Jump to content



Photo

Regiment Creation - 1pt Doctrine


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Fireinthahole

Fireinthahole

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 06:07 PM

After Having tried the Regiment Creation system a few times, the one thing that stood out was the lack of a one point doctrine, Something simple like +5 to the Standard Kit seems in order. Often you find you have all the Options you want but you have ONE point left that ANNOYS THE **** OUT OF YOU.

Its not that your squad isnt cool. And there is nothing that you want to change but…

BY THE EMPEROR, WHY MUST YOU FORSAKE ME THAT ONE LAST POINT!

Maybe i'm just not quite right in the head, but seriously a 1pt doctrine would be AWESOME! (Even if it just gives me a badge that tells me i'm special!)

 

Is there anybody else who is in agreement?



#2 boooh

boooh

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 07:28 PM

There some guys around here who think the same,

in our group we used the one point for an additional trained skill everyone in the regmient is trained in

( i.e. our Regiment often working behind enemy lines we choose stealth as a special skill, a highly mechanised regiment could use tech use or operate ground vehicles)



#3 Hygric

Hygric

    Member

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:35 PM

Completely agree.  We need 1 point options for all doctrine types.

I tend to be a bit obsessive about spending points, and I want to spend them all.  I also don't want to compromise my vision for a regiment just to spend all the points.

So doctrines like +5 to tests for 1 skill for 1 point would be a good thing in my book.

As an added feature, how about regimental drawbacks for extra points?  As an example:

Munitorium Resentment: the regiment has a bad reputation with the Munitorium, making basic supplies harder to aquire as shipments get diverted to other regiments and extra layers of red tape get placed in the way.  Reduce the squads starting logistics rating by 5, and increase the cost of the Munitorium Influence talent by 100xp.  Gain 2 regiment design points.



#4 Grubisha

Grubisha

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:53 PM

Hygric said:

 

Munitorium Resentment: the regiment has a bad reputation with the Munitorium, making basic supplies harder to aquire as shipments get diverted to other regiments and extra layers of red tape get placed in the way.  Reduce the squads starting logistics rating by 5, and increase the cost of the Munitorium Influence talent by 100xp.  Gain 2 regiment design points.

 

 

Good Idea!

Here's mine…

Backwater World Regiment: Regiment has problems maintaining cooperation with other Regiments because either they came from the World which is technologicaly primitive, their customs are considered savage or their World simply has bad reputation in the Imperium. They are considered peasants and savages or generally unworthy by "more urban" or "more noble" Regiments. They also have problems in dealing with High Command cadre. Their social tests have -10 in such situations. Gain 1 Regiment design point.



#5 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:21 AM

I like it!

how about,

"combined regiment: your regiment was recently created by merging the survivors of two older regiments. While the skills of your group are unusually diverse, you are still subject to offical confusion regarding the existence of your formation.

Effect: Gain 1 regimental design point. However, once per session, the GM can cause you to automatically fail a test or generate a complication based on people simply not knowing that your regiment exists i.e. "krak missiles? I've got some for the 301st and the 296th but none for the 597th… If want to appeal, see the colonel." or "You're with who? my order of battle doesn't have any reigment by that name in this sector, deserter scum!!"

 

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS