On the subject of Regiment Creation rules, several planet types, Notably Forge world, are missing.

Could be added:

Armory World + bonus to Logistics roll, 15% Chance each item, Item in kit is good quality.

Forge World + Bonus to Logistics roll, 1 kit item of Good Quality (Higher bonus to Logistics roll than Armory world.)

Agri World + Bonus to Logistics rolls for non weapon/ammunition rolls

Pleasure World. +1 Insanity, Many bonus to Social skills

Regiment type could use two addons as I see it

Conscript Infantry

Penal Regiment.

Penal regiment is already mentioned in the Planet section. This would further differentiate them from other infantry units. After all the Penal Regiments are used as cannon fodder. Penal Legions should benefit from a higher XP bonus as they are ONLY used in no win situations. The higher XP bonus denotes the level of stress the Penal regiment is under.

Concript Infantry should receive a major negative bonus to logistics but have the ability to be "promoted" to one of 3 types of regiments later on (Mechanised Infantry, Line Infantry or Light Infantry.) To do this the Character would loose the negative bonus assigned by the "Conscript Infantry Regiment" and gain any Positive training bonus from the replacement regiment. EG the 501st Conscript regiment after 5 missions, was promoted to the 501st Mechanised Infantry regiment after receiving their "Ordo Imperalis" Medal promoting them from Conscript to Full infantry status.

Also I see issue with the fact that some combinations get you Aptitudes and others do not. That means more often than not if the PCs are going to create the regiment then they will choose the Aptitudes (to lower costs of skills, Talents and Characteristics.) I suggest that either ALL or NONE get Aptitudes, OR, Make Regiment creation part of the GM rules and not part of the player rules.

I my group I created my own regiment, as best I could and I am getting constant complaints by my players that things cost too much XP because my regiment build does not grant any Aptitudes.

Just some thoughts to share.

I strongly disagree with your proposal to make regiment creation part of the GM base rules. By having your players create the regiment they become much more invested and are more likely to view as "their" regiment rather than an army the GM foisted upon them. It is a simply brilliant move that encourages collaboration amongst the players and between the players and the GM.

Only in the Training Doctrines section of regiment creation are there actually starting Aptitudes. And it's not as if those Doctrines with starting Aptitudes are lower-costed; one should have a little faith in one's players - all of you are basically guaranteed to devise a more interesting regiment than you could have alone!

Are your players attempting to create duel-wielding Ogryn dervishes or seek to purchase multiple advances after every game? Because I am fairly certain that the game's XP allotment and Aptitude combinations is balanced around players purchasing one advance every session, or saving up for a really huge advance every other session.

1c33m4k3r said:

I agree that the players should direct the regiment creation. It has been interesting to see the discussion in my group over their choices. They have been very collaborative. The few times that I think they've gotten a little too 'meta-gamey' with the creation process, I've simply reminded them that some shortcomings will be a role-playing opportunity.

Just thinking out loud here, but for Operator creation, might the Operator also choose a demeanor for his vehicle(s)?

Is the machine spirit of the Sentinel Scout aggressive? Is the Chimera 'old reliable'? Is the Lemann Russ 'indomitable'?

I don't know… Just a thought.

Mward1984 said:

This was one of the first issues I noticed while making my first character (a Cadian Sergeant who doesn't know how to fire his standard issue autopistol). Perhaps on page 33 where it discusses Standard Regimental Guardsman Kit, an amendment could be made to the effect of:

"All members of the regiment are rigorously instructed and drilled in the use of a tried-and-true array of weapons Characters are considered to have the associated Weapon Training talent for the specific weapons included in their standard kit. For example, Jason's Elysian trooper outfitted with a combat shotgun is proficient in its use and so gains Weapon Training (Solid Projectile) for that particular weapon. If said trooper were to secure an autogun from an illicit gambling bout, he would need to acquire the Weapon Training (Solid Projectile) talent as normal to avoid penalties for its use."

I think this approach will allow customization of standard kits without granting every guardsman proficiency with half the weapons in the universe. It's much like "Weapon Familiarity" traits from D&D / Pathfinder.

This logic can also be applied to "Specialist Equipment" for Guardsman and Support Specialists profiles to streamline their starting talents by stating that you are proficient with the weapons you start with. This would make the Weapon Training talent and Weapon Specialists attractive because of their versatility as they should be, while allowing characters to wield their issued gear. Page 39 should mention this clearly as well as discuss the distinction between "Specialist Equipment" and "Regimental Standard Kit", especially as it pertains to ammunition procurement.

about the regimental fav weapon -- my point is that it shouldn't have a fixed value -- plasmaguns are ment to be more rare than meltaguns and making them all cost the same 10 points will only make players take meltas/plasmaguns only and never the commonly availible flamer

You sstill have to worry about its' availability past chargen.