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.

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

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 supplemen t 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".

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!

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!

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!

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 supplemen t 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".

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?

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

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...

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!

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

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...

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 ). 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

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.

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.

@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

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.

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?

You're a bit too suspicious. As I said from the start: my take on is that in practice the difference between formal, direct authority and what the Inquisition got in DW is mostly virtual.

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 .

If in 99% of all reasonable cases, the request is granted, the difference (beyond tone) is slim. Tone is indeed a difference. In DW, an Inquisitor can't both the Deathwatch Marines around according to his whims.

Beyond that, I have put my (simple) blog online:

http://40kroleplay.weebly.com/

It's pretty much at its infant stages. Your squad rules are already online though.

Regarding those rules...

What I am missing in the current iteration is rules for suppressing squads and flanking/encirclement. Nothing breaks morale as quickly as incoming fire from opposing directions.

Also, one thought I was having was further distinction between fatalities and casualties because a heavily wounded squaddie that the squad tries to save might have good dramatic potential.

Alex

You're a bit too suspicious. As I said from the start: my take on is that in practice the difference between formal, direct authority and what the Inquisition got in DW is mostly virtual. [...] If in 99% of all reasonable cases, the request is granted, the difference (beyond tone) is slim. Tone is indeed a difference.

Ultimately, that makes the Deathwatch no different from any other Space Marine Chapter with a localised mission. You've removed reliability, and thus the very reason for its existence - at least as per the Thorian Sourcebook.

I'm not debating that it has its own raison d'être in FFG's version of the setting (which is even explained in the core rulebook), just placing a reminder that it's different, and that these differences may have consequences on interaction and mission outcome. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of personal preferences (i.e. how independent you want your Marines to be).

[edit] Following some reflection on my own experiences with the DW RPG, I can actually see why FFG may have opted for this approach. For better or worse, Inquisitors have been left out of the product as playable characters, but an element of investigation, planning and social interaction is (I think) crucial to prevent the game from becoming a boring dungeon grind, so it makes only sense to shift all this stuff to the Marines, and in doing so shrink the Inquisition's own involvement.

I don't yet want to say that my group's approach (an NPC Inquisitor) was a mistake, but I'm beginning to have some doubt. Let's see what the coming sessions hold, I guess.

Beyond that, I have put my (simple) blog online:

http://40kroleplay.weebly.com/

It's pretty much at its infant stages. Your squad rules are already online though.

Eep! They're not yet in the stage I'd consider them "publishable" - though I have been looking for playtests regarding the basic idea ...

Thanks for the link either way!

What I am missing in the current iteration is rules for suppressing squads and flanking/encirclement. Nothing breaks morale as quickly as incoming fire from opposing directions.

Also, one thought I was having was further distinction between fatalities and casualties because a heavily wounded squaddie that the squad tries to save might have good dramatic potential.

Yes to both! Suppression (both from as well as against the squad) is definitely coming. Flanking/encirclement sounds a bit more difficult in that of course it would have to be a maneuver available to the squad as well, but more importantly I'm not sure how to actually pull this off ruleswise. Perhaps a special Test for moving across the battlefield, with failure risking being caught off-guard by the enemy?

The dramatic potential for casualties is a good idea, thanks. In terms of mechanics, it could be as simple as introducing a threshold of "Negative Wounds" (-5?) that decide between incapacitation and death ...?

Well, let me do a little bit of backpedaling. I hate it too, but I've thought about it some and come to different coclusion.

I was reading about the Sabbat Crusade and it mentions this warmaster who had to cajole the Navy and the generals under his command into fighting the **** war the way he wanted to. The push was getting stalled and he needed these guys to move it or lose it, they had to risk. The material praises the guy for being a sly talker and awesome negotiator...and he's the fricken warmaster. Bolter rounds for anyone who shows dissent, right? Well, it looks like even the commissars were't touching this one, because nobody wanted to be the reason the Crusade fell apart.

When it comes down to it, authority is one thing, but convncing people is another.

I think the same is true for inquisitors. They aren't inside the command structure, but they have crazy authority. However, they still need to convince those around them to do things for them.

"This is all I will ask of you", "In the name of the Emperor!" and "There is much for us to gain if we work together" are different ways to go about it, and they all affect an Inquisitor's influence for a reason. They don't have any army, they have to get specialized groups in armies to do the dirty work their usual henchmen can't handle.

They can flash the rosette, but a space marine can just point to the relic bolter in his hand and shrug. Does he though? Inquisitors can bring a lot to the table, and it's often better to work with them than make an enemy with a 12th dan in Red Tape Jutsu

So the authority they have, while real, is discountable if their reasons for needing your aid aren't great enough to pry the resources free, or if they can't do anything reasonably negative to you for refusing. Sometimes, the big bad with the spy network needs to bark up a different tree.

I think the same is true for inquisitors. They aren't inside the command structure, but they have crazy authority. However, they still need to convince those around them to do things for them.

That's what I've been argueing, though - in GW's version of the setting, the Inquisitors are inside the Deathwatch's command structure, as the Ordo Xenos owns them.

Otherwise you'd just have the same relationship as an Inquisitor has with a normal Space Marine Chapter - which is where the convincing part comes in.

Now, I can't commend anything about the Sabbat Crusade novels, as I haven't read them, though as far as I'm aware Warmasters can either be appointed by the High Lords, or are elected by Imperial forces allying on-site. Needless to say, this would influence how solid their command is, meaning whether they have been vested with this authority by the High Lords, who act as the voice of the God-Emperor Himself, or if he/she is commanding the warzone simply by way of tolerance.

Alternatively, it's simply a thing of the "Abnettverse".

Come to think of it, Dan Abnett wrote a lot of background for this RPG, too, so maybe there's a connection here?

Ultimately, that makes the Deathwatch no different from any other Space Marine Chapter with a localised mission. You've removed reliability, and thus the very reason for its existence - at least as per the Thorian Sourcebook.

I'm not debating that it has its own raison d'être in FFG's version of the setting (which is even explained in the core rulebook), just placing a reminder that it's different, and that these differences may have consequences on interaction and mission outcome. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of personal preferences (i.e. how independent you want your Marines to be).

[edit] Following some reflection on my own experiences with the DW RPG, I can actually see why FFG may have opted for this approach. For better or worse, Inquisitors have been left out of the product as playable characters, but an element of investigation, planning and social interaction is (I think) crucial to prevent the game from becoming a boring dungeon grind, so it makes only sense to shift all this stuff to the Marines, and in doing so shrink the Inquisition's own involvement.

I don't yet want to say that my group's approach (an NPC Inquisitor) was a mistake, but I'm beginning to have some doubt. Let's see what the coming sessions hold, I guess.

I can see both variants working, provided that an Inquisitor who leads kill-team debates his investigations with the kill-team members (so as to involve their players). I would run it a lot like Shadowrun with its Etiquette(Street) tests. The point being that since only one players has investigative skills micro-managing the investigations leads to side-lined players. Instead, the Inquisitor needs to select the right Acolytes for the job, they gather the information and the players need to piece the puzzle together as informations are trickling in.

As for authority, I don't see its need in the quote you provided. What I am reading there is that the Inquisition needs anti-xeno specialists on constant stand-by.

Eep! They're not yet in the stage I'd consider them "publishable" - though I have been looking for playtests regarding the basic idea ...

Thanks for the link either way!

What's an "Eep"?

Alright, I marked them as Beta in the meantime. Is that okay?

Yes to both! Suppression (both from as well as against the squad) is definitely coming. Flanking/encirclement sounds a bit more difficult in that of course it would have to be a maneuver available to the squad as well, but more importantly I'm not sure how to actually pull this off ruleswise. Perhaps a special Test for moving across the battlefield, with failure risking being caught off-guard by the enemy?

The dramatic potential for casualties is a good idea, thanks. In terms of mechanics, it could be as simple as introducing a threshold of "Negative Wounds" (-5?) that decide between incapacitation and death ...?

The old WFB 3E had rules for flanking, I believe. The rule could be as simple as: "If two enemy squads (or entities with a comparable output) attack from an angle >= 120°, the squad must make a morale test with -X. If the angle is >= 150°, the test is at -Y."

The idea behind this is that being flanked generally means generally your squad members have cover only against one enemy squad only because of the angles (bad enough) - and your withdrawal route is being threatened. Encirclement means you have been cut off and can't withdraw easily on top of it. That's why they're both terrible for morale. Which is why you have frontlines in war after all (each side avoiding that). And salients are both a risk as well as opportunity.

I would make incapacitation rare. For drama purposes. Constant drama is no drama but routine. So incapacitation is better a rare occurrence where your PCs might want to try to rescue that wounded and screaming squaddie that fights on their side. As such, I would rather recommend this being triggered by exactly 0 wounds only. Or something like that.

Alex

As for authority, I don't see its need in the quote you provided. What I am reading there is that the Inquisition needs anti-xeno specialists on constant stand-by.

How do you read that into "avoiding dangerous entanglements from involving other Imperial forces"?

Have you read the entire section as I recommended?

What's an "Eep"?

Alright, I marked them as Beta in the meantime. Is that okay?

Oh, just an attempt at conveying an expression of shock/surprise.

Beta sounds good, though, thank you. Or better yet: "Work in Progress"?

The old WFB 3E had rules for flanking, I believe. The rule could be as simple as: "If two enemy squads (or entities with a comparable output) attack from an angle >= 120°, the squad must make a morale test with -X. If the angle is >= 150°, the test is at -Y."

That sounds a bit complicated to calculate. I wouldn't want people to need a map for this stuff!

Still, it could probably be simplified into an effect that occurs once the Squad comes under attack "from opposite directions" - with the effect being the unit either being suppressed (as they hunker down in confusion) if exposed to ranged attacks, and/or receiving a penalty to WS/BS and Willpower if assaulted in close combat ... which increases the likelihood of them breaking in one of the following turns... how would that sound?

Alternatively, instead of suppression (which would then remain its own effect), ranged attacks from both directions could neutralise cover somehow, either by halving cover bonuses, or by providing a flat BS bonus to the attacker. I have not yet decided how Squads might make use of cover, if at all. *makes mental note*

I would make incapacitation rare. For drama purposes. Constant drama is no drama but routine. So incapacitation is better a rare occurrence where your PCs might want to try to rescue that wounded and screaming squaddie that fights on their side. As such, I would rather recommend this being triggered by exactly 0 wounds only. Or something like that.

Exactly 0 Wounds sounds as if it'd be way too rare to happen. On the other hand, a range of up to -5 (a total of 6 damage points) might happen too often. How about -3? And -6 for Squaddies with Unnatural Toughness.

I would then leave it to the GM how they actually want to wing it - being incapacitated may just as well have the Squaddie pass out, but be revive-able later on, or the PCs would simply not notice this casualty in the heat of battle. Screaming for help is something the GM might have an incapacitated Squaddie do whenever they think it'd make for a "good moment".

... ****, starting to move seriously OT here. Still, thanks for providing some food for thoughts!

As for authority, I don't see its need in the quote you provided. What I am reading there is that the Inquisition needs anti-xeno specialists on constant stand-by.

How do you read that into "avoiding dangerous entanglements from involving other Imperial forces"?

Have you read the entire section as I recommended?

Glanced over it and it's still not clear. Especially since it's not clear why fiercely independent Astartes should cease being so once seconded to the DW.

Oh, just an attempt at conveying an expression of shock/surprise.

Beta sounds good, though, thank you. Or better yet: "Work in Progress"?

Oh, I am just teasing you.

Changed.

... ****, starting to move seriously OT here. Still, thanks for providing some food for thoughts!

We can debate this on the blog or anywhere else.

Alex

Glanced over it and it's still not clear.

The entire chapter is talking about how "in practice, the Inquisition must be more political than its mandate allows" and how it must "rely on other parts of the Imperium" to support them - and it's not clear to you why it ends with the Inquisition preferably dealing with a threat using its own resources whenever possible...?

Well, in that case I suppose I've run out of options to convince you.

Especially since it's not clear why fiercely independent Astartes should cease being so once seconded to the DW.

See, that's (part of) the very nature of the original Deathwatch - their vows bind them to the Inquisition, and they are sworn on their honour to obey the Ordo Xenos' ruling. The firm integration of the Deathwatch into the Ordo's own hierarchy (which, as the Index Astartes notes, goes both ways*) ensures that they instantly accept the Inquisitor as their commander, when normally an Inquisitor approaching an independent Chapter would have to persuade, to cajole, or to threaten to receive the support they need, as the Space Marines normally consider themselves above the Inquisition's jurisdiction, even though they officially aren't.

(*: Captain Artemis is a good example .. a Deathwatch veteran who is now leading a Kill-team of human operatives after having replaced his commanding Inquisitor)

Or, in short, what's independent is - as the source actually says - not the Astartes themselves, but the Chapters they belong to. That is a small, but in this case critical difference. What GW's Deathwatch does is simply removing these Chapters out of the equation, and integrating a portion of its warriors into an entity that is more reliable to the Inquisition.

Well I read it talking about speed also. Ultimately, it all comes down to choice anyway.

Alex

Yes, Lynata, I was caught up in normal inquisitors and normal astartes.

Though, Ordo Hereticus would have issues trying to command a Deathwatch kill team, wouldn't they?

Though, Ordo Hereticus would have issues trying to command a Deathwatch kill team, wouldn't they?

I imagine so! This has (to my knowledge) never been explained in great detail, but personally I've always interpreted the Ordo-Chamber relationship in a way that it basically "cuts off" the relevant organisation from its ordinary obligations towards the Inquisition. In other words, a Deathwatch Marine approached by an Inquisitor not belonging to the Ordo Xenos is under no obligation to obey their commands - even though the Inquisitor's authority is (officially) still absolute! I suppose you could say the Marines' vows apply only to the Ordo Xenos, essentially "normalising" their relationship to other members of the Inquisition to being similar to a normal Space Marine Chapter, thus allowing them to decide whether or not to help out.

It's the same with the Grey Knights and the Sisters of Battle. In a way, it's like the Inquisitors of one Ordo banding together and "calling dibs" on a military faction, which then might consider itself at liberty to refuse requests by other Inquisitors by pointing at the Ordo affiliated with them, saying they're too busy and that the supplicant should please talk with Inquisitor soandso.

In reality, of course it'd be somewhat more complicated in that the Ordos themselves are only semi-official constructs - "circles" of likeminded Inquisitors who are sharing information and resources. Inquisitor who are particularly powerful and so influential that their reach transcends the borders of their faction might still be reckoned with, and lesser Inquisitors might shy away from moving against claims made towards their Chamber Militant for the sake of keeping the peace.

I'd expect this to be exceptions from the normal dealings, however.

I'm actually curious how others think this works, now, so anyone feel free to chime in!

I imagine so! This has (to my knowledge) never been explained in great detail, but personally I've always interpreted the Ordo-Chamber relationship in a way that it basically "cuts off" the relevant organisation from its ordinary obligations towards the Inquisition. In other words, a Deathwatch Marine approached by an Inquisitor not belonging to the Ordo Xenos is under no obligation to obey their commands - even though the Inquisitor's authority is (officially) still absolute! I suppose you could say the Marines' vows apply only to the Ordo Xenos, essentially "normalising" their relationship to other members of the Inquisition to being similar to a normal Space Marine Chapter, thus allowing them to decide whether or not to help out.

It's the same with the Grey Knights and the Sisters of Battle. In a way, it's like the Inquisitors of one Ordo banding together and "calling dibs" on a military faction, which then might consider itself at liberty to refuse requests by other Inquisitors by pointing at the Ordo affiliated with them, saying they're too busy and that the supplicant should please talk with Inquisitor soandso.

In reality, of course it'd be somewhat more complicated in that the Ordos themselves are only semi-official constructs - "circles" of likeminded Inquisitors who are sharing information and resources. Inquisitor who are particularly powerful and so influential that their reach transcends the borders of their faction might still be reckoned with, and lesser Inquisitors might shy away from moving against claims made towards their Chamber Militant for the sake of keeping the peace.

I'd expect this to be exceptions from the normal dealings, however.

I'm actually curious how others think this works, now, so anyone feel free to chime in! Lynata said this.

The fluff says that Deathwatch 'belongs' to the Ordo Xenos, Grey Knights to Ordo Malleus and Sisters of Battle to Ordo Hereticus. I've always imagined it with Space Marines the combat minded but at the same time tactically genius Inquisitors get the more influence cause Space Marines don't care for money or power. They respect people who do things not the pen pushers of the Administratum. That's what makes (can't remember the name) Inquisitor of the Chamber where she is. She can talk like a diplomat and willingly fights and does the dirty work. So the Marines know not to mess with her.

It's not the fact that you have say lots of influence from the High Lords of Terra themselves, no it is from your self. What you do and choices you make, thats what Space Marines respect.

You seem confident that the Angels of Death will listen to you. Why is that? Ho Ho Ho! Because you have authority from the Lords of Terra. Lad thats not what they're looking for. I have served Deathwatch for years. You mean I mean with Deathwatch? I know what I mean! Look here, you have to listen and learn, that's the way. Oh, do answer me a question. How many scars have you earned? How many battles have you fought in? None? Forget it lad. They won't listen to a pen pusher like you. Wait, you say that you have about three years to deliver the message? Good! Give me the message and tell you what I'll even help you. Why don't you take a little holiday to a planet I know. Nice planet with lush jungles and friendly creatures, oh the planet is called Ravacene but don't worry nothings going to hurt you...

Spoken by Inquisitor Ol'Jackson to Inquisitor Marius Helburg.