Odorata said:

They are not in the book, but there exist low-tech weapons form other 40k RPG games that are scarce, rare or even very rare: it was written as such just to not end up with a REgiment full of Primal Warriors, all with lightning Claws (the primitive one from Inquisitor Handbook) or any other 'good' crappy weapon.

So everyone with musket and laspistol huzzah!

Light Infantry get "one flak jacket" as part of their starting gear… but there is no flak jacket in the Armoury chapter.

Ok heres a list duplicated here:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=304&efcid=3&efidt=671551&efpag=1

Problems Encountered:

• Include 9-70 entrenching tool into tools table, its mentioned in siege infantry. But never described anywhere.
• Feildcraft entry says: When operating in that kind of terrain, failed Survival and Navigate (Surface) Skill Tests may be re-rolled by characters from a regiment with this doctrine. Does that mean we get those skills? Or do we allready have them as standard… Also, i prefer the idea that Tracking is included here somehow.
• Kreiger description lists gass grenades but does not specify the type. In official lore its poison gass.
• I recommend including master craftsmanship as an option for some armour and weapons as it appears in DW. This is a classic option for high ranking guard officers and found in codecies 3e & 4e.
• No ammo amounts specified in ammo table.
• Munitorium manual doesnt have any explained use. Add Intellegence bonus to requisition test?
• There arnt enough 1pt options on the additional standard kit items list. Mud-tape should be one. Sewing kit could be another. Leather neck brace (diciplinary device lol) 1pt. 1 extra full clip of bullets 1pt (helps with player specified requisitions but faulters at the heavy stubber).
• Include melta bombs on additional standard kit items table.
• Theres almost completely no point in taking 'well provisioned' as a doctrine if it doesnt help with later requisitions. Perhapse +5. I would also be nice if we could chose the type of grenade, considering some regemental types will already have allot of some grenade types.
• At 8 points its VERY awkward fitting a gass mask into the scheme, especially as most things cost 3 points or 5, 10 15 etc.

Someone created a fun regiment called the 1337th Herpean Derpers

They took both operate vehicle and combat drugs with frenzy, and as they are hivers they treat crowds as clear terrain.

They could also have taken imperial world with blessed ignorance and its -5 to forbidden lores, then taken Favoured Foe for its:

Forbidden Lore (choose one)

I would be tempted to leave these fun options in myself. For those that look for them. But if there are a few solutions or clarifications that might help.

Quick update.

A regiment taking the recon option can start game with no charge packs for their primary weapon. If their lucky enough to have one that isnt a pistol from their carrier.

They are rather similar to light infantry, so we houseruled to use their kit instead. However i think light inf should have a krak grenade. They tend to carry allot of disposable gear. Whereas line inf tend to carry non disposable stuff. And at 15pts each to buy, you might as well choose a different class.

What do you mean? Everybody would start with the start laspistol and two charge packs, from there it can only go up, so a Reconnaissance Regiment would at least have the basic laspistol (Main Weapon) and two charge packs according to the universal standard kit.

@LazerTracer

Theres almost completely no point in taking 'well provisioned' as a doctrine if it doesnt help with later requisitions. Perhapse +5. I would also be nice if we could chose the type of grenade, considering some regemental types will already have allot of some grenade types.

You are aware that you can always refill your standard kit? Meaning you'll start every mission with more clips, more grenades and more rations….

Hardened Fighters (page 32)
[…]
Standard Regimental Kit: The regiment may replace its
standard melee weapon with either a Primary Weapon of
Common Availability or better, or it may apply the monoedged
upgrade to its standard melee weapon.

Primary Weapons are called Low-Tech Weapons by now.

The Regimental Training Doctrine "Fieldcraft" (p. 31-32) should be renamed. Confusing since it is also the name of an Aptitude.

Eradico Pravus said:

Or they should give it the Aptitude Fieldcraft or Perception (since it is tied to Fieldcraft). Which I think would be better, since both Survival and Navigation have nothing to do with Agility.

TCBC Freak said:

.

Not a bad idea. One of my players assumed he was "doubled up" on Fieldcraft since he received it as an aptitude AND the group chose Fieldcraft as a Training Doctrine.

As for the other benefits of Fieldcraft Training Doctrine: They are a "jungle regiment" so getting to re-roll the Survival and Navigate Tests does make sense.

Well, in terms of an actual *proofreading* feedback…

Page 16:

"regiments are raised either as part of the tithe that all worlds contribute to the Imperium, or as necessary from worlds within a particular distance of a newly-opened warzone."

First letter needs to be capitalized.

Page 28, Regimental Homeworlds, Penal Colony

Under the Honour Amongst Thieves entry: one of the talent options is Pity the Weak . Pity the Weak does not exist in the Only War rulebook, it can be found (if I recall correctly) in Black Crusade.

In schola progenium regiment homeworld it says:

expectation, one their lives have been
directed towards for the years of their tutelage

Shouldnt that be "once"?

This may be an artifact of language, but in several places I see the expression

"One *item type* of common availibility or better."

Now I assume that means common availability or more eaily available? Because simply everyone I've shown it to have instantly gone "Oh, great, I'll have a melta then!" with various degrees of mirth. The "better" part appears to refer to the item, not the availability.

Would a change of words be possible, please?

Tenebrae said:

This a pure failure of basic reading comprehension on the part of those you have shown apparently.

"Common availability or better" has one meaning: things commonly available or those things that are more easily/readily available. Something that is more rare than common does not have better availability.

ItsUncertainWho said:

No, it's ambiguous and therefore a poor word choice. Better carries a clear connotation of superior quality, and it therefore confusing when used to mean "more readily available." The phrasing used in the favored weapon entry of the update is better, "mat not have an Availability higher than Very Rare."

Sadly the immediately preceding entry still uses the ambiguous word "better." Also "mat" should clearly be "may."

They should come up with a still stock phrase with no confusing connotations and apply it universally. I suggest "must have an availability rating no less common than xxxxx."

The trouble is that the availability rating is an ordinal system with a more difficult rating indicating a better quality item. Heck they are even listed from the easist to the hardest from top to bottom on the chart so even higher/lower is potentially confusing.

At the very least they should change from saying "better" to your own phrase of "better availability" but I promise you will still see rules lawyers try to persuade the GM that it means better quality.

From p. 17, under the bullet "Starting Aptitudes":

"It is possible for a character to gain an Aptitude twice—once
from his regiment, and once from his Speciality—if this
happens, he may select any one additional Aptitude that
shares its name with a Characteristic."

I found this hard to get my head wrapped around until I realized there are different types (Characteristic and Skill) of Aptitudes. The paragraph in question does say "see page 64" for information on Aptitudes. But I think some confusion might be easily cleared up by delineating between the two. To better understand what I'm trying to say, look at Characteristic Aptitudes (Table 3-15) and Skill Aptitudes (Table 3-17) found on pp. 66-67.

Suggested clarification added in brackets (although I'm not sure it covers every possibility through CharGen):

It is possible for a character to gain [a Characteristic] Aptitude twice—once
from his regiment, and once from his Speciality—if this
happens, he may select any one additional [skill] Aptitude that
shares its name with a Characteristic.

Read page 65. There is only one set of aptitudes, which come in two flavors. There are 9 aptitudes that share a name with a characteristic: Weapon Skill,
Ballistic Skill, Strength, Toughness, Agility, Intelligence, Perception, Willpower, and Fellowship, and there are 9 other aptitudes that are general topics: Offense, Defense, Finesse, Psyker, Tech, Knowledge, Leadership, Social, and Fieldcraft.

There is also a General aptitude that everyone has, for 19 in total.

Every Skill, Talent, and Characteristic advance has it's cost determined by which of these 19 aptitudes the character posseses, there are not seperate lists of aptitudes for skills vs talents vs characteristics.

Andor said:

OK, Thanks Andor. Actually your little description quoted above would go a long way towards an improved conceptual understanding of Aptitudes. The way the Aptitude section is written right now one must do some inferring to figure things out, I feel.

But does the paragraph I quoted from p. 17 use the term Aptitude correctly? For example at CharGen a PC chooses Weapons Specialist which grants Agility as an Aptitude. The party chooses Combat Doctrine of Survivalist** which also grants Agility. The player does not choose one of the 19 Aptitudes listed up above, right? Wouldn't he actually add one of the SKILLS (like the ones listed on Table 3-17) that shares the Aptitude agility (like Acrobatics or Dodge)?

So I guess I'm saying the p. 17 paragraph should be tweaked slightly or the Table 3-17 should be renamed or something.

Sorry if this is the wrong forum page or if I'm totally oblivious and wasting people's time. Andor or anyone else who can further clarify, please do so. Thanks!!

**Survivalist is new name of the Doctrine per errata. Old name was Fieldcraft (p. 31-32)

Oh I see your point of confusion.

No, if you double up on aptitudes, in the way you describe you get to select another aptitude of your choice from the set of 9 aptitudes that share the name of a characteristic.

So your Specialist doubles up on the Agility aptitude, you can't have the same aptitude twice so he selects another. He could choose Toughness (for example) but not Offense, because Offense is does not share a name with a characteristic. It could be put a little better, but I think most groups will figure it out.

It's possible to have up to two bonus aptitudes, but each character only gets two of the non-characteristic aptitudes. Except for Ratlings for some reason. Those little bastards are OP.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Would you agree that in general, items that are more rare tend to be better?

ie. a meltagun is generally more useful than a laspistol, despite what the Uplifting Primer might say?

Because then the meltagun can be perfectly well argued to be "common or better availability".

Everyone I showed the expsrrion to understood what was mean - and made jokes about how poorly chosen the phrasing was.

Andor wrote:
>Oh I see your point of confusion.

>No, if you double up on aptitudes, in the way you describe you get to select another aptitude of your choice from the set of 9 aptitudes that share the name >of a characteristic.

>So your Specialist doubles up on the Agility aptitude, you can't have the same aptitude twice so he selects another. He could choose Toughness (for >example) but not Offense, because Offense is does not share a name with a characteristic. It could be put a little better, but I think most groups will figure it >out.

>It's possible to have up to two bonus aptitudes, but each character only gets two of the non-characteristic aptitudes. Except for Ratlings for some reason. >Those little bastards are OP.

D'oh! OK, I *finally* get it. Thanks, Andor. Sorry to waste everyone's time.

Availability and item quality are two separate and different things altogether.

Tenebrae said:

Are less available items better? Usually.

Is a less available item easier to get a hold of? No.

Tenebrae said:

No, it can't. You seem to still be confusing item quality and item availability.

Common or better availability = Better availability than a common item = Easier to find than a common item

If a car is an item of common availability, dirt is of better availability than a car.