I tried looking through threads and searching for this question, but could find no answer anywhere.

The word 'trained' is used at various points in the rulebook when talking about skills.

In particular, the Xp spending area refers to the +10 level of a skill as trained.

Meanwhile, the Character sheet shows the +0 level as trained.

Elsewhere the word trained is used with no bonus attached.

Does Trained mean +0 or +10?

Don't worry, you're not the first person to get confused by this.

I'm going to start completely from the beginning though, rather than try to answer the specific, because the chances of getting it wrong are pretty high.

EDIT: Ignore the wording about advanced skills. They're called Specialist skills now. They can't be rolled on unless you're trained. Otherwise, using an untrained skill is at a -20.

There are 2 types of skills in the game. Basic and advanced. Basic skills are things anyone can do (jumping). Advanced skills require training (say technical knowledge). In game, you can always make a basic skill check untrained, while you cannot make an advanced skill check untrained (more about training up next).

Alright, beyond that, a PC can have a skill in 2 major states: Trained and Untrained. If a skill is trained, you can make tests on it. If it is untrained, then you cannot test on it if it is an advanced skill or can make a test at -20 if it is basic.

Finally, there is something called skill expertise. All skills are trained initially in the +0 state. You can further advance it by +10 or +20 by spending more XP (see the advancement tables for cost).

So to specifically answer your question: If you are just trained in the skill, then it is +0. However its entirely possible that you have the +10 skill expertise.

ALSO

It is possible that the test is easier, and is made at a +10 bonus by the sheer ease of the type of test. Often they describe the type of test too so say "Easy(+30)" or "Hellish(-60)"

Finally, a test can recieve a situational bonus. All these bonuses stack to a cap of +/- 60.

For others, I was never certain though if you add in skill expertise as a bonus to that +/- 60 cap.

The problem I have is that the chart for XP cost of raising skill levels, I seem to remember, refers to the +10 Skill expertise level as Trained, rather than the +0 level. When I get home, I'll quote the section from the book.

Going from my beta PDF (book is at home), the table reads:

Known / Trained / Expereinced / Veteran

(+0) / (+10) / (+20) / (+30)

Also, to edit what I said eariler, and I might be wrong on even this, but apparently in this system untrained means its at a -20, not half.

It's the same in the book. Page 102. It is also described there in the text with Known (+0), Trained (+10), Experienced (+20), Veteran (+30). Referring to the skills chapter on page 114,

Rank 1, Known, +0

Rank 2, Trained, +10

Rank 3, Experienced, +20

Rank4, Veteran, +30

But, on the character sheet on the unnumbered page at the back of the book (also on the downloads section on the website), the 4 tickboxes for the skills are labelled Trained / +10 / +20 / +30.

To add further confusion, the home world section of Regiment Creation on page 59 says that "all death world characters are Trained in Survival." (Capitalisation in book), whereas the other worlds all seem to say something like "start with Intimidate and Linguistics (Low Gothic)" for example. So, does this mean that Death Worlders start with Survival +10? That seems to be contradicted by the descriptions of the Cadians and Tallarn, who don't have any such bonus. At the very least, there is some errata here…

As a side note, the differentiation between basic and advanced skills has been removed for Only War: you can always try a skill test, just with the -20 for unskilled, as you said earlier.

Its a lack of clarity between the advancement chapter and the character sheet.

If you buy a skill at "known," you should check off the trained box. It still means +0.

Honestly, you should just cross off trained on the character sheet and write in "Known," that would have it make total sense.

And should I be offering Survival +10 to Death World regiments? I guess not, but it'd very specifically "Trained"

To be totally honest, I'm not sure. I didn't realize until this thread that "trained" is used in the OW advancement system to mean "+10." I don't think the book consistantly uses that phrasing though. As from my previous posts, "trained" in the broader 40K rpg line means just having the skill.

The anatomy of a regiment section (the "Starting Skills" point) seems to reference that a selection can only at most give you a skill at the "known" rank.

peronsally i'd completely ignore all wording and just use the +0/+10/+20/+30 to describe what level you have a skill at.

Just like in my group we never refer to test difficulties as Arduous, or Routine etc. We just say "it's a -20 test" etc.

The book is a lot less confusing if you look at everything in just numbers.

The complication is that the word Trained (complete with capital) is occasionally used in the rulebook to refer to a skill level without giving the modifier, most obviously in the Deathworld homeworld for regiment creation (where it could reasonably be either). I understand that I can reasonably just do what I want in my own game, but feel that there needs to be some sort of errata identified, which obviously needs someone semi-official to decide.

"Trained" as a way of saying +10 is really only used in the skill advancement chapter. In all other cases I would say treat the word "trained" as having the skill at the "known" level (using the advancement chapters terminology).

Sadly, there is no errata yet, and most likely unless you submit a rules question using the button at the bottom of the page, you're not going to see an official response.

I think most people you'd hear from here would rule that its meant to mean that its survival at the +0 point. Death Worlders lack the skills, but gain fairly useful bonuses to key stats and wounds.

I would treat instances where the game grants you a "Trained" skill to be granting you the skill at the Known level (but it can stack with other awards of the same skill to reach greater levels). So, using your example, Death World characters should gain Survival as a Known Skill.

I hope this doesn't come across as pedantic but, what you're saying is that we should ignore the bits of the book that

1) describe how skills are used and work

2) tell you how to buy skills at different levels

and use knowledge from a different game to decide what 'Trained' means elsewhere in Only War?

I will admit to doing somewhat of a Devil's Advocate argument here but I do feel that the contents of a Core Book should be evaluated based on that Core Book, and maybe relevant expansions, rather than what is 'known' from other Core Books.

Tonbo Karasu said:

Except that it is KNOWN that FFG uses a lot of copy/paste from previous releases and doesn't have a good copy checker before going to print. As such it is obvious that the RAI are very different from the RAW.

I'd hate to be someone who bought Only War as their first 40k RPG then.

Tonbo Karasu said:

I pity anyone who is a fan of 40k and roleplaying for several reason:

They will become very poor, very quickly.

They will struggle to remember which minute variation of a rule is from which system.

They will grow to favour certain classes or gear from certain lines and then miss it when playing others.

They will have to learn to spot typos, missing entries and simply bad copy/paste jobs.

But ultimately the sort of people that like roleplay tend to share a sort of lateral thinking, and ability to think and operate outside the box and not need their hand held all the time, and so the framework (cause thats all it is, it isn't 100% binding!) laid out in these books we purchase goes a long way to proving us with much enjoyment.