My point was that you can't own anything unless the government says you can, and it can change its mind whenever it suits it to do so. A while back we could own slaves. Now we can't. Right now we can own guns - but only certain ones, and who knows when the government might try to take them away. Perhaps home ownership might go the same way...

As for the mineral rights, if you find that your home is suddenly on the richest oil or gas field around and your property is the only way to get to it for whatever reason, you ass is moving. If you're on top of a uranium mine, the same thing (but you're probably happy to move). And we all know that if the goverment needs to put a high voltage line or highway through your ancestral home, you better just take their offer.

Varnias Tybalt said:

No, you're wrong. The Imperium is noted as being perfectly fine with allowing Feral Worlds to remain unindustrialized, and the reason noted is because of the quality of the warriors they produce. This has been in every 40k rulebook I've read. Besides, the Imperium is many things, but efficient is hardly one of them.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Firstly, the Imperium doesn't give a **** about a particular mountain ranges. All the Administratum cares about is that the tithes are met and that the local government doesn't fall to heresy, and the local governor is free to do whatever he wants as long as those conditions are met. Yes, he has obligations, but that's part and parcel of being a feudal vassal. That doesn't mean that the planet is any less his. If they start shipping in industrial supplies, he has no requirement to actually use them; as long as he continues to meet the tithes levelled on him, they could care less how he goes about getting them (though if they're shipping him industrial equipment, it'd probably be pretty difficult to do so without using said equipment). It'd hardly be impossible, though; witness the case of Sepheris Secundus in the Calixus Sector. It's one of the largest mining worlds in the sector, and it does it all by slave labor. When one of the local nobles tried to industrialize, he got himself declared a heretic!

Varnias Tybalt said:

The two are one and the same.

Varnias Tybalt said:

No, it wouldn't. They'd just send an army in to depose him, possibly with another Rogue Trader at its head. Did you even bother reading the book?

Warrants of trade do come with obligations you know, and one of them is letting the Imperium of man have full access to do whatever it deems necessary to any worlds you've found. So how does that make the Rogue Trader an "owner"?

It's like saying that you "own" a house, but the government still maintains a legal right to break into your house, steal stuff it wants from your house, place gigantic communications towers or oil-drilling towers in your backyard of that house. And if you were to object to this, the government is within it's rights to tear up your drivers license and either kill you or imprisoning you, or simply confine you to your own home and take your car away.

Would you really call that "ownership"?

Yes. It's basically the same as saying, "Everyone who owns a house has to pay taxes. We don't care what you do with it, as long as you pay them. We reserve the right to alter them at any time for any reason."

HappyDaze said:

That's true, but I don't think we need to worry about it. Democracy tends to stand in the way of more overt from of government abuse, and it is a pretty overt action to steal someone's private property.

That is of course if the country in question manages to maintain it's democracy, which is not a certain thing these days. I mean, just consider the "two-party system" forming in many supposedly democratic countries. All of them show signs of homogenization, and sooner or later those two parties will form into one. And by then, democracy will be dead and we'll have a bunch of oligarchs ruling us...

nick012000 said:

I've read the same things you have and there i very little claiming that the Imperium of Man purposefully avoid industrializing feral worlds just because they produce decent fighters. Some Space Marine chapters might do this, but those are in a minority and beyond most Administratum and Munitorium control anyway.

Normally feral worlds are given a very low tithe grade, mainly because they don't produce anything. But while the Imperium of man isn't efficient it is greedy. An entire planet is a huge untapped resource, and if they could, they would turn it into the hellish industrialized nightmare that is a hive world. They just don't have the resources do do that to every feral and frontier world at the present moment. So they settle for a low tithe grade and stay happy with recieving a few savage guardsmen at regular intervals.

nick012000 said:

Quoted from Lexicanum:

Billions of Administratum officials on Terra and throughout the galaxy are constantly carrying out population censuses, working out tithes, recording and archiving information, and the million other things that are necessary for the running of the Imperium.

How do you think the officials work out the tithes of any given planet? Do you think they just ask the local governor: -"Hello gu'vna! We were just curious, how much do you think your world could contribute in tithes to the Administratum each tithe season?" and then proceed to simply take the governors word for it?

If so, the Imperium of Man would soon be too poor in resources to function. The Administratum sends out officials, agents and prospectors everywhere to assess the worth of any given planet. If they hear that there's valuable resources to be mined in a particular mountain range then you can be **** sure that they will in fact give a crap about that particular mountain range, and take steps in order to make sure that mining will commence as soon as possible, regardless of whatever the local governor might think about it. However, if the governor wish to maintain is position and some form of autonomy, he can take steps himself and make sure that the mountainrange is mined and by doing so please the administratum officials enough to let him take care of things. But the net result is still the same, the administratum DO care about particular planets and their potential resources. It's what they base the tithe grade on after all.

nick012000 said:

I didn't say that they would start shipping in industrial supplies, I said they would start to ship in Industry. Usually this is a department for the Adeptus Mechanicus, and you can be **** sure that they won't give a crap what the local governor thinks. They will proceed to do what it is they do best: bleed a planet dry of resources.

The reason why Sepheris Secundus still prefer slave labour is because the current rulers (governor) wish to keep their position as rulers, and they do this by whipping their own people into meeting the back-breaking tithes without the industrial aid of the AdMech. And so far the Administratum has seen no reason to interfere, but IF the Sepherians one day wouldn't be able to meet the tithes, or some administratum prospector deems that more resources could be gained and advise an increase in the tithe grade, then the local rulers would have a hard time maintaining their illusion of autonomy.

One way or another, the Administratum will make sure those resources are extracted, and if the current rulers prove to not be up to the task, they will place the task in more capable hands (like the Adeptus Mechanicus).

nick012000 said:

No they aren't. And I'll tell you why with an illustrative example:

If I find gold on land that I have claimed, then that gold is mine. I own it, I can mine exactly how much quantities of it as I wish and sell it to whomever I want. I might have to pay taxes for it, but if I were to fail in doing that then I would most likely just be prosecuted and having to pay fines for tax evasion. Normally the government won't have any rights to take away my gold mine.

But if I was in the Imperium of Man, things would be different. Sure I would be allowed to claim the land with the gold in my name, I would also have the premission to mine the gold, and rule over the people mining it for me. BUT, I couldn't sell the gold to anyone (If they knew I was selling gold to xenos species from a world claimed in the name of the Imperium, I would be replaced and probably hunted down by the Inquisition), I would also have to put up with having government officials inspecting my gold mining operation from time to time, and they would have absolute authority in exactly how much tax I have to pay each time. They can also survey the resources in question and demand from me to extend my mining operation in order to mine more gold, and I have to follow their orders. If I fail in doing this or simply refuse them, then they will make sure the entire gold mine is taken away from me and leave me with nothing. Also they might revoke my rights to claim new gold mines and even hamper my abilities to explore areas for new gold mines.

So you see, the two aren't the same.

And this is also why most Rogue Traders tend to not settle down and become governors, because it puts them under even more obligations than if they just roamed the galaxy and traded in commodities they find and sell them to areas in need, and perhaps establishing colonies on new worlds but letting the Imperium appoint rulers instead and simply move on to greener pastures once the first colony has been established.

There's more individual profit to be made (for the Rogue Trader, and not for the Administratum) by trading, rather than forming little make-believe kingdoms which still have to answer to a higher authority.

nick012000 said:

No it's not the same thing, because in most countries, not paying the taxes will still let you own your house and the government will most likely not take your house away from you if you fail to pay the taxes. You'll most likely be prosecuted for tax evasion and either be forced to pay fines or be sent to prison, but your house is still your house. Last time I checked, only banks have the rights to claim real-estate if the owner take out a mortgage and fails to pay back the loans.

So you could say that the Imperium (or more correctly the Administratum) works like a mortgage bank more than a tax collecting agency. The "loan" is he rights and priviliges given to the Rogue Trader in the form of a warrant of trade, and if he or she decides to settle down on a planet, then that planet has been claimed by the Rogue Trader but with the rights to claim provided by the Administratum. So techically it is the "bank" who owns that planet, not the Rogue Trader.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Don't produce anything? They produce soldiers. There are worlds that contribute their entire tithe in fighting men (Cadia being the finest example, but Krieg and Catachan are similar) and worlds for which soldiers make up a significant contingent of their tithe (Armageddon, Necromunda, Mordia, etc), and they run the full range of tithe grades.

Also remember that the level of societal development on a world does not inherently preclude the production of resources - consider Sepheris Secundus in the Calixis Sector. By any societal definition, it's a feudal world, lacking in technology and reliant upon manual labour on a planetary scale to fulfil it's massive tithes. There's a world mentioned in the Battlefleet Gothic rulebook - a primitive culture who over the course of a decade, produced the basic structural components of a Lunar Class Cruiser at the behest of their Imperial Commander, who had the vessel assembled and commissioned in orbit.

So long as your tithes are sufficient, the Administratum doesn't actually care how you produced them.

Dahak said:

Yeah right...

So according to you, a Rogue Trader has every right to claim an entire world in the name of the Imperium, only to "sell" the world to a bunch of Orks who have the blatant intention to use that world as a beachhead for an invasion of Imperial space?

Woops! Apparently there are certain limitations to exactly who and what a Rogue Trader can deal with. You can't be "loyal to the emperor" and "trade whatever with whomever you want" both at the same time, it would constitute as an oxymoron.

I find it hard to believe that the Inquisition would just go: -"No sure mister Rouge Trader, go right ahead and help the foes of mankind. Your warrant of trade allows you to do that anyway, so we're not gonna punish you for it. Have a nice day!"

And as for the liberties that a warrant of trade grants, remember that the Administratum can revoke a warrant of trade anytime it wishes. That's also in the rulebook mind you. In case you've read it...

It seems pretty clear that, at the least, a RT can employ a Renegade House Navigator and mutants without risk to the WoT. Perhaps some xenos and even rogue psykers too.

As to whether a RT can own a planet, yes he can. It fits in with fluff and with the rulebook.

The problem some of you seem to be having, is due to what property rights are in a feudal system.

Any colony founded by a RT will be considered a part of the imperium, by the imperium itself. However in a feudal system the king/emperor does not DIRECTLY own all of the land (he will often have his own hereditary lands), what he owns is the allegiance of nobles/landowners below him. Just because a planet is part of the imperium/given feudal system does not mean the king/emperor owns it.

The land is granted out in fiefs, which usually grant control of a given area in return for allegiance and military or economic aid (in 40k terms a tithe). Within a fiefdom a lord would have nearly unlimited control usually bound only by some few overarching laws of kingdom. A common example of one of those overarching laws (in europe) was a state religion. In 40k terms the imperial creed. Any colony founded by a RT (unless part of some deal) would be considered part of his fiefdom.

Lets look at Tybalts example.

A RT establishes a colony and then wants to sell it to the orks who want to use it to stage a wagghh!!.

He is correct in that RT would lose his WoT, why? Because he owes 2 things, allegiance(which also covers the overarching laws thing), and his tithe. Helping the orks breaks the allegiance part.

However lets say the RT established the colony but did not sell it to the orks. As long as he obeyed the overarching laws which in the imperium is pretty much pay your tithe and honor the imperial creed, he would have pretty much full authority to do what he wanted. Remember rejecting the enemies of the imperium is part of allegiance.

Now is where it gets complicated, the WoT seemingly allows the RT to go against the allegiance part. It does not, yes it does allow him to consort with xenos, but only insofar as it would help (or at least not hurt) the imperium. As an example lets say the RT discovers a Xenos world with a low tech level, they are quite warlike and would pay him greatly for imperial arms technology. If he sold it to them he would be in violation of his allegiance to the imperium and may be in trouble if found out. Lets take the above example and change it, instead of selling them technology he instead hires/conscripts the warlike xenos (using shiny baubles etc) to be used as troops. This he could do as this passes the allegiance test, it does not help an enemy and does not hurt the imperium. In BFG days RT would actually hire xenos ships as escorts (were part of their fleet lists).

It can at times be a fine line with a lot of grey area (just like in real life), but that is what makes it fun.

In short if you are wondering if your RT can get away with something "legally" ask yourself if it hurts the imperium or helps an enemy, if it does then best to do it so as no one will know.

llsoth said:

Well put. There seems to be so much misconception about what a Rogue Trader can and can't get away with. You pretty much nailed it.

The right to deal with xenos in particular is seriously misunderstood. Yes they can deal with xenos, but that doesn't mean they can start trading in xenos tech without consequence. Many RTs have been put down by the Inquisition for trading xenos tech within the Imperium. Of course RTs are the primary source of xenos tech throughout the Imperium so many of them are willing to take the risk evidently.

Varnias Tybalt said:

No. But then thats a little different from owning the planet and using its resources to trade with aliens.

It is after all covered by the Loyalty to the Emperor clause.

But then thats as much of a strawman arguement as me suggesting you don't own your house because the US government would object to you hosting an Al Queida cell in it.

Less meaningful since an RT is allowed to hire Orks to hunt Slaugh or to escort his ships.

On the revocation issue even the most questionable actions are acceptable so long as they serve the Imperiums interests.

Selling the Orks the planet so they can all die when the sun goes nova shortly afterwards/ the virus bombs you planted earlier detonate/ The Necron Tomb on the planet will kill them all, wouldn't get you revoked.

So there are situations where you can sell a planet to the Orks and walk away scot free.

Dahak said:

Bringing up the actions of the US government in relation to Al Quaida is a bit of a strawman argument, mainly because the US government has so far not had any problems with breaking the rules (even their own country's rules) when it comes to hunting down supposed terrorists and harass people with even the most far fetched connections to these terrorist networks.

There are certain difficulties in using that as an example, mainly because for a reasonable example you need some sort of standards, which the US government has simply thrown out the window the day they went on with their so called "war on terror". The have repeatedly violated not only the US constitution, but even international laws for human rights as well, so it's kinda hard do establish exactly what "standard protocol" would be for an unhinged government like that.

Do note that I don't mean this to offend any american indivduals who might be reading, since government abuse of power is something that happens everywhere in the world and not something you can just blame on the entire people. It's true when they say that "power corrupts", which is why I make a distinction between the government and the people of any given country.

Varnias Tybalt said:

And him claiming that an Imperial Governor doesn't own his planet because the inquisition might off him for treason isn't?

Dahak said:

No it isn't. Mainly because the Imperium of Man doesn't have a constitution similar to the US constitution, nor does it have any international laws for human rights to adhere to and respect.

The US have both of these things, but in recent years, the US government have conveniently ignored and broken many of these laws.

Imperial Inquisitors can't break laws such as these, mainly because they don't really have any laws to adhere to. Indeed not even Chaos worship is technically "illegal" for an Inquisitor to engage in, mainly because there is no other Imperial institution with any right to prosecute those actions, save for the Inquisition itself.

Varnias Tybalt said:

First off as a personal request, can we leave bashing of modern geopolitical entities out of our 40k discussions? I do not believe it adds anything to the discussion and can only lead to arguments ill feelings all around.

Back on topic though, Tybalt I think I would like to hear what your definition of ownership is. From what I can see it seems to have boiled down to a definition problem.

I would say ownership is the legal right to use, control, and sell an item under the legal system in which you are an adherent to.

llsoth said:

First of all, I didn't start that discussion. In the beginning I kept my arguments about governemnts abstract and without any national association. The real world associations including geopolitical entities came from someone else, I just responded in turn.

Second, im gonna be frank and say that I have issues with the US government, but theres no reason for ill feelings because of that if you are a private person, because I have issues with pretty much EVERY government on the face of the earth. Governments and their self-serving interests is the root of all evil (well, not "evil" in the biblical sense, because that would be too absolute, but rather "evil" in a destructive, non-altruistic sense). And if I could have things my way I'd like to see all modern geopolitical entities and military alliances crushed into oblivion and see mankind go back to a state of many, many small, independent yet altruistic societies where a more true and non-simplified form of democracy could rule and national boundaries wouldn't exist.

Quite simply, a world without rulers, politicians and standing military.

"Power corrupts", that's an absolute truth that mankind has yet to present any form of exception to. Every ruler or figurehead in human history have abused their power in one way or another, and handing over such immense and absolute power to individual people and institutions as we do today, only serve to keep people of the earth separate rather than united.

So, my beliefs pretty much guarantee a great sense of ill opinions about pretty much every government and agency with power everywhere. But that doesn't mean I have a problem with you as a person, nor other private people. Because regardless of where we live, we all know and are subjected to government abuse of power. We've been fed with illusions of freedom and democracy, but deep down everyone knows that these are just lofty ideals to make a population feel safe and compliant. I mean, really how much would your or my individual vote really affect the actions of your or my government? They wouldn't care in the slightest.

So, to clarify (for everyone), I don't have a problem with you personally nor even philosophically, but I **** sure have a problem with your government (regardless of where you're from), I even have a problem with my own government. And if I were you, I would distinguish myself from that government, because even if some of us might still cling to and like the ideas of which that government was founded, we all know that the crisp, clean black and whiteness of those splendid ideals have been muddled into several shades of grey by past and current governments (once again, it doesn't matter which country you're from, this holds true pretty much everywhere).

Ideals and governments weren't meant for people. We're simply too flawed and self serving as a living species to actually live up to these things and run them as they were intended.

And also, even if I happen to be speaking to an overly patriotic/nationalistic person right now, I have to ask you: Despite your love of your country, have you always backed up exactly every decision made by your government? Doesn't your sense of patriotism cover more romantic and tangible things about your country like perhaps your hometown and the people living there, the sounds of your native music playing, the taste of a homecooked native meal, the particular natural enviroment of your country? Quite simply, the things we associate with the concept of a "home"? Rather than the actions and policies of your government and the opinions of your rulers?

Please think about that for a moment before you choose to take offense if I happen to ventilate criticisms of your government. You aren't your government and you never will be. And if you choose to take offense (yes because there is no such thing as taking offense involuntary) anyway, regardless of all that I've said, then it's not my fault if you happen to experience any ill feelings.

There, that concludes my personal opinions about governments and geopolitical entities, and I will not respond to any posts that are entirely devoted to debating this, unless the post in question use real world examples to clarify a point about something concerning the setting in Warhammer 40.000.

llsoth said:

I would say that your idea of ownership is the modern and idealistic equivalent of ownership, rather than true ownership. True ownership is basically the amount of property that you can keep from being stolen by your own force. I guess you could say that my idea of ownership has a sort of anarcho egoistic flair.

In the Imperium of Man, only the Imperium itself seem to be strong enough to keep property from being stolen by alien and even human forces alike. Individual Rogue Traders however, are rarely able to keep an entire world from being taken from them if it were to happen, and the rights and priviligies to be able to claim that world in question has been granted by the Imperium of Man, and with those rights come a heavy burden of responsibilities and also a claim to every world which the Rogue Trader sets foot upon.

Quite simply, Rogue Traders might be able to take steps in order to maintain a certain control of worlds they claim, but it is the Imperium who owns those worlds, not the Rogue Traders. Mainly because a Rogue Trader wouldn't be able to maintain control of that world if the Imperium decides to take it away from the Rogue Trader. Sure, a few Rogue Traders might sport a large scale fleet of ships of their own, but we all know that they would be beaten into submission if the Imperium became really hellbent on overhtrowing a Rogue Trader having gone and entertained fantasies of ownership and supreme rule.

Varnias Tybalt

Ok if I have it right then you have a anarchistic view of property rights. A pure warlords and tribal chiefs version of ownership you take and hold land through main force, laws mean little, the ultimate in might makes right.

The problem is the Imperium is a feudal system, which puts a structure on the entire affair.

In the 40k universe your view would be the typical view of a Ork Warboss and Pirates and probably most Chaos Lords, not the Imperium (with regards to it own lords (rogue traders. nobels, etc). The fact that some one can come along and kill you and take your stuff does not mean its not yours (at least under the laws of the imperium). If that was the case then you would NEVER own anything because it is always possible for someone to come along and kill the current owner.

Also as to RT not being able to defend planets.. why? They can defend a planet at least as well as a planetary governor. Better in fact because they should have a fleet of warp capable ships at their command (which most governors would not). Also just because the RT happens to be the owner/governor does not mean the imperium (via Imperial Guard and Navy) will not help defend the planet, it is part of the imperium after all.

llsoth said:

Yup. It is the fundamental and original sense of ownership after all. These "laws" we have today are just pretentious ideals made up by human society. Whenever these laws aren't enforced or can't be enforced or is found to be lacking in some way, most people tend to revert back to the fundamental and original "laws" where might makes right, and ownership is just a question of individual strength to keep whatever it is you claim to be yours.

llsoth said:

Well, like I said, whenever these laws can't be enforced or are found lacking, people revert to the more primitive and original views of ownership. The Imperium of man might be a feudal system. But it's not really a society in the real sense of the word. A society is usually based on some sort of cohesion and unity in purpose. The Imperium of man is rife with inchoseive aspects, rivalism and outright internal strife and warfare. You could say that the Imperium of Man is more like a commonwealth of several societies, ruled under a feudal system.

And even if there are laws on paper enforcing certain "rights", these laws aren't really applicable to every members of that feudal commonwealth nor even enforced. For instance you have individuals like Inquisitors who aren't bound by any laws at all. In fact, they aren't even under any laws to refrain from practicing heresy or treachery. Inquisitors are within their legal rights to deal with all manner of foul warp entities and even providing the many enemies of the Imperium with intelligence and aid. It's just that this amount of power and rights are only granted to a certain group of people, and these people are governed by themselves. So while radicalism might not be "illegal", radical Inquisitors will certainly be hunted down by ther colleagues and judged for their behaviour, even if that behaviour can't really be proved to be an actual "crime" in the sense that they have broken a "law", because none of them are really bound by any laws.

And while Inquisitors might be the extremes where the law fails, there are other aspects to consider as well. Just imagine the veritable Wall Street of the Calixis Sector called the Goldenhand at hive Tarsus on Scintilla. It is a place where assassination is considered a "viable tactic" when conducting business. Which means that a "hostile takeover" of a company can litteraly mean to barge in with a bunch of mercenaries and gun down all the former owners of that company and just claim ownership of that estate at the spot. The only authorities present who might care, would be Imperial officials, and the worst they might do is to check with the "new owners" and see if their tithes will be lacking because of this hostile takeover.

If the "new owners" can insure that won't be a problem and that they will make their new business go even smoother, the Imperial Officials will most likely not care at all.

The Imperium of man is simply to vast to enforce small instances of lawbreaking, so most of the time Imperial officials won't have enough of a reason to care if some laws are broken. So in that sense, the "laws of ownership" are closer to my anarchistic vision in the Imperium than most would think.

Laws might be easily enforced in a feudal system capable of micro management. But the Imperium is simply too big to be micro managed. The costs of enforcing a set of standardized laws during each instance of lawbreaking will just outweigh the costs of simply letting most crimes slide. That's why most Imperial institutions that enforce laws will only care about heresy, trafficking with xenos, deliberate sabotage of Imperial operations, tithebreaking and other forms of insubordination from Imperial officials towards the feudal system. The rest is left to anarchy.

llsoth said:

I think it has been pretty established that most Rogue Traders don't have access to entire fleets of warp capable ships. Only the "big fish" in the pond do.

Second, while the Imperium might be inclined to help a Rogue Trader defend an individual planet of being overrun by alien enemies or the taint of chaos, they won't help a Rogue Trader with grand illusions of autonomy and ownership over worlds that belongs to the Imperium (i.e any world claimed by a Rogue Trader). All a local governor has to do (regardless if he's a Rogue Trader or not) is show a sign of insubordination and lack of cooperation with Imperial officials, and he'll have to face the wrath of the Imperial warmachine sooner or later.

It doesn't matter if you're a big fish Rogue Trader or a small fish Rogue Trader. The ocean still belongs to the fisherman (in this case The Imperium), if you grow cocky start refusing the fisherman casting lures with his fishing rod, they will soon enough bring in a big ass trawler ship and sweep your insignificant, scaly body up, and plant some new fish in the water.

I think it has been pretty established that most Rogue Traders don't have access to entire fleets of warp capable ships. Only the "big fish" in the pond do.

This is a contested point. There are still many that feel the (current) RT game has attempted to present that view but has instead offered up mixed-messages. Many earlier sources, including the BFG feature on RTs present it quite differently with RTs commonly controlling small fleets of starships.

HappyDaze said:

Yup.

But there's an equal amount of sources presenting very powerful Rogue Traders with only a single vessel. So, the point remains, as you said: contested.

But right now, the most recent evidence is the Rogue Trader game, and nothing made by FFG on Games Workshop license would be released without being passed gor GW to inspect. If Games Workshop approves of most Rogue Traders only having a single vessel, then that's pretty definitive in my opinion.

After all, most things made by GW or made on GW license seem to adhere to the rule that it is the newest "stuff" that is considered official canon, not the older "stuff". If things were different, then Squats and Zoats would still be around, but they aren't. (no offense intended to the old veterans who are fans of these things of course. Personally I just think it was a good idea to remove these from the fluff, because I don't like them )

Varnias Tybalt said:

Even in the new material we get mixed-messages. There are several passages in the book that refer to a RT's fleet. In fact, outside of the combat system - which assumes that the group is controlling one starship - many of the fluff passages in the book tend to describe RTs as having fleets.