Jump to content

Inquisimunda/Inq28 based on Kill Team

Recommended Posts

A recent discussion in the Other Games forum about the systems used for Inquisimunda/Inq28 (link) got me thinking. I was part of a group that developed some homegrown rules for using both inquisitors and rogue traders in Kill Team. We had a lot of fun and I think there was considerable enthusiasm among the members because a lot of us recalled the Inquisitor game and the freedom it gave in terms of warbands and game play (despite some of the balance problems - it was a "narrative" game that had much less emphasis on balance).


With Inquisimunda/Inq28 I think that a lot of the attraction, other than Blanchitsu, is the freedom to delve into darker parts of the setting that don't see as much representation in the war-focused WH40K game. Players are free to express their creativity. For many, I think, gaming mostly comes down to whatever rules the main group is comfortable with. Those that enjoyed the Inquisitor game might simply scale it down for 28mm miniatures. Those that are familiar with Necromunda might instead choose that game. Still other players like to use any number of third party options. Osprey recently published the Stargrave game, which is Frostgrave in space. I was exposed to it after watching Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games use it to play his old Rogue Trader era minis (using tables from that edition of WH40K to define the story). So I recently bought the game and found it to be enjoyable. However, I really like what we did with the unchained versions of the Kill Team faction rules that we came up with for inquisitors and rogue traders. I think we can build on that to create a variant of Kill Team for players wanting to scratch that Inquisimunda/Inq28 itch. I've seen some similar rules sets adapting Necromunda to this purpose, and I think those are great for players that enjoy that game. This effort is intended to provide a similar solution for players that like Kill Team.


At this point I'm just brainstorming and looking for feedback.


Most of the standard Kill Team rules would remain unchanged, hopefully reducing the learning curve.


The Combat Roster would be replaced with a similar concept, but hopefully improved and tailored to the Inquisimunda/Inq28 concepts. My working title is "Warband" for obvious reasons. Brother Tyler brought up his concerns about the Command Roster rules in this discussion. I'm thinking about taking that concept and adapting it to the Warbands (instead of being based on a Space Marine Tactical squad, it would be based on something else appropriate to Inquisimunda).


The concepts of commanders would change, too, though I'm not quite certain of specific changes. The net result would be that we would be much more likely to see the commander characters in games since they're the leaders of the warbands. I liked the mechanisms that we built into our unchained rules for promoting models to replace commanders that were killed (and for creating custom versions of the commanders); and I think that we can incorporate these concepts into a dedicated Inquisimunda/Inq28 variant.


Aside from that, the bulk of the work would be in taking the model choices that we developed for the unchained versions of inquisitors and rogue traders, expanding on them to cover a broader range of choices such as the Adeptus Mechanicus, Ecclesiarchy, Chaos cultists, and maybe Genestealer cults (and others?) to give players freedom. I think that heavy use of keywords would be necessary so that it's not a total free-for-all, but I would want players to have considerable freedom to represent the possibilities of the lore. Instead of multiple faction books/sections, there would be a single section with all model choices (minus the warband leaders).


With regard to the factions, I basically see the commander as the essential step that imposes certain restrictions and allows certain options. Many model options would be available to every faction. These might be added to, restricted, or adjusted based on the commander choice. For example, a basic fighter type (Armsman in the linked rogue trader and inquisitor files) would be available to everyone. If you take an Adeptus Mechanicus Adept as your commander, the Armsman might be replaced by a Skitarii (which isn't available to other commanders). Another example is the daemonhost who would only be available to radical Ordo Malleus inquisitors and the Lost and the Damned.


I foresee the outcome being two files. The first would be a smaller file identifying the basic rules changes (as changed from Kill Team). The second would be a larger file that includes basic lore on the factions as well as the model choices.


What I'm looking for now is feedback on the concept, as well as ideas for factions and model choices. The current faction choices in my mind are:

  • Inquisition
  • Rogue Traders
  • Adeptus Mechanicus
  • Ecclesiarchy
  • Lost and the Damned
  • Genestealer Cults
These choices elevate the struggle beyond combat between gangs and the law as represented in Necromunda, depicting the shadow warfare that takes place between the different factions of the Imperium. The Genestealer Cults and Lost and the Damned are in there as foils to the Imperium. I definitely want to avoid the war-based factions and most other xenos, confining the conflict to what we might encounter within the shadows of the Imperium.


I'm moving forward on this, though my current efforts are exploratory. As I saw in the inquisitor/rogue trader projects, though, other players have lots of interesting ideas so I'd like to incorporate what I can into this.


I'm trying to come up with a sexy name for this, too. "Shadow War" would be great, but it's too close to Shadow War: Armageddon and will probably create confusion. Another name that occurred to me was In the Shadow of the Throne. I'm certain someone has a better idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You definitely have my interest on this. I like the ideas you've presented, but I'll hold off on my own until I see a preliminary offering.


As for a name for the project, I like "Shadow Wars" or "Shadows of the Imperium" as other alternatives. I don't think that the closeness with Shadow War: Armageddon should scare you off either "Shadow War" or "Shadow Wars" since GW abandoned that game. I'll try to think of some non-"shadow" names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things I'm considering right now...


The first revolves around the datasheets, stat lines, and rules for each model choice. On the one hand, I could preserve everything from regular Kill Team rules (including the homegrown rules that we've developed). The benefit here is that players desiring more variety might bring other factions in for games. On the other hand, we could throw these out the window and make them work more like the Inquisitor game or Dark Heresy. The advantage here is that we can get a little more granularity. The big disadvantage here is that a lot more development and playtesting has to take place (and playtesting is always the weak link with homegrown rules). I'm leaning towards keeping things as normal Kill Team.


The second revolves around how to treat the commanders. Though many people don't like the Commanders expansion for Kill Team, I think it works fine in the context of Inq28, which really revolves around having those characters. Since the factions are limited, we don't have huge disparities [as long as games remain limited to the main factions and don't bring the other official factions into play].


As a process, I'm looking at the commander as the defining point for a warband. Certain choices you make for your commander will adjust what you can take. There will be a baseline group of models that are available to everyone. Depending on the choices you make for your commander, some of those baseline choices might be restricted (not allowed or limited), some might be enhanced (you may include more than the norm), and you may have some additional options. In this, there might be a few small tweaks to the normal datasheet characteristics in terms of adding some things like a warband max (in addition to the Kill Team max) and maybe some keyword types, but datasheets will remain recognizable.


A big change I can see for commanders is that they'll be able to gain experience, unlike the normal Commanders rules. In this, there might be some differences between pick-up games and campaign rules. For example, pick-up games might allow you to use any experience level for your commander (e.g., you make your inquisitor level 3) and your commander doesn't gain experience (no one gains experience in regular pick-up play, so this shouldn't be an issue). In campaign play, all commanders might be required to start at a certain level, either a specific level or a min/max level; commanders can gain experience and increase in level throughout the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I'll have to take a look at the new Kill Team rules first. From what I've heard, though, I don't like the manner of making kill teams under the new rules (with regard to how we developed the Inquisition and rogue traders).


I could see two paths, and we could do both. First would be to preserve everything under the old Kill Team rules. Second would be to adapt to the new Kill Team rules, but probably preserving the old rules for assembling kill teams. I don't have a solid enough grasp of the new rules to figure out what my preference would be, though.


At this point, I think that continuing under the old rules would be easier. Later on, we might look at adapting those to the new rules. So we would end up with two different versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ioldanach: Can you provide me with any links needed to look at previous discussions on building from the old ruleset? I agree that continuing under the old ruleset would be the most advantageous route to take.


I am already toying with weapons lists (Old set) and skill sets (adding skills from Inquisitor in a KT format). Just started with this on my own, so it’s very rough right now.


As far as commanders go, I believe you are onto something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Brother Tyler! I was thinking that if I could read through the past process I could be of more help so that no one has to hold my hand in the development process.


I’m really looking forward to this. Thank you guys again for allowing me to be part of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.