To me it makes a lot of sense for the Inquisitor to be the center of a web of intrigue radiating out from him, a hierarchy of his agents with him at the top, radiating out into his personal friends and assistants down the ranks. Just like the relationship of a general of an army to the officers, NCOs, and enlisted underneath him - and then reaching out father to merely people who sell him information but know not where it goes.

Regarding the deviation from original material: obviously GW is ok with it or they would have tried to pull the plug on the license. The brand isn't static, after all. You can still have a rivalry and I don't even have a problem with the real rivals being NPCs. To me the greatest disservice DH did to the source material was Ascension making that high-level play literally unplayable due to the awful rules at that level.

I've never had an issue with looting and never had a player try to do it. So I'm not sure where the "iddue with looting" is coming from. It's only going to be there if the GM sets the game up that way.

Personally I find the idea of looting in the DH setting to be kind of bizarre. Obviously anything you find belongs to the =I=, not to the flunkies, unless the =I= decides they should have it.

Anyway, as the poster above me said, FFG's deviation from GW's (internally contradictory) fluff is a non-issue, because FFG's stuff is fluff. If don't like it, don't use it, but don't act as if your personal preference has some kind of binding power on other people, including the game writers. It is incredibly irritating. It's not your universe.

PLAYERS DIE IN DARK HERESY. A lot. As long as you follow the above advice, a PC getting killed in combat is: 1) an indication of the cell/players' failure to think more and shoot less; 2) Bad luck/rolls; and/or 3) Dark Heresy... working as intended.

True, with the caveat that virtually everyone starts with at least 1 Fate Point, and those are explicitly 1-Up Mushrooms. You can throw big risks because players CAN cheat certain death a limited number of times.

Been playing hardcore mode for a while - no fate burns to survive. More dramatic that way.

If don't like it, don't use it, but don't act as if your personal preference has some kind of binding power on other people, including the game writers. It is incredibly irritating. It's not your universe.

Am I not allowed to outline and explain my personal preferences anymore, especially when I am called on to do so by a preceding post?

What's irritating is that you apparently have very little tolerance for opposing opinions. I've noticed some time ago that somehow we keep rubbing shoulders, so maybe your outburst is just venting built-up frustration against my person as a result of previous debates, but at least be so kind and do not attempt to pin something on me I do not actually stand for.

As I keep saying all the time, it's up to everyone what interpretation of the setting they prefer for themselves, and that they are all equally valid - so please do not suggest I am promoting the opposite here as that would be a lie. That does not mean, however, that I am forbidden to complain and nag about my own personal hopes and expectations for the product not being met, exactly like just about everyone else does.

I never had a problem with the Inquisition treating their Acolytes like crap because there's so many of them where they came from. And when my players makes foolish actions then they get the consequences of it. I remembering them attacking a group of guards* at a church once and fate points where burned as a result.

* I known the church is forbidden to have armed soldiers like that but in this backwater planet they didn't care all that much. Another charge of heresy against the locals on that planet.

If don't like it, don't use it, but don't act as if your personal preference has some kind of binding power on other people, including the game writers. It is incredibly irritating. It's not your universe.

Am I not allowed to outline and explain my personal preferences anymore, especially when I am called on to do so by a preceding post?

What's irritating is that you apparently have very little tolerance for opposing opinions. I've noticed some time ago that somehow we keep rubbing shoulders, so maybe your outburst is just venting built-up frustration against my person as a result of previous debates, but at least be so kind and do not attempt to pin something on me I do not actually stand for.

As I keep saying all the time, it's up to everyone what interpretation of the setting they prefer for themselves, and that they are all equally valid - so please do not suggest I am promoting the opposite here as that would be a lie. That does not mean, however, that I am forbidden to complain and nag about my own personal hopes and expectations for the product not being met, exactly like just about everyone else does.

But you are promoting the opposite all the time, and are extremely intolerant of other people's opinions.

Anyway, yeah, a silly thing to argue about.

Am I attacking others for preferring a different interpretation of the setting? Please show me where exactly you see this "intolerance". Are you certain this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, given your past responses to my criticism on DH's injury system?

That I am promoting different - or, from the position of this RPG, alternate - takes on the background has nothing to do with tolerance but with the lack of consistency within the franchise as a whole. People deserve to know how this IP operates, lest they are goaded into false beliefs about it and end up being confused about contradictions (as they exist even between different books of this RPG alone), and not knowing that they are perfectly within their rights to pursue a different vision of the 41st millennium without having to think of it is any less valuable than the official material - or, in fact, that their vision may already be part of official matterial elsewhere.

One of Warhammer's greatest failures is that it rarely communicates how all the material is actually supposed to tie into each other - as such, I see my remarks about statements from people who worked in or with GW about this topic as potentially helpful advice for people who made the same mistake as I once did.

Or, in other words, I believe that someone has to say it. The silly thing is that I have to explain myself like that.

For what it's worth, however, I can see how my constant nagging about what I'd like to see different, or where a current implementation has disappointed my hopes and expectations, may get on someone's nerves - at least when that someone cannot understand these preferences. It's the same feeling I get sometimes, so at least there we have something in common.