So I thought of a basic set of social interaction rules regarding bypassing a superior officer. While this is intended more for an Astartes-based system I'm working on, I figured OW had much the same structure the same ideas can be applied.

Regardless of the reasons why, bypassing a superior officer should never be done lightly, as the bypassed officer will almost certainly come to hold a grudge against you if you do so. This presents itself as a -30 penalty to any interaction tests between the offending guardsman and the bypassed officer. This may be expanded (perhaps to shift the penalty to the whole squad for particularly nasty officers) or for the rare particularly forgiving officers, reduced, at the GM's discretion. Repeat offenses may grant the Enemy Talent, which should be limited to those who would hold a grudge against the guardsmen in question.

Exactly when the above penalty should be imposed is up to the GM's discretion, but some common sense should be used--namely it should be applied when the officer might reasonably find out about this transgression.

While the reasons for bypassing one's superior officer are varied, the biggest benefit--and also the biggest risk--is being able to have a shot at convincing a different person of something. In game mechanics, this should give the guardsman a shot at retrying a social or logistics test that they either failed with the bypassed officer, or give them a chance to make such a test where said officer would not allow it. However, these higher ranked officers do not like to have their time wasted by petty concerns, and thus each degree of failure on any test made with them leads to a -10 penalty on future interaction tests with them, with 4+ degrees of failure earning one the Enemy Talent with said commanding officer, and every 2 additional degrees of failure adding an additional level to this.

Particularly in the Guard, however, due to the strictly one-way nature of command, such subversion of the command structure is not looked upon lightly at all, and the GM may wish to impose additional penalties (whether mechanical or story-based) on the player/players who have performed such an act, whether they succeed, or (especially if) they fail.

So yeah, that's a set of basic rules for bypassing one's commanding officer. What do you guys think?

Hmmmmm oh wait you are talking about the chain of command (CoC)!

I don't think you need to make specific rules about this, going above your station should just be roleplayed, and you can give ad hoc penalties to some skills checks when needed.

It is also highly situational. Going above your CO to reveal him being a chaos cultist in disguise and able to prove it is a something completely different than going to the Major complaining that you got too much guard duty. The latter is likely to get you something a lot less pleasant than guard duty.

The Guardsman's primer has a section on going above your superiors head, they don't like it, the officer in question is informed and the guardsman is given a beating by said officer, the munitorium don't like the rankers circumventing the chain of command.

Bypassing a superior officer is the same as bypassing a trial - you go straight to the chopping block. I would let my players role play the scenario, sure. Maybe there are some interaction rolls. They could be thanked for the information they shared...

But rules are rules.

BLAM!

Bypassing a superior officer is the same as bypassing a trial - you go straight to the chopping block. I would let my players role play the scenario, sure. Maybe there are some interaction rolls. They could be thanked for the information they shared...

But rules are rules.

BLAM!

Unless you really want a catch 22, the rule of reporting heresy to your superiors trumps the CoC quite easily. You don't execute guardsman for doing what they are supposed to. Unless of course they make false claims.

Heresy is another matter entirely - something like that should be reported to the Commissar and Ministorum contingent, not necessarily to the officer above your own. I'm talking about the whole "the Lieutenant is an idiot, I'm going to try and get his order superseded by the Captain" or "we were ordered directly into the fire of our own artillery, let me see if I can have that order countermanded" which I assume is the intent of this suggestion.

Heresy is another matter entirely - something like that should be reported to the Commissar and Ministorum contingent, not necessarily to the officer above your own. I'm talking about the whole "the Lieutenant is an idiot, I'm going to try and get his order superseded by the Captain" or "we were ordered directly into the fire of our own artillery, let me see if I can have that order countermanded" which I assume is the intent of this suggestion.

Yeah if complaining about your CO being an idiot was allowed, the higher ranks would be littered with these complaints all day. I was referring to the stuff a higher ranking officer would want to know, such as wilful disobedience by the lower ranking officer or valid suspicions of disloyalty. Of course if the officer is completely incompetent the higher ranks might find out anyway by asking or checking up with NCOs who are allowed to answer truthfully about such.