Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Re-reading all the Eisenhorn books, and got me thinking about several things:

1. What happens to blanks that are discovered normally? Are they taken for the Sisters, or made into Assassins? Granted this is pre-Indomitus, so no Sisters actually recruiting here. But wouldn't Becquin (Sp?) become one of the blank assassins?

2. Emperor's Children Heretic Astartes, are they normally able to corrupt minds just by looking at them? Is that something specific to them or just all Heretic Astartes?

3. Gun Cutters, have they ever been represented in game? They sound like some form of smaller single pilot Thunderhawk. Judging by the size of the interior, and it's "compartments".

4. Can Eisenhorne claim authority over anything? He/The really Old guy do it with the entire naval fleet, standing PDFs, and even the local governance/planet leaders.

5. Can an inquisitor "claim" anyone for their retinue? Is there any sort of process? Training? Who literally funds their teams?

Not read the Eisenhorn stuff but a lot of this seems fairly generic so I'll give it a whack.
1 - Usually blanks get ostracised by society for being a wrong un' i.e. people feel physically disgusted by their presence and they're exiled from normal society. Apart from that, a blank is just a normal person and as we've seen in other series, like the Cain novels, can end up all over the place from Militarum Regiments to Inquisitorial retinues.
2- Depends if you're one of them religious types. Full-on turning to Chaos because you saw a Slaaneshi Marine? Doubtful. Loss of faith in the Lecticio Divinitatus and the God-Emperor? Likely.
3 - Not to my knowledge. Maybe the deodorant can speeder from yonks ago?
4 - In theory yes, in practice no. There are limits to the powers of Inquisitors, for example, one couldn't just rock up to a Crusade and demand most of the forces present divert their attention to planet Z when planets A through Y need to be taken first. Likewise for forces like the Assasinorum, Astartes, Sororitas, etc.
5 - You can claim who you want, whether you get them is another thing. Particularly notable individuals like powerful Psykers or "heretical" followers like Daemonhosts or Xenos operatives aren't going to be easy to get past everyone you come across. As for recruitment, the Inquisitor comes to you and offers you a job. Being a good little indoctrinated Imperial servant you don't say no. Then you get some special training with the Inquisitor or their conclave and then you die. Funding doesn't matter because, in theory, you are the most powerful office in the entire Imperium. In practice, pick up whatever cash and gear you already have and hey presto.

Gert you should give Eisenhorn a look, I think it's all really enjoyable. I reckon your answers are spot on anyaay. One thing to note about those books is they are told from Eisenhorn's POV so some stuff might be unreliable because it's his opinion or whatever.

Regarding number 2, it’s a reasonably well developed bit of background that heretic types have sigils and diagrams on their armour that can cause onlookers to have a physical reaction, from nausea and revulsion to nosebleeds and full on manic fits.

Regarding guncutters, it’s a generic Upgunned transport that serves as Eisenhorns transport and air support. I would tend to agree is not as large as a thunderhawk, but probably a bit bigger than an Argus lighter. Probably an Aquila shuttle would fit the bill nicely in terms of size, even if the guncutter has a different shape.

 Gert wrote:
Not read the Eisenhorn stuff but a lot of this seems fairly generic so I'll give it a whack.
1 - Usually blanks get ostracised by society for being a wrong un' i.e. people feel physically disgusted by their presence and they're exiled from normal society. Apart from that, a blank is just a normal person and as we've seen in other series, like the Cain novels, can end up all over the place from Militarum Regiments to Inquisitorial retinues.
2- Depends if you're one of them religious types. Full-on turning to Chaos because you saw a Slaaneshi Marine? Doubtful. Loss of faith in the Lecticio Divinitatus and the God-Emperor? Likely.
3 - Not to my knowledge. Maybe the deodorant can speeder from yonks ago?
4 - In theory yes, in practice no. There are limits to the powers of Inquisitors, for example, one couldn't just rock up to a Crusade and demand most of the forces present divert their attention to planet Z when planets A through Y need to be taken first. Likewise for forces like the Assasinorum, Astartes, Sororitas, etc.
5 - You can claim who you want, whether you get them is another thing. Particularly notable individuals like powerful Psykers or "heretical" followers like Daemonhosts or Xenos operatives aren't going to be easy to get past everyone you come across. As for recruitment, the Inquisitor comes to you and offers you a job. Being a good little indoctrinated Imperial servant you don't say no. Then you get some special training with the Inquisitor or their conclave and then you die. Funding doesn't matter because, in theory, you are the most powerful office in the entire Imperium. In practice, pick up whatever cash and gear you already have and hey presto.

I love the eisenhorn quote 'But my patience isn't limitless... unlike my authority.' answers number 4 and 5.

 Gert wrote:

4 - In theory yes, in practice no. There are limits to the powers of Inquisitors, for example, one couldn't just rock up to a Crusade and demand most of the forces present divert their attention to planet Z when planets A through Y need to be taken first. Likewise for forces like the Assasinorum, Astartes, Sororitas, etc.
5 - You can claim who you want, whether you get them is another thing. Particularly notable individuals like powerful Psykers or "heretical" followers like Daemonhosts or Xenos operatives aren't going to be easy to get past everyone you come across. As for recruitment, the Inquisitor comes to you and offers you a job. Being a good little indoctrinated Imperial servant you don't say no. Then you get some special training with the Inquisitor or their conclave and then you die. Funding doesn't matter because, in theory, you are the most powerful office in the entire Imperium. In practice, pick up whatever cash and gear you already have and hey presto.

Funnily enough, the Gaunt's Ghosts books run into this a few times, where an Inquisitor rocks up in or near a warzone. The Guard usually has to do whatever the Inquisitor says, but there's always pushback from the Commissariat and High Command. Respectful pushback, and limited in certain ways; but the more high handed the Inquisition acts, the more they have to justify themselves to other authorities.

With that being said, there's one time when Army Intelligence tries to pull a fast one by arresting one of the Lord Executor's favoured commanders just before the Inquisition can in order to protect him - and they get back to the office to basically find the Inquisitor sitting in their chair with a raised eyebrow and a wagging finger. The same Inquisitor jumps Gaunt as Lord Executor (second only in command to the Warmaster himself at that time) and forces an interview at an awkward moment, but once in there, is extremely respectful of his position.

The gist is basically that any Inquisitor can do basically anything they like - but the more extreme the action, the more they have to be able to justify it to their Ordos seniors and contemporaries. You can pull your rosette out and demand ten regiments of troops as a bodyguard, but if their General complains to the local Lord Militant? And you're risking an active degradation of the warzone to the God-Emperor's enemy's advantage by pulling those troops? Better watch out you're not the one placed under suspicion.

Likewise, if you go to the local Lord Militant and shoot him in the head, 'He looked at me funny and questioned the authority of the Inquisition' isn't going to suffice. Someone like that, you need active concrete proof he's a heretic in some way. Or his bodyguard will be shooting back, you'll end up with a firefight in High Command, and the Warmaster will have you hanging from the gallows and declared Extremis within the month.

Even at the lower levels, if you piss off the local General too much - oh dear, you need troops for a time-critical mission? Terribly sorry, but all the transport vehicles in the motor pool have just been revolved into routine maintenance and can't be made ready for -at least- a week. Also, my line troops are revolving for refreshment, but since you're so important, I've got a few nice smart units of fresh PDF here you can take though. No experience, but I'm sure a good Inquisitor like you can make the most of them! And so on.

Supreme power in theory, but not in practice. That's the Inquisition.

So I just found the original lore on the Gun Cutter, and it is actually a slightly chopped down Thunderhawk. Think "mortal sized one".

And I just had a new question:

How often do Inquisitors actually go to war against each other? It seems like Radicals like Malitore and others are always in the middle of some conflict with several other inquisitors? Even when Eisenhorne out right kills other inquisitors, ie Malitore, or that guy in the silver power armor, how is that even allowed?

Winner writes the history. Make sure you win, or have sufficient secret gubbins to wreck the credibility of the victor. The Inquisition is well aware of how the different factions and individuals conflict. It’s kind of a self regulating system really, if rather wasteful of talent

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just found the original lore on the Gun Cutter, and it is actually a slightly chopped down Thunderhawk. Think "mortal sized one".

And I just had a new question:

How often do Inquisitors actually go to war against each other? It seems like Radicals like Malitore and others are always in the middle of some conflict with several other inquisitors? Even when Eisenhorne out right kills other inquisitors, ie Malitore, or that guy in the silver power armor, how is that even allowed?

I don't think gun cutters are a specific craft, but rather a term for a variety of related agile, armed orbital transports. The Aquila lander probably does sort of slot into this at the lower end, but the implication is that they are generally larger craft with a reasonable cargo capacity. They are apparently favoured by groups like smugglers, rogue traders, and high-ranking officials due to their combination speed, armament, and transport capacity.

The FFG RPG books do have rules for them- the artwork looks like a modified Thunderhawk hull. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say they are often this size.

The Inquisition having internal conflict is like any other organisation in 40k. Different beliefs, doctrines and missions cause conflict all the time.
The Ordo Malleus and Xenos only exist because of a split in the Inquisition during the War of the Beast where an intense focus on Chaos caused the Inquisition to completely ignore the rising Ork tide. To prevent a shadow war the conclave on Terra decided there would be more than one Ordo.

The Horusian Wars: Resurrection starts off with an inquisitorial conclave and talks a lot about the limits and extent of the powers of the Inquisition and individual inquisitors. The most important things to remember:

There is no limit to your authority... except your prestige

The greater your prestige the greater your authority

Don't forget a bullet will put an end to your authority

Be ready to answer to your fellow inquisitors. If you overstep, they will end you

And while I'm only paraphrasing Eisnhorn, all Inquisitors either fail or end up being declared Traitors, because there is nothing an inquisitor wouldn't do to protect the Imperium.

Yes think that sums it up pretty well.

It's amazing how much of the Inquisitor trilogy is still pretty much accurate (the Ian Watson books) given how old those books are now. Certainly in terms of how an Inquisitor acts with their retinue, and the ultimate authority that they wield (ably demonstrated in those books by the use of the Exterminatus).

I wonder how much those books helped inspire the Inquisitor game and lore that came along around that time, perhaps even Eisenhorn too, with that plotline of how a 'noble' inquisitor gradually takes small steps away from the purist path and towards damnation, even though in each case they are trying to do the right thing and protect the Imperium.

Andykp wrote:
]I love the eisenhorn quote 'But my patience isn't limitless... unlike my authority.'

Is that a paraphrase, or is that an actual sentence that appears in a book? Because I enjoyed the Eisenhorn series well enough, but that's quite the inelegant sentence, given how short it is. (To be clear, if this is you, 100% not deriding your writing: this is a forum, not a book, I'm not going to police casual writing .)

Direct copy from page 50

“And next time you choose to confront an Imperial inquisitor,’ I added, ‘you may want to be more respectful. I’m excusing a lot because I recognise the trauma and loss you have suffered. But my patience isn’t limitless… unlike my authority.”

Excerpt From
Xenos
Dan Abnett
This material may be protected by copyright.

 alextroy wrote:
Be ready to answer to your fellow inquisitors. If you overstep, they will end you

This. An Inquisitor may think they have unlimited authority, but that really only extends as far as the Inquisition itself allows. Remember that thinking this way is how Kryptmann got excommunicated.

 Flinty wrote:
Direct copy from page 50

Yeesh. Well, thanks for confirming my fears. They're fun books, but I feel like I should let them remain as nostalgia rather than re-reading them, in that case...

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Direct copy from page 50

Yeesh. Well, thanks for confirming my fears. They're fun books, but I feel like I should let them remain as nostalgia rather than re-reading them, in that case...

What's the problem with it?

Authority can be limitless but can still require justification and have consequence.

As Eisenhorne himself has learned countless times. His rosette is not the cure-all for every situation, as a matter of course in the series, he often makes things worse when it comes out.

I think you should re-read them, as they are a fun read

Are they perfect examples of high literature? probably not, but I never found that the language use got in the way of enjoying them.

Inquisitors have as much authority as everyone else thinks they have.

As far as Gun-Cutters, there ain't much on them. But yeah, odd kinda-Thunderhawks is a good description.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Inquisitors have as much authority as everyone else thinks they have.

That's not unique to Inquisitors, though. It is literally just how the concept of 'authority' works.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Direct copy from page 50

Yeesh. Well, thanks for confirming my fears. They're fun books, but I feel like I should let them remain as nostalgia rather than re-reading them, in that case...

What's the problem with it?

Okay, sure

“And next time you choose to confront an Imperial inquisitor,’ I added, ‘you may want to be more respectful. I’m excusing a lot because I recognise the trauma and loss you have suffered. But my patience isn’t limitless… unlike my authority.”

Out of context, like I said, it's been a long time. "Confront" is a bland term, the first sentence assumes the listener will challenge another inquisitor, the reprimand has no weight to it, partially undermined by the casualness of "may want" which implies supposition rather than admonition. Put another way, confront is oddly clinical in a sentence where the wording comes off as sort of casual and sort of wishy-washy, besides the redundant phrase of saying "I added" when the sentence begins with "And". "A lot" is similarly just like sloppily informal, again juxtaposed by the dryness of trauma (besides the wordiness of the rest of the clause, which would probably be punchier if it were shorter). Both confront and trauma come off as trying to speak to erudite language but aren't very, or at least mismatch the tone of the casual "may want" "a lot" and "I'm"; in the last case, why have the casual contraction there but have the formal "the trauma and loss you have suffered"? It speaks to a character without a precise control of language, which I would expect from a character like him, whether or not he's being genuine or political about recognizing the trauma. I'm not saying one can't speak like that, I'm saying that it as a character it muddies how he sounds.

Then there's the quadruple "but" "isn't" "-less" "unlike" negatives bunched up in that last sentence. First, there are a ton of conjunctions more interesting than "but", but the real issue is isn't that, but the ugly mess trying to get him to end on the punch that his authority is without limit. The tone is all over the place, there's another contraction in the same breath as asserting formal threat, even changing it to "my patience is limited, unlike my authority" gets a lot further, as it makes the comparison one where you complete the thought with (therefore, his authority is not limited, which then makes one think, unlimited or limitless), rather than the awkward implied completion asserting that it's not-not-not limited, which is actually what that sentence constructs in the "unlike" comparison. There's also something messy about the first and third sentences referring in the former to the abstract idea of inquisitors' power but in the latter just his, after that stuff in the middle, but I need another cup of coffee and to get back to work so i'm not sure. My 2c; like I don't care about policing someone's language, but since it's trying to show something about his character (he's cool and in control) in fiction, what it shows is someone with petty authority they don't wear well, not someone who can wield political force like a knife, which is basically what he's asserting.

edit: Put another way, the writing makes him sound less Dune and more petty cop, which I can only imagine is unintentional. The dude needs diction to reflect his power in this sort of drama.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Be ready to answer to your fellow inquisitors. If you overstep, they will end you

This. An Inquisitor may think they have unlimited authority, but that really only extends as far as the Inquisition itself allows. Remember that thinking this way is how Kryptmann got excommunicated.

Was that really a problem of authority, or just his grand plan not working out well?

The WH+ Hammer and Bolter episode of Death's Hand was pretty cool, and highlights what Inquisitorial Authority can look like.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Direct copy from page 50

Yeesh. Well, thanks for confirming my fears. They're fun books, but I feel like I should let them remain as nostalgia rather than re-reading them, in that case...

What's the problem with it?

Okay, sure

“And next time you choose to confront an Imperial inquisitor,’ I added, ‘you may want to be more respectful. I’m excusing a lot because I recognise the trauma and loss you have suffered. But my patience isn’t limitless… unlike my authority.”

Out of context, like I said, it's been a long time. "Confront" is a bland term, the first sentence assumes the listener will challenge another inquisitor, the reprimand has no weight to it, partially undermined by the casualness of "may want" which implies supposition rather than admonition. Put another way, confront is oddly clinical in a sentence where the wording comes off as sort of casual and sort of wishy-washy, besides the redundant phrase of saying "I added" when the sentence begins with "And". "A lot" is similarly just like sloppily informal, again juxtaposed by the dryness of trauma (besides the wordiness of the rest of the clause, which would probably be punchier if it were shorter). Both confront and trauma come off as trying to speak to erudite language but aren't very, or at least mismatch the tone of the casual "may want" "a lot" and "I'm"; in the last case, why have the casual contraction there but have the formal "the trauma and loss you have suffered"? It speaks to a character without a precise control of language, which I would expect from a character like him, whether or not he's being genuine or political about recognizing the trauma. I'm not saying one can't speak like that, I'm saying that it as a character it muddies how he sounds.

Then there's the quadruple "but" "isn't" "-less" "unlike" negatives bunched up in that last sentence. First, there are a ton of conjunctions more interesting than "but", but the real issue is isn't that, but the ugly mess trying to get him to end on the punch that his authority is without limit. The tone is all over the place, there's another contraction in the same breath as asserting formal threat, even changing it to "my patience is limited, unlike my authority" gets a lot further, as it makes the comparison one where you complete the thought with (therefore, his authority is not limited, which then makes one think, unlimited or limitless), rather than the awkward implied completion asserting that it's not-not-not limited, which is actually what that sentence constructs in the "unlike" comparison. There's also something messy about the first and third sentences referring in the former to the abstract idea of inquisitors' power but in the latter just his, after that stuff in the middle, but I need another cup of coffee and to get back to work so i'm not sure. My 2c; like I don't care about policing someone's language, but since it's trying to show something about his character (he's cool and in control) in fiction, what it shows is someone with petty authority they don't wear well, not someone who can wield political force like a knife, which is basically what he's asserting.

edit: Put another way, the writing makes him sound less Dune and more petty cop, which I can only imagine is unintentional. The dude needs diction to reflect his power in this sort of drama.

I like, the bit where you say “but”:is an uninteresting conjunction and then use it as the next word, I can only imagine that was deliberate.

To judge a whole series of books from one sentence is a bit harsh, Dan Abnett does ok out of his craft so can’t be that be that bad at it. I found them enjoyable, atmospheric and the dialogue was pretty good for a 40K book. They are never going to be high end literature but these are ok.

I do think that the context for when he delivers that sentence is important, as is the type of Inquisitorial creed he is following at the time.

So the scene in question is where a planetary court judge type of character is literally attempting to dictate to a Inquisitor what the terms are. It's a very well crafted scene. It's like a drug dealer telling Judge Dredd how the arrest will go down. It's literary purpose is to build the character for the unfamiliar reader. Otherwise known as Extraneous Dialogue.


It's why in Every Marvel Movie EVER the characters have to do a scene where they explain the background that lead them to this point. The average Sci-Fi reader will have VERY little clue what the Inquisition is or how powerful they are. This is meant to demonstrate that. Eisenhorne is powerful enough to tell a planet's leaders to frag off.

I think it's well done for it's intended purpose. Why waste pages when you can do it in a sentence?

Andykp wrote:
I like, the bit where you say “but”:is an uninteresting conjunction and then use it as the next word, I can only imagine that was deliberate.

To judge a whole series of books from one sentence is a bit harsh, Dan Abnett does ok out of his craft so can’t be that be that bad at it. I found them enjoyable, atmospheric and the dialogue was pretty good for a 40K book. They are never going to be high end literature but these are ok.

lol, yeah, I think there's a huge difference between casual conversation and even the pulpiest of literary/professional contexts. One is made of messy people trying to practically interact, and I find it nearly contemptibly petty to interrupt someone's attempt to engage to go on about its/it's or the properness of may vs. can, the other is art, where the texture and form are as much the craft as any narrative/content.

And yeah, it is a bit harsh to judge based on a detail, and that's why I originally left it at nostalgia before pressed to elaborate. I'm not saying I think he's a bad writer, but if that's an example of a memorably good line in his writing, I don't want to go back because I know it will bother me, because I find pleasure (or dissatisfaction) in the details of writing, regardless of whether "high" or "low" art.


Fezzik, I definitely wasn't saying there was anything wrong with the intent or length of that quote I was jabbing at; just the word choices. I was arguing exactly what (I think) you're saying, that it was about (as far as I could see) an incidental way of asserting his character quickly and efficiently. My point was, the execution undermined the design.