Is it me or are the availabilities of the items in Faith and Coin totally messed up?

Two examples:
Artificer Armour - Extremely Rare (normal Power Armour is Extremely Rare
Scourge Boltgun - Scarce (normal Boltgun Very Rare)

There are more strange Avalabilites in the book...

Yeah, I went on a bit of a tirade in the Faith and Coin thread.

The availabilities and general power of some of the stuff available in Faith and Coin is... questionable.. at best.

Yeah, the quality of FFG's 40k books has been steadily declining, in my opinion. Faith and Coin was just terrible, but I honestly haven't found anything worth using since Battlefleet Koronus.

I guess they have their good writers working on different IPs.

If you are like me you raised the rarity of a number of things in the book. Artifacer armor is NU, with Consecrated as Unique. Also note that both are made at Best quality as well. That makes Artifacer Armour is a -80 and Consecrated Artifacer Armour is -100 in my game. Both availabilities mean that you need to have specialized contacts or go out looking for it yourself in my game.

There are some weird availabilities going on with the gear in Faith and Coin, and I agree a lot of the gear should also require some sort of specific Peer/Good Reputation/GM Quest to be unlocked, but on the whole I found this a very good book. While I would like another more generalised Into The Storm style supplement that has some of everything (especially more ship hulls to play with), but we're already pretty loaded on gear from the other books.

There were a lot of interesting additions to the backstory of the Koronus Expanse, some new organisations and alternate careers to flesh things out, and the Missionary was made much more interesting than the approach given so far, plus there's a fun adventure to run people through in the back. It definitely wasn't an essential supplement like ITS or BFK, and it isn't an essential reference guide like Koronus Bestiary, but I thought it was a pretty good add-on.

If you are like me you raised the rarity of a number of things in the book. Artifacer armor is NU, with Consecrated as Unique. Also note that both are made at Best quality as well. That makes Artifacer Armour is a -80 and Consecrated Artifacer Armour is -100 in my game. Both availabilities mean that you need to have specialized contacts or go out looking for it yourself in my game.

Being of Best Craftsmanship is already accounted for, so it's not -80, no.

If you are like me you raised the rarity of a number of things in the book. Artifacer armor is NU, with Consecrated as Unique. Also note that both are made at Best quality as well. That makes Artifacer Armour is a -80 and Consecrated Artifacer Armour is -100 in my game. Both availabilities mean that you need to have specialized contacts or go out looking for it yourself in my game.

Being of Best Craftsmanship is already accounted for, so it's not -80, no.

This is not stated anywhere as far as I know, so it does indeed ought to be -80.

Even if the description says something is always best quality, you still apply the aquisition modifier for quality level. It simply limits you from buying a lower quality version of it.

If you are like me you raised the rarity of a number of things in the book. Artifacer armor is NU, with Consecrated as Unique. Also note that both are made at Best quality as well. That makes Artifacer Armour is a -80 and Consecrated Artifacer Armour is -100 in my game. Both availabilities mean that you need to have specialized contacts or go out looking for it yourself in my game.

Being of Best Craftsmanship is already accounted for, so it's not -80, no.

This is not stated anywhere as far as I know, so it does indeed ought to be -80.

It was settled in a thread way back. Confirmed by devs.

Seriously, I wouldn't say it was so in such certain terms unless I was sure, and I'm a bit insulted that you'd think I would.

Even if the description says something is always best quality, you still apply the aquisition modifier for quality level. It simply limits you from buying a lower quality version of it.

Nope. The only thing "...is always of Best Craftmanship" does is to prevent you from taking lower-craftsmanship versions. You don't add +30. You don't add the modifiers for being Best-Craftsmanship. You don't pass Go.

If you are like me you raised the rarity of a number of things in the book. Artifacer armor is NU, with Consecrated as Unique. Also note that both are made at Best quality as well. That makes Artifacer Armour is a -80 and Consecrated Artifacer Armour is -100 in my game. Both availabilities mean that you need to have specialized contacts or go out looking for it yourself in my game.

Being of Best Craftsmanship is already accounted for, so it's not -80, no.

This is not stated anywhere as far as I know, so it does indeed ought to be -80.

It was settled in a thread way back. Confirmed by devs.

Seriously, I wouldn't say it was so in such certain terms unless I was sure, and I'm a bit insulted that you'd think I would.

Even if the description says something is always best quality, you still apply the aquisition modifier for quality level. It simply limits you from buying a lower quality version of it.

Nope. The only thing "...is always of Best Craftmanship" does is to prevent you from taking lower-craftsmanship versions. You don't add +30. You don't add the modifiers for being Best-Craftsmanship. You don't pass Go.

I can understand the way you feel about the situation, but supplying the source thread where the Devs said so, would go a lot further than being a bit on the harsh side.

Not trying to make waves, just pointing out that there was probably an easier way of getting your point across.

I am not trying to insult you, but you directly conflict with the main rulebook. See page 271, under Acquisiton Tests. It states 'To succeed in an Acquisition Test, the Expolorer must roll equal to or less than his Profit Factor on 1d100. This roll is modified depending on Availability, Craftsmanship, and Scale of the acquisition:'. Any time an Acquisition roll is made you apply those factors unless specifically stated in some other rule (like Starships, Starship Components, or Vehicles). Unless it makes it into the Errata, I don't generally use stuff off the boards without understanding that it is bascially house rules. If you have something from the author of the book in question saying that he meant to have it work that way, I might accept it as RAW. Otherwise the ER armor is still a -30 Acquisiton test as written in the book (-30 ER, -30 Best, +30 Single Item). The NU/U availability were stated as changes I made for my game, based on keeping the items more realistic. Per page 276 of the main rulebook that means that there is not Scale modifier, you allways get only one.

I would like to see the exact thread so I can see the wording of the discussion, as often things get twisted around when people refer back to old threads. A lot of times you will see an answer to a specific situation get applied wholesale, even when it wasn't meant to be. I have never seen anything like it, and I wouldn't follow it if I did. Doing so makes Artifacer Armour as cheap as Guard Flack. That fails both the fluff and common sense test. There are some things that a GM needs to decide for themselves for the purpose of their game. Obviously wrong rules are one of those things.

I can understand the way you feel about the situation, but supplying the source thread where the Devs said so, would go a lot further than being a bit on the harsh side.

Not trying to make waves, just pointing out that there was probably an easier way of getting your point across .

I don't really have a point , nor do I feel about the situation. My intention was to inform the rest of you, since this argument has already been had on several occasions, and been confirmed several times.

I am not trying to insult you, but you directly conflict with the main rulebook.

No. None of the rulebooks in any of the cores clarify how this is to be handled specifically. That is why the issue keeps cropping up. If they took a workday to update all the Erratas, everyone would be happy forever. They don't, however. Anyway, no, not conflicting the main rulebook(s).

See page 271, under Acquisiton Tests. It states 'To succeed in an Acquisition Test, the Expolorer must roll equal to or less than his Profit Factor on 1d100. This roll is modified depending on Availability, Craftsmanship, and Scale of the acquisition:'. Any time an Acquisition roll is made you apply those factors unless specifically stated in some other rule (like Starships, Starship Components, or Vehicles). Unless it makes it into the Errata, I don't generally use stuff off the boards without understanding that it is bascially house rules. If you have something from the author of the book in question saying that he meant to have it work that way, I might accept it as RAW. Otherwise the ER armor is still a -30 Acquisiton test as written in the book (-30 ER, -30 Best, +30 Single Item). The NU/U availability were stated as changes I made for my game, based on keeping the items more realistic. Per page 276 of the main rulebook that means that there is not Scale modifier, you allways get only one.

First of all, when you choose to quote the rulebook, please quote it, don't just write it down through the interpretive filter that is your brain.

Secondly, what you choose to houserule with is entirely up to you, such as the changes you make for your game, or applying the -30 on top of the availability of the... I honestly have no idea what the "ER Armor" is, but it doesn't matter much; how you choose to count is up to you, and I believe that the various developers are wildly inconsistent when calculating these things themselves, ending up with radically different assumptions in general availability.

I would like to see the exact thread so I can see the wording of the discussion, as often things get twisted around when people refer back to old threads. A lot of times you will see an answer to a specific situation get applied wholesale, even when it wasn't meant to be. I have never seen anything like it, and I wouldn't follow it if I did. Doing so makes Artifacer Armour as cheap as Guard Flack. That fails both the fluff and common sense test. There are some things that a GM needs to decide for themselves for the purpose of their game. Obviously wrong rules are one of those things.

I have no idea where the thread is, you'll probably find it in the rules questions in one section or another. I think the last discussion I saw it in was actually about the Lathe-Wrought Armour, way back. Go fetch.

And I never said it made sense or that it was fluffy. Like I said, I actually believe that the developers are wildly inconsistent in this, and that the lack of erratas and general guidelines for their various authors and designers results in severe wonkyness such as this.

There is no doubt in my mind that for many of these items that are "always of best craftsmanship", the writer also assumed that the craftsmanship modifier would be applied in both availability and effects. Other writers thought it would not. Yet another writer probably thought that the availability would be modified, but the other effects (such as +1 AP) would not.

But by RAW, both the Availability modifier and the Effects are already accounted for.

Um...it was a direct quote...I actually was reading it directly out of the rulebook and typing it out. So, no, not interpreted at all. If you had gone to the page I listed and read it, you would have understood. If I quote a book, I am actually copying it word for word. I am pretty good about stating where I am paraphrasing from memory. Please do not assume illiteracy on my part.

ER, Extremely Rare...sorry if the shorthand was confusing. That is the listed availability for the armor in question in the book. I thought that it was a pretty common shorthand. The Artificer Armour in the original poster's message is Extremely Rare in the book (which has a -30 Availability modifier).

As far as house ruling, anything you pull off the boards that isn't in the Errata or an official book is a house rule. The writers for the game are inconsistent, as are the publishers at Games Workshop often enough. So house rules to deal with their inconsistencies are going to happen. I never disagreed with that. In point of fact, my very first quote was stating how I had house ruled it in my game to make things more consistent. Your first quote was to tell me I was 'doing it wrong' with a number of one line posts. You then got 'insulted' that people didn't immediately agree with you.

If you are going to paraphrase some board post as RAW, you would be the one whom should be posting references. RAW is by definition, WRITTEN. If it isn't in any of the official writing then it isn't RAW. Telling me to 'Go fetch.' is both rude and asinine. You have responded since my first post with a general attitude of undeserved and unsupported superiority that is more than a bit rude. Note that your interpretation of posts made on a message board do not in any way constitute RAW for the rest of us.

Um...it was a direct quote...I actually was reading it directly out of the rulebook and typing it out. So, no, not interpreted at all. If you had gone to the page I listed and read it, you would have understood. If I quote a book, I am actually copying it word for word. I am pretty good about stating where I am paraphrasing from memory. Please do not assume illiteracy on my part.

ER, Extremely Rare...sorry if the shorthand was confusing. That is the listed availability for the armor in question in the book. I thought that it was a pretty common shorthand. The Artificer Armour in the original poster's message is Extremely Rare in the book (which has a -30 Availability modifier).

As far as house ruling, anything you pull off the boards that isn't in the Errata or an official book is a house rule. The writers for the game are inconsistent, as are the publishers at Games Workshop often enough. So house rules to deal with their inconsistencies are going to happen. I never disagreed with that. In point of fact, my very first quote was stating how I had house ruled it in my game to make things more consistent. Your first quote was to tell me I was 'doing it wrong' with a number of one line posts. You then got 'insulted' that people didn't immediately agree with you.

If you are going to paraphrase some board post as RAW, you would be the one whom should be posting references. RAW is by definition, WRITTEN. If it isn't in any of the official writing then it isn't RAW. Telling me to 'Go fetch.' is both rude and asinine. You have responded since my first post with a general attitude of undeserved and unsupported superiority that is more than a bit rude. Note that your interpretation of posts made on a message board do not in any way constitute RAW for the rest of us.

I tend to have no qualms helping when people ask for it or correct people when they are making mistakes or operate under mistaken assumptions, but do not mistaken this as an implication that a sense of entitlement is warranted on the assisted part.

All I attempted to do was to tell you that the calculation was wrong; whether you choose to believe me or not is entirely up to you, and you are, as always, free to houserule however you want. No suggestion or correction on my part can (or want to) do anything about that.

So, I think guys, if we get down to the crux of it. Yeah, the availabilities are all messed up. Most of the really rare stuff I won't let my players try to acquire with a dice roll. They have to quest for it, or trade an actual item they already possess of great value.

So, I think guys, if we get down to the crux of it. Yeah, the availabilities are all messed up. Most of the really rare stuff I won't let my players try to acquire with a dice roll. They have to quest for it, or trade an actual item they already possess of great value.

The primary issues are pretty much with the Artificer Armour and the Scourge Boltgun, for which I'd suggest:

Artificer Armour changed to Near-Unique, and can only be acquired as Best-Craftsmanship, but does not receive the added effects of being such.

Sanctified Artificer Armour changed to Unique, and can only be acquired as Best-Craftsmanship, but does not receive the added effects of being such.

Scourge Boltgun changed to Near-Unique outside of the proper channels.

This would drastically up the scarcity of these items and make them much harder to acquire, and I agree that in many cases, these should be highly sought-after objects that would require much more than just a dice roll. The Scourge Boltgun strikes me as a pretty nice reward for certain adventures, though, like something the Ecclesiarchy/Inquisition/Sororitas would bestow someone that have served them well.

I would also up the Availability of the Rosarius by one step.

Wait since when has craftsmanship affected the actual aquisition roll? I thought it just affected time spent searching/locating/negotiating. I'm gonna look again...

Wait since when has craftsmanship affected the actual aquisition roll? I thought it just affected time spent searching/locating/negotiating. I'm gonna look again...

I don't have the page number since I have a custom reference sheet as wallpaper on my monitor, but it's Table 9-35: Acquisition Modifiers.

Poor is +10, Common is +0, Good is -10 and Best is -30.

And it affects both locating (on it's own table) and Acquisition (PF, etc).

RT Core, p.272. It's the bottom bit of said table.

Ok yeah I see it, no wonder I overlooked it the **** thing is at least a hundred pages beyond every other table used in the process. You have to love the Core Rulebook's organization. I'm curious has anyone ever just condensed and organized every table into a single PDF? That would be extremely useful.

eBarbarossa was keeping a very nice Armory together, that is current up to Mark of Fate in Deathwatch I believe. It will have the Availability modifiers in one of its tabs.

You can find the download links here http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/57205-warhammer-40krp-armory/

Imo both Artificers Armours variants should be unique and consecrated one should have flat -5 aquisition modifier on top of it.

Making AA inherently BQ is a good thing, but there's still a problem of lathe-wrought AA: -5 modifier for 1/2 pen? Hell, yeah.

Imo both Artificers Armours variants should be unique and consecrated one should have flat -5 aquisition modifier on top of it.

Making AA inherently BQ is a good thing , but there's still a problem of lathe-wrought AA: -5 modifier for 1/2 pen? Hell, yeah.

The effects of the consecration is worth more than -5, I would say.

And making it inherently Best-Craftsmanship was a terrible idea, and more a mistake on part of the writer than anything, since it's essentially +1 AP, but it shaves off any modifiers to the acquisition roll that would come from Good- or Best-Craftsmanship, in this case -30.

That's half the problem with the Artificer Armour.

Imo both Artificers Armours variants should be unique and consecrated one should have flat -5 aquisition modifier on top of it.

Making AA inherently BQ is a good thing , but there's still a problem of lathe-wrought AA: -5 modifier for 1/2 pen? Hell, yeah.

The effects of the consecration is worth more than -5, I would say.

And making it inherently Best-Craftsmanship was a terrible idea, and more a mistake on part of the writer than anything, since it's essentially +1 AP, but it shaves off any modifiers to the acquisition roll that would come from Good- or Best-Craftsmanship, in this case -30.

That's half the problem with the Artificer Armour.

Yes, the effects are worth more than -5. But just as glass of water is pretty worthless to me right now, it's priceless to someone dying from dehydraition in the middle of Sahara.

Consecrating 100 suits of carapance armour should be pretty hard to aquire because of materiel and effort. On the other hand consecrating artificers amour would be a historical event, from that day over inscribed into that armour history (and/or very surface). For every cardinal (all whoever in the Ecclesiarchy who does that kind of job) it'd be a neat bonus for his/her personal relations departament and a good thing to chim into party talk. Just like giving some AdMech-guy chance to work on some archeotech device.

Can you point me to the paragraph in the book which made AA inherently BQ? Maybe I'm missing something, but in my copy there's non.

By stating it's is good idea I was refering to your post about it (#16 in this thread). Let me rephrase my opinion on that subject:

Assuming that presented in Faith and Coin stats for AA are indeed for BQ Aritificers Armour and, by doing this, forcing PC to buy Artificers Armour always as BQ is good idea because its throws in -30 modifier, sorta caps AP at 10 (as we have alredy discussed in another thread: 11 AP + Hostile Acquisition goodies can result in monstrosities) and keeps players from nerd-move of acquiring lathe-wrought AA at -5 modifier to get it at BQ. As such only technical issue which persist is taking lathe-wrought AA for its pen/2 bonus.