View Full Version : Inqisitor vs Necromunda?

06-06-2007, 09:50
Hey there, just wondering what peoples take on the Inq vs Necro, not so much which is better, by why play one over the other. What does one system have over the other? Note I know nothing about the Inquisitor system so I'm asking as a learning tool, not trying to start an argument :)

06-06-2007, 10:05
there is no Inq Vs Necro. they are two entirely different systems - it's like saying "Why play Fantasy over Battlefleet Gothic?"

Necromunda is a squad-level skirmish game with a focus on the advancement and progression of the individuals involved. Inquisitor is an individual-level skirmish game where the focus is on the outcome of the encounter and the background of the characters involved.

If you like seeing your characters progress and advance over a relatively short period of time, choose Necromunda. If you like the idea of gunning down your enemies with a squad of gun-toting fighters, choose Necromunda (or kill team)

If you like weaving an elaborate story around your games, and you like the idea of games that don't solely revolve around shooting, and you feel that the advancement of the story is more important than "levelling up" or getting a new shiny gun - then you may well enjoy Inquisitor.

06-06-2007, 16:10
I have to agree with Charax, to a point. They are two entirely different systems. Necromunda is much more fast-paced, whereas Inquisitor is more about weaving a storyline and interactions between characters. It's sort of like comparing an action movie and a stage play - they may have elements of the other but they're really very separate genres.

That being said, personally, I think they do have something in common. To me, both games are about having a good, entertaining game, rather than just winning or losing like 40k. They're much less competitive and more enjoyable for the experience

06-06-2007, 18:30
In rather stark contrast to what Charax says, Inquisitor *can* be (and is) played like Necromunda.

In both you can have a 'bunch' of guntoting bandits who're out to shootup alot of other guntoting/chainswordwielding bandits. You can weave stories, make details of characters etc etc. You can track your warband/gang/group well in each.

The difference: Necromunda is more heavily abstracted than Inquisitor. Necromunda is fast paced, has *lots* of guys (comparitively) and is alot less detailed. Inquisitor on the other hand is far more...cinematic. More dramatic, more personal. It has alot more of an opportunity for story, character development, coolness and the like.

Inquisitor can be played like Necromunda, but Necromunda is very difficult to play like Inquisitor was concieved to be played. It is, essentially, a case of 'Narrative Skirmish' vs 'Skirmish'.

Battlefleet Gothic vs Fantasy

The comparison of Necro vs Inq is even starker than that listed above, both BFG and FB are, essentially, rather similar. The styles are very different, but in terms of the games themselves, they have alot more of a similiarity. Necro has a reasonable set of rules, and is a fairly self contained game. Inquisitor on the other hand is a very open system. You can add alot to it. There is almost no balance within the rules themselves, but this is because 'balance' is entirely impractical in the system, and also somewhat irrelevent. More fun is had, in many's experiences, by adding an intruiging story and playing the story rather than 'player vs player'. In Necromunda, you're unlikely to be doing anything other than player vs player. I mean, it's unlikely in Necromunda that everyone would be playing on the same side! In Inquisitor this is perfectly feasible!


Necromunda is a far simpler and far less detailed game. However, the opportunity and openess of the game is entirely lesser than Inquisitor. In Inquisitor you can have three Epistolaries trying to fight a few dozen brute squads of Carnifices, but you'd have much more fun with an Inquisitor and his incidental/long suffering aid trying to apprehend Rogue Trader that's been messing with xenotech and has turned an entire hive into some sort semi-daemonic cult...sneaking, prying, jumping, running, leaping, aiming, duelling, dying.

In Necromunda, however, you'll typically find it to be very closely restricted to just gang vs gang.

So Inquisitor is better, huh?

IMO, yes. But then that is biased! :p

It depends what you want from your game. If it's a pick up and play 'less thought outside the game' campaign you're looking for, Necromunda is the one for you. If you're looking for something you can get your teeth into, spend hours lovelingly crafting every detail (that you desire, so it could easily be no detail at all!) to play through in a couple of (dozen?) games over the course of a day/month/year/decade, then Inquisitor is the game for you.

Personally, I find Inquisitor the much more compelling and open game. So much more fun, in that regard. Necromunda, on the otherhand, is a more personal variation on 40k and Killteam. But, you can do the things you do in Necromunda and Killteam in Inquisitor. Folks like Charax don't like that sort of thing (with good reason, IMO), but it is undeniable that some people do like strapping everything and the kitchen sink to a walking tank to clobber some similarly minded individuals...

07-06-2007, 14:36
Interesting takes on the topic. Thanks for the input!! I've played the mordhiem game in a wilderness setting and it did play out like a D&D game. We found it was like this in the fact that with only a few players, our D&D games ended up with the PC's playing multiple characters.

I was under the impression that the necromunda game with it's simplistic system (yeah well it's sorta simplistic ;) ) would end up playing like this too. I thought the inquisitor game was a lot more complex and 'dictated' towards being Inquisitors and only Inquisitors. I know better know that the Inq game can be alot more vast but am still not sure.

Cheers, Ross.

07-06-2007, 15:06
I was under the impression that the necromunda game with it's simplistic system (yeah well it's sorta simplistic ;) ) would end up playing like this too. I thought the inquisitor game was a lot more complex and 'dictated' towards being Inquisitors and only Inquisitors.

An understandable impression. Wrong, but understandable! :p

It is true that Necromunda *is* more simple and efficient game, for D&D style adventure romps, I do think it's more your ticket.

However, Inqusitor, as a rule system, can open itself to pretty much anything. As I noted above: You can play it as if it were Killteam, but it won't be as enjoyable as approaching it with a couple of homebrewed characters. Not just "I'm Mr 18 Year Old newbie with no experience", but homebrewing your wise young leader, your doddery old man who can kick-ass in a fight, your fearful sniper who has a nasty habit of cutting and running etc...none of whom need to be young or just starting out. They can be, but you aren't forced into the 'initial conditions' format of the likes of Necromunda and Mordheim (and D&D, as is my experience).

It has been said before, but it's worth repeating: Inquisitor offers alot more dynamism in a game, you can do alot more, so it is also alot more cinematic. If you enjoy that, then you'll have great fun playing with a warrior band consisting of a janitor, a techpriest and a pacified plague-zombie! Weak and basic characters are often more fun to play than the 'tooled up' ones because you grow attached to them, you feel for them, I believe Lord Inquisitor states on the Conclave: they, as characters, need to strive to succeed.

Necromunda, on the otherhand, *can* have all that, but it's alot easier and faster to play without all that!

07-06-2007, 17:07
On tabletop I prefere Necromunda because it's good tabletop game which knows what it's doing, while Inquisitor can't decide whenever it's an RPG or tabletop. Howerver, Inquisitor is open to uses Necomunda can't even get close to... just these uses have nothing to do with miniatures.

The two can well go together, too; Necromunda is good setting for P&P Inquisitor campaign, with skirmish game providing basics of economy and world description.

08-06-2007, 10:06
Inquisitor can't decide whenever it's an RPG or tabletop.

I think you'll find that it's you who can't decide.


09-06-2007, 09:30
yeah, its not really an RPG, its more of a combat sytem with help for the story tellers.

i played Warhammer 40k first, as imperial guard, so the jump to necromunda wasnt so bad, but its trickier for other races. you can incorporate a story telling element to necromunda, but the motivation behind the gangers actions stretch a little thin sometimes. wait, why am i raiding a gene-stealer cult hideout when its four hab levels from my turf and i already have three juves captured by the Delaque gang with red coats?

in Inquisitor, for me at least, the motivation behind the characters makes or breaks the game. the ability of the players to give the GM the finger and switch to full auto after sneaking for 7 turns is what makes the difference between Necromunda and Inquisitor. Necromunda demands a certain level of "you must bow down to my over-bearing objective" and leaves less room for free thought and creativity.

I have always been a proponent of free will in Inquisitor, and i think that is what makes the difference between it and anyother game Games Workshop or Specialist Games makes. no other games grant the players the oppertunity to say "well, i dont really feel like going for the objective at this time, i think i'll just head over here, raid the Supply Depot for ammo to refresh our cache and be on my merry way."

09-06-2007, 11:35
I think you'll find that it's you who can't decide.

Oh, I have no problem with deciding. It's an RPG, with tabletop part hammered in because of GW's belief that books exist only to promote miniature sales, even if game would do better without miniatures.

09-06-2007, 18:38
i love inquisitor and necromunda they're both awesome games! but i couldn't compare then to each other they are entirely different thats what make them great =3

10-06-2007, 15:22
I play both.

Inquisitor is better.