be important.

I'm going to play Devils Advocate for a moment.

Token/point systems are clunky and needlessly complicated. The current system is a nice balance of fluff and gameplay. My only gripe with it is that there needs to be three tiers, for Kabal, Coven, and Wych Cult units. (So it would have a flavor, a la Instinctive Behavior.)

I don't want to go back to arguing over how I got my points and where they went, or add more bookkeeping to a game that's taking longer and longer with every new edition/codex.

My thoughts exactly. But the three separate tables are needed.

Only its not about kabal cult and coven but rather with the fighting style of the person (model). Incubus would not benefit from warriors buffs and vice versa.

Jimsolo wrote:

Token/point systems are clunky and needlessly complicated.  The current system is a nice balance of fluff and gameplay.

I couldn't disagree more about it being fluffy. There is nothing remotely fluffy about it. And, I'm sorry, but this isn't even opinion - it's an objective fact. The power from pain table bears no resemblance to what is actually happening in a game. You could have a game where no casualties have been inflicted by turn 2, and a game where, also by turn 2, half the enemy army is dead or screaming in agony as they burn alive in the smouldering remains of their vehicles. These scenarios result in the DE army harvesting exactly the same amount of pain. Hell, they could sit in an empty field for 7 turns and still harvest the maximum amount of pain. I don't even know why we go on raids when we can apparently just satiate ourselves by absorbing pain from the cosmos.

A mechanic that is supposed to represent the accumulation of pain, but which is entirely unconnected to the pain/casualties on either side, simply cannot be fluffy.

It is simpler, but I'd argue that the cost is too high. As above, it means that it's demonstrably unfluffy. But, what's worse is that it doesn't involve the player. If I'm playing an army that revolves around causing harvesting pain, then I want to feel like I'm actually accomplishing that. Instead, I have a system that rewards me for just hiding my units in the early game (i.e. causing as little pain as possible), so that they can actually get some much-needed special rules.

Also, considering how little DE have in the way of special rules and such, would a bit more complexity/involvement really go amiss? Especially since Power from Pain is our defining rule and basically the driving force for our whole army.

Pain doesn't equal casualties, though. Keep in mind that Kabalite armor is designed to generate pain just from being worn. On the other hand, you can kill a million Necron warriors, and you never get anywhere because they don't feel pain.

The models are an abstraction. Even if no models are removed, people are being injured. Also remember, the fear and emotional turmoil of a raid is as nourishing as physical pain. An escalating mechanic that builds as the game progresses makes sense. One tied directly to casualties makes less.

When comparing the two PFP mechanics from the two most recent codexes, the 'objective fact' is that the new one is superior in every way. It's easier to track, has fewer rules conflicts, makes more sense fluff wise, and offers fewer opportunities for the fluff justification to break down.

Jimsolo wrote:

Pain doesn't equal casualties, though.  Keep in mind that Kabalite armor is designed to generate pain just from being worn.  

So, again, why are we even raiding?

Jimsolo wrote:

On the other hand, you can kill a million Necron warriors, and you never get anywhere because they don't feel pain.  

But apparently it's fine for us to feed on their emotional pain.

Jimsolo wrote:

The models are an abstraction.  Even if no models are removed, people are being injured.  Also remember, the fear and emotional turmoil of a raid is as nourishing as physical pain.  

If being killed doesn't produce pain/suffering, then nor does the possibility of pain/suffering.

Maybe if the universe wasn't filled with genetically-enhanced super soldiers, or war wasn't basically constant. There is literally never going to be a time when the population of a given planet aren't suffering emotionally - either because their planet is under attack, or because there's a threat of it being under attack, or there are pirates raiding, or there might be a demonic incursion at any moment, or their might be someone punishing them for a demonic incursion, or their children are being taken away to be guardsmen or such. No planet in the entire 40k universe will be leading a happy life. The only exceptions are stuff like Necrons. But, as above, these don't help your case.

Basically, if what you're saying it true, DE have no reason whatsoever to conduct raids. All they need to do is camp out on or near any world and feed on the population suffering from one of the 10 billion horrors in the 40k universe.

Jimsolo wrote:

 An escalating mechanic that builds as the game progresses makes sense.  One tied directly to casualties makes less.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. if it was, then you're saying DE have literally no reason to even be a playable race. They have no cause to ever do anything because they just absorb pain from everywhere without ever leaving their planet.

Jimsolo wrote:

When comparing the two PFP mechanics from the two most recent codexes, the 'objective fact' is that the new one is superior in every way. It's easier to track, has fewer rules conflicts, makes more sense fluff wise, and offers fewer opportunities for the fluff justification to break down.

Again, that's demonstrably untrue. It's simpler, certainty, but vastly less fluffy. Once again, if casualties don't relate in any way to pain, then DE have no reason to ever do anything in game. They might as well not even be a playable race.

Finally, how can you possibly say that the old system offers fewer opportunities for the fluff justification to break down, when the new one falls at the first hurdle with 2 broken kneecaps? I mean, by your definition, you can literally have PfP doing anything. It apparently doesn't need to have any relation to fluff or what's happening in the game, so what does it matter?

I understand what you are saying, Shredder, but I am afraid to put yet another "objective" on the Dark Eldar player's mind. We need to be very very mindful of deployment, target priority, damage mitigation (much more than other armies) while trying to get objectives without tons of ObjSec and we should add yet another thing to "accomplish"?

That system you are proposing has its merits OFC, but will feel very dry and unrewarding against some armies.

The current system does feel a bit dry and unrewarding towards the fluff. But ruleswise, purely as game mechanic is not bad per se. In addition I am one of the people who hated keeping track of pain tokens.

Therefore I wouldnt be so harsh towards one way or another...

If it matters, I'd want pain tokens condensed so that you collect and apply them to your entire army - rather than to individual units.

I get what you're saying with regard to adding more objectives to us, although I think it's fair to say that 'kill the enemies' was already a core objective.

However, the problem with the current system is that it also offers no rewards. There's no benefit for actually inflicting pain/casualties on the enemy (or even emotional pain - as forcing Ld tests does nothing either). Instead, as my friends often joke, we have a mechanic that's built around denying us all our special rules until an arbitrary amount of time as passed.

Imagine the reaction if SM players found they couldn't get ATSKNF until turn 4, and had no Chapter Tactics until turn 6.

Interesting point of view with the denial... How about a combined system - Turn based token gain plus bonuses for "action". You can ignore the PFP in favour of other objectives and get only "base" bonuses. You good enuf to harvest pain? You can get pretty awesome stuff... How about that?

EDIT: And some stuff would be unreachable without action, but you will have to pay in points for equip that will allow you fast climb on the table.

aurynn wrote:

Interesting point of view with the denial... How about a combined system - Turn based token gain plus bonuses for "action". You can ignore the PFP in favour of other objectives and get only "base" bonuses. You good enuf to harvest pain? You can get pretty awesome stuff... How about that?

That sounds interesting. So, are we thinking something like Blood Points - where you automatically get a trickle of points each turn (1 plus whatever your formations give you), but can get more by killing units?

I imagine the exact numbers would depend on whether the pain tokens are spent (like blood points) or whether they last the entire game.

Also, since we're throwing ideas at the wall:

- Haemonculi could maybe generate pain tokens (or whatever we call them) each turn, or perhaps give you an extra token if their unit kills an enemy.

- I don't know if this would complicate things too much, but you could have weapons which require you to sacrifice pain tokens (maybe to unlock a stronger profile?).

You seem to be confused, amigo.

I wasn't saying 'casualties don't cause pain.' I'm saying 'pain caused doesn't equal casualties caused.' Or God forbid, the old way of doing things, which tried to tell us pain caused directly equaled units destroyed. (Because apparently a single ur-Ghul feels the same amount of pain as fifty guardsmen.)

Directly linking your PFP mechanic to casualties is worse than an escalating system from a mechanical point of view. (And arguably from a fluff one, although we will probably continue to disagree on that one.) Directly linking your PFP mechanic to units destroyed is probably the worst way to work the rule.

Jimsolo wrote:

You seem to be confused, amigo.

I wasn't saying 'casualties don't cause pain.'   

But the system does. That's the whole problem.

I can accept a more abstract system, but for something like this there has to be some connection to what's happening on the battlefield. Partially for fluff purposes, but also to involve the players. It's a way for them to keep score and for their decisions to actually mean something. Otherwise, what's the point?

Jimsolo wrote:

Directly linking your PFP mechanic to casualties is worse than an escalating system from a mechanical point of view.  (And arguably from a fluff one, although we will probably continue to disagree on that one.) Directly linking your PFP mechanic to units destroyed is probably the worst way to work the rule.

I disagree. The worst way to implement the rule is to make it entirely unrelated to anything happening in the game - which is exactly what they did.

It's been abstracted to the point where it bears no resemblance to the fluff. The mechanic is so utterly generic that you can just slap any label onto it and it would make exactly the same amount of sense, if not more. You might as well just say that they pump drugs into themselves every turn. Or that they periodically power up DBZ style. Or the thrill of battle has heightened their connection to the magic cucumber, from which their power derives.

To be honest - turn based mechanic is connected to what is happening. :-) The battle progresses. Half-joke. Please lets not argue about that. :-)

And yes, I mean a trickle as a base plus bonus as actions. Also should be tied to our own casualties. The general idea is making us really dangerous even with dwindling numbers and not being done playing after one turn of serious casualties. Am I wrong in that assumption?

aurynn wrote:

And yes, I mean a trickle as a base plus bonus as actions. Also should be tied to our own casualties. The general idea is making us really dangerous even with dwindling numbers and not being done playing after one turn of serious casualties. Am I wrong in that assumption?

Well, I wouldn't object to that.

However, it does make me want a mechanic whereby our HQs are allowed to murder each other for a bonus.

They will have some other options for that, don't worry. Gear and stuff... For example agonisers unsaved wounds could generate a PT on 6+.

Meanwhile, here are the ways to generate PT I have come up with. Now I need to estimate the amount that can be gained per turn.

- At the start of his turn, DE player automatically generates one Pain Token.
- At the start of the enemy turn, DE player automatically generates one Pain Token.
- Through use of various artifacts and mechanics. For details see the rest of the codex.
- For every friendly or enemy unit or vehicle destroyed, DE player generates one Pain Token
- For every failed Morale check , Pinning check or Fear check of the enemy army, DE player generates one Pain Token.

EDIT: This kinda supports MSU style... Bit troubled by that. I dont want to promote one style over another.

A couple of suggestions based on that list:

- Don't have the DE player generate pain tokens in the enemy turn. As a general rule, you want to minimise the amount of your mechanics that happen in the enemy turn (especially ones where there's no choice involved). Better to just have the DE player generate an extra token in his turn (if it's necessary at all).

- Not sure about getting pain tokens for failed morale, pinning and fear tests (especially since the latter is literally the fear of pain, rather than pain itself). I think it might be better if this was limited to specific items.

I think you are discounting psychological suffering too much. But let me explain in terms of mechanics:

- About 1/3 of the pain tokens should be generated automatically
- 2/3 through action

Lets equal PT = 1 Kill Point just for the sake of getting some numbers.

Let's say that 1850 army has 20 kill points. The opposing army can easily have 25 KPs with Demi-Company SM list. That goes up to 45 available PT through destruction. OTOH, IK based army can be as little as 8-10 KP.

With PFP gear you can generate perhaps 20 PT over the course of the game. Without it as little as 0.

So we are looking at a realistic cca 25-50 PT pool range against different armies. Adding 1 PT per player turn will not get me anywhere near the required amount.

Not mentioning that I dont think that anyone wants to keep track of 50 tokens...

Any ideas how to solve this?

Well, with regard to automatically generated PTs, you could say that you get 1 per 500pts. Regardless, you'll probably also be generating ones from stuff like Haemonculi and Formation bonuses. So, you're likely to be generating more than 1.

In terms of keeping track of pain tokens, there are two possible solutions (probably more, but these are off the top of my head):

1) If tokens aren't spent in any way, then you can perhaps have bonuses that cap out at a certain level. e.g. if getting more than 20 pain tokens nets you no additional bonuses, then you don't need to keep track of them after that. Not sure if this is the best idea, though.

2) Tokens are spent in a similar manner to blood points. So, whilst it's technically possible to get 50 or so in a game, you're only going to be dealing with a handful each turn. You could even cap the maximum PTs to make sure of this.

Small battles are another issue. Any mechanic based on interactions on the board will inevitably lead to disadvantage in smaller battles... unless the smaller armies would generate more PT than the large ones. The mechanic is bloody complicated though. I don't like it... :-(

That's kind of the point though. I think our army needs to be built around the mechanic (since it's the entire reason they're fighting), rather than just having it tacked on as an afterthought. So, to that extent, some complexity is justified (IMO, anyway).

Balancing it is more tricky. As you say, different point values will obviously yield more or fewer PTs. Likewise, different armies may have more or fewer available.

Personally, I'd tend towards planning for armies with fewer PTs, rather than more. The reason being, our codex is already very underpowered, and most of the PfP benefits involve stacking bonuses on T3 models (unlike Daemonkin, we can't go around summoning Bloodthirsters and such). So, I think we're more likely to suffer from being underpowered (with too few PTs), then overpowered (with too many). Just my 2 cents.

And that is where the turn based mechanic is much better... But I might be onto something... will explore and formulate tomorrow.