Like the title says, I thought having a thread for bringing up ideas and suggestions for the Only War Errata would be a good idea. I started working on this list before they made the first Errata, but they didn't fix everything I was going to bring up.

Only War: Core Rulebook

There's still no description for the Purity Seals available to Penitent Regiments in the Additional Standard Kit Items.

Warrior Weapons is still worthless, especially when compared to the cheaper Hardened Fighters doctrine. I think that Warrior Weapons should give the Weapon Skill Aptitude in addition to what it already does.

The Sergeant gets to start with a Laspistol as starting gear, but this isn't that useful if the Regiment is going with Solid Projectile weapons. Letting them pick between a Laspistol or a Stub Automatic would solve that.

Change the Flexible Weapon Quality (Weapon cannot be Parried) so that weapons with that quality also can't be used to Parry themselves.

Psykers have the Strength Aptitude for no discernible reason when Weapon Skill or Offense would make more sense. I'm also not sure why they have the Heightened Senses (Hearing), they're not Astropaths. I think Jaded would make for a better starting Talent.

Can those Specialists that start with weapons choose to apply the +2 clips received from Well-Provisioned to their Specialist Weapon instead of the Regiment Main Weapon? Those Charge Packs won’t be very useful for an Ogryn, and many Commissars would probably prefer to get those 2 reloads for their Bolt Pistol rather than some weapon with more abundant ammo.

Does the +1 grenade from Well-Provisioned apply to Grenades purchased as Additional Equipment?

Clarifying what the "High provender" in the Random Issue Gear table is for those that don’t have the Rogue Trader Core rulebook (it's high-quality food).

How does it work when a character receives a talent multiple times during character generation? Example: a Commissar attached to a regiment with a Melancholic Commander would receive Air of Authority twice. In Rogue Trader this would give a character Talented for a Skill of their choice, but that’s no longer a thing in Only War.

The ammo provided by the Backpack Ammo Pack/Power Pack is ridiculously low for its weight and any weapon that relies on it exclusively will quickly become dead weight. The same thing goes for the smaller ammo backpacks used with Hotshot weapons. Seriously, are Stormtroopers expected to carry around multiple 10-kg backpacks just so that they can reload every 30 shots?

Hammer of the Emperor

The Scarred by Loss drawback gives 2 points in the writeup and 4 points in the table.

The various types of ”Anointed Tool-kit” lack entries.

Does the penalty to Dodge tests from the Talent Las Weapon Expertise also apply to the Jink action (which is basically Dodge for Vehicles).

Fix Vanguard and Grenadiers. It’s fairly obvious that Grenadiers was intended to be a Special Equipment Doctrine and that Vanguard was meant to be a Regiment type, but it seems like they got switched around at some point in development. (For example, Grenadiers is the only Regiment type not to start with a Main Weapon or a Vehicle). My suggestion is changing them to the following:

Vanguard – Regiment Type

Cost: 6

Characteristics: +3 Ballistic Skill, +3 Toughness, –3 Perception.

Starting Skills: Tech-Use

Starting Talents: Nerves of Steel

Standard Regimental Kit: 1 lascarbine (Main Weapon) with four charge packs or 1 combat shotgun (Main Weapon) with four clips per Player Character, 1 combi-tool per Player Character, 1 data-slate per Player Character, 1 9-70 entrenching tool per Player Character, 1 anointed toolkit per Player Character, 1 lascutter per Squad, 6 demolitions charges per Squad, 1 siege auspex (a Best Craftsmanship auspex with a range of 100m that can penetrate walls up to 100cm thick with its scans) per Squad, and a single Chimera armoured transport per Squad armed with a turretmounted autocannon, a hull-mounted heavy flamer, and a pintle-mounted heavy stubber, as well as a dozer blade and camouflage netting.

Grenadiers - Special Equipment Doctrine

Cost: 4 points

Starting Talents: Weapon Training (Launcher)

Starting Skill : Trade (Armourer) - (Grenadiers in the fluff are expected to maintain their own equipment.)

Standard Kit: 1 auxiliary grenade launcher weapon upgrade per Player Character, 1 additional krak and frag grenade per Player Character, 1 suit of light carapace armour per Player Character, 1 deadspace earpiece per Player Character, 2 grenade launchers per Squad.

Emperor Castaigne said:

Whoops, forgot to give them any armour.

Well, some clarification for the Caddy Talent ehr Nodwick tal,,, oh darn I mean Armsman talent would be nice.
The Armsman allows the weapon specialist to carry any and all weapons for the weapon specialist, but there does not seem to be a limit to what he can carry.

So I'll have the Lascannon, Autocannon and Multilaser alongside the Missile Launcher and Multimelta and Plasma Cannon.

Emperor Castaigne said:

Starting Talents: All characters from the regiment receive these Talents, regardless of Talent prerequisites. If a character would receive a specific Talent twice, from Regiment Creation or his Speciality, he instead receives a free extra 100 xp to spend at character creation. - Page 41, Core Rulebook.

I agree with the rest of your suggestions, just thought I'd volunteer what little information I have to bring to the table

RavenSG said:

Ah, so that's where it was. I had been looking for it in the Character Generation chapter.

Some more stuff, mostly from thie Armoury this time.

The description for the Missile Launcher include "Most launchers, like the Locke-pattern, are shoulder mounted tube-like weapons that fire a single round with great accuracy, while the ancient Retobi design holds a huge vertical clip of 5 rounds but is much more awkward to fire and has less precision.", but the Table 6-9: Ranged Weapons only have one missile launcher listed.

Why does the Heavy Stubber have a clip size of 75 when it fires in 8-bullet bursts? It really should have 80 clip size instead. And again, the description mentions multiple patterns, but the Table only has one, which doesn't match either of the ones mentioned in the description, which can be found in the Rogue Trader: Core book. Maybe just resolve it by adding a paragraph about the different ammunition types available and giving each a variable reload time, such as: 2 Full Actions for the 75 (80) round box and the Ammo Backback, and a Full Action for the 40 round drum.

Which neatly brings me to my next question: how exactly is one expected to reload a weapon that uses the Ammo Backpack? Are they really expected to carry around multiple loads of 25 kg backpacks to switch out every time they have to reload? And what about Weapon Jams, does the Heavy Bolter lose the entire 200 shells when it Jams?

"Clearing a jam is a Full Action that requires a Ballistic Skill Test. If the Test is successful then the jam has been cleared, though the weapon needs to be reloaded and any ammo in it is lost." Something I just noticed when I looked up the exact details of how Jamming works, it doesn't specify how difficult the Ballistic Skill Test is supposed to be.

There are some inconsistencies between the Vehicle Weapon stats in the Weapon section of the Armoury and in the Vehicle section in the Armoury (the Blast Quality of the Earthshaker Battle Cannon and the Damage of the Vanquisher Battle Cannon), which ones should be used?

You may want to clarify how Called Shots work with Vehicles. I assume it's just the same as with bodies (1: spend a Full Action, 2: pick a location, 3: make the BS or WS test with all relevant modifiers, 4: resolve the attack, skipping the Determine Location step), but it could use a sidebar or paragraph explaining it.

Also, how would using Called Shots work when a weapon has the Blast Quality? I couldn't find anything about it, but it seems that such a thing would be much more plausible against Vehicles than against man-sized enemies.

1st - Elysian Drop Trooper equipment:

The basic equipment of the trooper contains the grav chute, which is 15kg, so it is too much in weight.

Problem 1: But this is an ancient technology, so you cannot drop it beside a tree.

Problem 2: Maybe you need it later and if you drop it down, you need to go back fo it.

Problem 3: There is no information about the grav chute. It can levitate like the jump pack? It can be the solution.

Suggestion 1: Levitate function to grav chute

Suggestion 2: Put parachute in the pack, which is 10-12 kg, but you can drop it. There is Catfall, you don't need further protection against falling.

2nd - Close Quarters Training:

The description contains:

"Lightly armoured and armed with carbines,

Sadly, I don't thing FFG cares enough to errata this game. They work on the freelancer model; paying someone to make the gameline cohesive and in-line with itself is just not worth it for them.

Do away with "skin armor". Unnatural toughness (+ whatever) may count but tb as dr is just silly!

Make anti-armor weapons actually be EFFECTIVE against armored vehicles!

Do away with "skin armor". Unnatural toughness (+ whatever) may count but tb as dr is just silly!

Make anti-armor weapons actually be EFFECTIVE against armored vehicles!

TB reducing damage is a staple of 40k RPGs, and dates back to Dark Heresy 1st ed. Whether or not it makes sense, asking this to be removed isn't so much errata as it is removing a core mechanic of the game.

Do away with "skin armor". Unnatural toughness (+ whatever) may count but tb as dr is just silly!

Make anti-armor weapons actually be EFFECTIVE against armored vehicles!

TB reducing damage is a staple of 40k RPGs, and dates back to Dark Heresy 1st ed. Whether or not it makes sense, asking this to be removed isn't so much errata as it is removing a core mechanic of the game.

Maybe. But it's an easy thing to fix! It's a one sentence deletion!

Do away with "skin armor". Unnatural toughness (+ whatever) may count but tb as dr is just silly!

Make anti-armor weapons actually be EFFECTIVE against armored vehicles!

TB reducing damage is a staple of 40k RPGs, and dates back to Dark Heresy 1st ed. Whether or not it makes sense, asking this to be removed isn't so much errata as it is removing a core mechanic of the game.

Maybe. But it's an easy thing to fix! It's a one sentence deletion!

It might seem like that at first. But changing how much damage is dealt to players would mean rebalancing just about every weapon in the game to compensate for the greater lethality. Fire damage and other things that ignore armor but not toughness would have to be changed rather dramatically as well. And while this may be more "realistic," the removal of what is usually the largest source of damage reduction in the game, as implied above, would completely change play dynamic. Plenty of other mechanics such as wounds aren't strictly speaking the most realistic of things either, but in good games, playability always trumps verisimilitude.

Do away with "skin armor". Unnatural toughness (+ whatever) may count but tb as dr is just silly!

Make anti-armor weapons actually be EFFECTIVE against armored vehicles!

TB reducing damage is a staple of 40k RPGs, and dates back to Dark Heresy 1st ed. Whether or not it makes sense, asking this to be removed isn't so much errata as it is removing a core mechanic of the game.

Maybe. But it's an easy thing to fix! It's a one sentence deletion!

It might seem like that at first. But changing how much damage is dealt to players would mean rebalancing just about every weapon in the game to compensate for the greater lethality. Fire damage and other things that ignore armor but not toughness would have to be changed rather dramatically as well. And while this may be more "realistic," the removal of what is usually the largest source of damage reduction in the game, as implied above, would completely change play dynamic. Plenty of other mechanics such as wounds aren't strictly speaking the most realistic of things either, but in good games, playability always trumps verisimilitude.

Uhm..why? I don't see any need to "rebalance" that isn't inherently covered by removing tb as a damage "soak". Does it make the system more lethal? yes. But that was part of my intent! Between evasions, cover, shields etc, I don't think an average of 3-4 points damage per hit will do anything other than speed things up. Since you're already doing it across the board for PC's and bad guys it is already inherently balanced! I've never liked the concept of "Skin armor" and I still don't! Toughness already gives you your base wounds (HP) and determines your carrying capacity and fatigue! It doesn't need to also be a constant resistance to damage!

The toughness bonus as automatic soak makes plenty of sense. Large animals tigers, bears, whatever, are harder to hurt because they have a higher toughness bonus. Those small children filthy xenos that the PCs are shooting are easier to hurt. And that's easily represented by the toughness bonus reducing the amount of damage you take. It also some simple scaling. Two bears getting into a fist fight might not be that dangerous to each other. Two guradsmen, same. But a bear punching a guardsman does damage because the guardsman doesn't soak up as much damage as the bear does.

The toughness bonus as automatic soak makes plenty of sense. Large animals tigers, bears, whatever, are harder to hurt because they have a higher toughness bonus. Those small children filthy xenos that the PCs are shooting are easier to hurt. And that's easily represented by the toughness bonus reducing the amount of damage you take. It also some simple scaling. Two bears getting into a fist fight might not be that dangerous to each other. Two guradsmen, same. But a bear punching a guardsman does damage because the guardsman doesn't soak up as much damage as the bear does.

Isn't that what wounds are for? Your bear simply has more than a guardsman. It is no more immune to a bullet than a guardsman!

The toughness bonus as automatic soak makes plenty of sense. Large animals tigers, bears, whatever, are harder to hurt because they have a higher toughness bonus. Those small children filthy xenos that the PCs are shooting are easier to hurt. And that's easily represented by the toughness bonus reducing the amount of damage you take. It also some simple scaling. Two bears getting into a fist fight might not be that dangerous to each other. Two guradsmen, same. But a bear punching a guardsman does damage because the guardsman doesn't soak up as much damage as the bear does.

Isn't that what wounds are for? Your bear simply has more than a guardsman. It is no more immune to a bullet than a guardsman!

No, it makes perfect sense. The thicker fur and denser flesh of the bear means it absorbs a greater amount of the bullet's energy, and thus reduces more of its damage. For tougher targets, larger bullets with more penetration is a must. There's a reason bear guns are large-bore weapons, and not just automatic 9mm weapons.

Also, doing less damage very much is important to balance. If the game is too lethal, combat just becomes an exercise in who goes first, removing much of the tactics and turning encounters into a matter of Ro Sham Bo.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. There are numerous other methods of defense within the system. Evasion, Cover, Shields, Unnatural stats, Armor etc. To use your bear as an example again, I would give it Natural armor (2) (Thick Hide) and a high wound count given that it's a large creature. I also would allow Unnatural toughness to get damage resistance because of what it represents (Beyond normal toughness due to redundant organs and such). We may have to agree to disagree but I don't think the system as it is now is lethal enough! Further, many of the weapons in the system are also much weaker than their TT equivalents.(Plasma guns and Melta weapons come to mind.Don't even get me started on the Anti Armor stuff!)

I guess I never saw the need for the system to be particularly lethal, although that does seem to be what some groups like. I like my players to be able to bring a character through an entire game and out the other side. Yes, difficult and challenging to do so, and the player who refuses to take cover has died, multiple times, but my players who stick to the ideas of cover and tactical fighting have brought plenty of characters through with only minor body parts lost. I've always viewed my squads as the Braggs, Criids and Cains of my particular stories rather than Sergeant so-and-so who exists for 4 pages only to die horribly, bad things can happen to them, they can and have died, but those deaths and bad things carried more weight because they weren't rolling up new characters because the dice decided that no tests should go in the player's favor that night. On top of all of that my players keep each other in line, whenever one of them makes a tank on two legs the rest slap it down by reminding them that the enemies have to be dangerous to the toughest among them which means the weakest will be cored in a shot. I guess long story short, toughness is fine to me the way it is with a decent group and an appropriate mindset in players and GM both.

Now, my big problem was and is with Medicae as a skill. The whole thing just seems horribly done, by the rules your medic can treat one first-aid a day, got wounded again? Screw you, you used up your quota. We've fixed it with a house rule that your medic can make one first-aid check per 'set' of wounds. After that, whatever he heals you to is your new maximum set of wounds until you get to long term care and have a chance to rest. That allows my medic to be relevant throughout a session, makes it so we don't always have to watch the clock for medicae checks and makes the medic the most loved and hated player depending how well he passes his checks. However, the part I haven't managed to fix is the medic's unnatural abilities with intelligence. I've flat out had players told if they want to be good with tech, be a medic. The affinity for intelligence and the boosts the medic gets to it also make them a natural with any tech based interactions and knowledge checks. I get that medics should be one of your 'smarter' guardmen by fluff and common sense, but they seem to have a natural ability to do just about anything intelligence related, to the detriment of other classes like operators or tech priests, only losing to them if it comes time to actually get in a vehicle or in sheer toughness.

The next thing that needs a check from my experience is vehicles in general, the way the system works it seems like vehicles play well with vehicles, infantry plays well with infantry, and never shall the two meet. My one attempt to involve an enemy vehicle in a game nearly met with my entire player party dying, not from playing stupid but from sheer inability for any infantry weapon to do meaningful damage to a vehicle.

Finally I think a second pass needed to be taken on frag missiles and the grenade launcher. My players have all but given up on using frag missiles and prefer to launch Krak out of both launchers, treating each as a single shot killer on infantry since things like flak armor, cover reductions and toughness often combine to make frag a "You hit, but they don't care" style weapon.

I guess I never saw the need for the system to be particularly lethal, although that does seem to be what some groups like. I like my players to be able to bring a character through an entire game and out the other side. Yes, difficult and challenging to do so, and the player who refuses to take cover has died, multiple times, but my players who stick to the ideas of cover and tactical fighting have brought plenty of characters through with only minor body parts lost. I've always viewed my squads as the Braggs, Criids and Cains of my particular stories rather than Sergeant so-and-so who exists for 4 pages only to die horribly, bad things can happen to them, they can and have died, but those deaths and bad things carried more weight because they weren't rolling up new characters because the dice decided that no tests should go in the player's favor that night. On top of all of that my players keep each other in line, whenever one of them makes a tank on two legs the rest slap it down by reminding them that the enemies have to be dangerous to the toughest among them which means the weakest will be cored in a shot. I guess long story short, toughness is fine to me the way it is with a decent group and an appropriate mindset in players and GM both.

Now, my big problem was and is with Medicae as a skill. The whole thing just seems horribly done, by the rules your medic can treat one first-aid a day, got wounded again? Screw you, you used up your quota. We've fixed it with a house rule that your medic can make one first-aid check per 'set' of wounds. After that, whatever he heals you to is your new maximum set of wounds until you get to long term care and have a chance to rest. That allows my medic to be relevant throughout a session, makes it so we don't always have to watch the clock for medicae checks and makes the medic the most loved and hated player depending how well he passes his checks. However, the part I haven't managed to fix is the medic's unnatural abilities with intelligence. I've flat out had players told if they want to be good with tech, be a medic. The affinity for intelligence and the boosts the medic gets to it also make them a natural with any tech based interactions and knowledge checks. I get that medics should be one of your 'smarter' guardmen by fluff and common sense, but they seem to have a natural ability to do just about anything intelligence related, to the detriment of other classes like operators or tech priests, only losing to them if it comes time to actually get in a vehicle or in sheer toughness.

The next thing that needs a check from my experience is vehicles in general, the way the system works it seems like vehicles play well with vehicles, infantry plays well with infantry, and never shall the two meet. My one attempt to involve an enemy vehicle in a game nearly met with my entire player party dying, not from playing stupid but from sheer inability for any infantry weapon to do meaningful damage to a vehicle.

Finally I think a second pass needed to be taken on frag missiles and the grenade launcher. My players have all but given up on using frag missiles and prefer to launch Krak out of both launchers, treating each as a single shot killer on infantry since things like flak armor, cover reductions and toughness often combine to make frag a "You hit, but they don't care" style weapon.

You just made my point for me! "You hit, they don't care"? Unless "they" are in powered armor this shows a gross imbalance in the system! I'm not saying every hit has to instagib the Pc's. But what you suggested is what bother's me. If a frag grenade lands amidst them they should be grabbing frantically for the evasion dice!

As an additional point: I would like to see a good supplement on vehicle combat. Something that includes aerial warfare, Titans and even naval battles. I believe that while Only war is primarily about the IG it isn't necessarily limited to that! It could include rules on new vehicles (Valkyrie anyone?) and such but I'm much more interested in more concise rules dealing with the operation of vehicles in combat. I wrote an example of this a long time ago but I can't find it at the moment.

I think the frags are really the only weapon that has this problem to be honest, other guns don't have armor that gets better against it (flak's ability so long as it's not the point of detonation). Even my players still using the starting lasrifle are reliably able to threaten just about anything I want to throw at them, things like cover can soak more than toughness bonus ever would and 99% of the time by the time a shot has made it through cover and armor it's done before it ever hit toughness. I see it more as a problem with the weapon not doing what it was supposed to than a problem with using toughness bonus. From what I remember of the old Dark Heresy game frags there were a bit too effective so I think they went totally the opposite direction this time.

Naval (as in ship to ship) battles are strictly the province of the Imperial Navy, and also Rogue Traders. As far as an Only War campaign goes, ship-to-ship combat should be abstracted/narrative (ie, primarily in the hands of the GM except for extremely highly ranked PCs) - and the PCs are just witnesses along for the ride, or hurled into Hit and Run raids and/or Boarding Actions with the rest of their unit.

Otherwise, I fully agree a proper supplement - or two, if not more - for vehicular combat, both ground vehicles and aerial ones. There's enough of a difference between the various flavors of ground vehicles and aircraft that you could get enough material for a couple of books. And for ground vehicles, at least, they're massively different than the typical "grunt infantry regiment" assumptions - mechanized infantry is sort of a gray area, but can be covered moderately well within the existing material, but if you want anything where vehicular combat is the primary focus, things are decidedly ungood. And if you want aerial stuff ... Rogue Trader and Deathwatch kind of have some stuff with vehicles, even aircraft, but it's largely as an afterthought.

Naval (as in ship to ship) battles are strictly the province of the Imperial Navy, and also Rogue Traders. As far as an Only War campaign goes, ship-to-ship combat should be abstracted/narrative (ie, primarily in the hands of the GM except for extremely highly ranked PCs) - and the PCs are just witnesses along for the ride, or hurled into Hit and Run raids and/or Boarding Actions with the rest of their unit.

Otherwise, I fully agree a proper supplement - or two, if not more - for vehicular combat, both ground vehicles and aerial ones. There's enough of a difference between the various flavors of ground vehicles and aircraft that you could get enough material for a couple of books. And for ground vehicles, at least, they're massively different than the typical "grunt infantry regiment" assumptions - mechanized infantry is sort of a gray area, but can be covered moderately well within the existing material, but if you want anything where vehicular combat is the primary focus, things are decidedly ungood. And if you want aerial stuff ... Rogue Trader and Deathwatch kind of have some stuff with vehicles, even aircraft, but it's largely as an afterthought.

While not undesired, I'd prioritize advanced specialties for Commissars, Stormtroopers, and (possibly) Psykers. Enhanced vehicular combat would be a good addition for Guard, but we already have rules of some sort for it; these classes don't have any advanced specialties period, and I believe from a balance standpoint the Commissar could very much benefit from having them available.

Naval (as in ship to ship) battles are strictly the province of the Imperial Navy, and also Rogue Traders. As far as an Only War campaign goes, ship-to-ship combat should be abstracted/narrative (ie, primarily in the hands of the GM except for extremely highly ranked PCs) - and the PCs are just witnesses along for the ride, or hurled into Hit and Run raids and/or Boarding Actions with the rest of their unit.

Otherwise, I fully agree a proper supplement - or two, if not more - for vehicular combat, both ground vehicles and aerial ones. There's enough of a difference between the various flavors of ground vehicles and aircraft that you could get enough material for a couple of books. And for ground vehicles, at least, they're massively different than the typical "grunt infantry regiment" assumptions - mechanized infantry is sort of a gray area, but can be covered moderately well within the existing material, but if you want anything where vehicular combat is the primary focus, things are decidedly ungood. And if you want aerial stuff ... Rogue Trader and Deathwatch kind of have some stuff with vehicles, even aircraft, but it's largely as an afterthought.

While not undesired, I'd prioritize advanced specialties for Commissars, Stormtroopers, and (possibly) Psykers. Enhanced vehicular combat would be a good addition for Guard, but we already have rules of some sort for it; these classes don't have any advanced specialties period, and I believe from a balance standpoint the Commissar could very much benefit from having them available.

Oh, no question they need a support book badly.

While we kind of have rules for vehicular combat, it's basically just the same rules at RT/DW, where they was designed and included as a supplemental afterthought. In addition, the rules, GM advice, and published adventures appear to approach things from the assumption that the players are either foot infantry or, at most a lightly mechanized infantry, not a regiment that is heavily, much less near-completely, dependent on their vehicles, or even if the rest of the regiment is tightly tied to their vehicles, the PCs don't have that same connection.