Talk:Deathwatch

Added a link to a homegrown version of KillTeam called Heralds of Ruin. People can play as Deathwatch or any other cutesy specialist faction they want. I thought it would be appropriate for this page because Deathwatch are one of its best codices.

Brotherhood

I'm writing a story called Brotherhood (Story) that talks about the psychological effect of being plucked away from your home chapter for the "Honour" of being part of the Deathwatch.

Lore Contradiction

I see no contradiction in the lore, the codex gives only the briefest of mentions to the Beast Arises series and covers virtually none of the details. It's also important to consider that the codex is written from a historical perspective, rather than chronicling events first hand, so the primary source (first hand) is always considered more reliable. As to the "Chambers Militant", just because a book doesn't reference a thing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist: unless a concrete statement is found to say that the Inquisition does not have Chambers Militant, then of course they still have them. The assertion that the Beast Arises series was somehow "Old Lore" however was just plain idiotic, the book "Last Son of Dorn" which details the power transfer to the Inquisition was released in October 2016, months AFTER the August codex, so strictly speaking the novel takes precedence. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Last I checked, Koorland wasn't the High Lords. He might have been one of them, or the Lord Commander that moment, but he wasn't the several that the book refers to, not to mention the book makes no mention of him and in the Beast Arises the High Lords have next to nothing to do with the creation of the Deathwatch. I'd also like to point out that you have it backwards, the Codices have always been the books to contain the history of an event, and the Black Library books provide a biased version of the event that might not even be true (see Talon of Horus for a good example of where you can't tell what is and isn't bullshit).

"unless a concrete statement is found to say that the Inquisition does not have Chambers Militant, then of course they still have them." That's not how that works, the Inquisition cannot have something unless it's said that they have it, otherwise we can just claim that they have everything until that statement is proven false. Also given how the Inquisition and the Deathwatch are stated to be allies and nothing more to each other, that clearly shows they are not a Chamber Militant as that would require them to be a part of the same faction and would also require them to work together as a whole (rather then when it's convenient). Also while the Beast Arises came out after the Codex, Imperial Agents came out after the Beast Arises and it too kept the Deathwatch and Inquisition as just allies, barring one rule that I already explained away on the main page. I even addressed Imperial Agents on the main page, yet you seem to think that all the lore I added was from Codex: Deathwatch. Well if mistaking one bit of lore for another is idiocy, as you claim, then we're two peas in a pod.

However I do like that you're claiming my mistaking the Beast Arises lore for older lore (when it wasn't explained very well that's where it came from) as being idiotic, yet you somehow see no contradiction in the following:

Beast Arises: One Marine/High Lord creates the Deathwatch and uses them to fight the Beast.

Codex Deathwatch: The High Lords form the Deathwatch as a result of the Beast.

Beast Arises: Deathwatch will be led by Marines.

Codex Deathwatch: Inquisitors are occasionally in command of Watch Fortresses instead of Marines.

Beast Arises: Deathwatch will be at Chapter Strength.

Codex Deathwatch: Deathwatch will have whatever numbers they feel like.

Beast Arises: The Inquisition will oversee them and will work with them against Xenos.

Codex Deathwatch: We'll occasionally ally with certain Inquisitors when we feel like it.

If anything should be treated as non-canon, it's the Black Library books since they're the ones that 'everything is canon, not everything is true' applies to the most. Books written there about main events are always second to the Codices in credibility, and that has not changed, so I'm going to be removing that blurb about the Codices being less trustworthy than those books, unless you really want to claim that everything C.S. Goto wrote is more trustworthy than the official books the main company releases. That is of course, on top of the Beast Arises being a very shitty series that I hope the main writers don't take seriously in the slightest. -- Triacom (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"That's not how that works, the Inquisition cannot have something unless it's said that they have it, otherwise we can just claim that they have everything until that statement is proven false." except the fact that Chamber's Militant have existed in lore for a very long time, and still exist up to page 4 of Imperial Agents that says that the Inquisition "maintains its own specialist warriors". You need to prove otherwise, not me. The Black Library books are no less canonical than the codexes. you may have the impression that once a statement is made at one level, then novel authors have to scrabble around making it fit. However, all decisions regarding fluff is made at a higher committee level where the company decides which way they want to go. The Beast Arises was a twelve novel narrative, not a single codex outline, it takes a lot of work to manage it all and was a big undertaking on the part of GW (before we forget, Black Library is the same company). Yes, C.S Goto is canon, infuriatingly so. You can't just discount it because of shitty writing, that's your opinion creeping in. As to the points you make: Koorland was one man yes, but the Deathwatch was inspired by the Officio Assassinorum, debated by the High Lords on the whole, and transferred to the Inquisition. So yes... Lords, it's far easier to say in summary than have to explain that the "Lord Commander of the Imperium" was the 13th Lord, last Imperial Fist and there were a whole lot of in-universe controversial issues surrounding the development of one chapter that technically breached the Codex Astartes. As to chapter strength and who is in charge, I will concede that 8000 years of in-universe development may mean that any original intent to follow the law may be lost, but since no-one can actually present a number it's moot. As for command; we don't see the extent of the relationship of the Deathwatch with the Inquisition in the series, that comes after, but I point to my previous statement of Chambers Militant having existed in fluff for decades and must still exist until you can actually find a retcon that says it doesn't... whatever relationship that takes is up for discussion though, since it could just be vague oaths of partnership or outright chain of command, but even in the codex: in the majority of cases ,operational command of the Deathwatch remains with the space marine watch masters, so there isn't really an issue.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll also point out that it was you who deleted the 1387 bytes of information that was as recent as December 2016 for reasoning of "old lore", when you could have instead come in with the section as it stands now; a direct comparison of codex vs book series, which is far more useful and discounts neither. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I'll admit that I forgot about that little bit, however it never says that the Inquisition's Chambers Militant are the Deathwatch, Sisters and Knights respectively, it says that they keep retinues of warriors, and that they have chambers militant who do almost nothing but train. Yes you can point out that the rule Chambers Militant is tied to the other organizations, but there's no description to make that the case either and the Deathwatch are still stated to be nothing more than allies. Incidentally it's proven that the Deathwatch aren't the Ordo Xenos Chambers Militant when both books clarify the relationship as allies, I don't know what else I can point out to you to make it clearer. If they were the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos, then they'd have access to the Inquisition's massive network, on top of access to all the Inquisition's resources yet they don't. If for some reason you still don't accept this, try to explain to me why a Chamber Militant would describe their relationship with its parent organization as "occasional allies". That right there IS the retcon. Also there's the issue that the Inquisitorial Seal was retconned as not actually being a symbol of the Inquisition, allowing the Deathwatch to wear it without tying them to the Inquisition.

I don't think that the novel writers have to work around what the Codices say, I think that unless it's a main GW production book then you have to take everything with a little more salt than usual. There are plenty of times that something can happen in a book, only for a Codex to ignore or retcon it, and then future books pretend that this has always been the case, following after whatever the Codices decide (see the Grey Knight books, where they're a part of the Inquisition and then they're only allies with them suddenly). That's not me thinking that's how it works, that's what actually happens both with the main GW books and Black Library (yes I know they're both of the same company, but they are different entities in that company), and when one of those two decides to follow the decisions of the other, then it's not very hard to see which one is supposed to be the more accurate one. I'm also very aware that the lore decisions are done by committee now, and I don't like that either because the committee decided to royally fuck the Black Templars, turning my formerly favourite army into something completely unrecognizable.

I don't discount anything because of shitty writing, I'm trying to make it clear that something says one thing, and something else says another. I'm also trying to point out that one of the two is generally more trustworthy as to what's actually happened, which brings me to another point: I never said that C.S. Goto's works are non-canon, I said that his works are less trustworthy compared to the Codices.

Now for the points. They debated on them after Koorland decided to make them, and being based on something else doesn't mean that they were made by more than Koorland. In one version the High Lords decided to make them and they were autonomous, in another it was Koorland and control was transferred to the Inquisition. As for the Chambers Militant point, just going by its name it would have to be a smaller part of a greater whole (as in the Deathwatch are a part of the Inquisition), and if it's not then the name Chambers Militant means nothing. Also for Koorlands terms, he didn't say 'most of the time marines will be in command of Deathwatch forces' now did he? There's an issue there because in the Codex it has Inquisitors doing what he distinctly told them not to do, and if you're convinced that they really are the Chambers Militant, then both in the rules (where they're led by an Inquisitor) and in the lore they're breaking his terms, making another contradiction. I'll also admit that I could have come in with a direct comparison, however I'd rather not deal with the Beast Arises if I can help it because I feel that I'd be completely unable to keep my bias out of what I type (it's one of the reasons that the War of the Beast page isn't just one long big shit on all of the events in that series), and I felt that this page didn't need several paragraphs explaining why the Beast Arises should be completely ignored, especially when the Beast Arises only has relevancy in the creation of the Deathwatch and that's about it.

Here's a thought though, could you find one mention in modern 40k lore that says that the Deathwatch are a part of the Inquisition? I mean one that concretely states this and isn't contradicted by the main Codex or Imperial Agents, and no the Beast Arises doesn't apply since that's technically 8000 years before modern 40k lore. You keep claiming that they are, so I'd like to see your proof (and when I say that, I genuinely mean it because I think removing them from being the Chambers Militant was a really stupid move). -- Triacom (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me get back to you on that, I really want to find something. I would point out before I do, that I suspect we have different ideas about what "Chamber Militant" actually means. Just like the Grey Knights; the Deathwatch exists as a stand alone organisation capable of running itself, that the Ordos of the Inquisition have "special" relations with: i.e mutual treaties for armament and information sharing and considerable operational overlap. (at least that's what the RPG suggests). I don't believe for one second that the Sororitas are actually in the Inquisition or are immediately privy to its network of agents or intelligence. But by the same token are not required to ask for permission when they do something. Again, I will look, but finding anything more recent than August>December 2016 will be a struggle, its likely too soon to tell. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

While you're searching for that (and before I go to sleep) I think I'll explain what I think a Chambers Militant is. To use an analogy, I think the relationship the Chambers Militant had with their respective Ordos isn't all that dissimilar to the relationship Black Library has with GW. The one gives the other direction, resources and a goal, while leaving the means up to the other one entirely. Neither of them is entirely dependent on the other and while they can definitely disagree on a number of things. as well as go do their own things entirely, they both worked for the same cause. I never thought of any of the Chambers Militant as an organization that moves the second an Inquisitor snaps their fingers, or as one that waits patiently like a dog while its master was off doing something else.

To use a different analogy, I think that when they were the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos, the Deathwatch and Inquisition were like co-workers that worked in close proximity to one another and helped each other accomplish tasks that would have been very tough for just one of them. Now however they're more like owners of separate companies that occasionally do collaborations with one another, if you get what I'm going for. -- Triacom (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I get you, though following your point I don't really see much of a huge difference between the two states other than the actual term "chamber militant". The separate agencies still work together against the common foe, be it Xenos, Daemon or Heretic. From what I see in the references I can find (admitedly Overkill is bit older) the Ordo Xenos still calls upon the Deathwatch to operate on its behalf.

Interestingly, in the same section from Codex: Deathwatch that says individual Inquisitors have commanded Watch Fortresses, it says that there are times when Deathwatch marines have led Inquisitorial forces. So neither organisation seems to be the superior one. Also interestingly, Codex: Imperial Agents has a small throwaway statement on the Acolyte page 117 regarding the "Chamber Militant of the Ecclesiarchy". Which makes sense considering that the Ecclesiarchy doesn't really have armed forces of its own, and that the Sororitas is just as independent from the hierarchy of the Ecclesiarchy as it is to the Inquisition, but can be a Chamber Militant of both. The Inquisition has no standardised military to call its own, beyond what forces an individual Inquisitor can raise himself or requisition from elsewhere, but the greater Ordos sponsor agencies well suited to their tasks and call upon them where necessary: a "Chamber Militant". --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

To me there's a big difference because right now the Deathwatch has no real excuse for their own massive information network. In the Codex apparently when people see Xenos activity, they call Xenostoppers and that's how the Deathwatch become aware of threats, which is an incredibly weak excuse for how they know where threats are (and it just flat out doesn't work a lot of the time when you stop to think about it). They also usually don't seem to work together, and for some reason Phil Kelly decided to turn the Deathwatch into massive hypocrites, stating that they kill anyone who uses alien weaponry, and on the exact same page is a marine using a Necron sword. Now that's an issue because to maintain the weapon their tech priests will have to interface with it and its machine spirit, and the second they do that they'll learn it's a Necron sword as you can't possibly fucking hide that. The only way you could get away with this is if an Inquisitor was in charge of maintaining the weapons and gave the weapon to marines to use on missions, but because they only sometimes work with Inquisitors that excuse doesn't work. I have to go to work soon but I do have Overkill, so I'll follow up on that when I get back.

Leading an Inquisition party isn't quite the same thing though because literally anyone can do that. Anyone from an Imperial Guard to a Space Marine to a scribe that the Inquisitor liked, all they need is for an Inquisitor to ask them to do it. Also while the Sisters aren't Independent of the Ecclesiarchy's Hierarchy, they're a part of it as a different group/branch (similar to what we have today with Priests and Nuns). They're also very much stated to be members of the Ecclesiarchy in every version of their books, and they're never separated from the Ecclesiarchy as the Deathwatch and Grey Knights are the Inquisition. "...but the greater Ordos sponsor agencies well suited to their tasks and call upon them where necessary: a "Chamber Militant"." I'm not disagreeing with this point in general, I'm just saying that those Chambers Militant are not stated to be the Sisters, Knights or Deathwatch as the Inquisition no longer sponsors or supports any of those, the most they do is ask their help in the face of a threat and the group might/might not agree to help. At least in the older lore where they were sponsoring and supporting them it was more a mutual relationship that I thought fit both groups better. -- Triacom (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we're getting hung up on minutiae. They are still two separate organisations, as they always have. "Occasional allies" is pretty much what they've always been to each other when both organisations are capable of doing their own shit, though it's a bit more intimate when you've got agents of each organisation running the other where necessary. (clarification: you wouldn't normally see an Ultramarine veteran leading an inquisitorial cell, likewise an Ultramarine company wouldn't shack up in an inquisitor's fortress). But even in older fluff I never read too much into who actually commands beyond the watch captain, since by nature the Deathwatch is fluidly organised and micromanaged. Kill Teams and their captains change except for a handful of high ranked individuals and all of the Inquisitors I can find are transient (except Coteaz) and don't stick around for too long, not that "one Inquisitor" could feasibly run the Deathwatch anyway, since it's not organised like that. The RPG, while having a radically different origin story (ref: Conclave of Orphite IV, now retconned) it also refered to the Deathwatch and Ordo Xenos as "allies" rather than one organisation subservient to the other, quote: "While neither party is subject to the command of the other, both work in concert towards their common goal according to those oaths made centuries ago" even old fluff like this never suggested a true union of organisations, or that the Chamber Militant was required to be part of the Inquisition or be privy to its resources. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I really have to disagree on the point that they used to only be occasional allies. The Inquisition is occasional allies with any and every space marine chapter, and their Inquisitorial Seal allows them to requisition regular Space Marine troops, with the option of declaring the chapter Excommunicate Traitoris if they don't comply and they lose something very important (it's happened before (look at the Relictors), they just don't normally do this because the Inquisition's not stupid enough to lose an entire chapter like that). The only reason it would be weird to see Ultramarines with an Inquisitorial Warband is because they're not normally known for doing this and you'd expect to see Deathwatch, Sisters or Knights there, however it's certainly not out of the picture, just as it wouldn't be out of the picture to see an Inquisitor leading an Ultramarines force. In short, without being a Chamber Militant there's nothing special about the Deathwatch with regards to the Inquisition. You can and will find accounts of the Inquisition leading Marines, just as you'll find accounts of Marines leading Inquisitorial warbands.

As far as commanders go, I'm not claiming that they're at the Inquisitions beck and call. To use the coworker example again, I can ask one of my coworkers to help me with something, and if they choose to do it that doesn't mean they work for me. If they choose not to do it there might be consequences later on, or there might not be depending on what we were working on and if they were already busy with something else. As you said it's more intimate than something where they work entirely separate from one another, as two separate organizations for example. That quote you linked is basically what they used to be to each other, two groups in the same faction that worked together to accomplish something in accordance of oaths they made a long time ago. I stated before that it was a mutual relationship between the two, and I'm sticking by that.

Incidentally older fluff stated that the Deathwatch were a part of the Inquisition in the same way that the Sisters are a part of the Ecclesiarchy, you can find that in older White Dwarf articles (Lexicanum or the 40k wiki should have citations to those) or you should also be able to find that if you look at the older explanation for why the Deathwatch wore the Inquisitorial Sigil on one of their shoulderpads. -- Triacom (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I found that WD article in my old Index Astartes book. I now better understand what you mean and what your complaint is. Old 90s fluff had the Deathwatch as a direct part of the Inquisition, to the point that the term: "Deathwatch Kill Team" was synonymous with "Ordos Xenos Kill team" (the article literally uses them interchangeably). I believe that is where you and I were miscommunicating, as I had always made the distinction of the Deathwatch being a separate entity from the Inquisition, and found no meaningful difference in the new fluff. The article states that Kill Teams were raised at the behest of the Inquisition and typically commanded by Inquisitors. Only in "exceptional cases" would they be commanded by a Deathwatch Librarian or Captain. Which when you compare it to the new fluff is absolutely turned in its head, since now the Deathwatch has its own structure that requires no Inquisition in involvement, and Space Marine chapters swear their oaths and tithes to the Deathwatch directly (rather than the Inquisition). However, I don't see this as "new", as most of the developments from the RPG show the same distant relationship with the Inquisition and the Deathwatch having its own structure and agenda separate from the Inquisition. Fluff evolves, now that the Deathwatch is its own "faction" as you put it, it doesn't mean that it's not still a Chamber Militant for the Inquisition. You pointed out that the Sororitas was more embedded to the Ecclesiarchy than the Inquisition, and the Grey Knights predates the formation of any Ordo at all and has its own forges, navigators and astropaths. That fluff has never changed. So the Deathwatch doesn't need to be embedded into the Ordo Xenos for it to function as as a Chamber Militant. The term just isn't used in its own codex, but the relationship (more intimate than a normal space marine chapter, but still "allied" rather than embedded) is still pretty much clear from the Beast Arises origin story and is mirrored to the Grey Knights who have a similar relationship.

Whether or not you buy the story presented in the Beast Arises, we can agree that the War of the Beast had something to do with it, that the "heraldic icon of the Deathwatch shares shares a common origin with that of the Inquisition", that historically the Deathwatch, Grey Knights and Sororitas have been the Chambers Militant and that Deathwatch, Grey Knights and Sororitas squads are available to Inquisitor warbands as part of the "Chamber Militant" rule. Even if you disregard all other details, the end result puts them more in line with the Grey Knights and Sororitas: as stand alone factions with common cause and a tighter relationship to their Ordo counterparts compared to other Imperial factions, rather than isolated Kill Teams raised by Inquisitors for a specific purpose (which admitedly was more badass) --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been getting more independent later after the initial White Dwarf articles, however they never removed them from the Inquisition until now and before now the two always worked hand-in-hand at the very least, even if Kill Teams were led by Marines and not Inquisitors. Even in the RPG books this was the case, however becoming its own faction and cutting its ties to the Inquisition does mean it's not an Chamber Militant, unless you've found lore that says they are still a Chamber Militant. As I've mentioned before an Inquisitor can requisition any free Marine group, so just them responding the the Inquisition's calls does not mean that they're a Chamber Militant, it means they're doing what every other loyal chapter would do, show up if they're available and help deal with whatever the threat is. The only difference in that instance is that the Inquisition calls upon them more often. Also the formation of the Grey Knights doesn't precede Inquisitors, as Malcador had Inquisitors before he made the Grey Knights, and the Grey Knights were stuck in the warp for a very long time before reappearing to work alongside the Inquisition. Also I don't get why you're still arguing that it's the same as the Beast Arises when one has them working with the Inquisition, and the other has them doing next to nothing with them besides fight alongside each other occasionally.

I'll agree that the Beast had something to do with it, however the 'Icon of the Deathwatch' is the Inquisition's Sigil. I'm not accepting any other answer because the retcon that it is just a symbol for the Imperium's defenders was one of the most retarded things Phil Kelly ever wrote. That's what that icon always was before, it makes no sense for them to gain that icon if they don't have anything to do with the Inquisition, and it cheapens the Inquisition's existence as a whole. For the record I'm not a fan of getting rid of the other Chambers Militant either because the unity between them used to be one of the more interesting aspects, and it was intriguing how regular people were held above the superhumans in those factions. It gave their Chambers Militant vast resources that they could use, as well as access to a vast network that would allow them to cover so much more than if they just ran solo operations, and now everything's been fractured and split apart for some reason. Without Inquisitor's to help with the cleanup, keeping the Grey Knights a secret should be a nearly impossible task, the Sisters of Battle are aimlessly wandering around the galaxy looking for trouble, and the Deathwatch's resources are hand-waved away with "They just have those, don't think about it." It just paves the way for terrible writing, where the authors think they can just make up whatever they want without explaining how or why and the fans just accept it because they like that faction. -- Triacom (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Grey Knights preceded the Inquisition, instead that they preceded the formation of any Ordo, is it is the agreement of Representatives Wienand and Sinderman that created the split, and he proposed taking the Grey Knights on as an agency of similar purpose, while the Xeno took oversight of the Deathwatch, this doesn't conflict with the codex, since according to Koorland's edict, space marines still run the faction, they just get Inquisitorial oversight. I don't see how becoming its own faction automatically means it cuts it's ties, since the Sororitas have always been separate. Though I agree that the point is lost somewhat since Inquisitors can requisition whatever forces they like. Yet like it or not, the "Chamber Militant" rule specifically covers the three traditional Chambers, regardless of whether enough description goes with it. You cant wave that away and say that GW didn't mean it that way.

In any case, I'm reading Deathwatch (the 2016 novel, not the 2013 one) and haven't found any reference to "Chambers Militant" so far, and it is clear that the Deathwatch itself sees the Inquisition (Kryptman specifically) as a troublesome sister organisation that can't seem to sort it's shit outand the operation in the Kurbynola system appears to be a Deathwatch-only engagement to clean up Kryptman's mess. Despite that the Imperial Navy seems to believe that the Deathwatch carry Inquisitorial authority, whilst Captain Artemis's recall orders from the Watch Commander of a different Watch Station apparently come from "the Ordo", though so far (chapter eight) the book has no Inquisitors in it other than Kryptman himself who has been excommunicated for improper exterminatus, who Artemis wants to rip limb from limb. Make of that what you will. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see, but why is them preceding the creation of the Ordos important? It's not like they weren't working with the Inquisition before, and the formation of Ordos only gave a name to the people who preferred to work with them. According to Koorland's edict, Inquisitors should never be in charge of Deathwatch Watch Fortresses, yet the book tells us that sometimes happens. Now about the 'cutting ties' thing, what in your mind constitutes cutting ties with something else? Because if I was to say that an Imperial planet decided to form its own empire separate from the Imperium, then I'd say that the planet's no longer considered to be 'tied' to the Imperium. The Sisters have never been connected in the same way as the Deathwatch, however they used to have a very strong connection to the Hereticus, so much so that entire groups would flock to and follow around notable Hereticus Inquisitors. I definitely can't say that Imperial Agents wasn't trying to bring back the Chambers Militant, however I can argue that it's not made clear enough, to the point that it never concretely states that the Chambers Militant the Inquisition's mentioned as keeping are the Deathwatch, Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle.

I'll admit I haven't read that book, though from that description it sounds like it's as much a mess as their own codex where once again, they state that they kill everyone who treats with/uses xenotech, while on the same page there's a picture of a Deathwatch Marine using a Necron sword (no, there isn't any chance that the Deathwatch don't know what the sword actually is). -- Triacom (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, isn't it oxymoronic to both say that a faction has cut ties with another, but still allow the other one to run some of your bases for you? Which is a rather unique state of affairs since the Inquisition isn't in the business of running outposts for other chapters or regiments. Secondly, and I really need to change this on the main page, but Koorland never actually said command should be retained by a Space Marine, but that because Inquisitors are not military men and women, a Space Marine shall oversee all strategic aspects. Which is all decisions related to long term military planning, procurement and deployment. In short: An inquisitor might present an objective, but the space marine decides how to achieve it, which is essentially what we've been seeing in the fluff for a while. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That isn't oxymoronic as it's a rare happenstance and doesn't occur often enough or long enough for it to make anything more than a passing mention. In addition it's not something unique to the Deathwatch, as that still describes any marine force under the command of an Inquisitor, and I doubt you'd claim that marines in general are tied to the Inquisition, or are the Chambers Militant of the Inquisition. Maybe 'cut ties' was a poor choice of words but I think you get what I was going for there, in that there's nothing in the Deathwatch book that differentiates them from regular marines as far as the Inquisition is concerned. For the record, I'd like to point out that Inquisitors actually are military men and women, a lot of them are former soldiers, as to become Inquisitors they'll have survived dozens of battlefields (possibly hundreds before they're promoted to being an Inquisitor) and they study under Inquisitors when they're acolytes, learning everything they could from whomever they're studying under including battlefield logistics and strategy. Inquisitors aren't just the people who tell you to go do something, they're also the ones who can figure out how it should be done and this has been the case in the fluff for quite a while too. Usually if an Inquisitor takes over a battlefield (although it's not mandatory for them to do so) they keep all previous commanders on as their advisors and can defer to their judgement. Figured I might as well mention that so that we don't get into another argument down the line. -- Triacom (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In regards to what you changed, could you explain to me how being in charge of a Watch Fortress isn't calling the shots for the Deathwatch that are in there? -- Triacom (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is any contradiction with what Koorland said and an Inquisitor calling the shots from a Watch Fortress? "Strategic Oversight" is not the same as "Commanding Authority", nor is it the same as administrative command. The best analogy I can come up with is the president of the united states who the actual commander-in-chief of armed forces in America, but rarely makes any strategic decisions since Generals are trained to do that. I also think you're generalising about what Inquisitors actually are, not every Inquisitor comes from a military background, or would have any experience or learning sufficient to command strategic operations: Eisenhorn / Ravenor / Amberly Vail never showed any inclination, but to say that they "must have" would be an assumption. Inquisitors can come from any walk of life which is useful to the Inquisition, that's been long established. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Because they're used in place of Watch Commanders and Strategic Oversight is one of the duties of a Watch Commander. Watch Commanders aren't bogged down with nearly as much paperwork as the President is, nor do they have to direct an entire country. Also why would an Inquisitor take over Administration? First of all that's not their department, and secondly the Deathwatch has others (like scribes, just like every Space Marine group) who're supposed to keep track of that sort of thing so the most they'd have to do is look over and sign the occasional document whenever they're not deploying a kill team. Even then I can't think of a single Inquisitor who doesn't directly monitor and dictate how the operation they ordered is going (unless they're literally so busy they cannot be there), either by being on sight directly or observing and commanding at a relatively safe distance.

As for their combat experience, they come from all walks of life but they do serve in many fights and they do study under Inquisitors, that's something that's been in any Codex where their acolytes are mentioned. Also like I said earlier, choosing whether or not to command something is a preference, however you're not going to find any Inquisitors that intentionally chose not to learn how to command because that's a valuable skill in doing their job. Regardless of which Ordo they're from and who they're leading, they're all going to be leading somebody at some point (whether it be militia in a hive (which happens a lot) or any Space Marine/Imperial Guard group), so learning that skill is essential to making sure that they don't die. Even commanding their retinue (something every Inquisitor with even the smallest retinue did) counts as combat experience that isn't all that dissimilar to leading a kill team. -- Triacom (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the administrative functions of logistics, training and funding, other non-strategic forms of involvement would also cover intelligence gathering and prioritisation, counter-intelligence, research & development, as well as determining who the enemy is and what end objectives are. All things which definitely fall under the remit of the Inquisition. Either way, Koorland never said that a Space Marine must retain command of the Deathwatch units when he transferred authority from himself to the Inquisition, just that he would appoint a person to oversee the strategic aspects: the first Watch Commander. In Koorland's time there were no Watch Fortresses and there was only one Watch Commander, now they have bases of their own and several commanders. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

But why would an Inquisitor take on those administrative duties when there's people in the Deathwatch who do those already? Furthermore I'd like to point out that when it mentions an Inquisitor taking over a Watch Fortress temporarily, it never says it's because it's without a Watch Master or that a Watch Master steps down, and I seriously doubt they'd stop doing their own duties because an Inquisitor showed up. I've also never heard of somebody describe Intelligence Gathering, Prioritization and Counter-intelligence as anything but strategy, considering those are key strategic elements in any conflict. In any case, maybe we're just not seeing eye to eye again, I personally see an Inquisitor running a Watch Fortress as somebody who's taken command of the Space Marines inside of it, regardless of whether they're currently on duty or in training, and I see the deploying of Marines from that Watch Fortress a Strategic Aspect. In any case I can't see how it doesn't go against what Koorland wanted. -- Triacom (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's say you're right, that as things stand right now the Beast Arises is mutually inconsistent with the Codex, it has points of similarity which were addressed earlier, but since the codex is a bit thinner on detail we don't have a huge amount to work with, while the evidence from contemporary sources doesn't actually come out and say it's a certainty. That's not a huge problem itself, because this isn't Lexicanum and have to suffer fluff paradoxes. Here we are allowed to point out the inconsistencies and critique them or find ways of reconciling them. Both points should be presented though (and maybe the non-canon RPG origin should as well, for completeness.) because they are all official canon and cannot be dismissed, whether we agree the weight of one over the other; some people have no exposure to the tabletop, while others have no exposure to black library. I'm going to have a crack at counting the chapter strength as indicated by the codex later, and expand the section to its own subheading. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I can agree there at least. -- Triacom (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not looking to re-ignite the argument here, but I found a statement from Marc Gascoigne of Black Library Publishing back in 2007 which pretty much sums up the canonicity of GW works and why "everything is canon, but not everything is true" which is oft quoted, but seldom cited. Though he freely admits that he only speaks for himself, the point is that no source immediately renders itself above another, and cannot be taken as 100% reliable in the first instance - we neckbeards only seem to do that by convention. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it. Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends". But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies. It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nuclear war; that nails it for me. Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy. To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you."

A problem I've been having as of late is that GW seems to have forgotten their stance that everything is canon and not everything is true. So much of the new books say something is fact with absolute certainty, and this also gets supported in other books that I'm not even sure the current authors are even trying to keep this mantra in mind any more. If all the current books seem to agree on a certain point, particularly one that's at odds with older lore (and if this happens for multiple codices across multiple armies for multiple years) then how can we say that newer stuff isn't meant to replace the older stuff? Maybe it wasn't meant to at one point, but that doesn't seem to be the case now. - Triacom (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps; read some of the afterwords of the novels and you get the sense that the writing team have been attending meetings and co-ordinating their stories at the overall direction of GW in Nottingham, and they've got a team of "fluff-gurus" on hand to make sure certain "facts" remain adhered to, particularly now that the plots are growing longer and harder to keep track of (Horus Heresy, Beast Arises, associated campaign books) Though if we follow that line, then that would still infer that every piece of writing should have a purpose, even when the differences become apparent such as we saw here. Personally, I'm not sure I buy them trying to straighten out the "legends" that make up the warhammer universe and that they are still falling back on "unreliable narrator" to explain away gaps in their stories, particularly when the context puts events thousands of years (or light years) apart from each other. For instance, the differences in the result at Nikaea, did the Emperor ban them? or didn't he? or why the books set in M41 don't reference Imperium Secundus or the extinction of the Imperial Fists, or where and when Vulkan actually died, all the way down to smaller details like how Ragnar Blackmane slew his Wolf, (was the thing was sickly and old?). As well as leaving room for any future changes to the fluff by challenging "what you think you know" (otherwise how is a series like the Horus Heresy really going to surprise readers?) Its easier to say something with assured certainty when the narrator (who doesn't need to be an actual person) doesn't present all of the facts, even recent events like Warzone: Fenris doesn't marry up to the tie-in novels exactly. As a follow on point to what Gav Thorpe said in the quote I referenced on the canon page, "there simply isn't enough room in the gaming books to include everything". --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are partially right, according to one author (I forget which, I think it was Guy Haley?) who wrote a Black Templars novel, GW Corporate is going around and telling people which facts are absolute truths that need to be upheld from book to book, while pretty much everything else is open to the authors. I remember this being a point of contention on the Black Templars page for a bit since GW wants them to be Chapter Strength (and also fucked them on several other points) so I'm well aware of it. As for that Gav Thorpe quote, it's one thing for the books to not be able to include everything, it's another thing entirely for them to contradict older stuff. -- Triacom (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Gallery?

Should we add a gallery of images? --Taumanta (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)