TEXT: Piercing the Shadows
  A personal interpretation of the Inquisitor gaming ethos
  by Derek Gillespie
  RABBLE ROUSING
  I'm going to climb on my soapbox once more for a little while, if
  no–one minds? (n.b. Last time, I know a few people did. I
  suspect that more people might this time…). As some of you may
  know, I have the pleasure of distracting myself from the day–job
  by casting my eyes over Internet forums and making sure that
  no–one's misbehaving. Along the way, I get exposed to many,
  many ideas – new character backgrounds, the latest incarnation
  of a character's statistics, plans for the modelling and painting of
  a character, battle reports, rules queries, background (how I hate
  the word, “fluff”, but use it if you must) enquiries regarding the
  Warhammer 40,000 universe, amongst a multitude of others. 
  What I'd like to talk about for the next few pages could be
  considered to touch upon all of the aforementioned, and many
  other facets of Inquisitor as a game. My desire to put finger to
  keyboard once again and witter on has come from several
  incidents online over the last few months, some of which have
  been resolved in a more satisfactory way than others. What I'd
  like to look at is something of key importance – the ethos of
  Inquisitor as a game. Where does it fit in alongside the other
  40K–set games? Why is Inquisitor the way it is, and what makes it
  so enjoyable? How do I get the best out of Inquisitor?
  Considering that the niche in which Inquisitor sits is going to be
  potentially muddied further after the 2007 release of Dark
  Heresy, 
  the 
  41st 
  millennium–set 
  roleplay 
  game 
  (see
  http://www.40krp.com for more!), I think these are pertinent
  questions.
  Everything that follows is purely personal opinion, and please, if
  you don't agree with me (and many won't!), then the Specialist
  Games forum or The Conclave are where you'll find me for
  feedback.
  GREY AROUND THE EDGES
  “Shades of grey” is a phrase that you constantly hear bandied
  about when people are describing the world of the Inquisition –
  where choices are made that are too convoluted to be seen in
  stark terms, and hard bargains may have to be made which, in the
  doing, appear to contradict the tenets of the Imperial creed. How
  apt then that the role of Inquisitor in the 40K game catalogue is
  also slightly unclear and murky – lurking in the shadows and
  never quite firming up just what it is. 
  The phrase that you'll also hear used is, “narrative wargame”.
  What exactly is a “narrative wargame”, though? Trouble arises
  because it appears that Inquisitor wants to sit in between two
  camps – tabletop wargaming, where the aim (for most people) is
  to beat the opposing player, and roleplay (of whatever form)
  where you're looking to tell a story, and all these little models
  aren't really necessary. You might hear gamers tell you they're a
  “wargamer” or a “roleplayer”. Some people are both, but it's
  pretty unlikely that some will describe themselves as a “narrative
  wargamer”. For reference, just to set out my stall, I was always a
  wargamer before I came to Inquisitor.
  So then, a “narrative wargame”. In my opinion, this means, first
  and foremost, that Inquisitor is about telling a story. “Narrative”
  is vastly more important than “wargame” when it comes to the
  crunch, so much so that a better descriptor of what Inquisitor is
  might be something like, “narrative visualiser”. Now, I'll be the
  first to admit that's not catchy, but it is more to the point.
  Inquisitor games are not about the winning, but about the story
  that unfolds. The desire to win is, perhaps, detrimental to a good
  game. A game of Inquisitor is a cooperative effort between two
  or more people, who are attempting to enact on a tabletop the
  most exciting, thrilling or nerve–jangling episodes from the
  stories of their characters, which are given form in the models
  that make up the respective warbands taking part in the game.
  The other player isn't an “opponent”, he's a colleague – the
  co–writer of your little adventure! But what kind of adventures
  does Inquisitor do best? What situations lend themselves to
  Inquisitor? Well, what do you like?
  “PLEASE SIR, I LIKE TANKS! AND TITANS!”
  Oh dear. Now listen, there's excellent vehicle rules available for
  Inquisitor that have recently appeared in Fanatic Online, but
  really, the game's not about tanks. If you want to have one on the
  tabletop as a one off, then that could be very cool indeed (and all
  kudos to you if you make one in 54mm scale). But if you feel the
  need to make rules for them, as if you're going to drive your
  Baneblade 
  onto 
  the 
  tabletop 
  and 
  start 
  firing 
  a
  mega–battlecannon at the opponent, then you should probably
  play 40K. Off you go…
  As for the Titans, we have Epic for that sort of thing. Go to the
  back of the class.
  Now, before I move on and leave people seething with rage
  behind me, let me just say that there's a difference between using
  these things as inspiration, and wanting to “use” one regularly. A
  Titan could actually be setting for an excellent game, or could
  provide character inspiration – a Princeps separated from the
  
  Mind–Impulse link for too long, losing his grasp of reality? Maybe
  the rest of his warband are titan crew, shepherding and guarding
  the increasingly delusional Princeps? Likewise, a tank could be a
  fine objective for a scenario – there's absolutely nothing wrong
  with presenting the players with the occasional adversary that it's
  impossible to take down by “conventional” means, and requires
  a bit of thinking out–of–the–box. You can't get through the tank
  armour with an autogun, but can you lure it down a side street
  and into a booby trapped area? Can you get on top of the thing
  and ram that melta bomb through an open top hatch? You
  (hopefully) get the idea.
  “I HAVE A PENCHANT FOR 
  VIOLENT PERSONS, ARMED TO THE TEETH”
  Well, there's nothing wrong with this – I'm sure many Inquisitors
  find it incredibly useful to keep a few vicious killers on the
  payroll. However, there are some players who have been drawn
  to Inquisitor because it offers the opportunity to use a warband
  of four killing machines, armed to the eyeballs and with statistics
  to shame a Space Marine. And remember, this is “okay”, because
  “there's nothing in the rules to say I can't”. Well, yes, technically.
  But how do you feel about the inclusion of a non–combatant?
  What if a scribe, or an astropath, or a dock worker, or a street
  child, or an administratum accountant had to join the warband? 
  Inquisitor warbands are extremely likely to include some
  individuals whom the Inquisitor keeps at hand because they have
  skills related to civilian and investigative life, and not the
  battlefield. The dedicated Inquisitor player will see these
  characters as just as viable modelling projects and gaming
  “pieces” as a mercenary gunslinger, bounty hunter or Imperial
  Guard veteran. Sometimes, the sad truth is, these people get
  caught up in the thick of things, and others have to carry them
  along, even if it means that the warband has the overall combat
  effectiveness lessened. Sometimes, these “hangers–on” even do
  something heroic! 
  If you're having trouble stomaching that idea, and much prefer
  the muscled brute in the corner with the chain axe, then maybe
  you're going to find your concept of an Inquisitor warband is at
  odds with other people's. This isn't to say that these players
  necessarily have any less of a desire to tell stories, or that they
  enjoy the 40K background any less – it's just that they probably
  like a slightly different slant on things than Inquisitor players.
  They crave guns and explosions as the aim of a game, not as a
  side–show, distraction, or violent punctuation. They want The
  Dirty Dozen, Sharpe's Rifles or The Last Chancers.
  In my mind, they want Kill Team. I always used to point players
  who were slightly missing the aim of Inquisitor towards that
  other stalwart of the Specialist Games, Necromunda, but that's
  not quite right. Necromunda is a slightly different beast, whereas
  Kill Team is probably exactly what they need. Thanks to the
  bountiful goodness of the powers–that–be in the studio, Kill
  Team is an official “supplement” to regular 40K (see pages 214 –
  227 of the 40K rulebook) that lets you take a dedicated team of
  killers against hordes of opposing “grunts”, and is an ideal
  opportunity to model up some wonderfully characterful 28mm
  figures. It also lets you ignore anyone that might be classed as a
  non–combatant, and is probably the best outlet for any players
  that want to use Space Marines, Eldar Aspect Warriors, Ork Boyz,
  Tau Fire Warriors, Tyranid gribblies etc. etc. in games of
  Inquisitor. In a game where the greatest challenge for a player or
  gamesmaster can be to control the delicate balance of chaos
  versus order in a given situation, warbands composed solely of
  killing machines cause a not–always–welcome descent into the
  former.
  “BUT WHY SHOULDN'T I USE A FIRE WARRIOR?”
  I was going to use the word “can't” in that title, but the great
  proviso obviously applies here, as it does to everything in
  Inquisitor – if everyone you're playing with agrees, you can do
  anything you like. That's the beauty. However, let me try to
  explain why most people curl up in horror at the thought of most
  40K troop types appearing in our games.
  There is a line of text on the front cover of the Inquisitor
  rulebook – it says, “The Battle For the Emperor's Soul”. That's the
  sub–text of the game, and it should focus you towards the main
  players in our drama and political intrigue – humans. The
  Inquisitors of the Ordos are the heroes and villains, accompanied
  by, working with, and moving through the innumerable masses
  of mankind. Yes, aliens like the Eldar and super–humans like the
  Space Marines will occasionally find themselves embroiled in this
  hidden world, but their involvement is going to be minor – they
  simply aren't as much use as comparatively “normal” human in
  most situations an Inquisitor finds him or herself in. Inquisitor
  concentrates on shadowy ideological wars fought in back alleys,
  rural communities, disused factories, the depths of hives, the
  gardens of the rich, across spire–tops and in orbiting space
  stations or satellites. It does not focus on the most militant
  activities of Inquisitors, wielding fire and brimstone as hosts of
  Grey Knights or Adepta Sororitas sweep across battlefields. Leave
  that to games of Warhammer 40,000 – Inquisitor deals with the
  really interesting stuff. The focus on the unexplored areas of the
  Imperium and, by extension, humanity in the 41st millennium is
  what makes Inquisitor both so unique, and so enjoyable.
  Be honest – why do you want to use a Fire Warrior, or a Howling
  Banshee, or a Farseer, or an Ork Nob? If it's because you like
  them in 40K battles, then I suggest you go back to Kill Team. If
  it's just because you think you want a better gun than anyone else
  
  (cue one Pulse Rifle), or because you think you need the best
  psyker around (“Hello, here's my version of Mind War”), then
  you're still thinking of things in 40K terms, where the aim is to
  beat the opponent. If you genuinely want one of these because
  of the background involved (and I mean the deep, underlying
  background, not, “I like the image of a squad of them charging
  the enemy as heavy munitions explode in the background”),
  then you might be onto something.
  To quote the esteemed Eoin “Lord Inquisitor” Whelan, from a
  thread in the SG forum, Inquisitor is about creating characters,
  not replicating troop types. That's why we use the loose term,
  “character archetype”. If you want a Fire Warrior, why not prove
  your interest in the Tau runs deeper than a big gun? Are you
  willing to look into playing a Water Caste diplomat? A Gue'vesa
  auxiliary? A Rogue Trader who makes frequent runs into
  forbidden Tau space? All of these characters have a good basis for
  personality, motivations, fears and loves – they have the potential
  for depth, and show you're willing to do more than point the
  biggest gun at the opponent and pull the trigger. 
  If you consider all of this and still think that a Stealth Battlesuit
  or an Ultramarine Tyrannic War veteran is best for you, then I
  point you once again towards Kill Team or 40K. By all means,
  show me your lovingly–converted 54mm model for these
  wonders, but please don't ask to use it regularly in a game…
  BIG. BOLD. BEAUTIFUL. BEST.
  I'll admit, even while writing an article that I think might stir
  some people up, I am tentative to write the next section. This is
  for two reasons – firstly, it's probably a whole article in and of
  itself if I put my mind to it and, secondly, because it's really going
  to annoy some people. Probably best that I just say it then
  explain myself. Here goes…
  Inquisitor should be played with 54mm models. Using 40K
  models isn't on.
  *Ducks for cover*
  Let me explain myself. For lots of people who advocate the use
  of 54mm (or “big”) models, it's hard to explain exactly why
  54mm is correct. I have heard even the most articulate and
  experienced of gamers struggle to justify themselves, and resort
  to saying things like; “it just feels right”. I can sympathise – once
  you try it, it does just feel right. This is the way the game was
  meant to be played. Not with 28mm models, designed for squad
  level combats, but with sumptuously detailed models –
  extra–detailed models, for extra–detailed rules.
  I understand entirely the arguments behind using 28mm figures
  – many gamers have hundreds of them, and they have scenery
  that fits properly alongside them. Using 28mm figures lets them
  get started quickly, and means they don't have to spend lots of
  money to get started on a new game (not a massively valid
  argument in my view, as the outlay for a three– or four–character
  warband is significant less than that for 1500 points of 40K
  miniatures).
  I could argue the case based upon the quality of the 54mm
  range, but that's self–evident and, based upon the number of
  people using 28mm figures, maybe not as persuasive as I'd have
  thought. I also accept that the relatively recent reduction in the
  figure ranges for the Specialist Games means that the Inquisitor
  range is, sadly, no longer as comprehensive as it once was,
  though it still offers a lot of opportunity. 
  Allow me to offer another, more substantial reason why 54mm is
  the way to go for the novice Inquisitor player. Staying away from
  the 40K ranges help you to stay away from 40K troop types. If
  you're already fighting a desperate battle with your temptation to
  avoid having an Ork Boy as your Inquisitor character, then think
  how much harder the temptation will press upon you if you can
  easily get a model of one! At least, at 54mm, you'd have to go
  quite a long way to get a good looking Ork. At 28mm, it's easy –
  there are hundreds of the things available! Of course, the
  temptation to start including bigger things, like tanks, looms
  large once again. Likewise, people start thinking that meeting
  Eldar Pheonix Lords, or a C'Tan, is a “good idea”. Yes, yes, I know,
  it's allegedly a cool idea, and it does follow the previously stated
  concept that the occasional foe that can't be defeated by
  conventional means is an interesting trick, but really – keep
  reminding yourself that the focus should be on humans, fighting
  humans, in the shadows. 
  Now, take a 54mm Catachan (helpfully provided by one
  “Toothpick” Murke), and a 54mm Space Marine (hello, Artemis),
  and put them next to one another. Good God, look at that! The
  Marine's a giant! The poor Catachan barely reaches the middle of
  the Marine's chest, and the Marine's leaning forward! That
  Astartes bolter is larger than Murke's torso! Artemis's head is
  almost the same size as Murke's thigh! Herein lies one of the
  greatest strengths of the 54mm models – they show you things as
  they “really” are. It helps to bring home the difficulties of
  remaining covert if you have a Space Marine in your warband.
  Can you imagine sneaking into a crowded bar with that hulking
  man–monster following you? Roughly the same thing applies to
  Kroot too – in a society that is taught to hate the alien, it's even
  harder to get away with hanging around with one when the alien
  in question towers above any and every human you're ever likely
  to see. You don't really get a sense of that at 28mm either! 
  And, besides all that, it just feels right. Go on, try it… 
  
  IT'S ALL ABOUT BETTERING ONESELF…
  Well, that's quite a bit covered, but there's a single 40K game that
  hasn't really been touched upon yet – the one which many
  people see as “closest” to Inquisitor. That game is Necromunda.
  When people first come to Inquisitor, especially those with prior
  knowledge of the Specialist Games range, they tend to assume
  that Inquisitor is simply an extra–detailed version of
  Necromunda. Indeed, many people I know have used
  Necromunda as an inspiration for Inquisitor games or campaigns
  (for an example of such, you can download the “Hivequake in
  Newpitt” article from the SG Website), and some people have
  made very literal translations of the Inquisitor games system to
  Necromunda, or vice versa. These people, I believe, are
  somewhat missing the extra depth that Inquisitor has.
  I'm not attempting to belittle Necromunda here – before the
  release of Inquisitor, it was my favourite Specialist Game by a
  long, long way – but it's basically about lining up two or more
  gangs, and shooting one another to pieces, until the opponent(s)
  bottle(s) out. So far, so Kill Team? Well, no – as I'm sure all
  Necromunda players would testify, the area in which
  Necromunda excels is in campaigns, with the wonderful
  progressive campaign system allowing a gang to grow with
  increasing skill, injury and equipment levels. While the running
  of an Arbitrator Campaign allows a degree of narrative element
  to be introduced, Necromunda campaigns are about maximising
  the killing potential of your gang through fairly frequent
  characteristic increases, skill attainments and equipment
  upgrades. This is great fun in a Necromunda setting, but might
  not be best suited for Inquisitor.
  “Why not, you big kill–joy?”, I hear you cry? Well, The Inquisitor
  campaign, to work properly, should be an intensely narrative
  event. Just like the games tell stories, the campaign is all about
  letting a story unfold. In my view, an Inquisitor campaign should
  be one long detective story, with characters piecing together
  puzzles and leading the story towards a conclusion. Trouble is,
  lots of players come to Inquisitor, hear there's a “campaign”
  going on, and picture Necromunda. In other words, they picture
  character advancement, and quickly. I think this is detrimental –
  if the players think that by doing certain things during a game,
  they're going to get a certain skill or statistic advancement, then
  they tend to lose sight of the spirit of the game for the thrill of
  writing a new word or number on the character sheet. Now,
  everybody likes to think that characters will gradually change
  over the course of a campaign, and if the injuries can easily rack
  up, then it's comforting to think there's the chance of improving
  at things too. GMs should take note of what characters do, and
  consider recognising achievement with bonuses, statistic
  increases and skills as they feel appropriate, but to have a rigid
  framework in place can encourage the wrong sort of behaviour. 
  There is a loose framework for Inquisitor campaigns provided in
  Exterminatus Volume 1 (Inquisitor Annual 2002) that I would
  encourage you to look at and adapt to your needs. In some ways,
  the pressure is on a GM to ensure his or her campaign has the
  players too hooked on investigative duties to really care how the
  characters are advancing, making any advancements a pleasant
  surprise rather than a sought–after goal. I think that everyone,
  GM and player alike, who is suited to Inquisitor should be willing
  to try a proper narrative campaign – with comparatively minimal
  “gaming advances” – at least once. If both the GM and players
  aren't really interested in doing this, then maybe it's easier if you
  play Necromunda, where a proper framework is in place for this
  kind of thing. If one of the two parties is keen but the other is
  not, then the onus is on that party to persuade the doubter, and
  introduce them to the wonders of the narrative campaign! 
  EXIT, STAGE LEFT (MIND THE ROTTEN FRUIT)
  Another little rant off my chest, then? I know that there are some
  people reading who are now cursing my name, but I hope that,
  if you're reading this as someone who's new to Inquisitor, or
  considering getting involved for the first time, you may have
  some idea of whether or not this game's really for you. I see a lot
  of newcomers presenting what they think is genuinely a stunning
  character concept, only for a pile of furious Inquisitor players to
  tear it to shreds because they've just suggested that yet another
  Eldar Warlock is coincidentally wandering the galaxy on his own.
  Cue one argument as the two camps butt heads over what is in
  “the spirit of the game” – I'm sure more than one potential player
  has been deterred from trying Inquisitor as a result, despite the
  attempts of others to encourage them through the process.
  If reading this helps anyone to change their ideas about what
  makes a good Inquisitor gaming experience, or makes them
  realise that there are more suitable gaming avenues open to
  them, then I'm a happy man. As I said way back on the first page,
  if you disagree with me then pop onto the SG forums or The
  Conclave and let me know your views. I guarantee you won't be
  alone – all of the regulars will have torn this to pieces by the time
  you get there, but please feel free to join in!
  ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Derek Gillespie is an absolute menace who bothers the otherwise-far-too-busy Savant Hall with articles for publication in this fine online
  magazine. Andy even agrees to publish some of them just to keep him quiet.
  Besides this badgering, Derek keeps and eye on Inquisitor-related business on the SG forums and, by virtue of annoying both Andy and
  Gav in Rules Reviews, has his name on the Inquisitor rulebook. Which is quite, quite ridiculous…
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Warhammer/40k/Inquisitor Skirmish/SG_site_files/FO87InqShadows.pdf