If an Operator changes to any other Specialty (Guardsman or Advanced), he has to return all of his Specialist Equipment gained from being an Operator - including having his MIU implant ripped out of his head!

This is just silly. It's even worse than the Weapons Specialist turning in his sniper rifle (regimental favoured basic weapon) when he becomes a Sharpshooter. I really think that Hammer of the Emperor was a rushed product and could have really used a bit more polish.

I dont see why this is a problem, just let them keep their equipment. The GM has the ability to alter rules that do not make sense in order to smooth ou gameplay. I do not believe that Hammer of the Emporor was rushed, I believe that you are trying to play the game like the tank ace is the direct "level up" speciality of the operator. They might have similer functions and one might be a little bit better but they are seperate classes and not your only option.

Robomummy said:

I agree, besides it doessn't state that any implants are removed. So removal of MIU would be a storyteller's decision based on the game he/she is running.

As for your concern over Sharpshooter it already has it's own thread here. Before Hammer Of The Emperor came out I was allowing my players in a light infantry of sharpshooters to take the Comrade Advances for Spotter from the Ratling Specialist, albiet at higher exp cost. Meaning that most storytellers would allow things like allowing the Sharpshooter Advance to have Sniper Rifle, Musket, Crossbow, what have you that makes the most sense for your Regiment to have and replace say Missile Launcer or Long Las or Triplex Pattern Lasgun. Should your storyteller be by the book, then you would still have the Regimental bonus to request one from the Departmento Munitorum every game session. You could even get one off another Guard from your Squad or Regiment. Heck you may still have your own sniper rifle that was issued to you - nothing says you have to hand back just because you advanced. Replacing it may become problematic and so might aqcuiring ammo for it. But a cleaver Player would find ways to work around that.

Darck Child said:

Read the rules. Specialist Equipment of the old speciality is removed and the Specialist Equipment of the new specilty is gained. Guess where the MIU and the regimental favoured basic weapon are found?

As to what you allow in your games being the benchmark for what most storytellers would allow, i call bull. Most sotrytellers will allow what is written in the book. Anything beyond that is a houserule, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it should never be considered the norm.

HappyDaze said:

Core rule book p.204 Cybernetics, which is where MIU is described. Techinically your right it is equipment. I don't see it that way while it's implanted. So in my opinion it could go either way.

I never said I set the benchmark for storytelling, I was offering a suggeston as how if you wanted to put a spin on things.

HappyDaze said:

I think a little common sense is in order. The rules of any game as complex as Only War require some thought, the application of critical thinking and the GMs decision making skills. It seems to me that general statement "return specialist equipment" and the specific case where one piece of said equipment for one Specialty being a cybernetic implant, require the use of only a very little logic to detect the need for a rational exception. Any GM who doesn't see that isn't a GM I would want to game with.

Does there need to be an exception? There's not really any reason that you couldn't have the MIU removed. I just think it's a great example of Imperial silliness.

HappyDaze said:

I was about to rip into OP's silliness at being inflexibly inflexible with the rules, but your point here is incredibly well taken with 40K lore in general and with Only War specifically (see the random mission gear tables). However, these should not at any point prevent GMs from ignoring the rules and doing what they see best for the game. These "rules" are not really rules because they are completely unenforceable by FFG. The GM and the players make up the rules based upon the guidelines they receive from books like Hammer of the Emperor. Is HotE imperfect? Yes. Should this prevent the GM and the players from having some fun and ignoring a rule here or there? Absolutely not.

What's wrong with getting an MIU removed? Whether or not it's a cybernetic or equipment, it's Departmento Munitorum property. Perhaps they would feel that an MIU unit would be more useful to a less experienced operator, than a Tank Ace.

Also, while it states in the book that the character replaces his current specialist equipment for the new specialist gear, it doesn't explicitly say that the equipment is handed back to the quartermaster. Specialist equipment is not a set inventory, but items that are expected to be given to a specialist for them to do their job.

In the example of the sharpshooter with the sniper rifle, he may keep it when he switches speciality, but if he loses it, he can expect the quartermaster to replace it with one of the options listed in sharpshooter without any hassle, but would have to make a logistics test for a new sniper rifle.

I'm not sure what this MIU is even for. The rules don't mention most Imperial vehicles as being equipped with the equipment that woiuld be required to use ethem, as far as I can tell.

Thaddux said:

All specialist equipment has to be replaced through Logistics. You're not guaranteed to get any of it replaced. If your Commissar loses his bolt pistol or chainsword, he doesn't get another one until he makes a Test to do so. The same goes for getting more ammo for that bolt pistol (or for the Heavy Gunner's heavy weapon).

HappyDaze said:

This means that a starting group is never going to have ammo for any of this stuff.

And if the Ogryn fails a test for his Ripper Gun ammo, he's going to be swinging it like a club.

God Forbid he actually lose the Ripper Gun, or he'll just have his fists.

bogi_khaosa said:

That's correct.

Pity that the Ogryn doesn't even have the necessary weapon training to swing a club…

Wow, there is some serious anger on this post. Really simple, the GM has final say, make your case to the GM as to why you should keep your MIU if he/she hasn't already ruled you get to keep it. I don't know of any GM that doesn't take the printed rules on a case by case basis. I know I do, and always have.

Baradiel said:

Why are you so angry?

This is probably a bit off-topic, but how often does equipment loss come up in your game, and how is it approached? When my PCs are in the field, they tend to carry all of their equipment, so nothing can happen to it back at base. While in combat, it doesn't seem like there's ever any benefit to dropping a piece of equipment; even if they did, they tend to win their battles and not need to retreat. It's not like a failure on a test results in equipment destruction.

Kharol said:

I reduce Logistics by 1 for lost/ruined equipment.

I figured out the weight of a standard kit (my group's excludes some extra stuff), making some assumptions for weights not given in the book, and it comes to 12.5 kg. The stuff can encumber you mightily. In fact one of my group currently has an AB of 1 because she refuses to drop it.

For the purposes of cybernetics, I would think that, for the most part, you would get to keep them forever. Many must be modified for the individual in question, calibrated for his/her body. Also, surgery requires downtime, and recovery, even in the grimdark future, and a deficient soldier, one missing a limb, for instance, might just be shot, or something, to not hinder his or her teammates. I don't argue what the rule says RAW, but getting it back out is risky, and unnecessary work for the NPC part; they wouldn't waste their time, or your field-availability unnecessarily, just to withdraw an MIU from you, and one that woill continue to be useful as you get even better at operating that same, or better vehicles. If you die, they might be able to re-acquire it, but while you are a living soldier, I'd say you keep ATTACHED pieces.

Hopefully, an FAQ might address this, but the book was a small one, and this is a bit of an "only example there is" scenario, so they probably thought it wouldn't come up, or the GM could just rule as they want, like always. If worse came to worst, you could, as the player, make the Requisition test to get one (which would be keep that one), if you felt it was necessary to have; some people here argue the need for the piece, anyway. Rare isn't easy, but your group is now getting into Advanced, and that probably means successful missions, and gaining more Logisitics. Your Sgt/Cmdr, or your TP could just Requisition it, and call it good, for the team.

It's a bit distracting, and slightly irritating, that posts that question the rules are usually followed by several posts helpfully pointing out that the gamemaster has final say and can do whatever is best for the group. Of course. I think that is an obvious point, but usually these threads are started because the poster is questioning the editing or decision making process employed by the creators of the rulebooks, not because they are confused by the scope of the gm's power.

It is not particularly helpful to write that the problem can be houseruled. Most people on these forums seem smart and creative enough to figure that out. On the other hand, it is very helpful to suggest specific houserules to help solve the problem. Whenever I see or write in with a question about the rules and someone suggests the gm can simply houserule the problem, as if this would never occur to the person who wrote the thread, it comes off as pedantic, even though the suggestion is usually given in goodwill.

Interesting Question… i think i'd go on a case-to-case basis with that, based on how the Situation at the front is, how accomplished the front is, that stuff. In one Regiment for example, the Operator is more seen as the pioneer, so he gets his MIU only so he can take the steering wheels when necsessary without so much training, but otherwise it's pretty useless.

Same goes for lost/broken equipment: If the Situation isn't too serious, they get one magazine for a specialist-weapon and can replace specialist-gear. Of course, if they break too much, the Munitorium-Clerks will get suspicious, which might lead to restricted resources in other areas. And, if you think "10 Shots Heavy Flamer and Meltagun every mission might be a bit much…" (PC's Regiment runs with those), those weapons won't be that useful when the only one trained in using them is close to death.

Will also be very interesting, when exactly those supplies they've been relying on just run dry suddenly, imagine this dialogue:

Player: "I'm heading to the Munitorium, i want to replace my empty fuel tank."

GM: "Alright… Roll for Logistics."

P: "Uhm… okay… well… dang, 32 on 15."

GM: "The clerk tells you: 'sorry, son, supply-convoy didn't get through, we need all the fuel for our CHimeras.'"

P: "Well… crap…"

Great way of conveying a slowly deteriorating situation… might very well go the other direction, when after months of recharging battery-packs in the camp-fire, the players finally get a fresh reload.