Hi, there has recently been an argument on my table if the craftmanship of an item impacts the base availability and the time it takes to acquire this item. I was under the impression that craftmanship increases or decreases rarity by one step per category. Is this the case.

RAW, I believe that is the case, but when a player specifically goes looking for the ridiculously rare item, and then wants it to be Best Quality, the GM might, maybe should, tinker with the other things you mentioned. Case in point, my main RT personality packs a Best Craftsmanship inferno pistol, so fancy that, like a Deathwatch relic, it has an official name (Dragon's Ire), and other people would know it on sight. A "typical" inferno pistol is already Extremely Rare, I believe, and then its description comments on how very few forge worlds still know how to make "melta pistols", while there might be, at most, a dozen in the given sector of space. Based just on fluff text, in Dark Heresy 1, there might've been more nemesis daemonhammers in the Calixis Sector, and NOT including those in the hands of the Grey Knights, than inferno pistols. When you then say "well, I'm a Rogue Trader, so anything I use MUST be Best Quality", you're now talking about a gun a Magos would have a hard time getting, and even a Salamander Captain might not have seen such a stunning example of the piece in his career as an Astartes.

When they want something that begins to approach true Unique, as opposed to "that's where it falls on the Availability table", it seems it could be appropriate to do as your player says, though, RAW, I don't believe they are correct. Hopefully, there was a nugget of valuable hidden in all this babble. Best of luck.

Good craftsmanship is -10 to acquire; Best is -30. I just have my players roll for normal craftsmanship. If they beat the roll by 10 they can find a GC model if they want it instead. If they beat the roll by 30 they can get BC, GC, or NC. There have actually been times when a player only wants GC and passes the BC up.

Errant, I would be careful with that considering the time it takes to actually receive a GQ or BQ item is different from the CQ estimate. Unless your characters are always operating in lengths of time ranging in months to years, the choice to go for a BQ item on an Availability roll could mean the player must wait a few sessions before they can acquire it. Not to mention, it is never a given that a BQ item is even available, which is why the game recommends an Inquiry Test (or similar) before acquisitions can even be made to determine if a certain item is even on hand for purchase.

I appreciate the heads-up but I don't use the time frames RAW. They tell me how long they plan to stay at a port-of-call, I give the p-o-c an acquisition factor, tell them how many acquisitions they get during their stay. They have to turn in 3 personal acquisitions to attempt a ship component acquisition. Streamlined but consistent is what we're after.

Hmmm, interesting, efficiency and consistency, spend less time with tables and more with playing the game, its a pretty good system. My group does it differently for the most part seeing as we have very few actual acquisition rolls with most items of low (for Rogue Trader standards) rarity just being auto-given after a successful Inquiry or other applicable roll. I ain't gonna have the Arch-Militant roll on PF for a single, personal-use Boltgun or the Explorator for a new CQ-Bionic Arm, those are too small to warrant an Acq Test in my opinion. However, with shipments of weapons or gear, or with ship components, the tables provide a good reference point at least.

When it comes to the more common pieces of equipment, my players aren't usually wanting to find a single item, but enough to equip the dynasty's armsmen, or an entire regiment. That changes the acquisition check considerably. Player habits definitely influence the GMing of a game.