V3.0 Warband Creation Update

[oGRE3]

I am wondering if there is any need for a pure Xenos list at all. e.g. between Pirates (Orks and Eldar), Nobles (Tau) and a "Militarty Strike Team" list (Human, Tau, Eldar military teams) do we need a separate "Xenos" list?

I think we need to keep lists as generic as possible: all but a fistful of gangs [inquisition, admech, chaos, arbites] are totally generic: a "military expedition" could be an imperial guard kill-team, an eldar strike force and so on; a "merchant delegation" could be composed by both tau, rogue traders, eldar and so on; "space pirates" can be whatever race!.
maybe we should deny which races CANNOT have this or that gang.

 

[Insurgent]

Would I be out of line if I said there were things I like and things I didn't about these rules?

~ I like the path to heresy idea and I'm glad this kind of mischief penalty is starting to make its way into Inquisimunda.
~ It is easy and familiar that the penalty for heresy is the standard outlaw rules.
~ I liked the outlaw chart and thought it took care of business.
~ I didn't like that everyone has to obligatorily roll on this chart every game. I think rolls on theses charts should be an act of reporting/NARCing by the opposing gang you just plaid against. It will keep this important roll honest and give a chance for the other gang to call out the worst heresy.
~ Please add the -3 penalty for fighting Imperial forces. Even in original Necromunda where you never would fight Imperial forces, that little note added loads of flavor to the setting and game. Everyone wanted to rebel against the Imperium eventually and occasionally it applied to arbiter scenarios. In Inquisimunda there are imperial forces, IGKT, Arbites, PDF. This ups the ante for warbands that may not operate as most other lawless factions.
~ The modifiers should only apply to what you brought to battle the last game. Just having a beastman shouldn't get you negatives unless you use him in battle against an opposing gang.

The Cult Rules.
~ Can we get some secrecy rules for genestealer and chaos cults. These guys being open cults is just awkward and lacks the insidiousness of both archetypes. Even a Khorne cult could be a vengance driven guerilla fighter or terrorist cell. They don't always need to be axe wielding maniacs. They could be secretly demented bomb laying massacre makers. Blood God don't care how he gets his blood. Secrecy really has been the biggest issue with heretical cults that hasn't been addressed in years. Give them a normal gang/bandit cover and if they start bringing Beastmen or Genestealers to battle penalize them on the chart. Running a cover operation for a genestealer cult is probably one of the greatest roleplaying achievements in the whole 40K franchise.

 

[Tiny]

Would I be out of line if I said there were things I like and things I didn't about these rules?

No worries. Just be sure to give examples of alternatives to anything you don't like.

~ I didn't like that everyone has to obligatorily roll on this chart every game. I think rolls on theses charts should be an act of reporting/NARCing by the opposing gang you just plaid against. It will keep this important roll honest and give a chance for the other gang to call out the worst heresy.

Why does it "keep it honest"? I find that by making it optional you end up with players who make deals with each other not to report each other, which causes bad feeling among other players. This is something our group house ruled to be mandatory in actual Necromunda as nobody wanted to report each other and create bad feeling.

~ Please add the -3 penalty for fighting Imperial forces. Even in original Necromunda where you never would fight Imperial forces, that little note added loads of flavor to the setting and game. Everyone wanted to rebel against the Imperium eventually and occasionally it applied to arbiter scenarios. In Inquisimunda there are imperial forces, IGKT, Arbites, PDF. This ups the ante for warbands that may not operate as most other lawless factions.

When Imperial Forces are purely NPCs, this works fine. When you're likely to end up with Imperial vs Imperial for whatever reason, having such a huge penalty just means less people will want to play each other. Imagine a 4-player campaign featuring an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, Arbites Squad, Rogue Trader and a Chaos Cult. Everyone would just want to play vs the cult to avoid the huge likelihood of getting rumbled by the authorities. Also fluffwise, why would an Arbites Squad end up more likely to be declared heretic for trying to stop a bunch of Xenos filth, purely because they are in the employ of a Rogue Trader?

~ The modifiers should only apply to what you brought to battle the last game. Just having a beastman shouldn't get you negatives unless you use him in battle against an opposing gang.

I agree 100% with this.

The Cult Rules.
~ Can we get some secrecy rules for genestealer and chaos cults. These guys being open cults is just awkward and lacks the insidiousness of both archetypes. Even a Khorne cult could be a vengance driven guerilla fighter or terrorist cell. They don't always need to be axe wielding maniacs. They could be secretly demented bomb laying massacre makers. Blood God don't care how he gets his blood. Secrecy really has been the biggest issue with heretical cults that hasn't been addressed in years. Give them a normal gang/bandit cover and if they start bringing Beastmen or Genestealers to battle penalize them on the chart. Running a cover operation for a genestealer cult is probably one of the greatest roleplaying achievements in the whole 40K franchise.

The above change to heresy rules (only applying modifiers based on your last game) would implement this pretty well IMO.

Anyone else got any opinion on the above points. I am happy to budge on stuff that has more opinions on it.

 

[Insurgent]

Agreements not to NARC are actually a big part of underworld code. But if a new gang comes to town and is breaking all the rules you will see criminal elements actively informing against their non-traditional enemies (Russian Mobsters). Normal criminal activity is not what alarms authorities. "Let the gangs kill each other," is probably a prevailing sentiment among authorities. We are dealing with a situation where criminals can actively draw income from illegal operations here. But a gang that achieves supremacy or a faction that is openly heretical or xeno is what attracts the attention of authorities.

Getting reported by another gang means that you are ACTIVELY VIOLATING THE STATUS QUO, (sorry that needed caps). Getting forced to roll on the table still could turn out favorably if someone is arbitrarily reporting you. But the privilege for someone to call out another gang is one of the few equalizers in this system. Many killer combinations have their roots in heretical practices that will not lend themselves to favorable rolls on the Outlaw/Heresy table. I think forcing a roll is a great way for a gang to slap back a powerful opponent. If this action is initiated by another gang in post battle, the roll will observed and calculated by the adversary doing the reporting (keeping things honest). Traditionally only one gang can be reported a battle (you can't also tattle on the tattle tale).

Hurt feelings? Chances are if you have had a sound thrashing you will be more than willing to dish out some hurt feelings. And if someone is using heretical means to gain battlefield advantage they more than deserve to get called out.

Some provision needs to be made for a negative modifier for gang rating size. Gangs with ratings over 3000 should be real danger of becoming outlaws just on principle.

I notices that scenario modifiers weren't on this table. I think this is a positive thing since there is such a plethora of scenarios now days. Scenarios should start containing modifiers for Outlaw charts in the scenario write-up (probably in a special paragraph after the experience table).

 

[Insurgent]

I'm a fan of having an extra "call out" even after someone has been declared an outlaw. A lot of outlaw gangs can get out of control and still require some penalty to bring the hammer down on them. PURGE

Here are my ideas for an expansion of the Outlaw system.

 

[Tiny]

Thanks for your feedback @Insurgent although I disagree with many of your points. Perhaps we can hear from some others on the subject?

Agreements not to NARC are actually a big part of underworld code.

We're not dealing with Underworld Gangs for the most part. We're dealing with ultra powerful Inquisitors and insidious cults.The cult doesn't go tell the Inquisitor's boss that he's being naughty and using Xenos to do his dirty work. The Inquisitor's boss just happens to notice as the Inquisitor has been careless this time.

Getting reported by another gang means that you are ACTIVELY VIOLATING THE STATUS QUO, (sorry that needed caps). Getting forced to roll on the table still could turn out favorably if someone is arbitrarily reporting you. But the privilege for someone to call out another gang is one of the few equalizers in this system. Many killer combinations have their roots in heretical practices that will not lend themselves to favorable rolls on the Outlaw/Heresy table. I think forcing a roll is a great way for a gang to slap back a powerful opponent. If this action is initiated by another gang in post battle, the roll will observed and calculated by the adversary doing the reporting (keeping things honest). Traditionally only one gang can be reported a battle (you can't also tattle on the tattle tale).

Why is it a privilege to go tell tales about someone? Sorry but I just don't get why that is any better / fluffier / more fun than just rolling after each game. Also, according to NCE, traditionally both gangs can report each other at the same time.

In Necromunda it is at least a little fluffy, as the "authorities" aren't keeping an eye on every little gang of thugs in the Underhive so rely on tattle-tales. The Inquisition on the other hand, keeps tabs on its operatives (i.e. they keep tabs on each other) and on cult and Xenos activities. It is not a case of the warbands reporting each other, more a case of them getting caught by outside factors. The Inquisiton aren't really going to listen to a report from an Ork Freeboota Kaptain that their Ordo Xenos operative is employing a Kroot scout against regulations.

Some provision needs to be made for a negative modifier for gang rating size. Gangs with ratings over 3000 should be real danger of becoming outlaws just on principle.

Why? Is a successful puritan Inquisitor more likely to be declared heretic than a less successful one? What about a successful Arbite Judge? If it is purely to curtail high level warbands, this is not the way to do it. Mentoring would be my preferred route.

I notices that scenario modifiers weren't on this table. I think this is a positive thing since there is such a plethora of scenarios now days. Scenarios should start containing modifiers for Outlaw charts in the scenario write-up (probably in a special paragraph after the experience table).

That is indeed why they were not included.

Thanks for the scenario ideas although they should be in the scenario thread.

While the citation system is an interesting idea, I find the idea of a load of players teaming up to give one player a good hiding because they happened to roll badly on the outlaw table to be a little repellent. The player is already likely doing badly after becoming outlawed in the first place. If they are doing well, good for them. Maybe the other warbands should do better or look for a mentor.

As I said before, if anyone else has thoughts on the points @Insurgent has raised, please say something.

 

[Meavar]

OK, have not read the pirate warband, so will comment on that later.

Heresy and reporting part.

- I like the road to heresy idea but think we should watch out not to make it a huge detriment to play anything but imperials.
In my mind the inquisimunda is more on the fringe worlds where the imperial rule is not that strong. This explains why the gangs can be slightly more open, can get away with more, will find things like rogue traders, have a larger amount of inquisitors trying to make a name for themselves, and cannot just call exterminates for a town/world when demons are sighted.

- I think we should watch out with the outlaw rules, since they bring a significant drawback. Official outlaw warbands have had to pay less or gain more income then normal to balance the fact that they start as outlaws. Also the outlaw scenario's often have additional income generation. So maybe we should also include something like this in our case?

- Personally I think people should not have to roll in all cases. for some things (inquisitors) it might be fluffy to say that both warbands roll after the match because there is a tight watch on them. But in the case of genestealers and chaos cultists, if they decide to fight it out somewhere remote so they won't get caught it makes sense and there is little chance of them being found out. Let those bargains be struck it makes sense to me. One idea for this.
Either the battle was followed and both players must roll or it was not, neither rolls. Allow warbands to secretly note down if they will tell on the other, if they do they get a +1 on the roll for themselves, unless they both tell and neither gains the bonus, or neither tells and there is no report since the battle was not followed. This means telling is risky for yourself as well to tell, but then again at least your opponent will be in the same boat. It ads a new diplomatic depth to the roll? And means it is more likely you will roll if you are a upright warband since the risk is lower.

- No please do not ad the -3 penalty for fighting Imperial forces. As I said in my mind it is in fringe worlds, thus local authorities prefer the status quo, imperial forces disrupt that just as much/ even more then most small time cults. Right now I think there is not enough reason to give imperials (who are already should be more pure thus have better rolls on the table).

- I agree, having something should not matter, just what was included in the game.

- I disagree about the secrecy rules for genestealer and chaos cults. People are either powerful enough to go in the open and thus have little to fear, or are trying to be as secret as possible. The idea is that even when these guys are secret cults they can get outlawed. I agree secrecy is the biggest issue with heretical cults, everyone and their mother would rat them out if given a chance, but somehow those cults can work for years. This means that either it has support of powerfull people (should not be an outlaw) or support of the masses (outlaw). Right now there are no penalties for being a cult, only for bringing chaos marks/ xenos/ mutants etc. Thus they are a normal gang/bandit cover and if they start bringing Beastmen or Genestealers to battle penalize them. I have more problems with the xenos on the chart, it means a cult can stay in good graces for a while, for a xenos warband it is nearly impossible (-2 penalty just to start). Even if they have much more support and are much harder to follow than some genestealer cult who usually will have trouble leaving the city let alone the planet. Thus while the xenos might be outlawed it should have a tiny impact for genestealers/ chaos cults a true openness will instantly see them being killed. Thus even if you become radical you will probably still be hidden, but you have to hide in deep pits where food and weapons are scarce, thus you get the outlaw rules. Running any cover operation is probably one of the greatest roleplaying achievements in the whole 40K franchise since everyone and their mam will try to frame, blame and shoot you.

 

[spafe]

I think I mainly agree with keeping it mandatory... The idea of it being optional to give the 'privilege for someone to call out another gang'... that just seems wrong to me... the idea is that the test is done, but you are just as likely to pass and be deputized than you are to be outlawed (all other things being equal), and both are small. If you are taking those combo's that are inherently powerful (xenos/ demaons etc), then the system will lead you to be more likely to be outlawed... you can't game the system by agreeing with an opponent to not report.

However I do like the idea of 2 non imperial gangs going to somewhere deserted to sort out their differences... What do folk think to it being mandatory if any imperial force is present (for both sides to test)? That way it shows that the authorities are always watching/keeping tabs on their own, and anyone they come into contact with, but two mutant crews duking it out in the wastes can go relatively unnoticed.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Gregor Firedrake]

i think it should remain mandatory for eveyone, if we make it mandatory if imperial forces are included but not if 2 xenos are technically means xenos have less chance of being outlawed if they only play each other, the eyes of the inquisition are all encompassing and heading to a "deserted" planet could still get them caught.

as its been said unlike necromunda where this roll represetns someone going up to the law and saying "oi mister this guy just attackd my caravan with some wyrds aint that illegal" the roll here is more to see if your operation has been compromised as like @Tiny says an ork aint gonna go up toa inquisitor and say "oi humie dat uvver inquisitor brought kroots and was nasty to me" as they would just get shot, but the roll represents the inquisitor getting spotted with kroot leaving the imperial space stattion just before the fight

 

[Meavar]

If you are taking those combo's that are inherently powerful (xenos/ demaons etc), then the system will lead you to be more likely to be outlawed...
Just some thoughts.

I think this is where I disagree. And is part of the problem, we completely disagree on how xenos should be handled. You want to put an additional strain on xenos etc because they were inherently more powerful. But we try very hard to make them in balance and I would say they are not more powerful as a race then humans anymore (I sometimes feel some are actually a bit weaker). Having a large mixture of races, yes this allows for better focus and thus become more powerful as a whole, but xenos of itself are not the best option I think.
Especially since we took away the high bs, most xenos now are in a straith shooting match the same as humans, but are more expensive for certain special cases (ld test if people die close by/ high i to avoid pinning). The higher price reflects that, and is the balancing factor. They have less members since they are elite and thus already generate less income. By also letting them become outlaw you even further reduce their less income, thus you end up stacking more and more penalties against them.

The buccaneer pirate warband is the perfect example for it. It puts a negative connotation against radical, since an imperial might stop their funding if they ad lot's of unacceptable things. But it also penalizes a pure Tau/ Eldar buccaneer supported by their respective governments and has a larger chance to be outlawed (-2) then a imperial buccaneer with ogryn, mutant and a ratling etc in there only has a -1. While there is no fluff reason why the Tau would stop supporting them, because they have Tau.... Hell it becomes more likely to keep paying them if they ad in some human mercenaries....

 

[spafe]

Actually I don't think they are inherently more powerful... I don't think about them at all (I think of inq cell and cults mainly when I consider the knock ons)... I was merely using the example that 'some of the killer combinations have their roots in heretical/xenos/illegal practices' that insurgent mentioned above. I honestly hadn't considered the Tau pirate group... now you mention them... yeah, they might be one that is worth giving some sort of exception to in the outlawing table.

However... orks... elder... most other xenos... if they are operating within imperial space (even frontier), they are likely to find themselves outlawed. Why is that a bad thing? outlawed isn't a massive hinderence... it changes the play style, but in necromunda house gangs can go outlaw... and do, then thrive without the tax system hitting them constantly. considering the number of secondary objectives that offer some cash reward that are currently under development (I get it isn't fully released yet but the V1 has gone out), cash isn't going to always be poor. They are still full gangs, so have access to their heavies (one downside to actual outlaw gangs...), I'm not sure why outlawing that freebooter warband, or that group of elder slavers is indeed such an odd thing to do?

But yeah... the buccaneer one might need to be looked at if it is going to cover xenos delegations in that sense. I don't think that means the radical table needs to alter, just some extra requirements be put on it for full xenos warbands... (or a buccaneer note saying xenos don't lose funding)...

 

[Tiny]

...

However... orks... elder... most other xenos... if they are operating within imperial space (even frontier), they are likely to find themselves outlawed. Why is that a bad thing? outlawed isn't a massive hinderence... it changes the play style, but in necromunda house gangs can go outlaw... and do, then thrive without the tax system hitting them constantly. considering the number of secondary objectives that offer some cash reward that are currently under development (I get it isn't fully released yet but the V1 has gone out), cash isn't going to always be poor. They are still full gangs, so have access to their heavies (one downside to actual outlaw gangs...), I'm not sure why outlawing that freebooter warband, or that group of elder slavers is indeed such an odd thing to do?

But yeah... the buccaneer one might need to be looked at if it is going to cover xenos delegations in that sense. I don't think that means the radical table needs to alter, just some extra requirements be put on it for full xenos warbands... (or a buccaneer note saying xenos don't lose funding)...

This^

Except when you say Buccaneer, I believe you mean Privateers.

Any Xenos crews are unlikely to be Privateers operating in Imperial space anyway. They are far more likely to be Buccaneers. I will look into an alternative workaround for it though.

 

[Tiny]

But it also penalizes a pure Tau/ Eldar buccaneer supported by their respective governments

Tau and Eldar "governments" don't utilise mercenaries from their own species anywhere in the fluff. Eldar pirates are very much outcasts. Tau don't much like Farsight, let alone rogue Tau who have turned to piracy.

Also, all of this is purposely designed to be from the Imperial point of view. Any Xenos in the picture should be pirates and raiding parties for the most part.

 

[Meavar]

I understand your viewpoint, and some of it I agree with. I am also not saying the outlaw table has to change necessary, but we need to keep it in mind, and now with the pirate buccaneer it really highlighted some problems.
A lot of Xenos gangs should in my mind not be outlaws. Sure they are outlaws to the imperium, but not to the other factions. In my mind with the void pirates, rogue traders (who are known to trade with xenos), xenos warbands and lots of space travel we are not just looking at imperial worlds for income. I would even go so far as to say for xenos most income does not come from those iperials, thus the outlaw status should have only a minor impact if at all on income generation. Unlike in necromunda in my mind most of the income is generated of world.
Sure the imperials will disagree, but rogue traders often use 1 or 2 xenos with the risk of a death sentence, why risc a death sentence when it would mean less income? Because it actually opens much more trade options and leads to bigger income, not to less. You will have a hard time convincing me that being outlawed leads to an increase in income unless your warband is huge.
I think our vision also differs a bit since you as you mention rarely see xenos warbands, while in my case we could play because a large part of us prefer the xenos and thus over half the warbands in the campaign are xenos.

"outlawed isn't a massive hindrance... it changes the play style, but in necromunda house gangs can go outlaw... and do, then thrive without the tax system hitting them constantly." True, which is why more experienced gangs sometimes even like it. And here I might be mistaken, but the major advantage comes when you get large gangs and some nice goodies on the rare item chart. We do not use the rare item chart in inquisimunda and Xenos are expensive and thus smaller then house gangs, and much smaller then experienced house gangs. At least in our campaign most starting xenos gangs had around 7-9 members (only exception was once a starting orcs & grot warband had 12 members), most house gangs have slightly more (our starting chaos gang had 13 members)

So they have the xenos disadvantage of few elite members (thus earlier rout, less easy to take objectives, less people to generate income, easier to stop by pinning) and lose one of the 2 big advantage (few people to pay taxes over, elite members).

Considering the number of secondary objectives that offer some cash reward that are currently under development (I get it isn't fully released yet but the V1 has gone out), cash isn't going to always be poor. True, but it means that you need to use it to get money and you get less xp and because xenos are expensive you still have less members to get the money with, so still less money then other outlaw gangs.
They are still full gangs, so have access to their heavies (one downside to actual outlaw gangs...), I'm not sure why outlawing that freebooter warband, or that group of elder slavers is indeed such an odd thing to do? Because those dark eldar slavers are not scavenging for scraps, as do outlaws by the rules, they get their income from their trade in commoragh where they are not outlaws. Those Tau probably are trading and working outside imperial worlds. The we are talking about void pirates etc, here. They are definitely outlaws, but it is their job, they are not a bunch of hobo's like most cults and can trade with many people, it is just not that much the imperium.

I say most need to be looked at, Tau buccaneers, but also eldar slavers. They will not sell their wares much to imperial worlds, they will always be outlawed, but it will not influence their income, they get the income because they raid the imperial village for slaves and sell it in commoragh, not because they search for food in the imperial city in the hope they do not starve to death...

Eldar pirates are not in the fluff???
WTH 2 out of 3 factions are most of the time described as raiders/ pirates...

Tau I am unsure about. But even if they are not pirates they would have small companies of strike forces to trade with other races. sure it is all the greater good this and that and no other factions excist, except kroot, tarellians (maybe nicassar I am unsure) are known to be mercenaries for the Tau. So that Kroot/ tarellian who is fighting the imperials would clearly be quite possible to get normal treatment in the Tau empire even if not really part of the greater good.

 

[spafe]

Sorry, yeah privateer was what I meant... I'm just too lazy to go through the doc to find exact title... I think the gist was understandable though

 

[Tiny]

I think our vision also differs a bit since you as you mention rarely see xenos warbands, while in my case we could play because a large part of us prefer the xenos and thus over half the warbands in the campaign are xenos.

Sorry but I am writing these rules based on the current Inquisitor and NCE rules. I can't cater to a Xenos-centric campaign where Imperial agents would be the outlaws instead. That is up to you as arbitrator to figure out.

I say most need to be looked at, Tau buccaneers, but also eldar slavers. They will not sell their wares much to imperial worlds, they will always be outlawed, but it will not influence their income, they get the income because they raid the imperial village for slaves and sell it in commoragh, not because they search for food in the imperial city in the hope they do not starve to death

They are outlaws to the Imperium. They make money by looting and selling their wares, not by "working territories". The very definition of Buccaneers. In Imperial space they would operate as outlaws, gaining income from loot counters and slaves they take.

Them being non-radical to start represents them dealing with / extorting local planetary governments while keeping under the Imperial radar. A benefit they lose once discovered and actively persecuted.

Eldar pirates are not in the fluff???
WTH 2 out of 3 factions are most of the time described as raiders/ pirates...

I never said Eldar pirates aren't in the fluff. I said:

.., Eldar "governments" don't utilise mercenaries from their own species anywhere in the fluff. Eldar pirates are very much outcasts.

Meaning that they aren't paid to fight or deliver cargo by any central government. They earn their keep by taking what they need from others and selling it, be it slaves, weapons, cash or whatever. Hence "Pirates".

Don't forget, we are still to see any "Xenos Strike Force" style lists. The Void Pirates list is meant to represent pirates or raiders, not a military force.

 

[Tiny]

Tau I am unsure about. But even if they are not pirates they would have small companies of strike forces to trade with other races. sure it is all the greater good this and that and no other factions excist, except kroot, tarellians (maybe nicassar I am unsure) are known to be mercenaries for the Tau. So that Kroot/ tarellian who is fighting the imperials would clearly be quite possible to get normal treatment in the Tau empire even if not really part of the greater good.

They will get their Strike Force style list. They just won't be part of the Void Pirates list. They may also get something under the Nobility list (perhaps changed to "Diplomatic Expedition" list and maybe incorporated with Rogue Traders as the ideas are very similar).

Kroot / Tarellians etc would either be a military operation as part of the Tau Empire, or working as pirates / raiders and under their own jurisdiction.

Anyhow, thanks all for your contributions. I appreciate feedback even if I don't agree with it as it really helps with ideas for revisions and further warbands.

Anyone else got anything else to add before @spafe locks the thread?

 

[spafe]

Okay, from the looks of this @Tiny has plenty of food for thought, and some comments on this addition to the document. I'm gonna lock this in about half hr or so (anyone who really wants to put a reply in after this pm me or save it and be patient for the next version).

Edit:

Aaannnddd, we're locked for another week or so, until the next revision is ready. Stay tuned sports fans!

 

[Tiny]

Aaaaaaaannnddd we're back!

OP has been updated with the latest version. Link here for the lazy:

https://yaktribe.games/community/attachments/creating-an-inquisimunda-warband-17-02-17-pdf.10733/

Highlights:
Military Strike Teams
Common Xenos Weapons
Lower level warbands less likely to be outlawed.
Many other typos and fixes

Go forth and multiply critique.

 

[tribeof1]

Solid work as usual @Tiny. Military options all look good, and the addition of the modifiers for smaller warbands on the heresy roll is a good idea.

My one criticism, which is a very small criticism, is that some of the most recent additions (Military, Void Pirates, Inquisition just a bit) feel ever-so-slightly short on flavor and power, compared to the first couple (AdMech, Cults). I want to be careful here, as I don't think they're unbalanced. But I wouldn't mind maybe a 10 percent increase in flavor, 5 percent increase in "power."

After thinking a bit about it, I think what is compelling about AdMech and Cults are the upgrade options like the Praetorian and "More Machine than Man," the Zealot/Preacher option for cult leaders and elites, the chaos marks, etc. All add lots of flavor, and just a bit of variability, to really give each warband an identity and a "unique" upgrade option. Inquisition has a few of these qualities (adding hatred, etc.) but they tend to be warband-wide, as are the Void Pirate and Military options.

In many cases, the various warbands are defined by species/equipment access and one minor special rule. Maybe look for opportunities to add a minor upgrade option for each category, as well? As an example, give Void Pirates the option of purchasing Frenzy on fighters (maybe a limited version that only applies if unclaimed loot counters are on the board?), or let Military warbands upgrade Elites to junior officiers (similar to preachers) or gain access to some sort of Orders mechanic, etc. I'm not entirely sure -- and I apologize for being so vague. As I said, it's a very minor quibble, and I don't have an issue with things as they are. Just sharing that impression in case it's useful.