In comparing the Godwyn pattern weapons and Gowdyn-De'az pattern the context of the De'az being locked only to Adeptas Sororitas is important to remember. So even if they were just a straight upgrade then it wouldn't be a case of power creep, because it's locked to one background, and any power changes could be addressed in the background if necessary. It's also important to note the flavour, these weapons are meant to be superior in every aspect to regular bolt weapons.

So first, there's a lot missing like the Sarissa:

"This pattern of Bolt Pistol is designed to make use of the Sarissa as an attachment. The Sarissa is a vicious, curved, bayonet-like blade that can transform the Godwyn-De'az Bolt Pistol into an effective close combat weapon even as it retains all of its ranged functionality."

Secondly, the rarity of them makes no sense, why are they harder to acquire, they can only be acquired by Daughters of the Emperor so it doesn't make much sense that it's harder for them to acquire since Daughters don't use Godwyn pattern weapons.

http://i.imgur.com/UldElhd.png

First off, they're all reliable, so this is a good thing, but it means Good quality doesn't matter for these unlike other bolt weapons.

Secondly they're all lighter, this is almost completely irrelevant, almost no one cares about weight in that minutiae as far as I've seen and a few kilos rarely makes a difference.

Third, they all have worse range apart from the bolt pistol. This is potentially completely irrelevant too, but considering most of them are round numbers even if you don't use maps people are likely to say "they're 150m away" not "140m away".

Big problems are the loss of a bullet on the semi which is pretty much huge. Other than that they're basically identical, if they wanted to be boring they should have just reprinted the exact same stats and given it reliable for only 1 rarity increase instead of 2 rarity, however even that is just so boring. Reading these weapons I don't get the feeling they're completely superior to the usual pattern at all, in extremely rare cases maybe?

Yeah, I fond the whole thing really silly. I like having some mechanical distinction for the Sisters' signature weapon patterns, but they almost feel worse than the standard ones (except for the pistol), and they are a mile behind the Astartes variants (but that's a different issue).

Yeah, I fond the whole thing really silly. I like having some mechanical distinction for the Sisters' signature weapon patterns, but they almost feel worse than the standard ones (except for the pistol), and they are a mile behind the Astartes variants (but that's a different issue).

Are the Astartes weapons in this system? I suppose they might be in a reinforcement character stats but otherwise I hadn't spotted them

To be fair, DH2 even more than DH1 does allow for a certain level of abstraction; not everything needs to be spelled out in detail. For the sarissa I'd simply take inspiration from the DH1 Inquisitor's Handbook and have the Melee Attachment upgrade (DH2 rulebook p.163) let a boltgun count as an axe in close combat. Although I would Mono it in addition to the standard effect.

Similarly, an Availability score might make sense for those cases where someone other than a Sister attempts to acquire such a weapon, be it by using black market dealers or an unsanctioned contact in the Ministorum's forges.

Agreed about the somewhat "meh" Godwyn-De'az stats, though. Now, as an old fan of the Sisters of Bitter Battle I have become used to, even come to pragmatically/pessimistically expect a lacking implementation (although it has to be said that DH2 EW is still a lot better than DH1 BoM was), but it does feel ironic that a weapon which GW's own fluff and rules puts on Astartes level is not only markedly worse than the Marines' guns, but even worse than the "civilian" (to quote DH1) bolters of the core rulebook.

The lighter weight almost comes across as insulting given how it's intended for a purely female army, though I'd hope this was not the intention behind those stats.

Either way, I'd say just houserule it to whatever group consensus you find at the table. At the very least any GM should agree to default to the standard bolter and just calling it a Godwyn-De'az. After all, what reason would there be to deny this easy compromise?

PS: Does anyone else think that calling the entire line of bolt weapons by the same pattern sounds a bit cheap?

The abstraction is another way of saying the GM has to make up for the failures of the book. I was under the impression that attempting to acquire items from black market or shady dealers already made it harder to acquire. And even if that's the case there's nothing wrong with writing in the rules that sisters get the same benefits as Ad Mech do for cybernetics.

It's particularly bad about the mehness because Sisters themselves are really disappointing to play, there's no faith powers, nothing that makes you feel like you are a Daughter of the Emperor, a Saintly Figure. All their skills are built around an overuse fate points an already desperately tight resource that you can't afford to spend on much other than rerolls.

Yeah I agree with your comment, at some point a Sister would prefer a normal bolter with 3 shots and just refluff it.

Are the Astartes weapons in this system?

Yeah if you look to Black Crusade or Deathwatch...

On average their bolters do an extra d10 damage per hit > granted Lynata pointed out in another post how the game designers did that and why > mainly to do with the "Foes" power creep being too creepy (i.e. the enemies they published were so OP they had to "up" the Astrates weapons)

I divorced myself personally from purism of canon in luie of just rocking the game with what it has and then expalining AFTER why something is the way it is in the publishing by backing it with my own lore / fluff > its something I tell my players in line with old D&D's idea of campaign settings > much of which were worlds and in some cases systems unto themselves > on top of that I make a joke how the Emperor enables the "tech" in the human's hands to function (ala the propaganda > look to Hell Pistol pls) via consensus magic > aka Human Waaaag

Unless Gamesworkshop itself does the publishing of a 40k RPG > I dont think anyone will ever realize the fluff/canon for what it is/was

Are the Astartes weapons in this system? I suppose they might be in a reinforcement character stats but otherwise I hadn't spotted them

Yeah, reinforcement characters. Or, for ordinary player characters, the DH1 Daemon Hunters book. Because putting a Grey Knight with psychic powers and FFG's take on Astartes gear into your ordinary Inquisitorial cell totally is a smart idea.

The abstraction is another way of saying the GM has to make up for the failures of the book. I was under the impression that attempting to acquire items from black market or shady dealers already made it harder to acquire. And even if that's the case there's nothing wrong with writing in the rules that sisters get the same benefits as Ad Mech do for cybernetics.

I was just thinking that the harder tests you mention still need a base value to work from, so even if a Sister would never have to roll for them, it still makes sense to include an Availability value for any edge cases.

Or perhaps it is supposed to represent the Sister trying to acquire the item where she is when making the test, either by having it shipped to her, or by visiting a Sororitas outpost and requesting it there. In both cases, it makes sense that there is a chance she gets turned down: in the former a ship may not be available, and in the latter the facility may either not have the weapon in question or they do not have enough to hand them out to Sisters from outside their convent. Given how the Sororitas treat their wargear as holy items, it may make sense that they do not have too many spares lying around, and maybe the local superior isn't convinced by the request.

I like the abstraction as it creates freedom for interpretation, in turn making it easier to apply the book to a wide variety of situations the player characters may find themselves in. Matter of taste, though!

Either way, I certainly agree that the book could have used some rules on how a Sororitas is supposed to acquire her equipment. Your example with the AdMech is a great point. I've written a sort of "point buy" system inspired by Deathwatch's requisitioning system once that gave you a selection of gear according to rank -- sadly I've lost it together with most of my old HD's data, but I'm sure I could write it up again if there's any interest. It wasn't much, and I still remember most of the custom pattern names I added.

It's particularly bad about the mehness because Sisters themselves are really disappointing to play, there's no faith powers, nothing that makes you feel like you are a Daughter of the Emperor, a Saintly Figure. All their skills are built around an overuse fate points an already desperately tight resource that you can't afford to spend on much other than rerolls.

Hmm, matter of opinion. I actually like that they've dialed back the Faith Powers in DH2 compared to DH1 BoM, as the latter really made them look like space magicians (including a Talent that has them shoot beams out of their friggin' eyes ).

It depends on your view of 40k's cosmology, however, i.e. whether you think divine magic actually exists alongside psychic powers, or whether Acts of Faith are actually Warp powers. I on the other hand prefer a more mundane explanation which is also hinted at in the 3E and 6E codices: Acts of Faith are nothing but a combination of excessive training and extreme mental discipline coupled with simple superstition both in the eyes of the performer as well as the majority of witnesses. "Miraculous to the unschooled", as Codex Witch Hunters put it.

I too am not satisfied that the AoF in DH2 EW still use Fate Points, though. They're not as powerful as they were in DH1 BoM, to the point where normal uses of Fate Points are a decent alternative, which in point makes Acts of Faith feel less special and any Sororitas character who does use them simultaneously sacrifices something elsewhere.

I can't be the only one who is extremely conservative with limited resources like Fate, yet what this means is that I sacrifice a lot of opportunities to do something that feels like an integral part for such characters.

I think I would have preferred a low-key implementation of AoF that works in addition to Fate rather than instead of it. When I wrote rules for Sisters of Battle in Deathwatch, I thus came up with a "once per encounter" mechanic where the Sister could, once per fight, spend a Half Action to say a quick prayer and then roll for Willpower, with the result determining if the effect occurs or not (needless to say, the character herself would always believe it works). The AoF themselves were minor buffs such as a bonus to Strength, the ability to ignore Fatigue, or temporary Wounds (which might kill you after the fact when they get subtracted again!) -- just some useful effects to augment ordinary actions, except for one where you could briefly repel a daemonic creature.

On average their bolters do an extra d10 damage per hit > granted Lynata pointed out in another post how the game designers did that and why > mainly to do with the "Foes" power creep being too creepy (i.e. the enemies they published were so OP they had to "up" the Astrates weapons)

That's not quite the full explanation; it's a little more complicated.

The problem is that someone (way back when the game was still written by Black Industries) started thinking it'd be smart to give Astartes double TB, which resulted in an overall resilience of 16+ (armour and toughness). Even a boltgun (damage range 10-19 including Pen) obviously has a lot of trouble getting through that. Which means any fight where Space Marines encounter Chaos Space Marines would get drawn out a lot as both sides start pelting one another with what amounts to pea shooters. FFG's solution for Deathwatch, where they'd become available as player characters for the first time? Buff all Marine weapons.

For the record, DH1 Astartes bolters used to be 2d10, no bonus. Slightly higher maximum damage, lower minimum damage, similar averages, compared to the standard model. Inquisitor's Handbook still has the Angelus boltgun for normal human player characters, using Astartes ammunition with this damage profile. Never errata'ed.

I've also heard another theory that they buffed Marine guns because Astartes player characters in this system get such ridiculous bonuses that a simple rock tossed by a Marine has more damage than a bolter round. Alas, just as with Toughness Bonus as skin armour (see the other thread), rather than fixing the root cause of the issue, it was decided to apply band-aids.

I divorced myself personally from purism of canon in luie of just rocking the game with what it has and then expalining AFTER why something is the way it is in the publishing by backing it with my own lore / fluff > its something I tell my players in line with old D&D's idea of campaign settings > much of which were worlds and in some cases systems unto themselves > on top of that I make a joke how the Emperor enables the "tech" in the human's hands to function (ala the propaganda > look to Hell Pistol pls) via consensus magic > aka Human Waaaag

Unless Gamesworkshop itself does the publishing of a 40k RPG > I dont think anyone will ever realize the fluff/canon for what it is/was

There is no canon in 40k , anyways.

That being said, I do recall reading an announcement that Games Workshop wanted to pick up Inquisitor again...?

(though I have to admit, I'm even more stoked for Necromunda)

Necromunda

Wait, whaaaat? Are there plans to bring back Necromunda? (You can respond by PM if you want to keep the thread on topic)

Re: the thread's subject, I didn't realize the Godwyn De'az bolt weapons were actually worse than the regular versions in several respects. I would just use the regular bolt weapon stats but with Reliable and a larger clip size. Reduced weight might be a nice bonus too, but nothing about the weapons' fluff suggests they would be any lighter than a standard boltgun.

It's alright, I think most people here would be interested in such news if they are not already aware.

There was an announcement about a year ago. I'm a bit nervous as, so far, nothing seems to have come out of it, but given that it was a public statement not just for investors but their own playerbase, it makes me think they at least have been committed to the idea, and possibly still are and just need more time to work in the background.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/games-workshop-specialist-games-blood-bowl

Apparently they really do want to redo inquisitor - some friends of mine have buttonholed assorted forgeworld types at horus heresy weekender events - but top of the list is (for the moment) blood bowl (already out) and adeptus titanicus (early-ish next year).

The problem is that just lifting up and re-issuing the last version of the core book is.....not ideal.

Inquisitor was a great, fun game, with some very elegent elements, but whilst WHFRP (which is basically what Dark Heresy is, despite a false nose, plastic moustache and party frock) has some base-mechanics problems (like 'skin armour'), Inquisitor had plenty more.

Rolling to hit separately for every shot in a full-auto burst, for example, or the complete impossibility of casting any psychic powers if there were two enemy psykers on the field, or the possibility for you to not roll any 4+ rolls and have your awesome heroic inquisitor stand there like a lemon for two rounds in a row.

All of these could be, and (in various unofficial FAQs, were) addressed, to varying degrees of success. But ultimately, the rules could stand a fair amount of updating. I appreciate extra detail in a game, but Inquisitor took it a bit too far at times.

The problem is that just lifting up and re-issuing the last version of the core book is.....not ideal.

I was really excited when Inquisitor was announced back in the day- just think: like Necromunda , but with Inquisitors! The actual product was quite disappointing for me. It was a player vs. player skirmish game, yet it required a GM like an RPG, with none of the benefits of role-playing. And there was no balancing system- the GM just made up two groups, guessing as to how to balance them, and the players were stuck with that- no input of their own RAW. -And no real advancement system, just a paragraph in the back saying that the GM can goose up the character's powers as the campaign goes on, if they wish...

Well between Inq & DH2 > I'm sure a good team of people at GW can't spit out something that better than both...

Heck they have all this material to pour over and use towards that something "better"

Inquisitor was a great, fun game, with some very elegent elements, but whilst WHFRP (which is basically what Dark Heresy is, despite a false nose, plastic moustache and party frock) has some base-mechanics problems (like 'skin armour'), Inquisitor had plenty more.

Indeed. Both games had great ideas and some absolutely critical flaws. It's why I keep wishing for something in-between, like a love child of Inquisitor + Dark Heresy that takes the best parts of both.

Of course what is "best" is subjective, but at the very least each game offers alternate solutions to something that a lot of people can agree on being a problem in the other.

The actual product was quite disappointing for me. It was a player vs. player skirmish game, yet it required a GM like an RPG, with none of the benefits of role-playing.

Oh, don't say that! At least from other people's posts on this very forum, the game had quite a bit of potential for roleplaying. And technically speaking, there's nothing preventing a GM from running a solo or co-op game, even if the basic premise was PvP.

I mostly agree with Lynata. I don't mind that the whole line of weapons is the same pattern. in fact, I like the uniformity. I would also like to divorce AoFs from Fate, since that is so valuable. I don't mind the Inquisitor's handbook implementation using Fate, but if I was to rework BoM I would make a Faith Point system (and make the powers less "space magicy").

Indeed. Both games had great ideas and some absolutely critical flaws. It's why I keep wishing for something in-between, like a love child of Inquisitor + Dark Heresy that takes the best parts of both.

Of course what is "best" is subjective, but at the very least each game offers alternate solutions to something that a lot of people can agree on being a problem in the other.

Indeed. Both systems have things to recommend them, as well as things that bugged the hell out of me.

• Inquisitor's injury system (where every bullet wound 'did' something - you took a 'light injury to your leg' with a DH-esque critical effect as well as suffering X damage towards your 'out of action' total, rather than not suffering meaningful long-term effects until the third bolt round hits you!)
• Dark Heresy's simple but saves-a-die-roll location hit mechanic of simply reversing the dice
• Inquisitor's rather nice set of 'range penalties' - such that in addition to having a longer (or shorter) range, different weapons' roll to hit varied in ways that themselves varied (sniper rifles being hard to hit with up close, for example)
• Dark Heresy's 'degrees of success' approach for burst fire
• Inquisitor's melee system generally - where dodging would naturally lead to opponents circling one another, or moving in and out to take advantage of the reach of their weapons, making a sword-fight between two competent opponents a suitably impressive thing to watch on the tabletop
• The Psyker system in later DH games, with fettered/unfettered/pushed at increasing risk, and different disciplines which don't necessarily go off willpower as a stat.

I think that both could potentially do with toning back the level of detail to make it more slick on a tabletop, but you could produce something very good with a bit of effort.

Plus, seeing the models being turned out by forgeworld in the 'Character Series' for Primarchs, I'd love to see what they could do for Inquisitor scale models today.

The actual product was quite disappointing for me. It was a player vs. player skirmish game, yet it required a GM like an RPG, with none of the benefits of role-playing. And there was no balancing system- the GM just made up two groups, guessing as to how to balance them, and the players were stuck with that- no input of their own RAW. -And no real advancement system, just a paragraph in the back saying that the GM can goose up the character's powers as the campaign goes on, if they wish...

There were various suggestions for ongoing advancement, but they were never entirely satisfactory. Besides which, I never really felt a need to improve my character's stats for an RPG to be 'good' - inquisitor wasn't intended to be an RPG, so much as - as described by Jervis at one of the Inquisitor GTs at warhammer world 'a means to represent the action scene at the climax of a movie' - which is why the investigation/political influence/negotiation side you might expect from a 'proper' 40k RPG is almost completely left out, and things like weapons training are ignored - it's assumed, for the sake of drama, that the hero (and both sides are 'the hero' of their respective stories) are able to use any weapon they can lay their hands on to full effect.

Balance was an issue. Yes, there was the infamously useless 'ready reckoner', but ultimately, the two players would turn up with their respective warbands, and the GM would have to figure out how to balance things out in the scenario. Certainly it wasn't a game where both sides always had a 50/50 chance of victory..... not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

Can I get a link to Inquisitor > I'm intrigued by that melee system you've described > plus its wound system...

It used to be freely available on GW's website, but that was before they've taken down all PDFs and converted their site to 100% webstore.

On the assumption that this was just a website restructuring and they're still fine with the files circulating on the web (considering they're hitting stuff like codices with takedown requests but leave copies of Inquisitor alone), I guess it's fine to link this:

• Inquisitor Rulebook pt. 1
• Inquisitor Rulebook pt. 2
• Thorian Sourcebook
• Additional Characters

It's really good. As noted, the system does sometimes feel like it includes dice rolling for dice rollings sake - if you ever tried to fire a semi-automatic burst from an assault rifle loaded with flechette rounds, you could die of old age before getting to your next action.

Plus, seeing the models being turned out by forgeworld in the 'Character Series' for Primarchs, I'd love to see what they could do for Inquisitor scale models today.

The old Inquisitor models looked cool, but they weren't at all modular, which really discouraged conversions- which is weird, since you were supposed to create custom characters. But not only were the figs made to go together only in one specific configuration, but they were also two different scales (the Inquisitors were significantly larger than the henchmen).

Frankly, I would prefer plastic multipart frames for Inquisitors and retinues, in regular 40K-scale. These would have the added advantage of being usable in the 40K tabletop game and- ahem- certain discontinued roleplaying games...

As noted, the system does sometimes feel like it includes dice rolling for dice rollings sake

Oh yeah. I know I sometimes mention how I feel Dark Heresy could be trimmed down, but Inquisitor - whilst not Shadowrun levels of bad - takes the cake.

the Inquisitors were significantly larger than the henchmen

Clever use of camera angles!

But yes, lack of customisability was weird for a game like that; it feels like such a no-brainer, especially as it could have meant additional sales for GW in terms of item blisters/boosters.

However, truth be told, I keep hoping that any new take on Inquisitor would just be a plain RPG rather than involving miniatures. I doubt it'll happen due to corporate priorities ("we're a miniatures selling company" blah blah), but anything involving minis ends up being meh for online games due to involvement of maps and stuff.

On the other hand, I'd just be really curious about new rules either way. Who knows, the "happy medium" between DH and Inq is not totally impossible, just unlikely.

The lighter weight almost comes across as insulting given how it's intended for a purely female army, though I'd hope this was not the intention behind those stats.

It wasn't.

BYE

I'd like to play Inquisitor some day, but then, there are a good number of games I'd like to play someday. Onto the list it goes (I already have the core book, so that's a start )

To anyone who"s interested: MarcoSkoll has been working on a fan-made revised edition of Inquisitor for some time now, over on The Ammobunker ( http://s3.zetaboards.com/The_Ammobunker/topic/7642154/2/ ) and The Conclave ( http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2387.120 ).