EisenHorn vs Inquisition Wars (was Dark Heresy/Warhammer 40K RPG)

They have also been called 'psychic blanks' although I think this was reffering more to the fact that they had no detectable presence in the warp, becasue it has also been implied that they are incredible potent or at least potentially so as regards psychic ability / apptidtude.

Many (non-radical) members of the Inquisition consider sensi to be mutants / aberations and will hunt them and kill them, others (Iluminati) wish to hunt them and 'protect' them (kill them later -- when its the 'right time'.) They are imortal, in the sense that they do not age or get sick, and unaware of their place in the scheme of things.

I think in classic GW sty;e they are no longer 'cannon' and have been phased oyt or put on the backburner. We now have the totaly awesome C'tan!! (Yeah!) and such things as the Star Child ? Numen and the Sensei have been tossed aside ('offically').

Yes, also, don't forget to add the Thorians to that mix, as they are looking for vessels of the Emperor, and I think that a Sensei would fit the bill rather well.

For game purposes, we are playing her as a regular human with a force sword, no real psychic abilities, but leadership/morale abilities.

Those damn Illuminati!!!

Now, according to the Inquisition Wars novels, aren't the Illuminati a group of those who have suffered and survived daemonic possession as a daemonhost?

Those novels were AWFUL!!!

They were definately not up to the level of the Eisenhorn novels...

Tastes differ, while I consider both to be of simmilar levels of writing, keep in mind The Inquisition War is pretty much what started the Inquistitorial theme in GW fiction, Dan owes alot to Ian for setting the stage as it were. I agree that the IW novels are dated and that shows as regards more 'modern' or contemporary palettes. There's alot to be said for nolstagia though, which is why I probly perfer IW to Eis / Rav.

BlkSabbath74 wrote:Now, according to the Inquisition Wars novels, aren't the Illuminati a group of those who have suffered and survived daemonic possession as a daemonhost?

Yes, but its also according to Realms of Chaos, which preceded the novels.

I hadn't realized that, though I do remember alot of that coming from the RT era Lost and the Damned supplement.

Ian Watson was a decent enough writer, though not as talented as Dan Abnett, in my opinion. Abnett is by far the best writer in the GW stable.

I DO agree that Ian set up alot of the background for the Inquisition in Inquisition Wars. In fact, I think the novels are worth the read (and worth the $12 for the Omnibus) just for all the background.

However, where Ian Watson started on strong in his first novel, and most of his second novel, his series just sort of fell apart in the end. It set plenty of plot threads up and then just left them drifting. In addition, it also fell apart as far as the main characters were slowly and painfully (to the reader) ground down in the final novel. It ended up being very anticlimactic and depressing, in my opinion.

On the other hand, Abnett's Eisenhorn/Ravenor are a masterpiece, as far as creating a dark setting without corssing over to the point of making it oppressively, numbingly hopeless (ahem, Gav Thorpe).

Just my opinions.

I've been reading this thread, and I think I'll keep an eye out for the Sisters of Battle and Eldar branches. I just hope I get my Inquisitor's Handbook by the time the SoB campaign starts!

I thought the IW books where fantastic. Lexandros d'Arquebus (i think thats his name) was easily one of the best characterisations of a space marine in that he was a bit weird and not quite human. Personaly I can't stand Dan Abnetts portrayal of marines (arse wipe jokes?... really?) they just seem like beefed up IG when he writes them.

I've not read the eisenhorn/ravenor novels so cant really comment on them but I'm gennerally underwhelmed by Abnetts stuff (although Sinister Dexter was pretty good for the most part) and havent really enjoyed much of his 40k stuff (a warp observation deck?!!).

*prepares for flaming

*

I mean really am I the only one who doesnt think he all that good?

anyway
One thing I really liked about the IW books was the way ignorance was used by the Imperium something I try to put into my games. If someone doesnt need to know it then chances are noone is going to tell them. For example: The hive workers who maintain the sewers (or some other menial base labour job type thing) don't need to know anything about the outside world to do their job and whos going to take the time to teach them? In the Imperiums weird oppressive knoledge is dangerous climate (and lets face it some knowledge is actually pretty bloody dangerous) they might actively suppress any knowledge of life outside their job. I feel that IW has got this accross better than any other 40k story I've read.

For example: The hive workers who maintain the sewers (or some other menial base labour job type thing) don't need to know anything about the outside world to do their job and whos going to take the time to teach them?

Hey, you must know my wife's character - the toughest Reclaimator Volg Hive ever produced!

But yeah, more ignorance is good.

frootbat wrote:I thought the IW books where fantastic. Lexandros d'Arquebus (i think thats his name) was easily one of the best characterisations of a space marine in that he was a bit weird and not quite human. Personaly I can't stand Dan Abnetts portrayal of marines (arse wipe jokes?... really?) they just seem like beefed up IG when he writes them.

I've not read the eisenhorn/ravenor novels so cant really comment on them but I'm gennerally underwhelmed by Abnetts stuff (although Sinister Dexter was pretty good for the most part) and havent really enjoyed much of his 40k stuff (a warp observation deck?!!).

*prepares for flaming *

I mean really am I the only one who doesnt think he all that good?

anyway
One thing I really liked about the IW books was the way ignorance was used by the Imperium something I try to put into my games. If someone doesnt need to know it then chances are noone is going to tell them. For example: The hive workers who maintain the sewers (or some other menial base labour job type thing) don't need to know anything about the outside world to do their job and whos going to take the time to teach them? In the Imperiums weird oppressive knoledge is dangerous climate (and lets face it some knowledge is actually pretty bloody dangerous) they might actively suppress any knowledge of life outside their job. I feel that IW has got this accross better than any other 40k story I've read.

I agree with you 100% frootbat. While I think technically Ian and Dan are about equal in writing I think Ian has much better style, and better portrays those aspects that make 40K, 40K and not just some other sci-fi milue. Content wise I think Ian trumps Dan and also as regards his characters having more flavour as it were, where Dan seems to work in the braod strokes of Bad Assed Anti-hero, Bad Assed Villian, Bad Assed Hero ect.

I do however agree with BlkSabbath as regards the decline of his work though I think Inquisitor starts off strong probbly the best 40K novel todate in my opinion. His shorts from Deathwing also very good; Harlequin is still I think a good showing but things start to drop off in the latter parts and in Chaos Child. Over all though I'd take an Ian work to a Dan and my 40k would be more inspired and influenced by Ian's vision than Dan's.

Prini wrote:I've been reading this thread, and I think I'll keep an eye out for the Sisters of Battle and Eldar branches. I just hope I get my Inquisitor's Handbook by the time the SoB campaign starts!

Well, the Sisters of Battle campaign should start up around the end of August, although you don't need the Inquisitor's Handbook to go ahead and get your character started. I would be more than happy to roleplay with you until the GM gets back in town.

Follow the links from here, if you aren't already a member.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HollowWorld40K/

As for the Eldar group, we are still awaiting a GM to take up the challenge.

frootbat wrote: I've not read the eisenhorn/ravenor novels so cant really comment on them but I'm gennerally underwhelmed by Abnetts stuff

*prepares for flaming *

I mean really am I the only one who doesnt think he all that good?

I'm certainly not going to flame anyone for having a difference of opinion, though if you haven't read the Eisenhorn and Ravenor material, then we won't have much common ground, as that's all that I have read by Abnett (other than some of the comics he's worked on).

I've heard very good things about his Horus Heresy novels though, in that they are the best of the series.

For me, Dan Abnett and Ben Counter are by far the best writers in the GW stable. Ian Watson isn't really in the stable, and frankly seems to have been more of a hired gun in the early days of Black Library.

For me, Abnett and Counter strike the perfect balance of the dark, oppressiveness of Imperial Civilization without taking it to the point of wanting to slit my wrists after reading one of their books. There's still hope, and the characters aren't treated as absolute crap to be flushed at the whim of an uncaring universe.

I realize that there are MANY players who embrace that philosophy, especially for Dark Heresy, but frankly, if I want utter hoplessness and crushing depression I'll watch the evening news.

Abnett's work is also very reflective of Frank Herbert's Dune series, which I'm a fan of, and, in fact, the Eisenhorn and Ravenor are good enough to stand alone, apart from the 40k universe. Watson's Inquisition Wars was very much a 40k vehicle.

Eisenhorn is very much an old-school detective noir, set in the 40k universe, whereas Inquisition Wars (which falls short of delivering an actual Inquisition War) just shows Draco blundering from situation to situation, with less and less character motivation to do so, as the series progresses, until I literally feel that the poor characters are being strung from point A to point B to point C with no motivation whatsoever, just to complete a plot outline.

Ian Watson's prose was effective enough, but after about the last quarter of Harlequin, the characters didn't seem to have any reason to be taking their course of action, and Chaos Child literally read like a narrative exposition of the 40K universe that Watson was contractually obligated to complete.

It fell massively short of the promise of his first novel, and therefore ended on a real down note.

While Abnett kills off almost everyone and ends in a really dark place, there is still hope, the character has accomplished something, and there is still faith that the Empeor has a plan for mankind.

I agree on the topic of Lex D'Arquebus. That novel paved the way for the Imperial Fists to become my favorite chapter of Marines.

Its ok frootbat, you arent the only one who thinks Dan Abnett isnt all so great...

Eisenhorn is ok, but it is glaringly obvious that its "Inquisitor" the book about the game and he gives the impression that more Inquisitors are rogue extremists than loyal servants.

I liked Inquisitor from Ian Watson, and would say it is still teh best 40k book about, ok the rest sucked but then thats true of a lot of series (Horus Heresy is kinda the same apart from the first 3 books were good, then it went downhill, with the last one being pointless)

As for Abnett being dark but not too dark, its one of the reason I like Watsons book, its so much darker, and despite all that Draco still fights on and thats what I would like to see more of - though thats just personal preference - that despite all the darkness, they fight on, but then given GWs demographic there is no way they will "adult up" the game.

One last thing about Eisenhorn.

***SPOILER***

Why didnt the =I= just pick up all his known associates and just torture them instead of letting them roam free, on his ticket, doing his orders and possibly up to all manner of evil things.

Code13 wrote:
One last thing about Eisenhorn.

***SPOILER***

Why didnt the =I= just pick up all his known associates and just torture them instead of letting them roam free, on his ticket, doing his orders and possibly up to all manner of evil things.

Well, that would be assuming that there is some some sort of concerted command structure for the Inquisition, through which they are able to keep tabs on one another, and that there were not those among the Inquisition secretly supporting Eisenhorn.

As for Draco, after the death of Me'lindi, he totally falls apart, and essentially breaks his oaths of service in pursuit of a woman. I can't imagine being more out of character. Then, like a little wiener, he can't take it any more and essentially commits suicide. Not exactly my definition of 'fighting on.'

Eisenhorn, on the other hand, literally loses everything, and is still out there with Cherubael, doing the Emperor's good work as he sees fit.

As for my preference in fiction, I read for personal enjoyment, and don't particularly enjoy fiction that is so grim and oppressive that it is hopeless and ultimately pointless.

As a complete trilogy, Inquisition War WAS both hopeless and pointless, in my opinion.

Just to contribute with a few personal opinions, I think most of the 40K novels and short stories are pretty puerile, but I loved Ian Watson's work, so I count him among my top GW authors. He's got a nice blend of action (their stable of authors are required to have at least one fight in every 50 pages or so - I've heard that the most common note from their editors on the first draft is is: "Good, but it needs more gore!"), characterization and metaphysical "truths" about the universe.

Abnett is hard to pass by, even if you don't like him. The sheer volume of his writing is worth taking note of, and he's capable of changing his "author's voice," varying his style. I'm more a fan of his Gaunt's Ghosts series, than the Eisenhorn or Ravenor books. The simple Imperial Guardsman's view allow for a more vulnerable and grittier perspective, closer to the life of an ordinary citizen than any Space Marine epic. The series dips in the middle, where he's clearly out of inspiration, but they get better later on. I wasn't prepared for all the high tech in the Inquisitor novels, but he sells so well I guess they allow him a measure of artistic liberty. Will be interesting to see what he'll do with the Titanicus novel, this autumn. Brothers of the Snake hooked me onto playing loyalists, against my better judgement

, and Double Eagle is entertaining too.

I'd also like to mention Graham McNeill. Storm of Iron is a classic, Fulgrim treats the Emperor's Children nicely compared with the other Horus Heresy volumes, and The Imperial Munitorum Manual is entertaining, despite being just a clone of The Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer. He's also written a very nice background book about the later crusades. Can't recall the title.

Gordon Rennie's BFG books, Execution Hour and Shadow Point, are spot on. Gives a great feel for the Imperial Navy.

Gav Thorpe may be responsible for some of the most unbalanced army books they've done, but I have to admit his short stories are kinda sharp.

The Horus Heresy is so-so, IMHO. Goes from well done to crap and back again. I particularly dislike the random retconning they're doing with old fluff, but I guess nobody would be interested otherwise. Also, development of the 40K universe is a good thing. *nods wisely*

Ben Counter seems rather uneven to me. I hated Daemon World, quite liked the Grey Knight series, and was a bit disappointed with the Soul Drinkers series. Likewise, I'm not a fan of Sandy Mitchell's Ciaphas Cain series. Comedy is in the spirit of all the GW games, but... a cowardly, ironical Commissar? Nah, not for me.

Sorry if I trampled on anybody's toes, here. Not intended.

Edit: Hmm... this doesn't really belong here. Ah well, apology for going OT.

Cain is just a prime example of GW ripping off other peoples work, read the Flashman novels, much better to get the original stories...

Sardauk wrote:

Gav Thorpe may be responsible for some of the most unbalanced army books they've done, but I have to admit his short stories are kinda sharp.

For my part, I can't abide Gav Thorpe.

Some of his short stories have been conceptually intriguing, but his dialogue is stilted and awkward, and he really doesn't have any subtlety whatsoever.

Then don't even get me started on the steaming pile of crap that he labeled as Inquisitor.

Also, his treatment of Col. Schaeffer's Last Chancers, turning them from a Dirty Dozen/Kelly's Heroes style unit into a poor man's Riddick was just to painful to be forgivable!!

Code13 wrote:Its ok frootbat, you arent the only one who thinks Dan Abnett isnt all so great...

Oh well thank god for that, cheers for not verbally raping me guys. I did a review of the first horus heresy book when it came out (can ya guess that i didnt like it?) and posted it on the black library forum and dear lord did i get flamed...

Yeah Gav Thorpe is rubbish. Graham McNeil can turn out some nice stuff but he leans a little heavily on the metaphores for my liking, why does everything have to scream out of the sky like some huge bird of prey or somesuch. It just starts to grate when every second sentence is a metaphore.

If you have ever read any of Ben Counter's 2000AD stuff you can see whats missing from his books... the pictures. His scripts do a nice job of supporting the art but they seem to rely mainly on the art to tell the story, which is fine in a comic but not when you dont have the purdy pictures. His stuff also seems to have the same kind of plotting and cadence as sequential comic book storytelling, plodding from one short arc to another.

Code13 wrote:Cain is just a prime example of GW ripping off other peoples work, read the Flashman novels, much better to get the original stories...

Ah have to disagree - I have read both - I think I still have the Flashman series in my Library (X thousands books

) - and I find Cain a much more sympathetic and enjoyable character - also really enjoy the editorials and the odd extract from usually "Worse" books.

but then different strokes ................

frootbat wrote:
His stuff also seems to have the same kind of plotting and cadence as sequential comic book storytelling, plodding from one short arc to another.

That's an interesting point. I hadn't really thought about it before, but my two favorite 40k authors are veteran comic book writers. I'm also a big fan of Neil Gaimen. Not sure if thats relevant, but I would imagine that has affected their style, both in terms of visual descriptions (for me, less is more, I like to imagine it myself) pacing, and theme.

Anyway, I enjoy that style, but to each his own...

By the way, now you've all got me curious...did Ian Watson ever write anything other than the Inquisition Wars trilogy for 40K?

Watson also wrote Space Marine, as I recall. It is about three Imperial Fists initiates (one of whom is Lex D'arquebus, IIRC), though I've never read it.

I'm quite surprised all this chatter about stable writers is still continuing with precisely no mention of Matthew Farrer. Easily one of the better authors BLP has. His works aren't as fast paced or as action packed as Dan Abnett, nor as well crafted towards putting the reader through distinct misery if they haven't finished the book in a day or two. But, on the upside, I found his vivid vision of the 41st Millenium to be second to none.

With McNeil and Thorpe I've found their work varied. Not entirely disagreeable, but not hugely awesome. I'm not a particular fan of Abnett as the background in his book feels very superficial, as if it were simply 'enough to get me by' whilst concentrating on the plot. I don't think I've ever...savoured reading Abnett's book. Taking them slowly has never seemed necessary (or valuable). With Farrer's, however, and indeed Watson's, I've found myself happily revisiting bits and pieces to simply reread a chapter because it was well written.

I think that's the difference though. Dan Abnett writes very fine stories, in my opinion, and undeniably well crafted in terms of excitement and use of literary techniques, but Farrer's have been a work of vision and decent ability to put together a simple story.

I'd perhaps hesitate to say one is definately the superior of the other, but I much prefer reading Farrer's book any given day, but still find little that compares to the impulse I had on reading Abnett's HH novels. They were...fast. (Legion being, I think, a quite fine example of why it's both 'really good' and yet not a patch compared to some extracts from Crossfire or Legacy).

I do understand, however, that some folks will find Farrer's work dull, tedious or uninteresting. You pay your money you take your choice, so to speak!