Jump to content



Photo

Inquisitor Assigned to a Kill Team


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 06:15 AM

 

My my, don't be so literal please. If a joint venture was formed and a new hierarchy introduced, then the CxO of company B would still not be under the thumb of the Assistant Manager of Complaint Handling of Company A.

 

I just don't see what you are attempting to express with this example? As I said, whether or not the companies do a joint venture changes absolutely nothing on how staff of both companies deal with each other.

 

This does not apply to the context of this issue at all - if one of the companies in your example was an Inquisitor, then they'd have authority over the other party regardless whether or not they'd do a joint venture.

 

Okay, very simple. Organization A is a partner of organization B is a statement about organizations. Not about members of organizations. If you claim that this makes Inquisitors and KT members equals, the burden of proof is on you.

 

 

Again, you are missing the point. If the book says that "neither party is subject to the command of the other" (p. 305), then a random Inquisitor cannot just show up and "steal" a Kill-team by claiming authority. Doing so would undermine and erode the Deathwatch's independence - its equality.

 

Whereas, if the KT was on a mission under order by an Inquisitor, another Inquisitor cannot just show up and "steal" the KT by claiming authority because they are already "taken".

 

 

Even by your interpretation it doesn't make sense. When a Kill-team is operating under orders of their Watch Captain (meaning: every single time they are dispatched on a mission, so: always), what exactly is supposed to happen if an "equal level" of authority in the Inquisition shows up and countermands those orders?

 

The same thing as if they were under inquisitorial command. Either "Yes, we think we can manage to look into it" or "No, Inquisitor X, we have our orders and we cannot compromise our original mission."

 

 

Elaborate what you consider "indirect control" then, please.

 

Soft power. An inquisitorial request cannot be simply brushed aside by a Watch Commander, not unless it's obviously heretical or damaging to the mission. The nature of partnership and the support role of the chamber militant mandates that a Watch Commander should have very good reasons for denying a request. These are fringe cases. Normally there will be accord/comromise. Or appealing to a higher authority for arbitration.

 

 


If you didn't talk about authority, why did you bring it up at all?

This debate is about one person being able to command another, not someone voluntarily deciding to agree.

 

And I'm not misreading things. The book specifically points out that the effect of this Ability is based on the Ultramarine's way of thinking. In case the partial quote was not enough, I'll repeat the full description:

 

"The Ultramarines consider themselves a pure expression of the Codex Astartes and among the truest of the Emperor's sons. This pride and unshakable personal belief often manifests itself in their leadership abilities and the example they set to other members of the Adeptus Astartes."

 

He doesn't even get a bonus to the Test, he's just stubborn enough to try again. Also, what kind of bonus does a Space Wolf get to their reputation? A Blood Angel? Do they have similar Talents, given that they are from First Founding Chapters as well? According to you, they should have a similar Ability.

 

Of course they don't. Deathwatch isn't a simulationist game, you know that as well, so the questions are moot.

Why again does it only extend to members of Imperial forces? Not to any imperial citizen or just any NPC? Surely some xenos might also be impressed by that much confidence! :lol:

 

Actually, I'm not even disagreeing with a Chapter's reputation being able to influence its dealings with others. After all, this has been mentioned in GW fluff countless of times. However, you are missing a few important things:

- this does not seem to be represented in the DW RPG (perhaps for one or both of the following points)

- if confronted by a DW Marine, are random acquaintances more likely to see a, say, Blood Angel, or simply a Deathwatch Marine, because this makes up 90% of their visual appearance and 100% of their temporary allegiance?

- should a Chapter's reputation truly be known to everyone in the Imperium, or only to those individuals who have actively interacted with, been told about, or researched its history? (probably a much, much smaller number)

 

But again, this sub-debate is useless, because we were talking about authority and commands, not voluntary subordination.

 

 

I can tell you what an NPC sees in my game (in order of familiarity, more or less):

A. A bunch of Astartes.

B. Signs of the Holy Inquisition.

C. Various Chapter Shoulder Pads.

D. Deathwatch Marines.

 

Depending on the NPC's knowledge and the chapters, they recognize the chapter symbols or not. If some recognizes the Ultramarine sign but doesn't know what the Deathwatch is (quite a few people fall in this camp), he will think he is dealing with an Ultramarine.

 

As for how many people know specific chapters... that does not seem to be quite clear. Personally, I go with a medium amount of fame regarding the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Ultramarines. Ultramarines go to the top slot once you deal with military personnel.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#42 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 415 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 07:37 AM

Conversely, I tend to assume that most people don't recognize any Astartes as being different from any other Astartes- the exceptions would be senior military personnel and senior nobility- meaning the sorts of nobility who compete for the position of High Lord of Terra, not the sorts of petty nobles who inhabit Scintilla.  Most planetary governors probably don't know much about the chapters of the Astartes, either.

 

Bear in mind that there are still only 1000 (plus or minus) Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, so honestly I'd expect their primarchs to get more face time than their chapter heraldry- and no matter how many successors the smurfs have spawned, Random Citizen A is no more likely to recognize the chapter emblem of The Forty Third Sons Of Our Spiritual Liege Guilliman than they are to recognize the heraldry of any given Black Templar crusade or the Crimson Fists.

 

Specific chapters should be recognizable by someone with the Forbidden Lore (Astartes) skill.  Most people don't have any forbidden lore, and of all of the Forbidden Lores to take, that one has some of the least potential use in political terms- were I an aristocrat in 40k, I'd rather have dirt on the Navis Nobilite or the Ecclesiarchy or the local Lord General.

 

If you're running a game based out of the Empire of Ultramar, then sure, the Ultramarines are going to be well known and celebrated where'er they shall roam, but I'd expect this to be similar on any world where a chapter maintains direct governance.  On the flip side of that coin, if you're running a game out of Fenris I wouldn't expect the local citizenry to recognize an Ultramarine- they'd just wonder why the Great Wolf Hero of the Wolf Stars wasn't wearing his Wolf Wolfy Wolf.  


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#43 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 07:59 AM

Fair enough.

 

The Core says:

"Of all the thousand and more Space Marine Chapters, it is the blue-clad Ultramarines that, in the mind of the countless billions of the Emperor’s subjects, personify everything that the Adeptus Astartes stands for. [...] Across the domains of the Emperor, the Ultramarines are celebrated as heroic, virtuous, and noble defenders of Humanity, their deeds celebrated in devotional works the length and breadth of the galaxy." (page 53)

 

I deviate from that, as mentioned, by having them be the model Astartes for the military-inclined citizens and the Blood Angels and Space Wolves for the common man. Also, Ultras are a more local force than the Blood Angels, who operate much more heavily throughout the entire galaxy.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#44 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 415 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 08:58 AM

Care to take this outside?


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#45 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,687 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 10:09 AM

Haha, 2 pages of thread derailment, nothing new here.


  • pearldrum1 likes this

#46 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 10:17 AM

Sure, just want to point out that my conversation with Lynata did not keep anyone from saying something on-topic.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#47 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 01:18 PM

Speaking of sub-debates, don't we already have an "ak-73 VS. Lynata thread?"  It's like watching an Orange and a Green in Ireland of the 1920's.  Hopefully without the bombings and drive-bys.

 

You're right. Threads like these make me feel really awkward as they just don't seem to move anywhere, yet both sides are stuck in a cycle of "I'm right!", "No, I am!" and nobody wants to back down - in good part probably because we also feel we have a reputation to lose, and because even if we have already given up on the other party to adopt one's point of view (as I'm sure ak-73 and myself feel towards one another by now, which is connected to our opposing preferences as discussed in anotehr thread) we still have hopes that any other readers with an as-of-yet undecided opinion might be convinced.

 

It's a bad cycle, and from time to time I attempt to "trim down" the discussion to certain core aspects to at least keep it manageable, reduce time consumption for anyone involved (it's in the nature of the beast that the longer a debate lasts, the longer the replies and quotes get), and maintain an opening for the smallest common denominator: the ability to agree to disagree.

 

Like so:

 

The same thing as if they were under inquisitorial command. Either "Yes, we think we can manage to look into it" or "No, Inquisitor X, we have our orders and we cannot compromise our original mission."

 

So you're admitting that an Inquisitor has no command authority over the Kill-team. He has to hope its leader is of the opinion they may be able to follow their request, and volunteer his team for support.

 

Soft power. An inquisitorial request cannot be simply brushed aside by a Watch Commander, not unless it's obviously heretical or damaging to the mission. The nature of partnership and the support role of the chamber militant mandates that a Watch Commander should have very good reasons for denying a request.

 

"Request". "should have a reason"

 

I'll just let this speak for itself.

 

And this is the crux of the matter. The "proof" you wanted to see. If an Inquisitor never has the power to assume command of a DW Kill-team, because the Kill-team is hierarchically part of the Deathwatch, and both organisations are equals (meaning no-one from within the Inquisition can overrule the command of the Deathwatch's leadership), then this classification extends to its members.

 

You came up with the example about companies doing a joint venture, and this is how it works in the real life, too - no member from company A has any authority over a member from company B just because they're partners, regardless of their internal rank. If you assume otherwise, the "burden of proof" is actually on you, because the books do not say it.


  • pearldrum1 likes this

#48 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:18 AM

You're right. Threads like these make me feel really awkward as they just don't seem to move anywhere, yet both sides are stuck in a cycle of "I'm right!", "No, I am!" and nobody wants to back down - in good part probably because we also feel we have a reputation to lose, and because even if we have already given up on the other party to adopt one's point of view (as I'm sure ak-73 and myself feel towards one another by now, which is connected to our opposing preferences as discussed in anotehr thread) we still have hopes that any other readers with an as-of-yet undecided opinion might be convinced.

 

I don't think I care too hard about readers here. I don't think anyone from FFG reads these forums anymore and even if they did, they would choose their interpretation based on their our tastes. Rational argument doesn't play much into such - nor what the majority of posters here thinks.

 

Instead, I am merely trying to point out that in my eyes, inquisitors regularly hold indirect and/or informal authority over the KT they work with. Indirect authority works via a KT's uppers; if these are not involved, there is still informal authority via the standing and the mission of an inquisitor in the IoM. Most marines respect the status and rights of an inquisitor - it is the way the Imperium works. And because of that, while there is no direct formal authority over a KT, their indirect and/or informal authority will keep an inquisitor and KT members from being equal. An inquisitor will lead an investigation, normally. A KT leader might temporarily take over the lead in combat, if he thinks he has the superior expertise. A wise inquisitor probably won't object.

 

 


"Request". "should have a reason"

 

I'll just let this speak for itself.

 

And this is the crux of the matter. The "proof" you wanted to see. If an Inquisitor never has the power to assume command of a DW Kill-team, because the Kill-team is hierarchically part of the Deathwatch, and both organisations are equals (meaning no-one from within the Inquisition can overrule the command of the Deathwatch's leadership), then this classification extends to its members.

 

Nope. Don't see it. As I read it, Inquisitors and Watch Commanders/Captains operate on roundabout the same level. Negotiating about mission requests as equals/partners. Which means the KT itself is only involved in the decision if either party wants it.

 

If they have the Watch Captain's sanction, Inquisitors adopt formal command of a KT. If they don't, they still have informal authority over a KT - the difference more or less boiling down to tone. No orders but requests instead. A wise Inquisitor will probably resort to requests when having formal authority via the Watch Captain too.

 

Alex

 

PS I never questioned that Inquisitors hold no direct and formal authority over a DW Kill-Team. Right?


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#49 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:55 AM

Indirect authority works via a KT's uppers; if these are not involved, there is still informal authority via the standing and the mission of an inquisitor in the IoM. 

 

That doesn't add up with your previous arguments, nor how it's presented in the book, though.

 

If an Inquisitor also has no authority over the KT's uppers (which you claimed was how the rulebook's core should be interpreted), then he also does not have an "indirect authority" over the Kill-team. Likewise for the "standing and mission of an Inquisitor in the IoM", as again, this is cancelled out by the rulebook's claims that the "standing and mission of the Deathwatch" are equal.

 

If you just want to claim that an Inquisitor has a better chance of his requests being followed simply because they are allies, then we are in agreement. But I was under the impression that this is what you were contesting.

 

PS I never questioned that Inquisitors hold no direct and formal authority over a DW Kill-Team. Right?

 
That's true, you were just expressing that an Inquisitor would be accepted by default because the Deathwatch Marines will always 100% of the time voluntarily agree to it ->

I don't see how he/she isn't the boss on a mission.

 

Then again, I do still contest that an Inquisitor has "indirect" and "informal" authority over a Kill-team, too, for the reasons I've mentioned at the start of this post.

 

There is no "authority" here. The Inquisitor may ask and hope that the DW Marine agrees. That's it.


Edited by Lynata, 28 April 2014 - 09:58 AM.


#50 Magnus Grendel

Magnus Grendel

    The Empire Needs You!

  • Members
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:37 AM

Disregarding the argument - obviously the level of authority in your game that the inquisitor is allowed over the kill team is something to be agreed pre-game by the GM.

 

I would advise 'mature and sensible allies' - bear in mind that there will still need to be a nominated kill-team leader who isn't the inquisitor or the whole cohesion mechanic doesn't work.

 

For example, something akin to "You may have overall authority here, Inqusitor, but the military aspects of this mission fall under my jurisdiction" - a quote from our last mission.

 

A non-astartes character does work. You just need to suitably allow for them in mission scope, challenges and threats, as well as the level of influence an inquisitor can call upon. Yes, I know reserve requisition can be used to call in an orbital strike, or whatever, but an inquisitor who pulls out all the stops can divert a full capital ship squadron to asist if he or she puts their mind to it; you're more looking at rogue trader-level large scale combat with the Astartes providing tactical advice and the kill-team fighting the 'turning point' engagements.

 

Also, re 'civilian terminator armour' - one good thing about Daemon Hunter is that Malleus Terminator Plate is in no way inferior to the astartes version, one of the only times this is the case. In fact, since stuff commissioned via influence is always best-quality, if anything it's better, even if the guy inside is squishier. Daemon Hunter is to my mind one of the better DH supplements.


  • pearldrum1 and Annaamarth like this

#51 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 02 May 2014 - 05:44 PM

Also, re 'civilian terminator armour' - one good thing about Daemon Hunter is that Malleus Terminator Plate is in no way inferior to the astartes version, one of the only times this is the case.

 

Malleus Terminator Armour: AP 12

Astartes Terminator Armour: AP 14

 

Technically, the difference is even 3 instead of 2 AP, as the Malleus Terminator Armour already has the Best Quality modifier built into its stats (as specifically noted by the book), whereas a Space Marine still has room for improvement and can bring a suit of Terminator armour up to AP 15.

 

FFG's rule of Astartes Superiority remains unviolated. ;)



#52 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 02:04 AM

That doesn't add up with your previous arguments, nor how it's presented in the book, though.

 

If an Inquisitor also has no authority over the KT's uppers (which you claimed was how the rulebook's core should be interpreted), then he also does not have an "indirect authority" over the Kill-team. Likewise for the "standing and mission of an Inquisitor in the IoM", as again, this is cancelled out by the rulebook's claims that the "standing and mission of the Deathwatch" are equal.

 

If you just want to claim that an Inquisitor has a better chance of his requests being followed simply because they are allies, then we are in agreement. But I was under the impression that this is what you were contesting.

 

(I think you're just miffed that the game doesn't state that a KT is at an inquisitor's command - the way you like it in the game you are playing. But, oh well, on to the arguments...)

 

Let us distinguish between de jure and de facto here, Lynata. De jure, an inquisitor has no authority over a KT. In my interpretation (and I suspect to some degree in FFG's interpretation), however, an Inquisitor will have every reasonable request honoured by a Watch Captain/Commander. Which means that de facto it makes almost no difference. Which is what constitutes indirect authority.

 

And I am not saying he has a better chance, I am saying that he has a 99% chance if his request is reasonable. And if a KT in the field runs across an Inquisitor, he requests help and it doesn't mess with their mission, he also should have a 90%+ chance. Which means the difference between de jure and de facto authority is mostly virtual. With the caveat that some chapters are more likely to turn down an Inquisitor's request.

 

 

I would advise 'mature and sensible allies' - bear in mind that there will still need to be a nominated kill-team leader who isn't the inquisitor or the whole cohesion mechanic doesn't work.

 

For example, something akin to "You may have overall authority here, Inqusitor, but the military aspects of this mission fall under my jurisdiction" - a quote from our last mission.

 

Which then raises the question who gets define which situation is predominantly military nature, etc. Unclear hierarchies are dangerous. In my view, when a KT goes on a mission with an Inquisitor, normally the Inq should be assigned as their boss. The KT leader just is responsible for coordination of brothers in combat but still takes orders (in the form of polite requests ideally) from an Inq. If a KT meets an Inq while on a mission for the DW, they are already in the service of the Inquisition. They can't be stripped away, they have every right to deny orders by the new Inquisitor.

 

 

FFG's rule of Astartes Superiority remains unviolated. ;)

 

Well, coherency between games isn't one of FFG's top priorities so I wouldn't read too much into it. ;)

 

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#53 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 10:05 AM

Let us distinguish between de jure and de facto here, Lynata. De jure, an inquisitor has no authority over a KT. In my interpretation (and I suspect to some degree in FFG's interpretation), however, an Inquisitor will have every reasonable request honoured by a Watch Captain/Commander. Which means that de facto it makes almost no difference. Which is what constitutes indirect authority.

 

No, let's not. Let us just distinguish between "authority" and "no authority" instead. Because there is a difference between requests and commands, and a person either is truly in charge of something or they are not. I simply don't see a need to hide such deviations behind lawyer-like juggling of words.

 

Besides, the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" is, in GW's fluff, how an Inquisitor already deals with every single Space Marine Chapter in the Imperium - by officially having authority over the Astartes, but frequently being forced to carefully negotiate their requests in order to receive the support they want. It is for this reason that the Ordo Xenos has formed the Deathwatch in the first place, so that they have a crystal-clear command hierarchy where an Inquisitor just needs to snap their fingers and have a bunch of Astartes do what he or she wants!

So what this deviation between FFG's and GW's fluff did is remove the Deathwatch from said hierarchy and instead transform it into a standard Inquisition-Astartes-relationship with an alliance for co-operation (much like it exists between certain Chapters and individual Inquisitors).

 

I think you're just miffed that the game doesn't state that a KT is at an inquisitor's command - the way you like it in the game you are playing.

 

Yes and no. I'm certainly biased towards the original version of this fluff as I like consistency in the settings I game in. At the same time, however, I've come to terms with FFG's interpretation of the setting simply being "different". What I want here in this debate is simply for this difference to be acknowledged instead of being swept under the rug. Let the players decide which version of the fluff they want to follow. ;)

 

Well, coherency between games isn't one of FFG's top priorities so I wouldn't read too much into it. ;)

 

Oh, I know. Dark Heresy and Deathwatch also have different stats for some of the same enemies, so it kind of makes sense to have DH gear be of lower power. A lot of other players still believe the games are supposed to tie into each other, though, and the books kind of suggest this is how it's supposed to work, too in those little "guideline boxes".

 

Me, I recommend to build characters and equipment around a single ruleset instead, or at the very least adapting/modifying stuff from other game lines if you really do want to mix them. But I'm sure you have already seen me make such suggestions in crossover threads.

 

That said, GK Terminator Armour is AP 14 even in Dark Heresy. It's one and the same supplement that reinforces the gap - and of course Astartes bolters are now using DW stats in DH, too, rather than their first rules from Black Industries' Purge the Unclean adventure.

 

It creates a weird state of flux where on one hand it looks like they want things to fit together, but on the other they clearly don't. It's almost like how GW handles the issue of "canon". :D


Edited by Lynata, 03 May 2014 - 10:09 AM.


#54 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 10:43 AM

No, let's not. Let us just distinguish between "authority" and "no authority" instead. Because there is a difference between requests and commands, and a person either is truly in charge of something or they are not. I simply don't see a need to hide such deviations behind lawyer-like juggling of words.

 

No, let's not. There is no point in debating the obvious! :D

And it's not lawyer-like juggling, it's the way the world works. The chancellor of Germany also can influence developments that he or she by law has no command over. They are just influential and when they request something, a lot of people who are not under their direct authority will comply.

 

I think I am right: you are just miffed! :P

 

 

Besides, the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" is, in GW's fluff, how an Inquisitor already deals with every single Space Marine Chapter in the Imperium - by officially having authority over the Astartes, but frequently being forced to carefully negotiate their requests in order to receive the support they want. It is for this reason that the Ordo Xenos has formed the Deathwatch in the first place, so that they have a crystal-clear command hierarchy where an Inquisitor just needs to snap their fingers and have a bunch of Astartes do what he or she wants!

So what this deviation between FFG's and GW's fluff did is remove the Deathwatch from said hierarchy and instead transform it into a standard Inquisition-Astartes-relationship with an alliance for co-operation (much like it exists between certain Chapters and individual Inquisitors).

 

Really? I read it differently.

"The Space Marines of the Deathwatch are drawn from many different Chapters, all of which have sworn sacred oaths to maintain specially trained alien fighters and stand ready to deploy them at a moment's notice."

I read two aspects here:

  • Availability/rapid deployment capability (aka not being busy hunting heretics or daemons somewhere in the galaxy)
  • Specialization (aka xenos fighting capabilities that excels even the normal Astartes excellent standards)

 

Yes and no. I'm certainly biased towards the original version of this fluff as I like consistency in the settings I game in. At the same time, however, I've come to terms with FFG's interpretation of the setting simply being "different". What I want here in this debate is simply for this difference to be acknowledged instead of being swept under the rug. Let the players decide which version of the fluff they want to follow. ;)

 

I have given up on perfect consistency in 40K a long time ago. Too many conflicts/changes since Rogue Trader.

And why should a player only play one version? I'd totally play in a Lynata marines campaign. I just don't want Lynata marines in my Deathwatch campaign! :D

 

 

Oh, I know. Dark Heresy and Deathwatch also have different stats for some of the same enemies, so it kind of makes sense to have DH gear be of lower power. A lot of other players still believe the games are supposed to tie into each other, though, and the books kind of suggest this is how it's supposed to work, too in those little "guideline boxes".

 

Me, I recommend to build characters and equipment around a single ruleset instead, or at the very least adapting/modifying stuff from other game lines if you really do want to mix them. But I'm sure you have already seen me make such suggestions in crossover threads.

 

That said, GK Terminator Armour is AP 14 even in Dark Heresy. It's one and the same supplement that reinforces the gap - and of course Astartes bolters are now using DW stats in DH, too, rather than their first rules from Black Industries' Purge the Unclean adventure.

 

It creates a weird state of flux where on one hand it looks like they want things to fit together, but on the other they clearly don't. It's almost like how GW handles the issue of "canon". :D

 

You know, I have accused FFG of just wanting to make money with their segmented approach. While I still think the assessment is correct, I must confess that I have begun to cherish their self-contradictory approach of different core rulebooks with different stats.

 

It's much better if the different settings are a bit conflicting and dedicated GMs must piece their own interpretation of the fluff together.

 

Inconsistency nurtures creativity (at least in dedicated GMs). It forces you to think and pick and choose.

 

A unified setting makes GMs lazy - the game designers have already picked the correct interpretation for you. Less contradictions also means less controversies and less conversations such as ours. So Lynata marines in DH2 would have been totally fine with me. Provided they kept Movie Marines in a DW2 rulebook.

 

Alex

 

PS I would like to host some of your rules on my blog too. Would that be okay?


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#55 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 12:15 PM

 

No, let's not. There is no point in debating the obvious! :D

 

So .. if you agree that an Inquisitor has no authority over a DW Kill-team, why are we even argueing? That was the whole point of contention...  :P

 

 

Really? I read it differently.

"The Space Marines of the Deathwatch are drawn from many different Chapters, all of which have sworn sacred oaths to maintain specially trained alien fighters and stand ready to deploy them at a moment's notice."

I read two aspects here:

  • Availability/rapid deployment capability (aka not being busy hunting heretics or daemons somewhere in the galaxy)
  • Specialization (aka xenos fighting capabilities that excels even the normal Astartes excellent standards)

 

Yeah, I was referring to GW's fluff, which adds reliability/fealty to that list:

 

"It is clear then that wherever possible it is best if the Inquisition can deal with a threat using its own resources, avoiding the dangerous entanglements that may result from involving other agencies and military forces. It is for this reason that the Inquisition maintains its own fighting formations, foremost amongst them being the Kill-teams of the Deathwatch Space Marines and the daemon-hunting Grey Knights Space Marines."

- Inquisitor: Thorian Sourcebook

 

 

It's much better if the different settings are a bit conflicting and dedicated GMs must piece their own interpretation of the fluff together.

 

Inconsistency nurtures creativity (at least in dedicated GMs). It forces you to think and pick and choose.

 

If this is how it would be treated, I'd agree. However, just from looking at the forums, most people still seem to simply adopt everything "as is". Certainly, the aforementioned guideline box plays a part in this dangerous perception.

 

PS I would like to host some of your rules on my blog too. Would that be okay?

 

Uh? Oh ... sure - I'm not sure I actually have written many houserules so far, though - or at least not published them (yet).

What exactly are you looking for?

 

Also, you should maybe link your blog in the signature? Some people might click on it!  ;)



#56 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 12:39 PM

 

 

No, let's not. There is no point in debating the obvious! :D

 

So .. if you agree that an Inquisitor has no authority over a DW Kill-team, why are we even argueing? That was the whole point of contention...  :P

 

Because I ascribe indirect and informal authority to an Inquisitor and claim that in the field the difference is virtual.

 

Also, let's be honest, Lynata... the game would be a much tougher sell if there was necessarily an Inquisitor/Watch Captain overseer on every mission. It's an easier sell because the kill-team is given more autonomy. Heck, even the team leader PC isn't supposed to have authority in DW.

 

 

Yeah, I was referring to GW's fluff, which adds reliability/fealty to that list:

 

"It is clear then that wherever possible it is best if the Inquisition can deal with a threat using its own resources, avoiding the dangerous entanglements that may result from involving other agencies and military forces. It is for this reason that the Inquisition maintains its own fighting formations, foremost amongst them being the Kill-teams of the Deathwatch Space Marines and the daemon-hunting Grey Knights Space Marines."

- Inquisitor: Thorian Sourcebook

 

(My quote was from redelf's site, aka the Index Astartes.)

The above quote isn't in contradiction to my interpretation. If 99% of all reasonable requests get honoured, then it pretty much fits the above description in my book.

 

 

Uh? Oh ... sure - I'm not sure I actually have written many houserules so far, though - or at least not published them (yet).

What exactly are you looking for?

 

Also, you should maybe link your blog in the signature? Some people might click on it!  ;)

 

Your squad rules for a start. Maybe you also have a document that fully explains how you use Inquisitor's damage system in 40K RP? Maybe also your sisters for DW rules? You see, I don't want in my blog just stuff that supports my idea of DW. As long as it is quality rules AND it falls within wiggle room (Ultramarines have blue armour), it's a candidate. Part of the blog is to give house rules another "peer review", as I am doing in Knights thread right now, to give rules a final polish. Rules on the blog should be production-grade quality (although I am not sure if this a desirable goal if I have the DW Core in mind :lol:). At least, better than some of the stuff you find on Dark Reign.

 

As for my blog, I am currently filling it daily with a post or two. I want to have some content before going online to better demonstrate what I have in mind for it. Should go online next week.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#57 Alrik Vas

Alrik Vas

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 03:15 PM

If you're a DW kill team and you've been given a mission to accompany an Inquisitor to some planet and help them, you're pretty much going to be doing what they say unless they ask you to violate some kind of regulation the team sticks to.

 

Mostly because the inquisitor is likely not going to have real mission perameters as they figure things out as they go, and will be calling the kill team in when necessary.  In these cases, the astartes basically sit on their thumbs until it's time for action, where the team's sergeant will take over anyhow.  If they get used for anything other than that, it will likely be to be seen with the inquisitor, but only if said inquisitor wants his enemies to know he's got fricken space marines with him.

 

All other situations seem to be: Walk into the Watch Captan's office

"Brothers, the holy ordos of the Emperor's Inquisition have finished an investigation, and they have found the planetary governor of Planet X to be a gene-stealer cult leader.  Go there, crush his army and rid the Imperium of this foulness before the Hive Fleet finds their way to the system.  Here is all the inteligence the inquisitors have gathered.  Plan your operation swiftly so we can begin the Ceremony of Oaths.  You leave in seventy-two hours."

 

See how the inquisitor wasn't even there and didn't give any orders?

 

That's probably how it ususally goes.



#58 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 04:16 PM

Because I ascribe indirect and informal authority to an Inquisitor and claim that in the field the difference is virtual. [...]  If 99% of all reasonable requests get honoured, then it pretty much fits the above description in my book.

 

The entire point of that quote and my posts is that the Inquisition doesn't want to risk its demands not being followed, even if it truly were just a 1% chance. That is also a criticism I have with your interpretation of informal authority, as you seem to suggest that simply being in the position of having one's advice heard qualifies as "informal authority". I just cannot accept this; to me, the definition of authority is too narrow to leave room for this. Your definition sounds more like a degree of influence, but it is not authority as defined in the dictionaries.

 

Not that this debate has much use now, for we now seem to agree on how an Inquisitor actually works in FFG's Deathwatch. We are apparently just using different words to describe this situation, creating the potential for miscommunication.

 

Also, let's be honest, Lynata... the game would be a much tougher sell if there was necessarily an Inquisitor/Watch Captain overseer on every mission. It's an easier sell because the kill-team is given more autonomy. Heck, even the team leader PC isn't supposed to have authority in DW.

 

Oh, yes, I agree. Now, some other people have actually voiced their discontent at this version of hierarchy, so I am not alone in this criticism, but I do believe the majority appreciates it. I distinctively remember comments about being glad not having to take orders from some non-Astartes.

 

Not that it would have had to go as far as you suggest, mind you - even in GW's version of the Deathwatch, not every mission is accompanied by an Inquisitor. Which is how my group is currently playing it, by the way (more or less, anyways; he is sort of "there", but just listens in to our vox communications from the safety of the Thunderhawk, leaving tactical decisions to the team captain).

Deathwatch not even having a firm "Sergeant" position by default is another weird thing that rubs me the wrong way, btw. At least they didn't do it this way for the Only War RPG as well. Matter of preferences, of course.

 

As for my blog, I am currently filling it daily with a post or two. I want to have some content before going online to better demonstrate what I have in mind for it. Should go online next week.

 

Ah, cool - keep us posted! More ideas / sources of inspiration are always good. :)

 

 

If you're a DW kill team and you've been given a mission to accompany an Inquisitor to some planet and help them, you're pretty much going to be doing what they say unless they ask you to violate some kind of regulation the team sticks to.

 

Perhaps, but in that case you got the order to do so from your Watch Captain. That's what this debate was about - an Inquisitor's ability to "hijack" a Kill-team by virtue of him/her being an Inquisitor, not because another Deathwatch Space Marine said so.



#59 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 12:19 AM

@Alrik: Yeah, but that's partially what FFG wanted to avoid. They wanted players to have more autonomy and more freedom to take initiative. One of Ross Watson's inspirations was Knights of the Round Table after all.

 

 

The entire point of that quote and my posts is that the Inquisition doesn't want to risk its demands not being followed, even if it truly were just a 1% chance.

 

But I am not reading that. Dangerous entanglements reads to me as "favours", to be honest. Also, I think it's less about the issue of authority but about having dedicated troops on stand-by. But the quote is certainly vague enough to allow for different interpretations.

 

 

 I just cannot accept this; to me, the definition of authority is too narrow to leave room for this. Your definition sounds more like a degree of influence, but it is not authority as defined in the dictionaries.

 

I have had a series of lectures on "organization and planning" at university, so I know that authority isn't only defined in the narrow and formal command and control sense out there. There is authority based on personal charisma, for example. Or authority based on being perceived as competent in one's field.

 

 

Oh, yes, I agree. Now, some other people have actually voiced their discontent at this version of hierarchy, so I am not alone in this criticism, but I do believe the majority appreciates it. I distinctively remember comments about being glad not having to take orders from some non-Astartes.

 

Not that it would have had to go as far as you suggest, mind you - even in GW's version of the Deathwatch, not every mission is accompanied by an Inquisitor. Which is how my group is currently playing it, by the way (more or less, anyways; he is sort of "there", but just listens in to our vox communications from the safety of the Thunderhawk, leaving tactical decisions to the team captain).

Deathwatch not even having a firm "Sergeant" position by default is another weird thing that rubs me the wrong way, btw. At least they didn't do it this way for the Only War RPG as well. Matter of preferences, of course.

 

I think it makes much more sense for OW to be based on a more rigid command structure and DW to grant more autonomy... again, it provides different gaming experiences, helping to set the two games further apart.

 

 

Ah, cool - keep us posted! More ideas / sources of inspiration are always good. :)

 

It'll be primarily about taking the cool ideas of people here, trying to give it another layer of polish and to host it in a condensed manner so that people don't have to go huntint through the archives here. As such, it doesn't seek to innovate. I would instead always post my ideas here and discuss them here and only put the final end product on the blog.

 

It's just for GM's who quickly need some house rule or random generation table or a vermin and they want stuff that has been carefully considered and not something quickly written up - which they could do themselves in 5 min anyway.

 

And it ideally should not just support one vision of 40K (mine) but many different ones.

 

Perhaps, but in that case you got the order to do so from your Watch Captain. That's what this debate was about - an Inquisitor's ability to "hijack" a Kill-team by virtue of him/her being an Inquisitor, not because another Deathwatch Space Marine said so.

 

Maybe you should define what you mean by hi-jack.

 

 

Alex


Edited by ak-73, 04 May 2014 - 12:22 AM.

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#60 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:15 AM

But I am not reading that. Dangerous entanglements reads to me as "favours", to be honest. Also, I think it's less about the issue of authority but about having dedicated troops on stand-by. But the quote is certainly vague enough to allow for different interpretations.

 

That quote was the last paragraph of a 2 page explanation on how the Inquisition operates and how it is largely dependent on outside assistance, as well as the possible issues that arise from them, ending with the Inquisition at times even being forced to move against the Adeptus Astartes and how tricky it is. In this context, it certainly is not about simply having troops on stand-by, but having troops that follow orders. All the time, and without exception.

 

The quote I posted specifically tells of the Deathwatch being one of the Inquisition's own resources. The Inquisition OWNS the Deathwatch. It cannot get any more clear than that.

 

The full text is too long to copy, and GW doesn't host the PDF on their website anymore - however, here is a copy for you to see for yourself.

 

It's a good read in any case, as it covers a ton of detail regarding the Inquisition. Lots of it clashes with the version represented in Dark Heresy (including the definition of Cells), but in a way this too only reinforces that we should not be surprised about such contradictions, including as far as the Deathwatch is concerned. Its exact relationship to the Ordo Xenos is by far not the only thing that's different between FFG and Games Workshop, anyways.

 

I have had a series of lectures on "organization and planning" at university, so I know that authority isn't only defined in the narrow and formal command and control sense out there. There is authority based on personal charisma, for example. Or authority based on being perceived as competent in one's field.

 

I'm still going by the definition in the dictionary, and whilst both your examples are valid they do not apply in the context of this debate.

 

To be honest, I have a hard time remembering how we got from my statement that an Inquisitor has no command authority over the Deathwatch in FFG's version of the game to argueing about different meanings of the term authority. It honestly sounds as if you're just dragging this one out. Didn't we already agree on the core of the issue here?

 

Maybe you should define what you mean by hi-jack.

 

An Inquisitor showing up and demanding a Kill-team to support them. Being able to command the Deathwatch to send support instead of having to hope that a request is granted. Because the latter is what said Inquisitor could get from every random Space Marine Chapter in existence. But again I point to the Thorian Sourcebook for the lengthier explanation.


Edited by Lynata, 04 May 2014 - 03:17 AM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS