Medical Officer Bones

I found a nice sitemap flow UX kit, which is free (CC BY4.0). Unfortunately no Affinity Designer template, but a SVG version is available. Perhaps someone could convert it to a Designer version.
http://wizzydev.com/sitemap/

Did some testing, and in other applications scaling up with Bicubic Spline results in an even nicer/usable scaled up version than your Photoshop version.
Unfortunately, Affinity Photo doesn't give the user a choice in resampling algorithms when upscaling and rasterizing a specific layer.
I then attempted to upscale the original with the Resize Document option, and selected Bicubic as the resampling method. The result leaves a LOT to be desired of compared to any of the other apps I tested in (Krita, PhotoLine, Gimp).
In my opinion, based on my previous experiments with downscaling assets, and now with this particular upscale example, Affinity's resampling code base needs to be looked at again. It is a quite fundamental thing to get right. If other applications have no issues with up- and down-scaling, my only conclusion can be that something is amiss with Affinity's basic approach in resampling. The choices of resample methods in the preferences and document size dialog are fairly limited as well. For downsampling, for example, Lanczos and Bicubic are far from ideal choices, but no alternatives such as CatmulRom or MitchelNetravali are on offer in Photo.
As it stands, Photo is lagging behind all the competition in this area. Let's hope the devs will address this in an upcoming release, because it needs to be.

Open troublesome SVG files in the Opera browser, right-mouse click the SVG, and save as PDF. Then open the PDF in Affinity.

PS InDesign's Create Guides function is quite nice, but there are much better ones as well:
https://www.designersbookshop.com/grid-calculator-pro-edition.html
Also, guides ought to have an option to be formulaic: for example, the guides builder in PhotoLine not only allows for guides to be built on the basis of a layer's object size and on selections, but also includes the option to create formula-based guides which automatically update if the scale of the document is changed. For example: (2 * (h)) / 5 - 0.5 cm where h is height. Now, that IS handy, I can tell you.

The "Create Guides" function in InDesign is one of my favourite and most-used features in that app. I create a lot of column/row based basic grids, sub-grids, and after installing Publisher and running it one of the very first few things I expected to find was a similar guide column builder, but to my astonishment it wasn't there.
However, Publisher falls utterly flat on its face due to how the handling of guides is integrated. The reason why InDesign's guides work so wonderfully well is very simple, yet effective: guides are treated just like any other object, and are attached to the selected layer you happen to be working in. This effectively means an entire system of grids and sub-grids and helper guides may be built, organized, and maintained through multiple layers. And the colours of individual guides can be changed as well allowing for very intricate and useful nested layout grids to be built.
Publisher's guides are treated like "special" things that do not "live" on any particular layer, but instead are always put in an invisible guides layer over which the user has little or no control. All guides are on or off, and cannot have individual colours, or be managed in groups/layers at all.
In short, nigh on absolutely useless for more complex layout grids. Having access to only one hidden guides layer is SO ill-conceived that I wonder if the developers actually discussed basic layout techniques and workflows with magazine and book designers and creators. 
Only allowing for one singular fixed guides "layer" is a fundamental short-coming of many layout apps. Not offering a good column/row generator either is a second unforgivable mistake from the perspective of anyone laying out semi-complex layouts on a daily basis.
The combination of these two missing options in a new young DTP contender on the market is very, very unfortunate, automatically ruling it out for me or anyone even remotely interested in elaborate grid-based layouting. And even if Publisher received the best grid builder in the world, the lack of layer-based guides in this version would make it rather of limited use anyway. The two go together hand in hand.
Seeing how the guides are implemented on a rather low level in the apps architecture, I don't expect the Affinity developers to re-code this any time soon. At least, I really, REALLY want to be proved wrong here.
If these fundamental shortcomings aren't taken care of at some point, Publisher will remain of quite limited attraction to myself and fellow complex layout grid "layouters". What a shame this would be.

Yes, I got the length of time that CS6 has been out wrong, sue me. I've been using Photoshop for 25 years, since version 2.0 (yes, go ahead and look it up).
The point is that Photoshop has had the ability to draw pixel-perfect shapes on a pixel grid for many years, this isn't something new or radical. 
Telling me I have to draw my lines then shift them all 1/2 a pixel to get clean, sharp lines in AP is absurd.
If I'm designing bitmap graphics using a bitmap program, when I draw a single-pixel line I expect to get a single-pixel line, not a two-pixel, partially transparent line. Is that really asking too much from a program designed to create bitmap graphics? 

Still, aside from the OP's perceived age of Photoshop CS6, the complaint of the OP still stands. It is an awkward and convoluted process in Photo to work pixel-precise this way.

Still, aside from the OP's perceived age of Photoshop CS6, the complaint of the OP still stands. It is an awkward and convoluted process in Photo to work pixel-precise this way.

I can also draw a vector line in Photoshop and get the exact same results... 

Screen Recording 2018-10-11 at 1.01.24 PM.mov   See how easy that was? Photoshop has the "Align Edges" option that assures vectors with straight edges are perfectly aligned to the pixel. I thought AP's "Force pixel alignment" and "Move by whole pixels" settings would work the same way, but apparently they don't. In fact, I have no idea what these settings actually do in Affinity Photo. I think they only work with pixel tools like brushes, not vectors or shapes. 

Also note that I am still using Photoshop CS6, which is now 18 years old. The ability to snap the edges of vector shapes to pixel borders isn't a new concept by any means.

@SrPx Blender is slowly making ways into larger VFX and Animation studios as well. Just look at Tangent Animation's NexGen, and all the work done by Barnstorm VFX on primetime shows (both are Blender-based studios). Something unthinkable only 7 years ago.
But yeah, if you are planning a career on current job requirements in the animation industry, Maya still rules. Houdini is more or less required for many VFX jobs too.
As a freelancer or Indie outfit/small team I'd say go Blender all out - which is already the case anyway with many game devs.

@SrPx Blender is slowly making ways into larger VFX and Animation studios as well. Just look at Tangent Animation's NexGen, and all the work done by Barnstorm VFX on primetime shows (both are Blender-based studios). Something unthinkable only 7 years ago.
But yeah, if you are planning a career on current job requirements in the animation industry, Maya still rules. Houdini is more or less required for many VFX jobs too.
As a freelancer or Indie outfit/small team I'd say go Blender all out - which is already the case anyway with many game devs.

Seems I've left this thread pretty unanswered, lately, despite going in a very interesting route. I'm just stupidly busy, lately. Yep, it is. Is not for everyone, IMO, but for those who get the feeling of it, it becomes really flexible, powerful and a totally PRO tool. STILL... .I would not advice anyone getting into mainstream industry learning this instead of Maya/Max. This is sth I've seen posted wrong during the years. For mainstream industry, the large company jobs, is those two. Get into some academy, or learn by your self (today, IMO, one is loosing time if doesn't use the FINALLY average joe/jane affordable learning resources. I'm talking bout courses costing about 50$ a month, or a pack of courses of 200 bucks or sth, if you are already some what self trained, that's all you need. To really land safely into a job, without no big risk of unemployment, two things... Better if go physically to an academy and prepare there in 3-4 years. Also, like always in jobs, study the status of the field: Right now, character modeling is vastly overcrowded. If you like as well other fields, pick another one if you want a not so hard job hunting (that said by a character modeler who already has worked at companies, but only small and mid size studios, which ain't what I'm talking about right here. Small mid size studios have requirements that in terms of package choice flexibility, are somewhat in the midst of a mainstream high end job, and just freelancing (where all what counts is if you can output high end, quality results, not so much the tool)
For freelancing, or working for studios, or small business (that is, not only freelancing for them, also contracted as staff) for which the tool is not so important as it is to deliver, YEAH, Blender is a Winner. Also, as staff you are able to provide 'em a workflow based on a free tool, if they need 3 seats, you are saving them an amazing ton of money for a small studio / small business (when I mention that, I refer to companies not even related to audio visual, just needing the thing, as opposed to studios)
The UI at 2.79 (I always go with stable, before I used to go even with the nightly builds, graphicall and etc) still has quite to be desired, but that said, I have NOT tried yet 2.8, which, yes, is told everywhere not to be just another version, but a revolution. In many senses. And really worth purchasing a new video card to really make full use of its advantages.
 
Well.... If you do anything raster (I mean, image editing)... It'd be justified !  It's a joy to use, too.
 
Not everyone has to like Blender, the UI is very one of its own. What is more important, not everyone for every niche/area of work has in it an ideal tool. I have talked to you about your line of work, and unless you get a lot into 3D, maybe is not the best effort channeling area (Blender require quite some dedication, like any full blown 3D package, or more for being a very different UI . Altho this difficulty is told to change, at least for the first learning curve, in 2.8.  The newcomers "entrance" will have it much easier... While is not what excites me of 2.8, business -wise, might be one of the most important things: I'll only handle the complex UI, tho)... If doing a lot of 3D works for video FX, well, then it'd depend. Davinci can do a lot by itself. It depends.
It wont hurt you at all. Knowing how to handle a largely capable 3D tool is always very useful, even if you would need it only eventually for that 3D intro logo gig, or that project with some viz stuff in it, or for animation gig, etc. But I think you are developing mostly in the 2D area (correct me if I am wrong) . I work in both as I had to train myself in both large areas, yes or yes. Ppl think I did it out of passion... only a fraction of it would be true... If u ask me,  I would have loved NEVER having to have learnt other thing than comics drawing and oil/acrylics painting. But the plate of food doesn't fill itself alone. Have tried, concentrating my mind powers, but it doesn't happen   
Me? ... for freelancing...YES. absolutely. To offer 3D works at no cost once working at a company, as part of the staff...? Totally, too. Proved that to myself and to others. For working at larger companies, mostly video games, architecture, and VR, (locally, is where ALL the jobs are, even in my entire country and nearby ones, in these 3 areas, in 3D)  focusing in Blender is not the way, IMO, but in Max/Maya, Zbrush and now the Substance package (S. Painter and S. Designer). Going other route (Houdini for film, quite recommended, but I'm not really into the film/FX realm, as I only "target" the industry that "exists" in my area. If one dislikes a nomad life (had a taste of that) , one has to always care for local jobs, at least the ones in nearby cities, and as much, nearby countries. Strongly wishing that now that humanity has visited the moon, we're getting so advanced with AI, VR, robotics, big data, etc, some minds and powers that be realize that remote work and all the resources, power and flexibility it can provide to companies, should become a more extended reality (it is not yet there...).
Yep. For freelancing, for me ( I do mostly static work, or just some seconds stuff) is already good enough. 
Indeed! Just few days ago it freaking SAVED an entire project. I was using a tool for 3D printing... and was having all sort of issues.... In an act of almost desperation, (all the 3D work been done with Wings 3D as main modeler, Blender for everything else) switched to that last bit, 3D print files preparation, to be made with the now official addon for 3D print in Blender. Guess what.. last time I visited it, it was not cutting it... It has a few features for auto fix... but at this time of the movie, with a bunch of 3D projects already done, I've come to realize I don't want auto-fix anymore.... This addon really spot extremely well (better than some specialized high end utilities in the commercial realm!!! ) all the freaking issues. And as I'm inside of Blender, I freaking know what's going on with every issue, so ... It allows me to select the offending faces, I go there and freaking fix the cr4p. Slower, but nicer, more professional, waaaay cleaner, and no overall extra-loss produced by some of those auto-fix tools (even the auto tool in the addon can produce that, so I only use it to detect the bad stuff). That's how important it is getting to be... saving a freaking project delivering milestones where it was going the way of the Dodo....
INDEED. Real time 3D rendering  in the viewport with just an average-low card. Of course, I believe I will still be rendering in CPU (often large scenes) and with Cycles, but also as I do mostly statics or very short anims. I will keep rendering with Cycles for Vray-like projects. Still, I can see how it must absolutely rock for anim projects during production. And must be a joy to do complex 3D paint, shading, sculpting with it ! 
And that's only a small part of this new version advantages. Like the stuff of several UIs modes, and a ton of stuff more.
Yeah, it always depends on what is your usage... you seem to be more into animation.
The latest de-noising features are mind blowing, tho, that removes a lot of problems we had.
Yep (for other people: this new thing in Blender of of very richly  rendering in the viewport at real time). Eevee has its uses and limitations, tho. But that is only its beginning, has a very bright future.
Indeed. But... depends on your scene size, right ? I don't plan any time soon to purchase a 12GB card, not unless 3D becomes again my main activity .... (is not...). For production tho, one can serve of many tricks to saving memory, or even work with low res textures, etc, till a final production.
Neither is Affinity ! A jewel is a jewel, FOSS or not.   I don't make that distinction anymore (if anything, I'd often favor more a commercial app over a FOSS for my own convenience, despite by passion being in favor of FOSS...but...the plate of food...again)  ...for me is all about the price/performance/quality ratio, as a freelance, cheap, mid cost, foss, or whatever. If working at a large company (not the case late years), there's only the performance/quality ratio, of course.( the usual golden pack of established tools)

Yes, this is one of those cases where anti-aliasing wreaks havoc with the result, and Affinity Photo does not have an option to automatically render all objects to the pixel grid automatically. Yes, there's Force Pixel Alignment, but a 1 pixel line will have to be placed exactly at 0.5 - which is a bit ridiculous to ask of the user.
Other design apps solve this with a simple document wide or even layer-specific pixel snapping that changes the rendered result on the fly. Not so in Photo, unfortunately. One of the many reasons why I think Affinity Photo is rather unsuitable for precise pixel work and pixel art. Another reason being the lack of a simple document-wide option to turn off anti-aliasing. And the Coverage Map work-around is a half-baked one.
[ On a side note, I found that it is often the simple basic things which require all sorts of convoluted hacks and work-arounds in Photo. That is why I mainly use it for HDR merging, stacking, and sometimes panoramas, and then export the result to continue work in other image editors. Of course, this is my personal experience, and a bit of a shame. Basic workflow foundations in Photo are quite shaky. ]

Please refer to this thread:
A similar import issue affects Publisher: 16bpc greyscale TIFF images are imported washed out and too bright. My hypothesis is that the Affinity developer team never tested such files before. This should be resolved. InDesign and Scribus import these files without any issues.

.

Jutoh doesn't support fixed epub and only a tiny subset of epub 3. Instead of Jutoh, Sigil is comparable and completely free for flowing epub ebooks.
https://sigil-ebook.com/
Although I understand the technical reasons why the Publisher developers decided to forego html and epub export, the fact remains that without this option Publisher will be unable to compete with the current crop of DTP layout software.
Which is why I hope scripting and a decent plugin API/GUI will be at the top of the list: this will empower users to build their own solutions. Because export to a fixed html page (which fixed epub 3 basically is) isn't that hard to develop, to be honest. Pretty much direct conversion from frame containers to absolutely positioned div elements, with content converted to bitmap and svg files.

The "Create Guides" function in InDesign is one of my favourite and most-used features in that app. I create a lot of column/row based basic grids, sub-grids, and after installing Publisher and running it one of the very first few things I expected to find was a similar guide column builder, but to my astonishment it wasn't there.
However, Publisher falls utterly flat on its face due to how the handling of guides is integrated. The reason why InDesign's guides work so wonderfully well is very simple, yet effective: guides are treated just like any other object, and are attached to the selected layer you happen to be working in. This effectively means an entire system of grids and sub-grids and helper guides may be built, organized, and maintained through multiple layers. And the colours of individual guides can be changed as well allowing for very intricate and useful nested layout grids to be built.
Publisher's guides are treated like "special" things that do not "live" on any particular layer, but instead are always put in an invisible guides layer over which the user has little or no control. All guides are on or off, and cannot have individual colours, or be managed in groups/layers at all.
In short, nigh on absolutely useless for more complex layout grids. Having access to only one hidden guides layer is SO ill-conceived that I wonder if the developers actually discussed basic layout techniques and workflows with magazine and book designers and creators. 
Only allowing for one singular fixed guides "layer" is a fundamental short-coming of many layout apps. Not offering a good column/row generator either is a second unforgivable mistake from the perspective of anyone laying out semi-complex layouts on a daily basis.
The combination of these two missing options in a new young DTP contender on the market is very, very unfortunate, automatically ruling it out for me or anyone even remotely interested in elaborate grid-based layouting. And even if Publisher received the best grid builder in the world, the lack of layer-based guides in this version would make it rather of limited use anyway. The two go together hand in hand.
Seeing how the guides are implemented on a rather low level in the apps architecture, I don't expect the Affinity developers to re-code this any time soon. At least, I really, REALLY want to be proved wrong here.
If these fundamental shortcomings aren't taken care of at some point, Publisher will remain of quite limited attraction to myself and fellow complex layout grid "layouters". What a shame this would be.

The "Create Guides" function in InDesign is one of my favourite and most-used features in that app. I create a lot of column/row based basic grids, sub-grids, and after installing Publisher and running it one of the very first few things I expected to find was a similar guide column builder, but to my astonishment it wasn't there.
However, Publisher falls utterly flat on its face due to how the handling of guides is integrated. The reason why InDesign's guides work so wonderfully well is very simple, yet effective: guides are treated just like any other object, and are attached to the selected layer you happen to be working in. This effectively means an entire system of grids and sub-grids and helper guides may be built, organized, and maintained through multiple layers. And the colours of individual guides can be changed as well allowing for very intricate and useful nested layout grids to be built.
Publisher's guides are treated like "special" things that do not "live" on any particular layer, but instead are always put in an invisible guides layer over which the user has little or no control. All guides are on or off, and cannot have individual colours, or be managed in groups/layers at all.
In short, nigh on absolutely useless for more complex layout grids. Having access to only one hidden guides layer is SO ill-conceived that I wonder if the developers actually discussed basic layout techniques and workflows with magazine and book designers and creators. 
Only allowing for one singular fixed guides "layer" is a fundamental short-coming of many layout apps. Not offering a good column/row generator either is a second unforgivable mistake from the perspective of anyone laying out semi-complex layouts on a daily basis.
The combination of these two missing options in a new young DTP contender on the market is very, very unfortunate, automatically ruling it out for me or anyone even remotely interested in elaborate grid-based layouting. And even if Publisher received the best grid builder in the world, the lack of layer-based guides in this version would make it rather of limited use anyway. The two go together hand in hand.
Seeing how the guides are implemented on a rather low level in the apps architecture, I don't expect the Affinity developers to re-code this any time soon. At least, I really, REALLY want to be proved wrong here.
If these fundamental shortcomings aren't taken care of at some point, Publisher will remain of quite limited attraction to myself and fellow complex layout grid "layouters". What a shame this would be.

PS InDesign's Create Guides function is quite nice, but there are much better ones as well:
https://www.designersbookshop.com/grid-calculator-pro-edition.html
Also, guides ought to have an option to be formulaic: for example, the guides builder in PhotoLine not only allows for guides to be built on the basis of a layer's object size and on selections, but also includes the option to create formula-based guides which automatically update if the scale of the document is changed. For example: (2 * (h)) / 5 - 0.5 cm where h is height. Now, that IS handy, I can tell you.

This SVG file is quite problematic: I've opened it in various editors, and none open it completely correct. As stated, even Illustrator gets it wrong with that one leaf. Only the browsers process and render that file correctly.
Quick tip for anyone not having access to Illustrator to fix a problematic SVG file: install the Opera browser (https://www.opera.com/) and open the SVG file in it. Right-mouse click the view, and choose "Save as PDF".
This will fix all (or 99% of) issues. It depends on the PDF importer of your app whether the dark leaf will be imported correctly, though. Affinity Photo (and I am guessing Designer as well) do not support the soft dark mask that is required for the top right dark leaf. It is relatively easily fixed (just like in Illustrator) in Photo, though.
I did some more testing for fun, and found that Krita, PhotoLine and Gravit Designer all deal differently with this SVG file as well - and the results are all over the place. Krita's version sort-of explodes. :-)
After converting the file to PDF with Opera, all applications, including InDesign (which does not support SVG files) import it correctly, excepting the dark leaf at the top right. Every single application I tried the PDF with gets that top right leaf wrong, but for PhotoLine which (surprisingly) is the only app among the ones that I tested which gets it right.
That particular leaf is created with a hollow shadow mask that is misinterpreted or unsupported by most of the design software. Interestingly enough when I re-save the PDF version in PhotoLine, it corrects this error, and all other applications then import the pdf without any visual issues, and the leaf mask issue is resolved. At the expense of editability, unfortunately. Sigh, can't have it all, I guess.
Resaving the file from PhotoLine as an SVG and importing the result in Affinity also works well, although that darn leaf still refuses to be shaded correctly. I checked the result and that leaf's shading is rather complex, which would explain why most software seems to choke on it. They all, expect the browsers and PhotoLine after conversion to PDF, miss that transparent image overlay with the soft shading mask.
Check it out below.

Anyway, in short: use Opera to save a PDF version, and it will work fine (excepting that darn leaf) in Affinity.
PS Xara Designer Pro and Gravit Designer both import the SVG with mixed results,  both rendering it incorrectly. As mentioned by the OP, Inkscape's SVG import results in a weird translucent version, but Inkscape does import the PhotoLine SVG re-saved version without issues, though. Neither Xara nor Gravit support PDF, however, so no go for those two.

Just a quick tip: instead of using the traditional flood fill colouring approach, you may want to investigate Krita's Colorize Mask to speed up this type of work. Things have moved on a bit since the advent of the flood fill tool
At least twice as fast and much more controllable. Colorize in Krita, then import the colour layer for easy selections, isolations, and pattern fills.

The "Create Guides" function in InDesign is one of my favourite and most-used features in that app. I create a lot of column/row based basic grids, sub-grids, and after installing Publisher and running it one of the very first few things I expected to find was a similar guide column builder, but to my astonishment it wasn't there.
However, Publisher falls utterly flat on its face due to how the handling of guides is integrated. The reason why InDesign's guides work so wonderfully well is very simple, yet effective: guides are treated just like any other object, and are attached to the selected layer you happen to be working in. This effectively means an entire system of grids and sub-grids and helper guides may be built, organized, and maintained through multiple layers. And the colours of individual guides can be changed as well allowing for very intricate and useful nested layout grids to be built.
Publisher's guides are treated like "special" things that do not "live" on any particular layer, but instead are always put in an invisible guides layer over which the user has little or no control. All guides are on or off, and cannot have individual colours, or be managed in groups/layers at all.
In short, nigh on absolutely useless for more complex layout grids. Having access to only one hidden guides layer is SO ill-conceived that I wonder if the developers actually discussed basic layout techniques and workflows with magazine and book designers and creators. 
Only allowing for one singular fixed guides "layer" is a fundamental short-coming of many layout apps. Not offering a good column/row generator either is a second unforgivable mistake from the perspective of anyone laying out semi-complex layouts on a daily basis.
The combination of these two missing options in a new young DTP contender on the market is very, very unfortunate, automatically ruling it out for me or anyone even remotely interested in elaborate grid-based layouting. And even if Publisher received the best grid builder in the world, the lack of layer-based guides in this version would make it rather of limited use anyway. The two go together hand in hand.
Seeing how the guides are implemented on a rather low level in the apps architecture, I don't expect the Affinity developers to re-code this any time soon. At least, I really, REALLY want to be proved wrong here.
If these fundamental shortcomings aren't taken care of at some point, Publisher will remain of quite limited attraction to myself and fellow complex layout grid "layouters". What a shame this would be.

This is such a simple shape, forget all this brush rubbish. You would be 10 times better off drawing a clipping path around it. 
Use the pen tool to draw around the shape, use the node tool to finish and then click on Selection or Mask (with the pen tool).
Professional editors have been using clipping paths for decades. Brushes are just too innacurate, it's like using a scalpel compared to using a hammer and chisel with your eyes closed.
Which is what @MikeW suggested a while back.
 

To be fair, the reason why ClipStudio's Western text handling is left wanting, is of course because the software's text engine was developed with Japanese text in mind.  Not to say that's an excuse, because CS is widely used in the West as well nowadays, and I never do my lettering in CS myself either.
To amend @CartoonMike's answer, ideally for best print quality, the line art should be a minimum of 800ppi pure monochrome bitmap (black), but better would be 1200ppi. Then put the colour work at 300ppi layered under the line art layer, with the balloons and lettering vector work on top of it all. It is also possible to work with a vector line art layer. Depends on your workflow. Of course, if your artwork has no sharp line art, and it's pure colour/digitally or traditionally scanned in painted work, it should be 300ppi.
I haven't tested yet whether Publisher supports this workflow. I have no idea if it is able to produce a correctly layered PDF file with 1200ppi line art and 300ppi colour work combined. I'll test this week, and report back here.

The "Create Guides" function in InDesign is one of my favourite and most-used features in that app. I create a lot of column/row based basic grids, sub-grids, and after installing Publisher and running it one of the very first few things I expected to find was a similar guide column builder, but to my astonishment it wasn't there.
However, Publisher falls utterly flat on its face due to how the handling of guides is integrated. The reason why InDesign's guides work so wonderfully well is very simple, yet effective: guides are treated just like any other object, and are attached to the selected layer you happen to be working in. This effectively means an entire system of grids and sub-grids and helper guides may be built, organized, and maintained through multiple layers. And the colours of individual guides can be changed as well allowing for very intricate and useful nested layout grids to be built.
Publisher's guides are treated like "special" things that do not "live" on any particular layer, but instead are always put in an invisible guides layer over which the user has little or no control. All guides are on or off, and cannot have individual colours, or be managed in groups/layers at all.
In short, nigh on absolutely useless for more complex layout grids. Having access to only one hidden guides layer is SO ill-conceived that I wonder if the developers actually discussed basic layout techniques and workflows with magazine and book designers and creators. 
Only allowing for one singular fixed guides "layer" is a fundamental short-coming of many layout apps. Not offering a good column/row generator either is a second unforgivable mistake from the perspective of anyone laying out semi-complex layouts on a daily basis.
The combination of these two missing options in a new young DTP contender on the market is very, very unfortunate, automatically ruling it out for me or anyone even remotely interested in elaborate grid-based layouting. And even if Publisher received the best grid builder in the world, the lack of layer-based guides in this version would make it rather of limited use anyway. The two go together hand in hand.
Seeing how the guides are implemented on a rather low level in the apps architecture, I don't expect the Affinity developers to re-code this any time soon. At least, I really, REALLY want to be proved wrong here.
If these fundamental shortcomings aren't taken care of at some point, Publisher will remain of quite limited attraction to myself and fellow complex layout grid "layouters". What a shame this would be.