I mean, does that mean my heavy gunner or my weapon specialist can never be promoted to a sergeant? Can they then, never be promoted to an officer position, either? Or if they are, what happens to their exp and aptitudes, etc?

I feel this is something Dark Heresy did right. The guardsman was actually promoted in a way that makes sense, compared to real life military structure..

I feel if this issue isn't addressed, a lot of players won't be able to play Only War, because they will not be able to suspend their disbelief.

ac429 said:

Promotions will likely be covered in a future supplement and they would likely keep their exp and aptitudes.

Dark Heresy didn't make sense that guardsmen with a certain amount of advancements was automatically an officer. In real life you are not guaranteed promotion either. An elisted can have a full career without having been Commissioned to an officer .NCO to Officer would also depend on the Regiment also and would not be very common. Comparing it to Dark Heresy your Guardsmen took the "Big Gun" path instead of the "Command" path.

I think that when Games Workshop initially wrote about Imperial Guard regiments they had the Napoleonic British Regiments in mind (remember GW was founded in the UK). Look at the way the Regiments are structured, there is only one Colonel, a handful of Captains, and a handful of Lt's per Captain. Like in the old British army regimental system, there might not be a position to be promoted into. Transferring you to a different regiment would be an exception not the rule.

We've had so many Sergeant arguments already.

The general consensus: each Specialization is less a hard, distinct concept or rank and more of an archetype. Your "Heavy Gunner" is actually just a Private (or the Guard equivalent), just the same as his buddies. The "Sergeant" is less a ranking individual and more "the guy who can command from the front." That's what he does.

Plushy said:

Yeah, I don't see the need to match the Specialisation with the military rank. I'm sure there are millions of "sergents" and "captains" who are just very charismatic Weapon Specialists, or whatever.

Maybe renaming the Sergeant to something so it doesn't share the name with a military rank would solve the problem?
Like renaming them to Fireteam Leader or something like that.

I agree with musclewizard, and Macharias, Plushy. Maybe these archetypes shouldn't be named after ranks or designations. Maybe they should have just named the sergeant "Hero", because he's a guy everyone gathers towards, and looks up to. Maybe they should have named the heavy gunner "Brawn", because he's basically the same rank as the weapon specialist (which is actually a rank, "Specialist", above privates), only bigger so he has to lug around the bigger weapons, and also he has a bit more HP. The operator is fine, because he's basically a private that's trained to drive (operate) a tank (after the appropriate training). The weapon specialist…why not just call him a Gun Enthusiast, or just Infantry, or something? He seems to be a mashing of whoever is "none of the above / Generic Guy" and also "the guy with special weapons in the table top game". And Medic? What a specific role. Can I be a mess cook as a role as well? How about the guy who drives a forklift at the warehouse? Maybe just rename him to "Brains" and he can be more proficient at more support roles (like using a typewriter).

By removing these rank numbers, you can now follow a "Brawn" from boot camp, to trenches, to becoming a veteran, to eventually becoming a leader as a sergeant. Who knows, maybe he'll be lucky enough to go to Officer School, and become a luetenant. I'm not saying everyone get's to be an officer, but I am saying there should be a feasable system for some to become an officer.

EDIT - I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm just saying, this is the perspective some potential audience might approach this ruleset. For me, these are hurdles that would make it really hard for me to get into this game. Nomenclature is important, especially in a large organization, where everyone needs to be on the same page.

Tygre said:

I was using the modern American military as a perspective, since we're using assault rifles and rocket launchers and tanks and what not, and there's kind of a commonality. But then, the American military is a voluntary system, and IG is not, so I can see the difference. But, in the American military, promotion is all but assured. As enlisted, if you are not a sergeant within 12 years, you're kicked out of th organization. It's very much a "go up or get out" system. It's a bit slower in the officer side, especially in the air force. But it's not like you can be "private forever! No responsibilities!" (as much as I wish you could..).

I understand that you were using the American as a perspective. I just get a bit annoyed when most people assume that they are based on the US army. Which to be honest is probably a mix of American and British. Note: I am not saying that you were assuming only that my general annoyance spilled out. Sorry about any rudeness.

But more on topic in the IG you are stuck there for life, which might be quite short, unlike the real life military with their terms of service. If you have absolutely no leadership skills you would stay a Grunt until you develop some, or more likely die.

I disagree about changing the name of the heavy and specialist classes, but Sergeant probably should be Squad Leader.