I hope you decide to offer a "or" for Adeptus ministorum as you did for the psyker. terrible aptitude

The right way would be to give leadership some talents to benefit from.

removing the "leadership" would be the best . it effects the game so very little

I think its important to have enough aptitudes to make characters differ from each other.

If Leadship gets a little more use, it will be fine.

I'd rather add another 2 aptitudes to the mix (to 20 in total) to represent "Faith" (was discussed in another thread) and "Subtlety" (Stealth, Unremarkable, Sleight of hand ...)

I started a thread a couple days ago ("Increasing the Usefullness of Leadership," I realize there is a typo in the name but it's too late to change it now ) and a lot of people have posted suggestions on how improve the Leadership aptitude. Give the thread a look and feel free to comment with suggestions.

I feel that Faith is definitely a thematically appropriate aptidute in DH -- which skills/talents specifically do you think should require Faith as an aptitude though?

Stealth seems like it's covered pretty well by Fieldcraft, so I personally don't think it needs to be another aptitude. I like that most of the current aptitudes are general enough to apply to a broad variety of skills/talents, and Stealth seems too limited in scope.

Mh...Fieldcraft...its ok...but not perfect imo. But I can live with it if I must ;D

Faith would really be an important addition, which could be the base for future Faith talents.

I'd give it to the Hierophant and maybe a future Sororitas Background.

There are also other talents that exist in DH1 that are rather Faith oriented, like Unshakeable Faith, Insanely Faithful etc.

I could even think of having Litany of Hate with Leadership / Faith.

What rubs me the wrong way with Fieldcraft is it's name. It makes sense in Only War, but I'm not sure it does for Dark Heresy or a generalized ruleset.

Perhaps simply renaming Fieldcraft to Subtlety would be appropriate? Or maybe that would raise some other oddities, I'll have to consult the tables..

Not so sure about a Faith Aptitude. Aptitudes to me represents.. well.. aptitudes. Is having a lot of Faith an aptitude, really? Might not be a bad idea, though, I'm just not so sure it's fitting.

I think it fits the theme well.

The same question goes with: "Is Psyker an aptitude...

If Faith talents would return (and as the Canoness NPC already has some, I guess so), a Faith aptitude would be a good base to build upon.

Like Psyker, it could be a more rare Aptitude (Hierophant & Sororitas only), that enables Faith Talents, and makes some Faith oriented talents cheaper.

I'd not see it as general Faith, more like a tendency to deep faith that goes much beyond reason.

I think Sororitas fits into the Ministorum background well -- they are the militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy after all. Give the Ministorum background the choice between Leadership and Faith, and maybe give Faith to the Heirophant as well.

There are quite a few DH1 talents that would make sense with the Faith aptitude, so bringing those back would help Faith find its place.

You CAN play a Sororitas with Ministorum Background, but I'd say, the Sororitas are such a special elite unit with elite training, that they deserve an own Background in a future supplement.

If Leadship gets a little more use, it will be fine.

In addition, it also needs more sources. As it now stands, you can't make an Imperial Guard officer/commissar because you can only get Leadership from the Ministorium background.

What if IG could choose between Fieldcraft and Leadership ?

If Leadship gets a little more use, it will be fine.

In addition, it also needs more sources. As it now stands, you can't make an Imperial Guard officer/commissar because you can only get Leadership from the Ministorium background.

Don't do this. Your aptitudes don't dictate what your character's background is. IG characters already start with command. You're also wrong based on the description for the IG background:

Some might rise to a position of command, and learn

something of the tactics and strategy of warfare along with logistics

and politics. These skills can prove invaluable in other vocations, as

an understanding of one’s foes and how to best counter them can

be applied to myriad situations.

Sounds like an officer to me.

If Leadship gets a little more use, it will be fine.

In addition, it also needs more sources. As it now stands, you can't make an Imperial Guard officer/commissar because you can only get Leadership from the Ministorium background.

Don't do this. Your aptitudes don't dictate what your character's background is. IG characters already start with command. You're also wrong based on the description for the IG background:

Some might rise to a position of command, and learn

something of the tactics and strategy of warfare along with logistics

and politics. These skills can prove invaluable in other vocations, as

an understanding of one’s foes and how to best counter them can

be applied to myriad situations.

Sounds like an officer to me.

But in this case...why Fieldcraft ?

Look at the Fieldcraft skills and talents and tell me those don't look like something an officer in the military would learn.

Don't do this. Your aptitudes don't dictate what your character's background is. IG characters already start with command. You're also wrong based on the description for the IG background:

No, but the Aptitudes dictate the competence of the character in a given area. An officer without Leadership is like a sniper without Ballistic Skill or an engineseer without Tech. It just doesn't really make much sense (in OW, all IG officer classes had Leadership).

Say, if Hierophant had Leadership instead of Toughness, you could make your officer by taking IG+Hierophant. It fits the concept of the role and everyone is happy.

Look at the Fieldcraft skills and talents and tell me those don't look like something an officer in the military would learn.

It sounds like something ANY soldier should learn.

I still think there should be an option to play the rather leader-type with less operative experience.

I think your definition of what officers actually do might be a little too narrow... To say nothing of the fact that somehow in your head the Leadership and Ballistic Skill Aptitudes are equivalent.

edit:

Look at the Fieldcraft skills and talents and tell me those don't look like something an officer in the military would learn.

It sounds like something ANY soldier should learn.

Exactly. Background is just one facet of a character. If you want to play someone with less operative experience, you still have Homeworld and Role. Role has a much greater impact on the character than anything else.

YOu might be right.

Back to the problem though:

> Leadership needs some additional Talents to be of some use

I think your definition of what officers actually do might be a little too narrow...

Well, it is not like you can force a player to "open his mind" and see all the possibilities, right? I mean, not all players are hard-core military vets. Usually when a player wants to make an officer character then he wants to lead men to battle with Command and all the officer-y talents like Halo of Command. Since this stuff is linked to Leadership, I think the player rightfully deserves this Aptitude to show his commitment.

To say nothing of the fact that somehow in your head the Leadership and Ballistic Skill Aptitudes are equivalent.

I think that went over your head. I said that missing an Aptitude that describes the character's conception is not a very good thing. Just like how a sniper looks weird without Ballistic Skill, an officer is in a similarly odd position without Leadership.

My point was that Leadership is less useful than Ballistic Skill. There's 1 Skill, 1 tier 2 Talent, and 1 Tier 3 Talent that use Leadership (and zero characteristics). BS has 1 tier 1, 5 tier 2, and 4 tier 3 Talents, plus the BS characteristic. The XP lost for not having Leadership is lot less than not having BS if you're building for those respective talents.

The problem here is not that the IG Background comes with Fieldcraft instead of Leadership in order to satisfy your edge case/lack of imagining an officer without a specific Aptitude. The problem is the fact that some Aptitudes are clearly worth more than others, which is sort of the point of this thread.

edit: Fieldcraft has 6 skills, 3 tier 1 and 1 tier 3 Talents. IG being given the choice of Fieldcraft or Leadership is a false choice because you're always better off taking Fieldcraft.

^But I never said that the two are equally useful or that the IG background should provide Leadership . My proposition is that the Hierophant should exchange Toughness (or maybe Offense) for Leadership so you can have your IG officer with IG/Hierophant. And you actually take Leadership to use those nice Leadership-based Talents and still play someone other than a priest.

Firstly, you don't have to have Leadership to take Leadership-keyed Talents; it simply reduces the cost of them.

That has the same problem, though: Offense and Toughness are both more useful than Leadership. In fact, it might be the most useless Aptitude in the game.

Your proposition shows you're missing the point of one of the biggest issues with Aptitudes. You lose less XP by not having Leadership than you do by not having almost any other Aptitude. It simply isn't worth having. You can pay a little bit more for Leadership-keyed options and make up the difference in advances that use something else that you're going to pick up anyway.

Then again, I'm talking about the mechanical implications of Aptitudes, while you seem to be talking about how Aptitudes describe a character narratively. Therein is another issue: Aptitudes don't actually describe characters narratively, they simply effect the costs of advances.

Then again, I'm talking about the mechanical implications of Aptitudes, while you seem to be talking about how Aptitudes describe a character narratively. Therein is another issue: Aptitudes don't actually describe characters narratively, they simply effect the costs of advances.

Well, Aptitudes are supposed to have a narrative impact on the character too:

Dark Heresy uses these various propensities as aptitudes during character creation. These represent tasks or abilities for which a character has a natural affinity, and can learn with greater ease than others.

Also, I guess I have to make myself clear in relation of handing out Leadership: if we make Leadership more useful then we must have a better source for it. Currently, it is not a problem because as you said, Leadership is garbage. But a better Leadership would be more desirable so it should appear in a more adequate place rather than in a background option.

My point was that Leadership is less useful than Ballistic Skill. There's 1 Skill, 1 tier 2 Talent, and 1 Tier 3 Talent that use Leadership (and zero characteristics). BS has 1 tier 1, 5 tier 2, and 4 tier 3 Talents, plus the BS characteristic. The XP lost for not having Leadership is lot less than not having BS if you're building for those respective talents.

The problem here is not that the IG Background comes with Fieldcraft instead of Leadership in order to satisfy your edge case/lack of imagining an officer without a specific Aptitude. The problem is the fact that some Aptitudes are clearly worth more than others, which is sort of the point of this thread.

edit: Fieldcraft has 6 skills, 3 tier 1 and 1 tier 3 Talents. IG being given the choice of Fieldcraft or Leadership is a false choice because you're always better off taking Fieldcraft.

This assumes you're going to take all those skills and talents. Which you're probably not. If you're doing a Sergeant or Commander of any sort, you're better of with Leadership, simply because Fieldcraft doesn't give you Command, and so forth.

While the Aptitudes' value may be skewed, "you're always better off taking X" is false dichotomy. What you are better off taking is always the Aptitude that support the most Skills or Talents you feel that you need to advance your character concept.