A few things I dont like, not too fond of Aptitudes, not because it doesnt make sense or doesnt work, just think its extra book work. Looking forward to how I can work this with Dark Heresy as Alternate Ranks. Did I miss the officer? Scout?

It is definately a upturn from my disatisfaction with the last 3 RPGs published (Rogue Trader wasnt all that bad though).

Like the power level being back to Dark Heresy, as a base. But even that should be a tad higher (even in Dark Heresy, 600 starting XP sounds like a good mod though, and the extra XP for duplicate talents/skills as well).

Havent read deep enough yet, but does the commissar come from a different regiment than the rest of the players?

I started looking at the regimental rules a little earlier, and I like that you can make your own regiments right at the start, but I think the Commisar does not use these rules. I thought they were from the Scholera Programa (sorry if I am botching it), which is more or less highly structured training from near birth. I don't think they would use the same starting bonuses, but I have not seen anything about the other support classes (Enginseer, Sanctioned Psyker, and the others) not using these rules because they would follow the same logic.

But I might have missed it. I have not had a chance to review it too deeply as of yet.

My answers here are entirely unofficial, and entirely my own informed opinions. Today is the first time I've seen the near-complete Only War rules, and the first time I've looked at any Only War material in some time.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Fundamentally, because the careers have been replaced with specialities (which are more or less starting archetype packages), you could build any kind of Imperial Guard character you want from pretty much any starting point that you feel gives the right abilities. The sergeant archetype works as a decent baseline for any leader-type character, for example.

On a similar note, different types of regiments will favour different types of characters.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Strictly speaking, by the rules… no. None of the specialists do. This may not be strictly correct by the background (though you could justify it through acclimatisation training, with specialists picking up a few abilities to help them better work alongside the regiment they're attached to), but it's easier from a rules perspective. It shouldn't be too much hassle to house-rule that all Specialists (Ogryns, Ratlings, Enginseers, Psykers, Commissars and Storm Troopers) use their own Regiment rather than the rules for one they're attached to (that thought was part of the reason I wrote a Schola Progenium homeworld into the Regiment Creation Rules), though I'd handle things like Logistics purely from the perspective of the main regiment.

For example, I'd build a Storm Trooper Regiment background as Schola Progenium, Line Infantry, Iron Discipline, Sharp Shooters (I deliberately skipped the Commanding Officer, as there is only one Storm Trooper Regiment, so their CO is IMHO likely a nobleman on Terra with an honorary title who has little or no influence on the actual day-to-day stuff), with the Storm Trooper speciality on top. I'd probably use the same one for a Commissar, given their similar origins to the Storm Troopers.

As an aside, I'd personally recommend keeping the Specialists in the minority in any typical group - the bulk of a group should ideally be the ordinary guardsmen.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I can give an example of this using the Eleventh Hour demo. The Weapons Specialist in the demo is an effective scout/stealth character that is capable of functioning exceptionally well, and there is also the use of Ratlings for that role as well.

The other one….any character can develop the commanding skills and the like, but the Sergeant specialty will simply have an advantage due to the special abilities that only they can get.

The Weapon Specialist in Only War is described as the 'average guardsman'. I guess you can think of him like the Fighter from DnD?

He's for all the special weapons instead of making a career out of each of them + generic guardsman.

So far so good, like the way the psyker rules have been upgraded from DH, possible room for expansion later for powers like Regenerate, TK Sword and so on.

As far as I know the Commissars are selected from the Schola Progenium and then trained as cadets within the commissariat of the Adeptus Munitorum whilst out on field. Though that may have changed with the subsequent editions of the TT

Personally I like the vehicle rules… though I may be somewhat bias there.

BYE

I really, really enjoy Comrades, particularly how Sergeant and Commissar interact with them. It really brings home the Imperial Guard feel, I think. I also enjoy that vehicles are essentially closely tied into the game play. I've already crafted a regiment for a game I'm hopeful to run, and they get a Chimera.

I like the new vehicle rules because I started planning a game where everyone is a tank commander in charge of their own tank, and the inclusion of location-specific criticals means I didn't need to think about them myself. Also, like all the new 'types' of vehicles, like the rules for Walkers, Skimmers, Tracked Vehicles, Command and Control and so on, and the stream-lining of weapon types (turret, co-axial etc)

I liked the idea of Comrades as well, in general, and also the cool abilities you could get with them (especially the Ogryn ones). Also, I could port these rules over for the crew of a tank for my previously mentioned game without making separate statlines and stuff for each crew member.

Also, I'm glad at the inclusion of Orks as one of the big 3, and pleasantly surprised at the inclusion of the Dark Eldar. Suddenly they got a spotlight in 3 game systems in a short period of time.

Using the rules I made a Death Korps Commissar today who shoots better than they hit in melee (all the better to shoot cowards), and also had 41 Fellowship and rolled 'Optimist' for their demeanour, so that was rather funny. It took me no time at all and I swear I spent longer just recording the equipment I start with then having to work out all the little details, so it was nice and quick.

So far my biggest dislike is the comrades rules. I am not against such rules or anything, but I find them to be a bit of a cop out. For example, the Commissar's Summary Execution ability allows him to kill a NPC (Comrade) when a PC is severely injured to let the PC continue and to ignore his injuries until the end of the encounter.

What?

It makes no sense. "Ah hell, Jennings stepped on a land mine!" Says the Commissar turing to CPL NPC Bouregard as he draws his bolt pistol. BANG! "Get up Jennings!" So as a Commissar I kill a perfectly healthy guradsman because another guardsman gets serious injured? I rather it work to increase morale because the commissar is allowed to kill you if you run. Such as a +10 or +20 to Fear/Terror/Whaterver checks as long as the Commissar also makes his or her check and have the bonus extend to everyone in the immediate area of the commissar because HE IS ALLOWED TO KILL Y OU. I mean what happens if only 2 PCs are left? Does the commissar kill one of them? Kill himself?

Maybe base it more on the wargame, with Stubborn (no penalty to fear/morale checks when lead by a commissar) or even oldschool 3E 40K version (which included summary execution and gave a +1 LD bonus).

Summary Execution

As a Commissar serving the front lines in the wars against the enemies of the Imperium, you carry the authority to execute those found wanting. Whenever you are present when a NPC or PC in the Imperial Guard fails a Willpower test against or any other variaiton of morale in combat you can make an immediate reaction Intimidation test. If you succeed the target is permitted to retake the Willpower test with a bonus of +10 per degree of success you recieved on your intimidation test. If they PC or NPC fails the second time you immediately shoot him or her at point blank range with an automatic head shot.

As for specialites, I am fine with the idea that they can do more than just what their names imply, but I am still in the boat that if they have a specific theme name, than others should likewise exist, such as scout (not a Weapon Specialist who spends his or her XP differently) or Officer (which, IMHO is vastly different than a sergeant).

As I said earlier, I havent read all the rules yet (saving a good deal of it for my flight to Germany tonight) but skimmed it enough to get some early impressions.

To me a officer has the big interaction talents and knowledge/lore skills while a sergeant has actual battlefield skills and talents. One has Air of Authority, the other has Double Team and so forth.

I would like to see the following specialites. Grunt (standard guardsman), Officer and Scout.

I think Storm Trooper should be +5 BS not Toughness.

Commissar should have a willpower bonus as well.

There should be a second way to get an aptitude for Willpower other than Psker.

I would rather have the characters built around 3 tiers of characteristics (easy, average, hard) that they get to pick, 3 of each as they wish. Easy is 100/250/500/750, average is 250/500/750/1000, hard is 500/750/1000/1500 or something like that, with skills directly linked to that. So if you have STR as easy, STR skills are likewise easy. I find that would be similar to how it is now, but less involved.

Talents would take a little more work, I dont mind the tiers they currently have but they should also be associated with a characteristic.

The talents and skills listed by the specialty would all be 100 or 200 point purchases, no matter your aptitudes.

Wounds should be based on regiment/homeworld, not specialty, and Fate should also be based on regiment/homeworld.

Not sure how I feel about regiment characteristic modifiers of +3/-3 degrees, +5/-5 seems more impactful, but barely so I dont see why they made it +3/-3. I suppose because if you doubel up form different sources, before you know it you are at +10 STR and so forth, instead of +6.

I do not expect any of my suggestions to make the final cut, as I am sure most people enjoy the game as is, but these are some of my early reactions. Just trying to share.

Most likely, I will just adapt these specialties as alternate ranks for Dark Heresy Guardsmen.

Well Peacekeeper - that's the reason for the Beta. Collage all of this stuff and put it into the correct sub-forum, and see how it flies. They can't make improvements if you don't make suggestions!

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

Well I posted them viewpoints o mine on several threads, not sure if they are the right ones or not LOL.

I am sure I will have a ton of others once I get back from Europe.

I'm going to agree that the Comrade rule as set up here is pretty weak. I see what the designers are getting at and approve in theory that it's a good idea but in execution they come across as incomplete components.. I'd rather see something akin to minions in the other games that can actually do things instead of be a shield drone/action buff device. Perhaps there's a happy medium between the two models but as they are set now, Comrades are pretty threadbare.

The mission section is sparse as well. Lots of "things vary from regiment to regiment but here's how it might go…". While narratively interesting there isn't a game mechanic link here like we saw in Death Watch - oaths, requisition points, support, etc which give players many choices. Players here get a mission with primary/secondary/tertiary objectives and a list of gear their CO thinks they might need. Besides garnering role play xp for and possibly commendations for accomplishing the objectives, there's not much else to them. Gear selection is very haphazard, and I get the feel the designers are going for, but again it feels kind of not-complete in some way. It wasn't clear to me that mission gear, except the stuff off the wacky chart, had to be returned after the mission, though I inferred it.

Acquiring gear is a common mechanic we've seen since RT. However reconciling what PCs might be able to obtain using the logistics system with realities of serving in an IG platoon that has it's own SOPs seems like it should have some sort of mechanic supporting it. Sure, Private Partz might of made a killer deal with that Vostroyan supply clerk for a beautiful plasma pistol but just wait until the platoon sergeant or worse, a commissar, sees him with it! I'm thinking something like the DW renown system would help here. Nothing a good GM can't handle but some help in the rules goes a long way.

I'm kind of our that Psykers don't instantly start out with Force Weapons. I demand satisfaction, FFG!

As for Comrades, i prefer them as it is. Minions are just too much paperwork to handle, and can slow down the game even after character creation. In some cases, a Minion built right (or wrongly, depending on your POV) might even overshadow the player, despite having fewer Skills and Characteristic points.

Looking at the vehicles, yeah they're great. Think for a possible supplement down the line could have a combat pilot/jockey with the Valkyrie and other aerial combat vehicles.

The adversaries seem to be suitably balanced for the game, am especially glad the Dark Eldar are in (finally got stats for wych and their close combat weaponry…cannot wait for Soul Reaver for RT…surely there's a nasty and vicious haemonculus/or archon in there somewhere). Excellent, Stormboyz are in there too..

Early days on the comrade mechanics so need to have a look at that one.

Yep, so far seems to be a good evolution from the inception of DH.

However table 3-21 is not the Demeanours table:

It seems as though 3-19 is the Demanours table…and then the Example Male Names is also 3-19, where is the Example Female Names?

D'oh!

Ignore the Demeanours table question in last post, just looked under proofreading and it's already mentioned

On Summary Execution:

I am a bit torn on it. In one way, Mechanically, I do feel it is effective (sacrifice a useful comrade to get a survival boost), and even on a small scale, I like the fluff (the commissar just shot your buddy, you are motivated to press on). I'm just sad it's not there to help with fear tests. Obviously the actual fluff of this has to be abstracted out. The PC commissar isn't actually executing the comrade to specifically aid the injured guardsman, but rather, is executing them for some RPd out form of cowardice.

I do wish it had more to do with passing a fear test though. E.g. The commissar can use the half action summary execution to kill a PC's comrade when that PC fails a fear test, and thus cause them to automatically pass. Fluff wise it could be said the PC considered fleeing, but was motivated when he saw what happened when his buddy actually fled.

KommissarK said:

If you want a Commisar capable of breaking the cold grip of fear on your squad, take Galvanising Presence instead of Summary Execution . Look to the rules for the Command Skill and its use to terrify an ally on page 77.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Oh, I saw that too. I just want to see the commissar shoot someone to make them get back in line.

H.B.M.C. said:

You wrote the vehicle rules? I have to say they are probably one of my favorite things about the rulebook. I've been waiting for vehicle rules since the early days of DH and it's wonderful to have them. I was surprised by how clear they were, with obvious parallels to the tabletop game and without deviating too much from the core system of the RPG line. I was fearful that there'd be some wonky system where personnel and vehicles would have vastly different systems for taking damage. Great work there.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I like it too. Lets like it together…

Also, if your thinking of Death Watch it is actually a verry good game and doesnt get enough appreciation. I played a DW game and it was more fun than any dark heresy ive played. People try to make their characters the opposite of grimdark in DH. In DW everyone knows why their there.

The only reason i quit my DW game was excessive faggotry that went far and beyond the call of duty.