But: putting prices into the rulebook does not take up much space - and - if someone does not weant to use them and uses influence only, he still can do that.

As I wrote earlier, the instant that you put prices in the rule book, that becomes the expectation by GMs and players. The next thing you have is players getting upset because a GM is ignoring the prices of items and repeatedly saying that there aren't any plasma pistols to buy on this planet -- which players wont understand because they don't understand this background and because the book gives a price. And the players and GMs who do understand it will be pointing out how silly it is to have a unified currency in the Imperium. I also am willing to argue that money and the Influence system are inherently in conflict with each other and that conflict will lead to confusion and inconsistency.

Regarding the single currency, I'm not in any way speaking figuratively. A common currency in the setting of the Imperium is not workable. I don't mean inefficient or problematic. I mean unworkable. And a centralized one is absurd.

I think there will be some kind of virtual currency the administratum counts with.

I doubt it. The Administratum's focus is tithes. Tithes are just the collection of all the resources a planet can afford to give (and then some, usually), and then the distribution of those resources to where they're needed and can be best used. There's no need to measure things against a monetary standard here.

I appreciate the thoughts knasserll, no ire from me anyhow.

The Medieval period is actually a thousand years - from 5th to 15th Century. And what you describe is actually more true of the late Medieval period after around the 10th Century. For our Imperium parallels, we should properly look to the early and middle Medieval periods.

This is where I disagree, I think we should look at the early post-classical era only for individual planets. the Adeptus Mechanicus as an entity with exclusive rights and monopolies on certain elements of the society has always reminded me of the guilds of the early modern or very late post-classical era, and so I tend to draw from that for thematic material. The age of exploration also seems to be source material for all Rogue Trader related stuff.

Further, the centralized bureaucracy of the Imperium is very much not an early post-classical European institution, it more resembles classical roman bureaucracy, Chinese bureaucracy throughout the classical and post-classical periods, or even modern hyper-pluralist theories of democratic government.

That said, I totally think that this is open to interpretation and should be. I have no doubt we can both find examples in the fluff supporting both angles and that is fine by me. I unabashedly prefer an Abnett/Mitchell/Bowden/Farrer version of 40k which is definitely not representative of all of the material and is more modern sci fi influenced than much of the Warhammer Fantasy in space material from 1st Ed.

One thing you mention a couple of times in your post is that in Medieval Europe, whilst the lower classes didn't use money much the upper classes did have and use money. What they really used, was coin . Today, that is the same as money. Back then, not the case. The promise that a coin would be a representation of value, backed by a government was centuries in the future and the use of money as purely abstract not backed by anything at all, actually didn't come about in widespread use until the 1900's. Up until the First World War, you could actually still exchange your British pounds for gold. Not buy gold, exchange. The abandonment of the Gold Standard is a recent thing in our history. There are still people today who argue that we should return to the Gold Standard (though try that in a room of modern-day economists and you'll be pelted with fruit). Bits of coin, notes of paper, having value just because a government and people say they have value... these are not what Medieval coin was. Go back then and what coin actually is, is precious metals. The stamp of Caesar or whoever, wasn't saying this coin is worth X amount because I say it was, they were saying "this coin was minted under my authority and does indeed weigh X amount and is indeed made of gold, not lead dipped in gold.".

Not that everyone trusted it, mind you. Iirc, one of the skills in the 1st Ed. Warhammer Fantasy Role-play let you cut coins down the middle and then melt the two halves back together again so that you could some of the precious metal without damaging the coins face making a slightly thinner coin. Or if the seal didn't quite reach the edge of the coin, you could shave some of the edge off.

Coin clipping was a common blight of classical civilizations such as the Romans as well.

It seems to me the distinction you want to make is that money is fiat money only and that other forms of currency should be understood as distinct and not really money. I totally agree that a universal fiat money is unworkable in 40k, at least in so far as it would not be used at all levels of society.

I am pretty comfortable with different arms of the Adeptus Administratum using some relatively widespread currency notation or other when evaluating tithes but that the use of such notation (along with books and books of arcane formulas for converting between them, many perhaps lost or in disagreement) far outstrips any use of it as actual currency. In fact, given the level at which it is used, it might well be a genuine gold coin with the throne stamped on one side and the aquila on the other ("throne gelt"), but since that is more money than will ever be useful for individual transactions you would largely not see them in circulation ever anyway.

But they are never going to grow beyond their local sub-systems. You cannot manage singe monetary policy across differing worlds. Even across nations presents enormous difficulty. One reason Greece and Spain are in trouble is because they're tied by a single currency to economies like Germany and it's impossible to set interest rates at the best value for both. Fluctuations in value would make use of currency between planets utterly infeasible. You get a hundred Thrones on one planet. You go "yay! I'm rich!" You go to another planet and find a hundred Thrones buys you a small toy Terminator. That utter disparity in value is unavoidable. Definitely. I can expand on this if wanted, but a unified currency even within a single sector is not possible. And I don't just mean problematic. I really do mean it's unworkable.

I agree that it is totally unworkable if by this you mean a fiat currency in use at all levels of society across the sector. I think I imagine considerably more contact and communication between worlds in some sectors than you do on average, and that would tend to mitigate the finality and absoluteness of this claim, but we are essentially violently agreeing on the main point I think.

I'm not saying that there are not worlds where there is money - far from it, the Imperium is vast and varied. But what I guess I'm emphasizing, to bring back to concrete bullet points is the following.

• Moneyless planets actually are feasible within the setting of the Imperium and work largely like I've described.
• Most of the fluff leads me to think this is the general case.
• A currency that spans multiple worlds is not feasible.
• The Imperium is not a consumer society and the entire notion of general trade, retail, etc. doesn't fit. There are no "las-gun shops".
• Putting such a system in Dark Heresy and / or putting prices on items creates a misleading impression and also sets up conflict between players and GM. The moment the players see that a las-gun costs thirty thrones, every single thing a GM does that fits the fluff is going to be seen as punitive and obstructive. "But the book says it costs this much? Why can't I buy one?" "But I have a thousand thrones, why have you made every planet we've visited not use them?"

1. agreed

2. I disagree, but agree this is totally an acceptable interpretation

3. I agree insofar as we are speaking of a general use fiat currency, so, agreed

4. I agree that some planets definitely would have no such thing, I think that many planets would have a more consumer-like society, indeed many individual cities might have one even if the surrounding countryside does not. Simplified: If you visit a feral world and roll into a feudal manor a las-gun shop is absurd, but a las-gun shop in Hive Sibellus? I am okay with that.

5. I see your point and I agree that I have no need for a hard currency system in the rule book and find prices to be reductionist and misleading.

It's a lot more WH40K to me, that on arrival on a planet, you don't go to the shop and buy X or check into a hotel. You go to the Adeptus Administratum office and fill out forms or argue with them for half-an-hour that you need housing allocated and fill out an Offworld Visitor form whilst some snivelling flyweight clerk enjoys giving you the run around. That's when you pull out your Influence score and name drop the local planetary governor or mention that you have a signed seal from his prefectus and the frightened clerk scurries to assign you whatever you've asked for and hurries you past the queues.

Great image, I like it.

Nowhere am I arguing that there is not money on many of the Imperial worlds. But I'm incredibly wary of setting up the wrong expectations and I want it handled on an exceptional basis under a particular world. Nothing really explains and highlights what an Influence score is, than a world that operates via bureaucracy, not money. Some have said that they're happy to have both, but I'm willing to argue that the two approaches are actually in conflict. If you add money, you're undermining the Influence system (a system I really like). But more importantly, you're setting up personal conflicts in every gaming group where the players aren't all economists or historians.

All of my current players and most of my past ones are economists or historians, amusingly enough. That said, we also shy away from throne-counting because it is so implausibly unpalatable and distracting. Again with the violent agreement!

I think there will be some kind of virtual currency the administratum counts with.

This is not far from my own interpretation of 40k, albeit with the obligatory number of conflicting systems and bureaucratic cluster-funs, but I would note that it would almost certainly be useless/unknown at the level of personal transactions. In all probability the "denominations" such as they are wouldn't even descend to the level of all but the most rarified of purchases.

I doubt it. The Administratum's focus is tithes. Tithes are just the collection of all the resources a planet can afford to give (and then some, usually), and then the distribution of those resources to where they're needed and can be best used. There's no need to measure things against a monetary standard here.

It is certainly plausible to interpret things this way too. I myself tend to think they do both in parallel or even in conflict with one another to the further confusion of all parties.

Without some independent notation of value it can be difficult to assign goods as needed. At the very least, you would need to have measurements of fluid, accounting of individual items, weights of goods, etc. As likely as not quality of such goods would also be noted. Perhaps on a ridiculously convoluted chart or referencing many a different text for comparison, a body of reference texts that has grown absurdly large over the millenia, but a quality would be noted. If both quality and quantity are noted it is not inconceivable that a shorthand of evaluating items by unit equivalents, a currency of notation, might arise. Leastways, that is how I see it. To each his own.

I think there will be some kind of virtual currency the administratum counts with.

I don't know. Sounds a bit efficient for the Adeptus Administratum, no? The way I see it, is do the army have an internal money system for deciding what squads get what weapons or which general gets the most men? No. The Adeptus Administratum works like that.

From reading Gaunts Ghosts, I got the impression that a central currency exists in some way - but maybe thats just me.

Even inside the army they bought the stuff with money (like sacra).

I appreciate the thoughts knasserll, no ire from me anyhow.

Absolutely and wholeheartedly mutual. I'm enjoying the discussion mightily. I've actually put on my "Fun Discussion" soundtrack to help me enjoy it even more!

The Medieval period is actually a thousand years - from 5th to 15th Century. And what you describe is actually more true of the late Medieval period after around the 10th Century. For our Imperium parallels, we should properly look to the early and middle Medieval periods.

This is where I disagree, I think we should look at the early post-classical era only for individual planets. the Adeptus Mechanicus as an entity with exclusive rights and monopolies on certain elements of the society has always reminded me of the guilds of the early modern or very late post-classical era, and so I tend to draw from that for thematic material. The age of exploration also seems to be source material for all Rogue Trader related stuff.

Further, the centralized bureaucracy of the Imperium is very much not an early post-classical European institution, it more resembles classical roman bureaucracy, Chinese bureaucracy throughout the classical and post-classical periods, or even modern hyper-pluralist theories of democratic government.

That said, I totally think that this is open to interpretation and should be. I have no doubt we can both find examples in the fluff supporting both angles and that is fine by me. I unabashedly prefer an Abnett/Mitchell/Bowden/Farrer version of 40k which is definitely not representative of all of the material and is more modern sci fi influenced than much of the Warhammer Fantasy in space material from 1st Ed.

Similarly I disagree.

It's not so much that I disagree with your facts that I think it misses the point. Yes, the Imperium is different to these. My objection is that no-one said it needs to be. It is heavily influenced by real world historical feudalism but it is not real world feudalism. It is a Feudal Bureaucracy. China was perhaps one (I'm not very good on Chinese history but it seems to fit), however China was a powerful empire with little external threat for long periods of its existence. In other words, it worked. The Imperium is the same thing but under war conditions.

Also, I appreciate the "open to interpretation" aspect. Lots of flavours of WH40K to choose from! Mainly what I want to achieve here is to show how and why such an interpretation of mine actually can fit with the fluff and work very well and be great fun. Say "there's no money" and some people might think this is utterly unrealistic. But it actually fits most of the fluff beautifully. (imo). There are actually pretty good answers to all the objections.

One thing you mention a couple of times in your post is that in Medieval Europe, whilst the lower classes didn't use money much the upper classes did have and use money. What they really used, was coin . Today, that is the same as money. Back then, not the case. The promise that a coin would be a representation of value, backed by a government was centuries in the future and the use of money as purely abstract not backed by anything at all, actually didn't come about in widespread use until the 1900's. Up until the First World War, you could actually still exchange your British pounds for gold. Not buy gold, exchange. The abandonment of the Gold Standard is a recent thing in our history. There are still people today who argue that we should return to the Gold Standard (though try that in a room of modern-day economists and you'll be pelted with fruit). Bits of coin, notes of paper, having value just because a government and people say they have value... these are not what Medieval coin was. Go back then and what coin actually is, is precious metals. The stamp of Caesar or whoever, wasn't saying this coin is worth X amount because I say it was, they were saying "this coin was minted under my authority and does indeed weigh X amount and is indeed made of gold, not lead dipped in gold.".

Not that everyone trusted it, mind you. Iirc, one of the skills in the 1st Ed. Warhammer Fantasy Role-play let you cut coins down the middle and then melt the two halves back together again so that you could some of the precious metal without damaging the coins face making a slightly thinner coin. Or if the seal didn't quite reach the edge of the coin, you could shave some of the edge off.

Coin clipping was a common blight of classical civilizations such as the Romans as well.

Tut! Those pesky plebestrians.

EDIT: Exceeded the maximum number of quotes allowed! Part II incoming.

It seems to me the distinction you want to make is that money is fiat money only and that other forms of currency should be understood as distinct and not really money. I totally agree that a universal fiat money is unworkable in 40k, at least in so far as it would not be used at all levels of society.

I am pretty comfortable with different arms of the Adeptus Administratum using some relatively widespread currency notation or other when evaluating tithes but that the use of such notation (along with books and books of arcane formulas for converting between them, many perhaps lost or in disagreement) far outstrips any use of it as actual currency. In fact, given the level at which it is used, it might well be a genuine gold coin with the throne stamped on one side and the aquila on the other ("throne gelt"), but since that is more money than will ever be useful for individual transactions you would largely not see them in circulation ever anyway.

Kind of. I do want to make the distinction between Fiat money and coinage based on inherent value of the coins (e.g. "gold pieces") and even just promisary currency (e.g. here is a bank note that the bank will exchange for gold). However, I don't want to make this distinction as a means of dismissing it as "that's not money" sort of arguing. I make the distinction because there are very significant consequences to the difference, as detailed in my previous post. Chiefly I brought it up because you stated how there was money in the early and middle Medieval periods. It's very different to our modern money and largely a convenience and surety rather than having the trappings that lead to Commercialism in the way that a fiat currency does. With the feudal nature of society it does little to stimulate shops and mercantile classes. It's not that it doesn't exist. It's merely misleading to say: "look there is money" because of it because most people (not necessarily yourself) will take that to mean that there is money passed in general circulation, that people are out there buying things with it, and this isn't the general case.

But they are never going to grow beyond their local sub-systems. You cannot manage singe monetary policy across differing worlds. Even across nations presents enormous difficulty. One reason Greece and Spain are in trouble is because they're tied by a single currency to economies like Germany and it's impossible to set interest rates at the best value for both. Fluctuations in value would make use of currency between planets utterly infeasible. You get a hundred Thrones on one planet. You go "yay! I'm rich!" You go to another planet and find a hundred Thrones buys you a small toy Terminator. That utter disparity in value is unavoidable. Definitely. I can expand on this if wanted, but a unified currency even within a single sector is not possible. And I don't just mean problematic. I really do mean it's unworkable.

I agree that it is totally unworkable if by this you mean a fiat currency in use at all levels of society across the sector. I think I imagine considerably more contact and communication between worlds in some sectors than you do on average, and that would tend to mitigate the finality and absoluteness of this claim, but we are essentially violently agreeing on the main point I think.

We're in absolute agreement that a fiat currency cannot work. However, I extend it to non-fiat currency. For non-fiat currency to work, we need to find two impossible things. Firstly we need to find something of inherent worth that is has the same inherent worth across multiple planets. It's hard to even find such a thing in our own history! Whilst one planet uses pressed blocks of grox-dung (they're an agri-world desperate for fertilizers), Hive World Termitus (I have to create a world called that, btw) might value Uranium to feed the machine spirits of their world. The moment you take a currency based on a coin's worth to a place where it has no intrinsic worth it is valueless (or ironically becomes a fiat currency). The second impossible thing we need is consistent values across worlds. Even if you find something suitable to mint your coins out of that all worlds value (Unobtanium?), the quantities wont be consistent across worlds. Maybe world X has 100bn such coins amongst a population of 5bn. World Y has 400bn coins amongst a population of the same size. You go from world X to world Y and you find your wealth a quarter what it was. That's exchange rates, for you! Are you going to begin the session by telling the PCs "Hey - that big reward you got last session? It's worthless now, btw". But it's not just a game problem. Without free trade to even things out, the exchange rate issue never reconciles like it does in the real world. It just creates more and more unworkable situations as time goes on.

I'm not saying that there are not worlds where there is money - far from it, the Imperium is vast and varied. But what I guess I'm emphasizing, to bring back to concrete bullet points is the following.

• Moneyless planets actually are feasible within the setting of the Imperium and work largely like I've described.
• Most of the fluff leads me to think this is the general case.
• A currency that spans multiple worlds is not feasible.
• The Imperium is not a consumer society and the entire notion of general trade, retail, etc. doesn't fit. There are no "las-gun shops".
• Putting such a system in Dark Heresy and / or putting prices on items creates a misleading impression and also sets up conflict between players and GM. The moment the players see that a las-gun costs thirty thrones, every single thing a GM does that fits the fluff is going to be seen as punitive and obstructive. "But the book says it costs this much? Why can't I buy one?" "But I have a thousand thrones, why have you made every planet we've visited not use them?"

1. agreed

2. I disagree, but agree this is totally an acceptable interpretation

3. I agree insofar as we are speaking of a general use fiat currency, so, agreed

4. I agree that some planets definitely would have no such thing, I think that many planets would have a more consumer-like society, indeed many individual cities might have one even if the surrounding countryside does not. Simplified: If you visit a feral world and roll into a feudal manor a las-gun shop is absurd, but a las-gun shop in Hive Sibellus? I am okay with that.

5. I see your point and I agree that I have no need for a hard currency system in the rule book and find prices to be reductionist and misleading.

1. Cool.

2. Agree to disagree. There's too much fluff for me to talk authoritatively over it all. I only know what I have read.

3. I extend this to non-fiat currency as detailed above. But also non-fiat currency is different to modern money and doesn't have the same effect to the same degree so I don't accept that non-fiat currency undermines my earlier posts in the same way that fiat currency would.

4. Disagree. I agree that some worlds will be like this but even on Hive Sibellus I think a "las-gun" shop would be a rare thing. It suggests an availability of supply that is simply rare in the war-footing and scarcity economy of the Imperium. That las-gun factory? The Imperium owns and controls it (or a proxy of them does). The best that would normally happen is that someone who works there is corrupt and siphons some off each month for the black market traders. Or maybe the baron who controls it takes a few to arm his personal troops. But there's not a "produce to meet demand" possibility. Where comodotization is not possible, retail is not possible. It's friends and odd traders all the way down.

5. Cool. I can ask no more than that people understand where I'm coming from.

It's a lot more WH40K to me, that on arrival on a planet, you don't go to the shop and buy X or check into a hotel. You go to the Adeptus Administratum office and fill out forms or argue with them for half-an-hour that you need housing allocated and fill out an Offworld Visitor form whilst some snivelling flyweight clerk enjoys giving you the run around. That's when you pull out your Influence score and name drop the local planetary governor or mention that you have a signed seal from his prefectus and the frightened clerk scurries to assign you whatever you've asked for and hurries you past the queues.

Great image, I like it.

I see the Imperium as a little like a mash-up of 1984, Animal Farm and the queuing scene from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRzrQLpvcXI

If you want to imagine the future, picture filling out a boot requisition form... forever.

Nowhere am I arguing that there is not money on many of the Imperial worlds. But I'm incredibly wary of setting up the wrong expectations and I want it handled on an exceptional basis under a particular world. Nothing really explains and highlights what an Influence score is, than a world that operates via bureaucracy, not money. Some have said that they're happy to have both, but I'm willing to argue that the two approaches are actually in conflict. If you add money, you're undermining the Influence system (a system I really like). But more importantly, you're setting up personal conflicts in every gaming group where the players aren't all economists or historians.

All of my current players and most of my past ones are economists or historians, amusingly enough. That said, we also shy away from throne-counting because it is so implausibly unpalatable and distracting. Again with the violent agreement!

Violent agreement. One of the great gifts the Internet has brought us!

I think its good that this thread exists, but I am saddened by all the people who don't like thrones.

I think the main reason I don't like the 'abstracted wealth' is that it makes little sense in the macroscopic view to me. I mean, if the players find themselves on planet X and need to buy guns. Player Y wants a bolter, becuse he thinks bolters are cool, but he fails his roll. Instead, he goes for a plasma gun, which he succeeds in getting, despite it being a more expensive item. This makes no sense to me, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up a lot.

It also makes a lot of situations more boring imo. Lets say you wanna bribe a guy: with a money system, you might still roll fellowship, and depending on your success or failure it could increase or lower the price. That doesn't really work with an influence system, you either fail or succeeed. It's so binary.

It's also a big loss to resource management, no longer will you have to choose if you want to buy X or Y, just roll for both and see what happens. (yes yes, you could restrict the amount of acquisitions but that also gets a bit wonky). Please FFG, make throne costs for most items, but let it be an optional system if you'd like.

I think its good that this thread exists, but I am saddened by all the people who don't like thrones.

I think the main reason I don't like the 'abstracted wealth' is that it makes little sense in the macroscopic view to me. I mean, if the players find themselves on planet X and need to buy guns. Player Y wants a bolter, becuse he thinks bolters are cool, but he fails his roll. Instead, he goes for a plasma gun, which he succeeds in getting, despite it being a more expensive item. This makes no sense to me, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up a lot.

It also makes a lot of situations more boring imo. Lets say you wanna bribe a guy: with a money system, you might still roll fellowship, and depending on your success or failure it could increase or lower the price. That doesn't really work with an influence system, you either fail or succeeed. It's so binary.

It's also a big loss to resource management, no longer will you have to choose if you want to buy X or Y, just roll for both and see what happens. (yes yes, you could restrict the amount of acquisitions but that also gets a bit wonky). Please FFG, make throne costs for most items, but let it be an optional system if you'd like.

This.

I think the main reason I don't like the 'abstracted wealth' is that it makes little sense in the macroscopic view to me. I mean, if the players find themselves on planet X and need to buy guns. Player Y wants a bolter, becuse he thinks bolters are cool, but he fails his roll. Instead, he goes for a plasma gun, which he succeeds in getting, despite it being a more expensive item. This makes no sense to me, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up a lot.

That's not how I would run this as a GM. I wouldn't let a player just keep rolling. Perhaps they need to add some clarifications here or extra rules, such as an increasing penalty based on how many attempts you make.

The way I would play it would be player Y wants to requisition a bolter. They make an Influence roll (subject to a modifier depending on the type of world they're on, also). If they succeed, they're provided a bolter for the mission. If they fail, they're told "no bolters are available" but depending on the degree of failure, I'd probably say: "we have lasguns available". If they rolled really high degree of success, maybe they get extra ammo or are told there's a plasma pistol if they prefer. But I don't think I'd just let them make gun requisition roll after gun requisition roll even if they're different types of gun.

Also, note that Boltgun and Plasma Gun actually have the same availability (which should be changed).

It also makes a lot of situations more boring imo. Lets say you wanna bribe a guy: with a money system, you might still roll fellowship, and depending on your success or failure it could increase or lower the price. That doesn't really work with an influence system, you either fail or succeeed. It's so binary.

I don't think it's binary. One degrees of success, okay, he'll hold off on reporting you for ten minutes but that's all he'll give you. Four degrees of success? He'll give you all the time you need and some advice as to where to find what you're looking for. Three degrees of failure? You pick the one honest guard on the Hive world and he's so offended he runs to sound the alarm.

Anyway, none of this stops you creating planets with money. But a universal scale and prices for equipment don't work, imo. At all. I actually think it's more interesting to bribe the guard with something else. You just have to use your imagination. Ration coupons, an access pass to the Imperial Brothelarium... each world is different and fun!

I think its good that this thread exists, but I am saddened by all the people who don't like thrones.

I think the main reason I don't like the 'abstracted wealth' is that it makes little sense in the macroscopic view to me. I mean, if the players find themselves on planet X and need to buy guns. Player Y wants a bolter, becuse he thinks bolters are cool, but he fails his roll. Instead, he goes for a plasma gun, which he succeeds in getting, despite it being a more expensive item. This makes no sense to me, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up a lot.

It also makes a lot of situations more boring imo. Lets say you wanna bribe a guy: with a money system, you might still roll fellowship, and depending on your success or failure it could increase or lower the price. That doesn't really work with an influence system, you either fail or succeeed. It's so binary.

It's also a big loss to resource management, no longer will you have to choose if you want to buy X or Y, just roll for both and see what happens. (yes yes, you could restrict the amount of acquisitions but that also gets a bit wonky). Please FFG, make throne costs for most items, but let it be an optional system if you'd like.

The fact that a Plasmagun is more rare than a Bolter (even if it isn't right now) is besides the point, though - which is exactly the point of the Influence system.

It's not a question of price. It's a question of whether you can find one or not. The fact that a Plasmagun is rare doesn't mean that anywhere you find a Plasmagun you'll also find a Boltgun.

I don't think the Influence is any more binary than the Fellowship roll you just described. You can make of the roll what you will. Maybe a failure indicates that he'll take your money, but will also backstab you in a second. Do it in secret and you can really freak out your players.

There are already rules to stop you from rolling for both (at least going by the Commerce rules - I guess FFG still haven't clarified if there's two separate systems, or if they're just badly written?). You cannot make another Acquisition roll if the last one you attempted failed.

From reading Gaunts Ghosts, I got the impression that a central currency exists in some way - but maybe thats just me.

Even inside the army they bought the stuff with money (like sacra).

It could be "crusade currency" that keeps the troops happy and locals on planet can redeem in some way.

Can we all at least agree that the concept of a universal currency is kind of silly? The Administratum is grossly inefficient as is, maintaining a galaxy spanning currency is a little much.

I think so. Anything above planet level could be so complex that you may as well use commerce unless someone is making an effort to keep one standard.

I'm open to rules on money. Anybody have any ideas that would encompass multiple worlds with different monetary systems and resources?

Just say currency is only good on one planet (except gold and the like) and anything you don't use is just returned or junked. Roll influence to get influence bonise + DoS times whatever (different modifiers get you different values for whatever) "thrones" when you want to have some cash to hand and make sure it's a better use of that roll to just get an item so players don't slow down play by gaming the system, all it needs is a list of prices and your set to go. Should take less than a page.

This realy is all I'm looking for.

This realy is all I'm looking for.

Then I would do something like this if I were writing world descriptions:

Optimus Prime

Type: Hive World

Population: 14.3bn at last Imperial Census.

Government: Oligarchy

Description: The first of three habitable worlds in the Optimus system, it is home to a five separate hives, each ruled by a committee of the twelve richest inhabitants of that hive. A few exceptional individuals are on the committee for more than one hive, travelling between them periodically. Governance is entirely organized around private ownership with three classes of people -- the tenanted, the propertied and the owners. The lowest and largest class of people by far, are the tenants. These own no area of the hive proper, but instead pay rent to the next rank of individuals - the Propertied - for the right to live in the hive. Work is hard and rents high. Workers are rewarded in coins of a heavy, greyish metal stamped with the seal of the Hive. The metal is never quite cold to the touch and prolonged contact leaves distinctive reddish burns. These burns are considered a sign of affluence and the rich of the hive are often bandaged as displays of their wealth, or possess weeping sores and tumerous growths, considered highly attractive. The metal is precious as it is the same metal that the machine spirits in the base of each Hive hunger for. The propertied own their own piece of the hive and thus do not need to pay rent. All tenanted aspire to become one of the propertied class, though for most it is always a little out of reach. The goal keeps them working hard at their jobs, however. The owners are the true masters of the hives, however. These own the businesses and factories that keep the planet producing for the regular tithe to the Empire. Members of the Propertied class sometimes rise to the ranks of the Owners, just as through the various Machiavellian politics of the planet, Owners sometimes sink back down to the ranks of the Propertied (and are consequently shunned utterly by their former peers). Though unusual in organization, it is far from the most bizarre planet in the Imperium and the system of voluntary slavery has proven surprisingly effective. The Adeptus Administratum has decreed that attempting to interfere with the delicate balance of trade and property rights that developed whilst the system was out of contact, would cause too great a disruption to productivity and as long as tithes are met, they are happy to leave well alone. Indeed, Optimus Prime is highly unusual in that tithes are not specified. Every five to six years, Imperial ships arrive with supplies of the dark metal, sealed in heavy lead caskets, and the Oligarch rulers of the hives provide the manufactured goods in exchange. The rulers are greedy for the metal which fuels their great cities and keeps them in power, and always provide as much goods in return for the metal as the planet can sustain. The Adeptus Administratum sees little difference in trading the metal they would need to supply to keep the planet running under direct rulership anyway and so tolerates the presumption of the people that they are performing some voluntary exchange. The presence of an Imperial Guard bastion in each hive, with an Adeptus Administratum post at each however, serves as a reminder to the Oligarchs just where the ultimate power lies.

Visiting Optimus Prime: Those dispatched to the world by the Imperium are usually given a suitable quantity of the metal (known in the Adeptus Mechanicus as "Uterthreate") with which to purchase habitation, supplies, etc. or can requisition such from the Hive's Adeptus Administratum offices.

Straight forward enough. I would have a different passage elsewhere detailing the more common system of Imperial worlds. I might write such a description up if I have time / people are interested.

Thanks I don't think every planet they write needs the currency explained but I'm not going to deprive the forum more of your lore building if you're willing.

That planets name sounds familiar. Was it in the men of iron fluff? It's not a deceptive feeling is it?

If you want to imagine the future, picture filling out a boot requisition form... forever.

Whilst being shot at with lasers.

So....you've played Paranoia , right?

If you want to imagine the future, picture filling out a boot requisition form... forever.

Whilst being shot at with lasers.

So....you've played Paranoia , right?

Only xeno hectic communists don't trust friend Emperor.

I think the main reason I don't like the 'abstracted wealth' is that it makes little sense in the macroscopic view to me. I mean, if the players find themselves on planet X and need to buy guns. Player Y wants a bolter, becuse he thinks bolters are cool, but he fails his roll. Instead, he goes for a plasma gun, which he succeeds in getting, despite it being a more expensive item. This makes no sense to me, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up a lot.

That's not how I would run this as a GM. I wouldn't let a player just keep rolling. Perhaps they need to add some clarifications here or extra rules, such as an increasing penalty based on how many attempts you make.

The way I would play it would be player Y wants to requisition a bolter. They make an Influence roll (subject to a modifier depending on the type of world they're on, also). If they succeed, they're provided a bolter for the mission. If they fail, they're told "no bolters are available" but depending on the degree of failure, I'd probably say: "we have lasguns available". If they rolled really high degree of success, maybe they get extra ammo or are told there's a plasma pistol if they prefer. But I don't think I'd just let them make gun requisition roll after gun requisition roll even if they're different types of gun.

Why does the bolter go away on end of mission when your players buy it? Why does a failed roll mean no bolters are available? Surely finding a bolter is some form of scrutiny/search test, and not an influence test? What if two players want bolters and one of them succeeds?

And surely the amount of requisitions someone makes in a system where your resources are limitless(there are after all no rules for your influence decreasing after purchases) should only be limited by the time it takes, not the resources? Does the 'time it takes to find item' table still exist or did that get axed as well?

I don't think the Influence is any more binary than the Fellowship roll you just described. You can make of the roll what you will. Maybe a failure indicates that he'll take your money, but will also backstab you in a second. Do it in secret and you can really freak out your players.

But there's no money to take since its all abstracted.

Even with influence there is still looting and trading. When playing BC with infamy and commerce/bartering, our group looted everything with availibilty rare or very rare or less (essentially, anything powerd, plasma, melta, etc). So argument that influence stops acolytes from looting is missed.

Even with influence there is still looting and trading. When playing BC with infamy and commerce/bartering, our group looted everything with availibilty rare or very rare or less (essentially, anything powerd, plasma, melta, etc). So argument that influence stops acolytes from looting is missed.

PCs looting stuff that they intend to use themselves is perfectly fine. What I object to is D&D -style looting of stuff they don't intend to use themselves, in order to 'sell it in town' so they can hoard all-important coins- this is a disruptive contrivance that should be limited to games where persuing wealth is the primary objective. It has no place in a game where the PCs are enacting the will of the Inquisition...

I think, in the meantime, the money/influence issue is the smallest one

I think the main reason I don't like the 'abstracted wealth' is that it makes little sense in the macroscopic view to me. I mean, if the players find themselves on planet X and need to buy guns. Player Y wants a bolter, becuse he thinks bolters are cool, but he fails his roll. Instead, he goes for a plasma gun, which he succeeds in getting, despite it being a more expensive item. This makes no sense to me, but it seems like the sort of thing that would come up a lot.

That's not how I would run this as a GM. I wouldn't let a player just keep rolling. Perhaps they need to add some clarifications here or extra rules, such as an increasing penalty based on how many attempts you make.

The way I would play it would be player Y wants to requisition a bolter. They make an Influence roll (subject to a modifier depending on the type of world they're on, also). If they succeed, they're provided a bolter for the mission. If they fail, they're told "no bolters are available" but depending on the degree of failure, I'd probably say: "we have lasguns available". If they rolled really high degree of success, maybe they get extra ammo or are told there's a plasma pistol if they prefer. But I don't think I'd just let them make gun requisition roll after gun requisition roll even if they're different types of gun.

Why does the bolter go away on end of mission when your players buy it? Why does a failed roll mean no bolters are available? Surely finding a bolter is some form of scrutiny/search test, and not an influence test? What if two players want bolters and one of them succeeds?

The bolter goes away because the requisition rules are not giving you a bolter, they're giving you a bolter for the mission. When a police officer commandeers your car to follow someone, they have to give it back afterwards. When the army issues a soldier a grenade for an assault, that's not a present. It's all use for the mission. If the PCs want a bolter permanently, then they have to do something other than make an Influence roll.

But as I've just seen the news about the game as is being withdrawn, I think I'm done with this beta now so I'm bowing out of this and other threads. I'm pretty disappointed all round.

There's a good chance FFG will let us know next update if they have plans on this front.
Till then I just wanted an excuse to say this monster is now the longest thread on the DH2 forum and that makes me happy.

There's a good chance FFG will let us know next update if they have plans on this front.

Till then I just wanted an excuse to say this monster is now the longest thread on the DH2 forum and that makes me happy.

Clearly indicative that there are merits on both sides of the discussion. =D