I know this is nitpicky, but I really dislike the term warband for agents of the inquisition. Warband makes me think of Chaos marauders or Orks.

I am not sure what they are actually called in the fluff, but an Inquisitor and his "Retinue" or, a "Cell", has always been my prefered Go-to-term.

Warbands is for chaos.

Retinue or cell is for Inquisition. Warband is wrong and sends the wrong message.

Warband has been the term for a while in the fluff and TT though, whereas I believe the term Acolyte Cell has its origins in Dark Heresy.

I prefer cell as well, but I can understand the change.

Warband has always been the term for an Inquisitor's retinue. A cell is specifically a group of Acolytes that operate away from the Inquisitor.

Acolyte and Cell were new terms for Dark Heresy, I think. Retinue and Warband are older terms.

It is worth noting that they were called warbands primarily because they were the Inquisitor's team in the tabletop; i.e. in literal warzones. The term doesn't make as much sense for investigation oriented teams.

I think Eisenhorn and Ravenor both called their retinues "warbands."

That's true (I think, anyway, it's been a while). I suppose ultimately any of the more popular terms can work, although Warband definitely better suits an actual warfaring team like you'd see on the Tabletop. Cadre, cell and retinue make more sense for Dark Heresy's scale.

It's all down to personal preference though, really, and I don't think I'm overly bothered by whatever term FFG choose to opt for. They seem to be trying to stick closer to GW lore this time around (modern position in the timeline, reasonable amount of Inquisitors in the sector, etc), so keeping the terms the same makes a lot of sense.

I think Eisenhorn and Ravenor both called their retinues "warbands."

If this is true, then its just one more reason to not call it warbands in DH.

Considering Eisenhorn was basically written as marketing for the system that preceded Dark Heresy, that's an... interesting perspective you've got there.

I think Eisenhorn and Ravenor both called their retinues "warbands."

If this is true, then its just one more reason to not call it warbands in DH.

Eisenhorn was written to drum up excitement for Inquisitor, and Inquisitor led to Dark Heresy. What's the issue?

I think Eisenhorn and Ravenor both called their retinues "warbands."

If this is true, then its just one more reason to not call it warbands in DH.

Eisenhorn was written to generate hype for Inquisitor, and Inquisitor led to DH. What's the issue?

Warbands is for chaos.

Retinue or cell is for Inquisition. Warband is wrong and sends the wrong message.

Howdy,

Indeed!

The flavour is a little palid in the Beta - the names of the classes are not very evocative as are the lack of good names for progression. They were fine in DH 1.0 - why get rid of them?

Cheers,

Ken

The names in the first edition enforced some HEAVY restrictions on the kinds of characters you could play, assuming you stuck to the letter on what they said. An Arbitrator is an Arbitrator, not an Enforcer, not anything else. Whereas a Seeker could be a bunch of different things. That's the point of the name changes, as far as I can tell; to give as much creative freedom as possible.

As for the ranks? They never made sense. Why are you ranking up in your profession when you've long left it behind to work for an Inquisitor? It made absolutely no sense that your techpriest could rank up to being a Magos when he likely hasn't been home for years.

Because working for ][ was a part time job, the game even says as much. You're not useful enough to work full time as a new acolyte. The reason you advance in rank is because the inquisitor uses his influence, partly has a reward, but partially because it pays to have people loyal to you in high places, and because it gives the acolyte access to better training and resources.

I don't recall mention of Inquisitorial work being part time in the book at all, but it's been a while. you may well be right.

I don't recall mention of Inquisitorial work being part time in the book at all, but it's been a while. you may well be right.

I vaguely recall it being mentioned, or at least strongly hinted at, as there were instances of texts about players returning home in-between assignments, hence

I've never been a friend of this "part time" stuff myself, though. It seems rather ... forced, as if it's only there to provide players with a reason for why their characters should continue to develop alongside a path in accordance with their chosen career.

Warband has always been the term for an Inquisitor's retinue. A cell is specifically a group of Acolytes that operate away from the Inquisitor.

Acolyte and Cell were new terms for Dark Heresy, I think. Retinue and Warband are older terms.

Yup. I'm much more used to the Inquisitorial Warband as well, as I've read the Inquisitor rulebooks (still available as PDFs on the website !) long before DH.

"Acolyte" has existed before DH, though, and is used in the 3E Witch Hunters Codex - however, Games Workshop fluff uses the term in a somewhat different manner compared to Dark Heresy. In Codex fluff, the Acolyte is a blanket term for Inquisitors-in-Training, who accompany their master starting out on the rank of Explicator in which they learn the art of torture. Other members of an Inquisitor's retinue are simply referred to as "Henchmen".

Considering Eisenhorn was basically written as marketing for the system that preceded Dark Heresy, that's an... interesting perspective you've got there.

Not to mention that the author of those novels was heavily involved in writing the background for Dark Heresy, which as a game is actually closer to Abnett's books than what GW fluff itself (including said preceding system) was propagating. See above for an example.

The Calixis sector is largely Dan Abnett's brainchild, as far as I recall the announcement back then.

As far as new terms are involved, the one I don't like is Remembrancer which has wormed its way into DH2 from some other BL novel to replace the various Lore skills.

I don't remember anything really mentioning "part-time" Inquisitoring, just a statement that at various points the group would find itself with little active instruction on what to do, and would often be expected to support themselves/keep an eye out for stuff. Not really that they were part time, just that they wouldn't be actively on mission at all times, which seems fair. I may misremember of course.

I am not keen on warband for one, as it is too martial for the main focus of Dark Heresy (or even what an inquisitor spends most of his time doing). Also, I feel it suggests a much larger group (Dozens of men, rather than probably topping out at a dozen at most). In Inquisitor and 40k it made some kind of sense, as you are in a fight.

If I had to choose a term it would be "Retinue," though obviously this makes less sense for a group of PCs who are not operating with their Inquisitor.

I would swear they were called a Cadre.

Cadre was for the higher ranking agents who actually accompany the Inquisitor. It was the term used in Ascension.

Personally I'd use the following definitions:

Cadre: the Inquisitor's personal companions.

Cell: a group of operatives that work away from the Inquisitor.

Warband: special cell or cadres created for militaristic missions.

This is all well and good only for book definitions, however, as if your Inquisitor decide to call your group Pink Fluffbunnies, you'd better say "thank you for the kindness, sir".

Definitely not a warband. Totally the wrong meaning. Cell is much more appropriate.

I don't grasp the complaining about a term that has been in canin for a really long time?

Just because it's always been canon doesn't mean people have to agree with it. Plus, it's been canon primarily in the tabletop, which is a very different environment to your common Dark Heresy game. Specifically, it's a warzone, where the term makes sense.

Specifically, it's a warzone, where the term makes sense.

GW's Inquisitor RPG doesn't take place in warzones.

Your other points are valid, however. There is no "canon" in the sense that something dictates X must always be like so in every other source, so FFG's books using different terms than GW is not really an issue - and neither is some groups applying their own preferences, so if anyone likes their Cells more, then they are free to continue using that word.