The Conclave

Hi. I am realitivly new to Inquisitor and I have heard references to the Conclave Standard character.  My question is what is this character like?  Does he/she/it closely match any of the characters in the =][= rulebook?


  Thanks

It depends on the character you're making but here's my rough estimate of stats

stat chart
W/B skils
0-20 Less than nothing
20-35 Nothing
35-45 normal human
55-69 Fighter
70s Above average fighter
80s- A master who spends his days praticing
90s- a once in a millenium master
100s- A GOD

ST/TG
0-20s A cancer patient who is dying
30s A person who sits at a computer all day and eats junk food
40s a normal human
50s a person who is fit
60s Strong
70-80 abnormally strong
90s BEEFCAKE
100 and up Superhuman means

IN
0-20 brain dead
20-35 slow witted
35-45 normal human
55-69 fighter
70s Fast
80s GREASY FAST SPEED
90s LIGHTNING GREASY FAST SPEED
100up super human

WP/NV

0-20 little to no will
20-35 normal human
35-45 consprict soldier
55-69 Fighter
70s can withstand alot of mental punishment
80s Mentally solid
90s BALLS OF STEEL
100up would spit on a greater daemon's face while naked and unarmed

SG
0-20 Brain dead
20-35 Feral human
35-45 normal human
55-69 a smart human
70s had above average education
80s a genius
90s able to plan a siege and win it with only battalion of conspricts
100 up super human

LD
0-20 those motivational groups that came to your school and only make you wish you were back in class
20-35 a blind follower
35-45 a follower
55-69 could make a decent motivational speech
70s a leader
80s an inspirational leader
90s a Charismic pantheon
100 up Could have the chaos space marines and space marines make up and make a new greater force to conquer the galaxy

well i hope it helps to have my opinion

While I don't remember there ever being a big debate about it (although PO had a thread on the Old Conclave concerning the stats of an average citizen). I would imagine "Conclave Standard" would be a character created under the guidelines on page 15 of the Living Rulebook. To wit:
Weapon Skill: Between 50 and 60 for a competent human. 80+ for an expert swordsman (or equivalent)
Ballistic Skill: 30-40 average. 60-80 for an expert
Strength: 50 for a fit human (note the "fit" part, an average human would be lower)
Toughness: 40-50 for a normal human
Initiative: 30-40 for a normal human, 50-60 for a soldier.
Willpower: 35 for a normal human, 80+ for leaders
Sagacity: 50-60 for an educated human. Lower for most imperial citizens
Nerve: 20 or less for an average citizen, 40-60 for an Imperial Guardsman
Leadership: 70 for an Imperial Guardsman

So as you can see, 30s across the board (with 40s or 50s for S/T and 20 for Nerve) seems to be the baseline for an ordinary human. In addition to this, the rulebook also states that stats are rated on a scale of 1 to 100 and that these show the limits of a human character.

In addition to giving hard caps on the values of statistics for humans, this statement also gives a benchmark by which you can judge high stats by - the closer you get to a stat of 100, the closer you get to the absolute maximum possible by any human being - which is certainly something to bear in mind when considering stats in the 80s and 90s. A 100 would represent the maximum possible ability a human can have while remaining an unaugmented human.

So those are the guides lain down in the Inquisitor Rulebook. As well as those, the Conclave has a couple of taboos regarding abilities that have sprung up over the years, and which will draw comment (but not necessarily censure) if chosen:
Nerves of Steel and Force of Will: There is a broad consensus that these two abilities should not be taken together on any creature that is not essentially mindless, as together they basically invalidate a huge chunk of rules.
Nerves of Steel: Most characters should not take this. Immunity from pinning may sound reasonable, but consider that ignoring pinning tests would basically mean a person doesn't take cover when under fire. That's not bravery, that's insanity.
Ambidextrous: Ambidexterity is extremely rare, so this should not be taken lightly. I would generally ristrict this to artificial constructs or beings  that have a good reason not to suffer off-hand penalties. Human beings - even ambidextrous ones - gravitate towards handedness. Generally taken by people who just want to avoid penalties - the same applies to Gunfighter, and when taken together the dual penalty-avoidance is especially frowned upon.
Wyrds: Almost always taken by someone who just doesn't want to have the penalties associated with psychic powers. As such it should have some considerablee justification.
Combinations of abilities: Each special ability is something extraordinary that gives the character a special edge. because of this it's generally not recommended to take multiple abilities that apply to the same aspect of the character unless thay are almost entirely focussed on that aptitude - for example taking both Gunfighter and Hipshooting would imply a character who, regardless of ballistic skill, is an incredibly focussed gunfighter and there would be a tacit expectation that this should be to the detriment of some other ability. The same applies to multiple melee abilities (like combining Blademaster and First Strike)
Number of abilities: For ease of play and balance,three or four is generally seen as the upper limit for the number of abilities (special and exotic) that a character should have. Much higher than that and it becomes difficult to remember all the rules that apply, especially if multiple characters are in the warband.

Wargear/equipment: Attitudes to Wargear tend to vary wildly, so aren't subject to a "Conclave Standard" as such. Anything suitably justified by the background is generally accepted, although I would say that anything more common than a bolter doesn't really require any special mention (although a short couple of sentances about how your Inquisitor came by his revolver and why he uses it in lieu of something more powerful is a great way to flesh out a character).

As to how the rulebook characters stack up to the "conclave standard" they don't - even a Cultist Fanatic is far in excess of even the Rulebook's own stated guidelines, and Slick Devlan's basically an exercise in penalty avoidance. I take the view that the characters from the back of the rulebook are created basically for the purpose of introductory games, hence their high stats (nobody wants to be stuck missing shots in an intro game) and stacks of cool abilities. the Conclave generally takes the view that struggle and adversity are a much better basis for narrative games than superheroics and smashing all before you into dust, hence the emphasis on more conservative stats and abilities.

Bear in mind the whole "create your own character" thing is only in the rulebook as an afterthought - the assumption was that the GM would create all the characters to be used in a game. The way the Inquisitor community has chosen to invert this, with character creation being up to the players with minimal GM intervention - may account for the disparity between the rulebook's characters and what the fandom actually plays with.

As always, though, these are all just guidelines. Ultimately, if you and the players you game with are happy with the power level you go for, then by all means use that character - but the majority of Conclavers aren't the people you'll be gaming with, and so it's hard to judge a character in context without knowing more about the games you'll be playing and the people you'll game with.

There's no such thing as an agreed upon standard.

A lot of people think the sample profiles in the rulebook are too powerful to make for a fun game; many people work from the descriptions of the stats at the start of the rulebook when designing characters; and others advocate even lower stats.

There is no consensus, but if you use the descriptions of the stats as a guide you won't go far wrong.

As Kaled said , there isn't a 'standard' but I think 1337 Inquisitor is just about spot on. The best way to decide stats, in my opinion is to look at the background and compare it to 1337 Inquisitors estimates.

I dissagree with his breakdown of Sg slightly in that I'd average 50 as normal human, and say that 40-60 is normal, 60-75 is gifted, 75-90 genius and 90+ is crazy clever. And going down the way 35-40 is retarded, or feral, and 25 to 10 is imbisilic and 10- is bbrain dead.

So a compotent, dedicated swordsman, who can also use guns, but practices a lot less, is ex-guard and maintains that level of fitness, is very quick witted but not too smart, and is quite stubbon and brave though he follows more than he leads would be some thing like:

Ws 65. Bs 50. S/T 55. I 70. Wp 65. Sg. 45. Nv 70. Ld 50.

When it comes to skills I veiw a combat or shooting skill as the equivalent of 5 Ws/Bs so the character above might have furious assault and Ws 60 instead if it represented his style of fighting.


All that said, a characters devotion to certrain skills is strongly affected by their profession. For this rason I think that archeatypes can be useful. The also help demonstrate what particular values of stats represent, and most of all it helps keep people on the same page when it comes to power level. I'll give my take of a few archetypes then:

Inquisitors

average Inquisitor
Ws 65. Bs 65. S 55. T 55. I 75. Wp 80. Sg 75. Nv 80. Ld 80.
fighty Inquisitor
Ws 70. Bs 70. S 60. T 60. I 75. Wp 70. Sg 65. Nv 85. Ld 75.
scolar Inquisitor
Ws 55. Bs 55. S 45. T 45. I 75. Wp 85. Sg 80. Nv 70. Ld 80.

Guardsmen

recent conscript
Ws 45. Bs 55. S 50. T 50. I 50. Wp 45. Sg 45. Nv 45. Ld 45.
verteran sergeant
Ws 55. Bs 70. S 65. T 65. I 65. Wp 65. Sg 50. Nv 70. Ld 60.
captain
Ws 55. Bs 60. S 55. T 55. I 60. Wp 60. Sg 60. Nv 60. Ld 75.
general
Ws 55. Bs 55. S 50. T 50. I 60. Wp 65. Sg 75. Nv 50. Ld 85.

Desperados

mob antagonist
Ws 35. Bs 35. S 40. T 40. I 45. Wp 40. Sg 45. Nv 25. Ld 30.
thug/gun for hire
Ws 50. Bs 55. S 50. T 50. I 50. Wp 45. Sg 40. Nv 55. Ld 35.
bounty hunter
Ws 60. Bs 65. S 60. T 60. I 65. Wp 55. Sg 50. Nv 65. Ld 45.
renown bounty hunter
Ws 70. Bs 70. S 60. T 60. I 70. Wp 65. Sg 55. Nv 70. Ld 55.
merchant ship captain
Ws 65. Bs 50. S 45. T 45. I 65. Wp 70. Sg 60. Nv 65. Ld 65.

cultists

cult leader
Ws 60. Bs 40. S 40. T 40. I 55. Wp 65. Sg 60. Nv 45. Ld 60.
cult assassin
Ws 75. Bs 55. S 60. T 60. I 75. Wp 60. Sg 45. Nv 70. Ld 35.
fanatic
Ws 55. Bs 35. S 45. T 45. I 45. Wp 45. Sg 40. Nv 60. Ld 40.

Space Marines see -Lord Inquisitors Dark Magenta article.

Adaptus Mechanicus

tech adept
Ws 40. Bs 40. S 40. T 40. I 60. Wp 65. Sg 60. Nv 45. Ld 55.
tech preist
Ws 40. Bs 45. S 35. T 40. I 60. Wp 70. Sg 65. Nv 45. Ld 65.
explorator
Ws 55. Bs 60. S 45. T 50. I 65. Wp 70. Sg 65. Nv 55. Ld 65.
senior tech prest/ magos
Ws 45. Bs 50. S 35. T 40. I 65. Wp 75. Sg 75. Nv 50. Ld 75.
menial servitor
Ws 25. Bs 30. S 50. T 50. I 20. Wp 80. Sg 25. Nv 95. Ld 10.

enforcers

local enforcer
Ws 60. Bs 50. S 50. T 50. I 60. Wp 55. Sg 50. Nv 60. Ld 55.
Arbiter
Ws 70. Bs 60. S 65. T 65. I 65. Wp 70. Sg 60. Nv 70. Ld 65.
Arbites judge
Ws 65. Bs 55. S 60. T 60. I 70. Wp 75. Sg 70. Nv 65. Ld 70.

I hope that some of that help in some way.

I generally find Conclave Standard, is used whever we come across a charatcer with 3 stats in the 90's, the rest in the 70's or more, and equipped with a multitude of gribbly gear.

In other words, a Euphamisam for 'Your character is Overpowered, you might wanna tone it down"

Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on August 31, 2009, 01:29:17 PM
Adaptus Mechanicus

tech preist
Ws. 40 Bs 45. S 35. T 40. I 60. Wp 60. Sg 65. Nv 45. Ld 50.
explorator
Ws 55. Bs 60. S 45. T 50. I 65. Wp 60. Sg 65. Nv 55. Ld 60.
senior tech prest/ magos
Ws 45. Bs 50. S 35. T 40. I 65. Wp 65. Sg 70. Nv 50. Ld 65.

I guess like everyone, there are plenty of things on that list of archetypes that I'd quibble with - but in most cases I'm only talking 5-10 points either way (in particular I'd say your Sg stats tend towards the low side - a military commander should be 80+ but you've put the General at just 65).  I do however think you've under-powered the AdMech archetypes pretty much across the board.

For starters, according to the rulebook 'A Tech-adept ... might have a Sagacity of 80', yet even your Magos statline doesn't approach that level.  I'd also say that Ld ought to be considerably higher for a Tech-Priest/Magos - these are the ruling caste of the AdMech and are accustomed to command.  Similarly, their Wp stats could be upped a little - these characters are dedicated, determined and disciplined; they'd have to be to rise high in the AdMech.  Nv is reasonable, although I'd imagine that the Tech-Priests that take to the field in person are likely to be among the braver members of their order so I'd expect most of the characters we see on here to have a higher Nv.

I suppose S & T are reasonable for unaugmented Tech-Priests, but almost all are going to be augmented which may well result in these stats being a bit higher (bionic arms will increase strength and miscellaneous augmentations will result in a higher toughness).  As for WS & BS - there are plenty of examples of Tech-Priests being more than capable when it comes to combat, so again I'd say that these levels are more than reasonable for most, but that many of the ones likely to be leading a warband into combat against an Inquisitor are going to be more competent.  However, I do prefer the idea of using Electro-grafts to increase combat ability - it makes sense that high-ranking members of the AdMech would just download combat skills straight into their brain rather than bothering to train.

Quotemenial servitor
Ws 25. Bs 30. S 50. T 50. I 20. Wp 25. Sg 25. Nv 95. Ld 10.

The main thing I'd quibble with here is Wp - in the Explorator Warbands article, Gav gave servitors a much higher Wp - 90.  While I think that's too high, I definitely think 25 is far too low - as a non-psyker, a servitors Wp will mainly be used in resisting the effects of psychic powers and I'd say that their hard-wired programming would make them single-minded to the point that they'd be far harder to manipulate than some weak-willed menial.

I think people are a bit too hung up on stats, in this discussion.
Bear in mind that equipment plays an important part of a balanced character, as well.

My view on stats is simply to go with what fits the background of the character, but be aware that a weapon or ballistic skill of higher than 80 would require the character to practice for hours a day. Such a character would spend very little time doing anything else, so 80+ WS and BS are mutually exclusive to one-another.

Also bear in mind that this character still needs to eat. To eat, you need money. To have money, you need a job. If you're practicing swordsmanship or shooting every day, a full-time job isn't going to fit in anywhere. Therefore, I would think that any inquisitor who actually does his job properly would not have the time available to earn and maintain any skills of higher than 80, unless he defers most of his duties (in a rather skiving manner, if you ask me) to his acolytes. Similarly, an imperial guard soldier or officer has other duties to perform, and would be unlikely to be able to maintain such a skill level.
So, in my opinion, the only people who should have skill stats above 80 are assassins, who spend all day training, proffessional swordsmen and their ilk.

As far as strength and toughness goes, you have to again think about how the character would spend his time. A strength stat of 30-40 would be your average human, so anyone who has a strength stat of 80+ would probably need to spend most of his time working out to maintain that level of body muscle. We're talking the sorts of men that you see on "World's strongest man", here. These fellas spend about eight hours a day exercising, and this would leave very little time for swordsmanship lessons or firearms training. Therefore, I would think that any character with a Strength or Toughness stat over 80 should have a representatively low WS and BS to represent the fact that he's spent most of his time body building rather than honing his skills. (Unless he has some other reason for having a high S+T... Excessive bionics, for example.)

Mental stats are a bit of a ball of barbed wire as far as this sort of analysis is concerned, as they're all quite wildly different... But I'll give it a go.

Initiative is not something that would be easy to train in. A lot of what makes up your initiative stat are things like your reflexes, reaction times etc. Whilst improvement in these areas is possible, it's very difficult to train to become a quick thinker, in much the same way as it's difficult to train to become smarter (Sg). (Bearing in mind that knowledge does not equate to intellect.)

Things like Willpower and leadership can be trained, but again, stats of 80-90 would need explanation, as these sorts of numbers don't just fall out of the sky. They would probably belong to a fairly exceptional individual.

All in all, I would say that a person who makes a character should look at the stats he's drawn up and think to himself: "Well, here's what I've drawn up as my first draft... Now is it sensible?" Considering the sorts of things that I've illustrated in the examples above. (Time constraints, between work and training, for example.) However, I would argue that any character with more than three stats over 80 is pushing his luck, especially if he has great equipment.

As far as equipment goes, simply think: "Would my character be able to get his hands on it?" For example, power armour is made only by the most skilled artificers across the imperium, and most of these artificers are quickly snapped up by the likes of the astartes, who have great need for such individuals. Power weapons and bolt weapons are also very rare, and it would be very unlikely for two people in the same warband to be able to get their hands on one, unless they happen to be insanely well connected.

Quote from: Ynek on August 31, 2009, 07:40:37 PM
However, I would argue that any character with more than three stats over 80 is pushing his luck, especially if he has great equipment.

While there is a game balance reason not to give characters with good stats good equipment, I don't think it makes sense to enforce it too stringently.  If a character is the sort of person who would go out and find himself the best equipment (and has the connections to get it), then that's what he should have - whether or not his stats are high.

QuotePower weapons and bolt weapons are also very rare, and it would be very unlikely for two people in the same warband to be able to get their hands on one, unless they happen to be insanely well connected.

Which, given that the sorts of characters we see in the game are Inquisitors with absolute authority, Tech-Priests with access to the vast resources of the AdMech, or incredibly rich Rogue Traders, is not too much of a stretch.

Quote from: Kaled on August 31, 2009, 07:31:50 PMIt makes sense that high-ranking members of the AdMech would just download combat skills straight into their brain rather than bothering to train.

Great, now all I can see is a Magos doing jump kicks with a slow motion whirling effect.

Quote from: Ynek on August 31, 2009, 07:40:37 PM
Such a character would spend very little time doing anything else, so 80+ WS and BS are mutually exclusive to one-another.

Thinking about it some more, most people agree that a stat of 80+ represents an expert in a particular field, someone who has trained in that area to the exclusion of (almost) everything else.  So the real question is what level do people think is 'sensible' for their other stats?  Most people would accept that a swordmaster should have WS=80ish, but what BS could he have?  50?  60?  70?  What about his other stats?  Taking each stat in turn and it's relatively easy to agree what level represents what, it's when you're looking at the profile as a whole that most of the disagreement comes in.

Quote from: Kaled on August 31, 2009, 08:04:01 PM
Which, given that the sorts of characters we see in the game are Inquisitors with absolute authority, Tech-Priests with access to the vast resources of the AdMech, or incredibly rich Rogue Traders, is not too much of a stretch.

Power weapons are rare and expensive pieces of kit that the average citizen would be lucky to see in a lifetime.
A rogue trader does what his name suggests... He trades. He chases profits and adventure. He isn't going to spend hours on end sitting in his quarters, writing astropathic communiques to various individuals asking them if they know where he can acquire a rare piece of equipment. He's going to be spending most of his time sending messages regarding trade contracts, making sure that when he reaches the destination that he's headed for, there's someone who wants to buy what he has to sell, and someone who has something worth buying. Even back in the 1800s, during the height of the atlantic shipping trade, trading took a serious amount of organisation, skill and preparation. Factor in the various complications of space travel, let alone warp travel, and you're talking about a 24/7 full time job.

A spaceship isn't cheap, as the crew needs fed, the ship needs fuelled and maintained, and all sorts of costs have to be factored in. Therefore, in order for a rogue trader to keep his ship running, he needs to have a lot of money. To get money, he needs to run successful and repeated trade runs, which will probably weigh heavily on his time, as he has a hell of a lot of arrangements to make for every trip. Delaying the trip for a few weeks for him to go off and ask some questions about if anyone knows where he can pick up a decent bolter is surely going to cost him through the nose.

And let's face it... When you're sitting on board a ship which has lasers which can punch a hole in the crust of a planet, why are you going to go chasing after a puny pistol or sword? A sensible rogue trader would probably see such ventures as a waste of time, and therefore money. Rogue traders are businessmen, after all, and they probably have much more pressing matters on their minds than chasing fancy weapons. Sure, one might turn up in a shipment once in a while, but as these weapons are so exceptionally rare, the odds are that if it went missing, it would certainly be noticed.

Sure, a rogue trader might have a power weapon that once belonged to his grandpappy, but would his crew? The point that I made earlier was merely that the likelihood of two power weapons ending up in the same warband (excluding exceptional circumstances) were minimal. Not impossible, just rather improbable.

To give a better example of this - If an inquisitor went around chasing rumours about the existence of a particular powersword throughout an entire sector, and after months, if not years of looking, he finally found the world where it was rumoured to dwell, and then he managed to penetrate the world and fight his way through the cults that had been secretly hiding the weapon, as they believed it to be a manifestation of the Emperor's wrath, and had navigated through the catacombs of an ancient hive city to finally lay his hands upon the hilt of the blessed weapon.....  Would he really go through all that again so that his acolyte could have a powersword? Or would he say "Great... Now I'm off to chop up some dirty heretics!!!" Or, if one of his warband already owned a powersword, the inquisitor would probably just tell them to hand it over, and would then proceed immediately to the chopping up heretics stage.

If he trusted one of his explicators enough, he might send one or two of them on a mission fetch the weapon for him whilst he attended to more pressing duties, but what would stop the explicator from then running off with the weapon? Such a tool is worth a considerable sum of money, and if he sold it and then claimed that the weapon never existed in the first place, who would be any the wiser?

I'm probably alone in my belief, but I think that power weapons, bolters and plasma weapons are rare and precious relics, lovingly hand crafted by the finest of craftsmen. Therefore, I have my doubts that two of the same weapon would end up in the same warband.

To a degree, I agree with Ynek - a Rogue Trader and Inquisitor doesn't have time to indulge in a lot of martial pursuits. However, both also potentially have access to vast numbers of men to delegate tasks to - men who can be given some very good reasons not to double-cross thier masters. Indeed, Dark Heresy is more or less built on this concept that Inquisitors have networks of agents given tasks and orders seperate to whatever the Inquisitor in question is directly working on.

The real question therefore is not whether they can find and acquire these knick-knacks so much as who, apart from themselves, is likely to be seen carrying one around

Tullio

It seems more feasible to me that any of an Inquisitor, Magos or Rogue Trader could simply put out the word that they're after something, and it'll find it's way to them.
An Inquisitor has webs of contacts because the job effectively requires them, but this web of contacts can usually find the odd thing like a bolter or something at no extra personal effort to the Inquisitor.
Likewise a Rogue Trader rich enough to afford a power sword will have dozens of subordinates he can delegate the searching to. As to your point that they wouldn't want or need them - the whole Rogue Trader image set up for ages in the 40kverse has them as flashy and ostentatious, so I'd fully expect them to be carrying the nicest of all personal kit they could get their hands on, as a status symbol even if they don't ever expect to need it.
The Magos I suspect could simply request one from a Forgeworld official, and be granted or denied it on the grounds of how many are available and who is asking.

Also, I think you overestimate the rarity of power swords. Admittedly there is canon to suggest that power swords are incredibly hard to make etc., but the sheer production capabilities of the Imperium suggest to me that someone with as much weight as any of the above three would be able to get their hands on one without excessive effort.
Plasma technology is likewise quite widespread, and is also fairly commonly issued to Guard regiments, so I think that would be a matter of local AdMech presence. Bolters would eb again more common than that, I suppose.

The only time I would expect an Inquisitor (or most other characters) to go to as much effort as you describe is perhaps a Daemon or Force weapon of some type, as they really are in incredibly limited production.

Finally - Inquisitors, as a function of the job requirements, will generally be those dealt a really good hand by their genetics and/or upbringing. I'd guess there were a whole lot of natural aptitudes  that caused one person to stand out as Inquisitor material - and that's why an Inquisitor's stats will be higher than average across the board.

I'll come clean that I'm far from an expert on the Ad mech. If tech priest is a possition of authoroty then I surely have sold them short in the Ld. I assumed that magoses (magi?) were the leaders and tech priests were the followers, but I stand corrected.

My Sg values are alot more 'pure' than those in the rulebook I think. I try to represent raw intellegence without too much reference to knowledge. I equate Sg to IQ/2 as 50 is about average and 100 is the absolute max and is increadably rare. I don't think you'd necessarily have to be a genius to be in the Admech, or to be a military general etc. Smarter than average sure, but only a few will be that smart. The Sg that I figured for a magos would put him easily in the top 5% of the population.

I agree that I've gone to the wrong extreme for servitor Wp.

Ynek, if you look at the Imperial guard, many, if not most, officers have power weapons. They are not so rare as all that. An Inquisitor could request one directly from the administratum and get one quickly. The same goes for bolters and even plasma weapons.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on August 31, 2009, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: Kaled on August 31, 2009, 07:31:50 PMIt makes sense that high-ranking members of the AdMech would just download combat skills straight into their brain rather than bothering to train.

Great, now all I can see is a Magos doing jump kicks with a slow motion whirling effect.

hey, don't knock it, he could be a Magos Militant

Quote from: Inquisitor Cadeif you look at the Imperial guard, many, if not most, officers have power weapons. They are not so rare as all that. An Inquisitor could request one directly from the administratum and get one quickly. The same goes for bolters and even plasma weapons.

Well, that's because they're on the front lines; it's quite obvious that they'll actually be armed as befits their status. I would even go as far as to suggest that the Imperial Guard, the Space Marines and the Adepta Sororitas get more of a priority on power weaponry, bolters etc. than the Inquisition does, because let's face it, Inquisitors aren't there to operate solely on the front lines.

One would suggest that the Inquisitorial Remit / Power would mean that an Inquisitor could 'suggest' to Imperial Guard officers that they hand over said weapons.

There is no higher priority than the Inquisition, save the Emperor.

If an Inquisitor *wants* something, he / she has the power to get it. End of.

It's just a matter of applying the right pressure to the right person.

Right, I've updated my takes on the archetypes to take into account my misconceptions about the admech, and I'll buffed Wp for a few others too. I've left Sg alone as nobody has objected to my take on it so I'm assuming that is isn't completely wrong.

I wanted to qualify my archetypes that firstly the profiles are entirely un augmented by bionics or electro grafts etc, and second that the background should come first. If your guard Liutenant was a circus trickshot before he joined up then he should have a much higher Bs than the arcetype.
1337 Inquisitors post should stop people falling into the 'my character is a decent swordsman therefore Ws 80' trap. I hope that mine will stop the 'my character was in the guard therefore Ws/Bs 70' or the like, but what it shouldn't cause is 'oh no, my character can't be the superbly strong character I invisioned him as because he is a bounty hunter and therefore liminted to S 60'.

Quote from: Koval on September 01, 2009, 07:17:11 AMHey, don't knock it, he could be a Magos Militant

I dunno, I'm half tempted to make such a character now.

On the note of Army vs. Inquisitorial use... I doubt Inquisitors would have trouble finding a couple of bolters or power weapons. Finding ammunition for a bolter in great quantity wherever they are is a larger issue.

The big thing to remember though is that bolters and power swords are distinctive and notable weapons. Having one immediately marks you out, and is likely to ruin a lot of investigations, so that's an immediate reason not to carry one.
They're also heavy items that you wouldn't want to be carrying all the time. The wise Inquisitor would always be armed, but they'll only seldom need it. Who wants to carry around a bulky weapon on the less than 1% chance it will come in useful? A smaller, less powerful weapon will probably be fine, and it's a fraction of the bother to carry.

Also, carrying a bolt weapon would probably preclude you from carrying other firearms - so what do you do if you need to merely incapacitate the bugger who's running off? A bolter has no subtle setting - shoot someone and it'll be pretty fatal pretty promptly. (Mind you, nor can most guns be used subtly, but this is fiction, so we'll let that slide).

These aren't concerns to the soldier - extra lethality and lack of subtlety aren't a big deal, and in fact are pretty desirable, and the workings of the Departmento Munitorum deal with ammo supply neatly enough.
It's not that an Inquisitor couldn't have these things - to tell the truth, most probably do have a bolter or two in their personal armouries - but that they're unlikely to choose to carry them around on a regular basis.

Quote from: Dosdamt on September 01, 2009, 10:41:18 AM
One would suggest that the Inquisitorial Remit / Power would mean that an Inquisitor could 'suggest' to Imperial Guard officers that they hand over said weapons.

There is no higher priority than the Inquisition, save the Emperor.

If an Inquisitor *wants* something, he / she has the power to get it. End of.

It's just a matter of applying the right pressure to the right person.

Well, ultimate authority notwithstanding, the rest of my suggestion is still valid -- Inquisitors have the option of being exceptions, but the remainder still have to comply...

Again, I would challenge that assessment. The Inquisition is the highest authority - Space Marines / AdMech are admittedly exempt from the majority of their power, but both have access to munitions through their own supply routes.

Anything else is fair game. If an Inquisitor really wanted, he could wander into any Departmento Munitorum facility and have his henchmen run rampant picking and choosing the very best gear they fancy.

Now, whether operational constraints - i.e. the Inquisitor wishes to remain largely anonymous etc - affect his ability to procure items is an entirely different challenge to saying that some grunt Imperial Guard officer is going to get priority on a power weapon just because he is about to head into the meat grind front line vs. an Inquisitor requesting the same power weapon.

If that's what you meant, or that you meant the others - i.e. rogue traders and what not - have to comply with the procurement procedures and effectively get what they are given - then yes, I agree with that.

But on Inquisitors waiting in line for anything - and being de-prioritised - they can ALWAYS push to the front of the queue.

On a side note, I want a Rosette now. I hate bloody queues....

Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on September 01, 2009, 11:56:23 AM
I've left Sg alone as nobody has objected to my take on it so I'm assuming that is isn't completely wrong.

I wouldn't say your take on it is wrong, but I would still disagree with some of the values you've used - a Magos ought to have an Sg on a par with a scholarly Inquisitor.

The other issue I see, is one I mentioned in a thread elsewhere - in my experience, a lot of people at Conclave events use characters that are more powerful than the archetypes you've listed here.  1337inquisitor's guidelines are still about right for what people tend to use, but I'd say that in practice a lot of characters are better at more things than the profiles you've listed - i.e. the characters tend to be exceptional over and above what one might expect just going by which archetype they fit into.  Or perhaps it's just that very few people use the less powerful archetypes, i.e. there are almost no 'recent conscripts', but are a lot of 'veteran sergeants'...  I suspect it's a combination of the two.

That is to be expected as on the whole only exceptional examples of an archetype will be involved with an Inquisitor and thus in a game. The exception should be with Inquisitor characters. If most of them are significantyly higher than the arcetypes in many stats then clearly I've gone wrong somewhere.

I'd argue that a magos is an advanced rank within the admech but even assuming that promotion is based entirely on merit, which I doubt but am not well enough informed to say they come from a much, much smaller catchment area than Inquisitors, which are an even more advanced and selective than the senior echelons of the Admech. On top of this th scholarly Inquisitors will be the brightest of the bunch.
In practice tech priest will likely have an augmented Sg, like a binary cortex or something more mundain like a 'logician circuit implant' or whatever, but they aren't likely to be as naturally gifted as Inquisitors as a rule.

The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced that using Sg as a measure of raw intelligence without reference to knowledge is all that useful.  I think sagacity is better used as measure of intelligence and 'everyday' knowledge - by that I mean the common things that might crop up in a game.  Characters can be given bonuses when it comes to making Sg tests in areas for which they have particular specialist knowledge (or penalties when they have little knowledge).  Otherwise, everytime a character comes to make a Sg test the GM has to decide what bonus he should get on account of his knowledge; whereas including 'everyday' knowledge in Sg means that such bonuses/penalties are the exception rather than the rule.

Going back to the sample profiles - I'd split the AdMech ones down differently, perhaps something like this;
- Tech-Adept - to represent the fairly lowly tech-priests; Enginseers, Lexmechanics, Transmechanics etc.
- Tech-Priest - to represent the middle-ranking tech-priests, ones who are initiated into the deeper mysteries of technology.
- Magos - to represent the senior tech-priests, ones privy to all manner of secret knowledge.

Quote from: Kaled on September 01, 2009, 08:14:28 PM
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced that using Sg as a measure of raw intelligence without reference to knowledge is all that useful.  I think sagacity is better used as measure of intelligence and 'everyday' knowledge - by that I mean the common things that might crop up in a game.  Characters can be given bonuses when it comes to making Sg tests in areas for which they have particular specialist knowledge (or penalties when they have little knowledge).  Otherwise, everytime a character comes to make a Sg test the GM has to decide what bonus he should get on account of his knowledge; whereas including 'everyday' knowledge in Sg means that such bonuses/penalties are the exception rather than the rule.

Just roll the problem bits through Dark Heresy style RP.

Quote from: Koval on September 01, 2009, 10:27:22 PM
Just roll the problem bits through Dark Heresy style RP.

You're going to have to rephrase that - I have no idea what you mean.  :-[

If we dodge around the exact definition of 'everyday knowledge' for now, which character archetypes would you say would have notably more or less everyday knowledge than normal?

Quote- Tech-Adept - to represent the fairly lowly tech-priests; Enginseers, Lexmechanics, Transmechanics etc.
- Tech-Priest - to represent the middle-ranking tech-priests, ones who are initiated into the deeper mysteries of technology.
- Magos - to represent the senior tech-priests, ones privy to all manner of secret knowledge.

Right-o, I'll update that on the off chance that anyone might find my archetypes list useful.

Quote from: Kaled on September 01, 2009, 10:39:37 PM

Quote from: Koval on September 01, 2009, 10:27:22 PM
Just roll the problem bits through Dark Heresy style RP.

You're going to have to rephrase that - I have no idea what you mean.  :-[

Basically, roleplay it -- get into character, literally throw your players a puzzle or something mid-game and let them work it out, and then respond accordingly depending on how convincingly they work out a solution. If you're not sure how to work out the Sg test, this is the most immediate work-around that springs to mind.

If I explained that badly, then I apologise.

Thats fine if you have smart people playing smart characters, but if you set a puzzle for someone who's awful at them, despite the fact their character is ment to be a genius, then it gets tricky.

Or the reverse, someone's playing a character as thick as two short planks, but is actually really good at puzzles IRL, then they can get an unfair advantage.

Then there has to be a bit of give and take on the part of the players / GM, as appropriate to the situation.

Of course, the other problem in pick-up games is that it is difficult to judge the 'power-level' of an opponent's character.  Their character might seem over-powered as he guns down half your warband, but his expert ability with firearms might be balanced by an ineptitude in close-combat which you don't know about because you never got close enough to engage him in a sword fight.  And usually I wouldn't show an opponent my character sheets - if you want to know if my guy with the flashy sword is an expert or just a show-off then you'll have to challenge him to a fight!.  And while theoretically, the GM could 'calibrate' the characters in a pick-up game, but usually there isn't time.

Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on September 01, 2009, 11:17:40 PM
If we dodge around the exact definition of 'everyday knowledge' for now, which character archetypes would you say would have notably more or less everyday knowledge than normal?

Well, I'd suggest that as a benchmark, your average graduate from a Schola Progenium would have a Sagacity in the region of 50-60, the range for an educated human as given in the rulebook.  That range could also represent an intelligent character who has almost no practical knowledge (if his knowledge is very specialised, then the GM should give a bonus to his Sg in tests involving that knowledge); whereas an intelligent character with a fairly wide range of (useful) knowledge should have an Sg in the 80s.  And if, as you say, scholarly Inquisitors are the brightest of the bunch, then they should have an Sg in to 90s.  Below the benchmark, I'd say some where around 30-35 would represent your average citizen (not particularly intelligent and uneducated), with less than 30 being used for people who could be described as stupid.  

At the end of the day, (like all stats) Sagacity is an abstraction, and as long as the player knows what his character's Sg stat represents, then he and the GM should be able to agree on whether the character uses his basic Sg stat or gets a bonus/penalty to it, so there shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Incidentally, I just dug out POs thread from the old 'Clave (the one Charax refered to at the start of this thread) concerning the stats of an average citizen, the so called 'citizen on the Claphamus road-train'.  The consensus was roughly stats of 30 across the board, bearing in mind that we have already been given some stats for a normal/ordinary human in the rulebook.  I.e. BS=20-30, T=40-50, I=30-40, Wp=35, Nv=20 (which almost, but not quite, tallies with 1337inquisitor's charts).

Sagacity is, in my opinion, the second most woolly stat in the entire game, after Initiative. I think we're all more or less in agreement that it represents some kind of general knowledge and logic skills, but to use it as a barometer of intelligence is absurd.

Think of it this way. A Magos might nail an IQ test, but since when do IQ tests test intelligence? They test logic and mathematical thinking, not brainpower per se. The same thing applies to Inquisitor - some characters will have tremendous breadth of knowledge on specific subjects but have no idea how to buy a shell-full of recyk water. To this end, I personally wouldn't quibble so much over Sg value as to what it should be used for.

Tullio

I agree that Sagacity is a very fuzzy area and hardly a 0-100 meter of intelligence. Natural intelligence, experience, and common sense should all be taken into account. IQ alone cannot be taken into account - I have had an IQ test by a professional psychologist, and so I can tell you it means very little.

If SG were just IQ/2 I would comfortably be sitting on SG 75-80 without any practical knowledge in many fields of modern day existence, not to mention in the vast and physics-defying realm of the 41st millennium. Alternatively, what would you give an uneducated but intelligent person from the underclass? Or someone with an education in advanced mathematics and science, fluent in ten languages, but with no problem solving skills?

The only was I can really see sagacity being abused is when people think that a low (say, <50) sagacity means their character is stupid. It does not. Inquisitor characters don't have and intelligence statistic.

-Aidan.

As far as I can tell Sg is mainly used for the manipulation of mechanical and electronic devices (there are other uses but these are the main ones). Techpriests are likely to be skilled beyond all others in these respects. At least thats how I've always seen it.

Here's the INQ2 approach to Sagacity, which makes things a bit more colourful:

INTELLIGENCE
In order to work out a problem, a character may be required to take an intelligence test.  This is a test of the character's raw intellect and isn't dependent upon technical or specialist knowledge (for which, see knowledge below).  To pass an intelligence test a character must roll equal to or under his Sagacity.  Note that, for especially fiendish puzzles or to understand a particularly garbled or indistinct message, a GM may wish to impose additional penalties upon the character.

KNOWLEDGE
When faced with a question of knowledge – that is, a problem based on technical or specialist learning or training – a character can be called upon to take a knowledge test.  To pass a knowledge test a character must roll equal to or under his Sagacity minus 50.  Note that, for characters with (or without) a particular expertise in a given field, a GM may wish to confer additional bonuses (or penalties) to the roll.

BRAINS
Some tests are based upon a combination of intelligence and knowledge.  To make a brains test, the character must first take a knowledge test.  The degree of success or failure is then applied to a subsequent intelligence test.

Example: Inquisitor Shyloque must work out how to activate the teleportation device or be incinerated when the plasma reactor detonates.  The GM determines that this is a brains test.  So Shyloque takes a knowledge test.  Shyloque has a Sagacity of 86, so would normally have to roll 36 or under.  However, he has just watched a traitorous Tech-priest use the device to escape, so the GM gives him a +10 bonus to his knowledge test.  He rolls 80, so he failed the test by 34.  He must now take an intelligence test.  This is taken at a penalty of -34, so Shyloque must roll 52 or under.  He rolls a 22 and the teleporter hums into life...

***

Of course, there are also special abilities - such as the new "Loremaster" ability - that affect these, as well.

R.

The forum hasn't seemed incredibly active of late (not bad, but still a little slow at time), so what I'm going to do is post a few things over the next few days with various ideas and such to try and promote a little more discussion.
Here and now, that means I'm kicking up this topic with some of my thoughts on stats and statlines.

~~~~~

I think we're all agreed on the 0-100 scale representing the rough limits of natural human skill. I think it's also reasonable to say a stat of 50 represents a degree of reasonable competence - not necessarily human average, but someone who at least has at least a basic grounding in the area and does a little work to maintain themselves there.
This therefore clearly demonstrates that we're not looking at a linear scale - while I might call myself S50, I am clearly not half as strong as a human can physically be.

I've been working on it for a while, and I think it's reasonable to say that in the way people stat their characters (and to quite a large extent, how the game plays), it seems to act rather like a logarithmic scale.

In a similar way to the dB scale, a change of 20 points on a stat seems to work out at around a rough doubling or halving of competence in that given area. That is to say, an S70 character is roughly twice the strength of an S50 character, a WS 60 character twice as skilled as a WS 40 character, a BS 55 character half as skilled as a BS 75 and so on and so forth.

I'm not pretending it's necessarily a perfect match, as we're looking at a certain amount of abstraction anyway - but it seems to be a decent rule of thumb that gets things away from being a linear scale.

Any ideas on this theory?

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 20, 2010, 07:41:55 PM
I've been working on it for a while, and I think it's reasonable to say that in the way people stat their characters (and to quite a large extent, how the game plays), it seems to act rather like a logarithmic scale.

In a similar way to the dB scale, a change of 20 points on a stat seems to work out at around a rough doubling or halving of competence in that given area. That is to say, an S70 character is roughly twice the strength of an S50 character, a WS 60 character twice as skilled as a WS 40 character, a BS 55 character half as skilled as a BS 75 and so on and so forth.

I'm not pretending it's necessarily a perfect match, as we're looking at a certain amount of abstraction anyway - but it seems to be a decent rule of thumb that gets things away from being a linear scale.

Any ideas on this theory?

I think you have hit the nail on the head with that interpretation. However I would also say that this the gap decreases the higher up the scale you go, and increases the lower you go.

i.e.
a WS 95 character twice as skilled as a WS 85 character - upper scale
a WS 60 character twice as skilled as a WS 40 character - mid/normal scale
a WS 35 character twice as skilled as a WS 10 character - lower scale

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 20, 2010, 07:41:55 PM
I've been working on it for a while, and I think it's reasonable to say that in the way people stat their characters (and to quite a large extent, how the game plays), it seems to act rather like a logarithmic scale.

In a similar way to the dB scale, a change of 20 points on a stat seems to work out at around a rough doubling or halving of competence in that given area. That is to say, an S70 character is roughly twice the strength of an S50 character, a WS 60 character twice as skilled as a WS 40 character, a BS 55 character half as skilled as a BS 75 and so on and so forth.

Well, for guesswork, you've actually come pretty close to the actual statistical backbone of how to apply percentages (such as Inq. Stats) in this manner.

It's very easy to just look at WS 50 and WS 100, or WS 40 and WS 80, or WS 45 and WS 90, and assume that the larger number is twice as good as the smaller number, just because it's twice the numerical value. The truth is that percentages of success are actually always logarithmic regardless of whether you intend them to be or not.

When comparing these statistics, you don't just double the chance of success. You halve the chance of failure. So, for instance, WS 75 is twice as good as WS 50, since WS 50 has a 50% chance of failure, and WS 75 has a 25% chance of failure. And since 25% is half of 50%, WS 75 is twice as good as WS 50.

I've always been very poor at explaining things, so here's a few other examples to hopefully illustrate things a bit better.

WS 40 is half as good as WS 70 (40 = 60% chance of failure. Therefore, 30% (half of 60%) chance of failure is twice as good. 30% away from a hundred is 70. Ergo, WS 70 is twice as good as WS 40)

WS 80 is half as good as WS 90 (80 = 20% chance of failure. Therefore, 10% (half of 20%) chance of failure is twice as good. 10% away from a hundred is 90. Ergo, WS 90 is twice as good as WS 90)

WS 98 is half as good as WS 99 (98 = 2% chance of failure. Therefore, 1% (half of 2%) chance of failure is twice as good. 1% away from a hundred is 99. Ergo, WS 99 is twice as good as WS 98.)

It's also interesting to note that even if your WS is double your opponents, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are twice as good in combat as them. The logarithmic statistics come into play once more:

WS 30 is half as good as WS 65 (30 = 70% chance of failure. Therefore, 35% (half of 70%) chance of failure is twice as good. 35% away from a hundred is 65%. Ergo, WS 65 is twice as good as WS 40 in spite of the fact that WS 65 is more than twice WS30.)

Or a more extreme example:
WS 16 is half as good as WS 58 (16 = 84% chance of failure. Therefore, 42% (half of 84%) chance of failure is twice as good. 42% away from a hundred is 58%. Ergo, WS 58 is twice as good as WS 16, in spite of the fact that 58 is more than twice WS16.)

And I'll shut up now. :P

Nice stuff.

For info, you might like to know that INQ2 treats the scale of stats as 00-99 absolute.  That is, nothing and no one gets a stats higher than 99 under any circumstances.

Instead of stats of 100+, the rules take the approach of exception abilities, by which I mean abilities (and equipment) that grant exceptions from punitive rules.  Now, these already exist (Ambidextrous, Hipshooting and Gunfighter are all classic examples of exception abilities), so it shouldn't come as a shock to realize that one character with BS 78 is not the equal in shooting to another character with the same BS but who also has those three aforementioned abilities.  INQ2, though, takes a slightly more structured and logical approach, trying to provide equivalent exception abilities for all relevant tests.

Back in September, in my post above, I mentioned the Loremaster ability, which is an example in question.  A character with the Loremaster (Teleportation) ability, for example, would ignore the -50 modifier when making a Knowledge test to operate a teleporter.

For an example of how this applies to characters with stats in the 100+ range at the moment, look at Eoin Whelan's Space Marines article in DM2, which illustrates the principle perfectly.  Eoin's marines are, if anything, tougher than the ones in the rulebook as all-round warriors.  They just can't punch holes in the sides of Land Raiders.

R.

Quote from: Ynek on February 21, 2010, 07:05:24 PMWhen comparing these statistics, you don't just double the chance of success. You halve the chance of failure.

While an improvement, I'm not a big fan of the idea of "considering the chance of failure" instead - because it almost has the opposite problem.

That is, that WS 0 is then half  the skill of WS 50, and that implies that "competence" is only twice as good as someone who hasn't the faintest idea of what this funny pointy bit of shiny metal with hurty edges is.

Quote from: precinctomega on February 21, 2010, 07:47:20 PMFor an example of how this applies to characters with stats in the 100+ range at the moment, look at Eoin Whelan's Space Marines article in DM2, which illustrates the principle perfectly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do the Marines with the Biscopea not normally have a 100+ Strength Stat?
Basic strength in the 60-80 range, plus 40...?

Yeah, the toughness is now sub 100, and the Strength is a lot lower than in the LRB, but it's still (typically) in triple digits.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 21, 2010, 10:33:15 PM
That is, that WS 0 is then half  the skill of WS 50, and that implies that "competence" is only twice as good as someone who hasn't the faintest idea of what this funny pointy bit of shiny metal with hurty edges is.

Well, to get really statistical about it, when comparing characters who are at the low end of the spectrum, you would look at your weapon skill 50 fella, and then at your WS 1 fella, and you would know that WS 50 is 50 times better than WS 1 (as he has fifty times the chance of success). Calculating "how good" someone is based on their chances of failure is really only for the higher-end stats.

The point that I was trying to make is that you don't need to go over 100 to have someone "twice as good" as someone else. By having half the chance of failure, WS99 is twice as good as WS98, and thus, you don't need to have a WS196 character just because you wanted someone who was twice as good.

(But just to nitpick, using my (admittedly flawed) logarithmic comparison spectrum scale illustrated in my earlier post, WS50 isn't twice as good as WS 0. 0%, like 100%, is an infinite. Therefore, WS 50 is infinitely better than WS0, and WS 100 is infinitely better than any other weapon skill, since there are either no chances of success, or no chances of failure. This means that anyone with a chance of success is infinitely better than 0, (How many times do you need to multiply zero by to get 50?) Ergo, WS 0 is not half as good as WS 50. :P )

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 21, 2010, 10:33:15 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do the Marines with the Biscopea not normally have a 100+ Strength Stat?
Basic strength in the 60-80 range, plus 40...?

Yeah, the toughness is now sub 100, and the Strength is a lot lower than in the LRB, but it's still (typically) in triple digits.

Well, if I recall correctly, they simply get a +40 modifier to all strength tests, as opposed to having +40 strength. So, in practical terms, they do have a strength stat of over 100, but when we consider that most strength tests have negative modifiers attached to them, it isn't anything like as broken as the old "200" strength in the LRB.

(So, for instance, lifting a crate at weight 70 would be a strength test at -70. Marine has a strength of 80, but adds 40 for the biscopia. So, overall, he needs to roll less than 50 to succeed in lifting the crate.)

Quote from: Ynek on February 22, 2010, 01:46:04 AMTherefore, WS 50 is infinitely better than WS0, and WS 100 is infinitely better than any other weapon skill.

Ah, now that's an interesting idea. What happens if you multiply the chances of success by the chances of failure?

That is, at WS 50, you have a 50% chance of success, but a 50% chance of failure - so multiplying them together gives you 25%.
At WS 20, a 20% chance of success, but an 80% chance of failure gives 16%.
At WS 10, a 10% Success and a 90% failure gives 9%.

Although, technically, that's giving a gradient, so you'd need to integrate then plot it as a graph to see the actual results...
I'm not necessarily saying that's quite how it does work, but it's an idea that "tends to a limit" and fits about the kind of figures we're looking at.

QuoteWell, if I recall correctly, they simply get a +40 modifier to all strength tests, as opposed to having +40 strength.

To quote directly: "The Space Marine's Strength is increased by 40."

Quote from: Ynek on February 21, 2010, 07:05:24 PM

WS 98 is half as good as WS 99 (98 = 2% chance of failure. Therefore, 1% (half of 2%) chance of failure is twice as good. 1% away from a hundred is 99. Ergo, WS 99 is twice as good as WS 98.)

Sorry if this seems a stupid question as maths isn't exactly my raison d'etre, but does this mean that when a WS 99 character fights a WS 98 character, the 99 will win twice as many combats as the 98? The statement "WS 98 is half as good as WS 99" suggests this and seems fairly absolute.

That is a good question. However, this seems to be a case of mathhammer vs reality. Yes statistically a character with WS99 has half the chance of failure compared to the character with WS98, but that doesn't mean they are twice as good against the lower stat. The 98% still has a damn good chance of defending himself, and possibly making a mess of the 99%. It's more the larger and mid-range differences that matter in the grand scheme of =I=.

Quote from: Ferran on February 22, 2010, 09:55:37 PM
Sorry if this seems a stupid question as maths isn't exactly my raison d'etre, but does this mean that when a WS 99 character fights a WS 98 character, the 99 will win twice as many combats as the 98? The statement "WS 98 is half as good as WS 99" suggests this and seems fairly absolute.

In theory, yes, since for every failure that the WS99 character has, the WS98 character will fail twice. However, in practice it doesn't quite work out that way... Since 95+ is an automatic fail, anyway. So in practice, they're both WS95.

Well, that tempts me to go back to the original proposition of a 20 point difference - it works with a scale that can go past 100, and stops differences in stats being infinitesimal compared to difference in skill.

Quote from: Ferran on February 22, 2010, 09:55:37 PMThe statement "WS 98 is half as good as WS 99" suggests this and seems fairly absolute.

Like I said, "not a perfect match, but a reasonable rule of thumb" - or words to that effect.

QuoteIn theory, yes, since for every failure that the WS99 character has, the WS98 character will fail twice. However, in practice it doesn't quite work out that way... Since 95+ is an automatic fail, anyway. So in practice, they're both WS95.

I think the key thing to remember here is that while the WS98 character fails twice for every one time the WS99 character fails in practice that means the WS 98 character fails two out of 100 times and the WS99 character fails one in 100 times.

Now to break from that tangent, this thread has kind of gotten onto a subject I'd been thinking about posting on.  Fairly often small squabbles seem to come up between posters due to disagreements on stats and it occurred to me that it might be useful to create some categories of play so that rather than clavers getting offended by well meaning criticism lacking tact we could codify what type of game the person is playing and then offer suggestions on that basis.  This is not very fleshed out but here are three styles of play that come to mind.

True Grimdark:  
Inquisitor for realists.  Characters are given statistics as if they were actually living people.  Stats out of the 60s have to be earned and the character must have strong background supporting this.  Skills are applied sparingly and to add character.  Inquisitors themselves are often not the strongest combatants as their skills are focused on arenas of knowledge or leadership.  Powerful equipment is rare at all levels and every detail of a character is taken into an account for purposes of making a scenario realistic (ie you don't have an inquisitor walking around the market place in power armor).  This is generally the conclave standard.

Comicbook 40K:
The characters that take the field are inherently the best and brightest of the imperium.  Most are olympic level athletes or genius level thinkers to whom feats of heroics are everyday occurrences.  Special abilities are given out more liberally (but not overboard) and character follows stats more than stats follow character.  Suspension of disbelief is a must here as action often drives the story and spotty background is forgiven in favor of larger than life characters.

Powergaming:
40K on a smaller scale.  Models are tough as nails and decked out for war.  It will often appear as though 8 models got lost during a 3,000 point game and decided to duke it out over the fate of the universe.  Battlefield inquisitors wielding plasma guns with refractor shields are the norm but that's okay because the CSM charging you has an axe of Khorne.  The catchphrase is "if it's in the rulebook then it was meant to be used" and 100 is the limit of human potential because some characters can reach it.  It may seem out of control, but if everyone is on board then it's good to go.


Anyway, I hope people find this useful (and applicable to this thread).  This idea was inspired as I began gathering pieces for a xenos hunting inquisitor who had a piece of necron tech and an eldar powersword.  She was very much unlike my namesake Alyster who carries and auto pistol and a mess of throwing knives, but she had character, a fun backstory, and could be a major presence in a game.  I realized that it made sense for an inquisitor like her (who has a high ranking magos under her thumb) to have access to huge praetorians or to employ the best xenos bounty hunters out there.  Given her habits it also makes sense that she'd run afoul of a deathwatch marine sooner rather than later that could dish out on equal footing.

The point is that while my bread and butter characters would be comfortable on a table with most other clavers.  However, every now and again I want to stuff my ranks with beastly characters who can take off the heads of a standard warband in a single turn without breaking a sweat and I don't think there's anything wrong with that especially if everyone is on the same page.  I mean, there's an assault cannon in the rule book for a reason.  It shouldn't be out on the table every game, but there's a time and a place for it and I think when it's done right it's a load of fun.

Anyway, rant ended.  Let me know what you all think.    

Quote from: Alyster Wick on February 23, 2010, 06:05:06 AMI mean, there's an assault cannon in the rule book for a reason.  It shouldn't be out on the table every game, but there's a time and a place for it and I think when it's done right it's a load of fun.

I agree, and I have a character with an assault cannon. However, to me that last statement contradicts everything you've just said about different 'levels'. I for one try and play at the normal accepted level because thats where the fighting is the most tense and the battles so nail-biting, however, as you have just pointed out - there is an assault cannon in the rule book for a reason.  When the time and the place comes about for the assault cannon-toting cultist to step into the fray, I always make sure it is spot on to wreak the required amount of devastation.

I don't think there needs to be different 'levels' of gaming, IMO. Yes, there are some people who play silly high-levelled games, which if it works for them, fine, but don't try and bring your CSM with an Axe of Khorne to my table and expect to play rom the off. Don't get me wrong, I am not condemning anything from Inquisitor, I'm just saying that harsh stuff should be used sparingly, sprinkled over a boring game to spice things up a bit. There is no need to say "I'm a power gamer, so lets use space marines." What there should be is "So you've lovingly converted a 54mm CSM? I'm sure there's a way to work that into the campaign somehow, but don't expect a walk in the park!"

QuoteI agree, and I have a character with an assault cannon. However, to me that last statement contradicts everything you've just said about different 'levels'.

I don't mean to use these classifications as levels, nor do I mean to say that certain things from the rulebook are reserved exclusively for powergaming.  I'm just pointing out that it's a certain style of play.  There are hobby groups that routinely have powersword wielding eldar, space marines, and kitted out inquisitors on the board.  I think it's useful when offering criticism to be able to say to someone "if you're in a powergaming group than these stats should be fine, but if you're looking to play a pick up game with a group that focuses more on a True Grimdark style then you're going to run into some problems." 

Of course these aren't hard and fast rules, character like spacemarines will always be a little difficult to fit into a True Grimdark style but it's clearly doable (as many on the conclave will attest too) while they'll also easily work in power gaming circles.  I just think it becomes easier to offer constructive criticism when there isn't an assumption that every character being made is going to be used in True Grimdark style games (which, let's face it, is the Conclave standard gaming style.  See, I brought it back to the topic  ;)).

Alyster - your idea has merit but I think the headers are a little descriminatory. The "True" qualifier in True Grimdark implies that it's the legit way. The "Comicbook" title implies, imo, a juvenille quality. "Powergamer" has well known negative connotations. Personally I'd go with

Conclave
Sourcebook
Turbo (Aggressive, Hyper, something along those lines)

I'm always going to be looking at characters from about the 'True Grimdark' level that you defined. I'll try to justify this position.

When you talk about higher levels which of these is what you mean?

'I am a powergamer therefore my characters year of swords training will be represented by Ws 95'

or

'I am a powergamer therefore I will have a character who has spent 16 hours a day for an extended lifetime training with swords which is represented by Ws 95'

The former I see as wrong, the equivalent of saying let's give everyone in this game of 40k three extra to each stat. It doesn't add anything to the game, but makes dice rolling less relevant. I'd say the loss of excitement, as you can be sure most rolls will pass, and the departure from creadibility would make the game much less entertaining and worthwhile, excepting maybe a short lived novelty value.

If it is the second then I really wouldn't describe it as 'powergaming' If a character has a high stat, or lots of high stats, numerous skills and/or particularly fine kit, and it is correctly justified, I don't see how it is out of place in the 'True Grimdark' level.


There is the issue of warbands made for fighting. Killteams, imp guard units or even space marine squads, that sort of thing. While I wouldn't call a band like this wrong in the way I would for a misjudged stat, I would say that the problem is how they come to be in a typical Inquisitor scenario.

So if there is a type of gaming that involves taking Inquisitor rules versions of warriors into a battle then I wouldn't discredit it with the title powergaming, but I still think that using a higher stat to represent a skill than is normally appropriate can't be justified by that title, and that is the opinion I would give if reviewing a character.

Quote from: Alyster Wick on February 23, 2010, 06:05:06 AMComicbook 40k: The characters that take the field are inherently the best and brightest of the imperium.

Actually, I'd say that for the most part, that's the case even with "Standard" level. Inquisitors are supposed to be exceptional, and they have their pick of the servants of the Emperor to bring with them.

That's not to say that everyone on the table will be "top few percent of mankind", but it'd be rare that an Inquisitor would bring along someone who wasn't inherently good at whatever it was they did.

I agree with Ferran in that the names you've chosen are not good - few people want to label themselves as 'powergamers' even if that's what they are, so expecting people to use these as a indication of the level thay play at is never going to work.

Comicbook seems to me to almost embody the spirit of the game.  You describe it as 'The characters that take the field are inherently the best and brightest of the imperium' - well I'd say that many/most characters fall into this category simply by virtue of being an Inquisitor/Magos/Rogue Trader.  The game is designed to be played with characters who are the best and brightest - that doesn't necessarily mean all stats in the 90s, but characters are supposed to be good otherwise in most cases they're not going to feature in most scenarios.  The same goes when you describe comicbook as a game where 'Suspension of disbelief is a must' and 'action often drives the story' - Inquisitor generally runs on movie-logic and suspension of disbelief is a must for almost any game of Inquisitor as characters will do things that probably no one in real life would attempt.  As for action driving the story - this is a skirmish game we're talking about, albeit a narrative one, so action does have a big place in driving the story.  Almost every scenario is one where action is expected - there are pretty much no rules in the game for anything other than action.

I'd therefore argue that True Grimdark is not the 'Conclave standard' - we see plenty of characters who have stats above 60, and I don't know exactly what you mean by 'strong background' but certainly there's usually no written background to justify these stats.  Powerful equipment isn't 'rare' (although that depends on what you mean by 'rare') but crops up all the time - although the 'Conclave standard' would say that powerful equipment is 'appropriate'.

If I as something of a veteran have difficulty with these classifications (and I know (or at least think I do) exactly what you're trying to get at with each category) and would be hard pressed to fit my games/characters into one of them, then I'd suggest that so will many other people and new players will find it almost impossible to apply these labels to themselves (and moreover won't want us to apply labels to them that they don't really understand).  Perhaps you could get the classifications to work, but they'd need refining from their current state.

QuoteI'm always going to be looking at characters from about the 'True Grimdark' level that you defined.

That's fine to a point, but if the player isn't playing at the 'True Grimdark' level, then any advice you offer probably isn't going to be that useful.  I'd suggest it's usually fairly easy to judge what level someone is playing at from the stats of the character they post and the way they talk about their games.  If they're new then by all means try to guide them towards whatever level you think is better.  But if someone has been playing for a while and is happy with the level they play at, or is new and wants to play at a high level, then giving them advice based on a different standpoint is not really productive.

When it comes to profiles, I generally figure that people are using the ones in the back of the rulebook that have slightly higher stats, a lot of abilities and fairly powerful equipment; or they are working from the descriptions of the stats in the front of the rulebook and follow the 'Conclave standard' and go with less abilities and mainly lower-powered weapons.  To me it makes sense to figure out which and critique accordingly.  After all, you could argue that the 'Conclave standard' is not the way the game was designed to be played - whether or not it's 'better' is another question entirely...

Quote from: Kaled on February 23, 2010, 05:35:21 PMWe see plenty of characters who have stats above 60

The wording is "Stats out of the 60s have to be earned" - that is, stats of 70 or above have taken particular effort on the part of the character to be at that level.
And I'd agree, as a stat of 70 or above denotes a particular specialisation in the area and considerable work put in... and that deserves mention in the background.

Some things sort of go without saying - you can expect that simply by being an Inquisitor, a person is going to be intelligent and strong willed, so I wouldn't question an Inquisitor with mental stats in the 70s.
But if your savant is a natural S 80, that kind of thing does need explaining.

My point, poorly expressed as it was, is that people who post background/stats are in a minority here and many of us don't even write down the background for a lot of our characters, so people have no real way of telling whether characters have gone to sufficient effort to earn their stats or not.  The first time most people playing at Conclave events find out whether the savant has a strength of 80 is when they either see his character sheet or attempt to engage him in an arm wrestling contest - and the middle of a game (usually one with a strict time limit) isn't really the best time to start debating whether the stat is properly justified, we usually just have to take it as given that it is.

EDIT: I still don't think I'm expressing myself - probably due to working on the campaign packs for the Spring Conclave while posting...  In practice a whole lot has to 'go without saying' and much of whether you consider something appropriate has to go from a quick evaluation of the character's archetype.  In theory it would be better to sit down with the GM and check that stats are normalised across players and are appropriate, but that's not really an option at something like the Spring Conclave and it really comes down to having to assume that your opponent has carefully considered whether his character's profile is appropriate and he can justify it to himself, whether or not he has any background to back that up.  In my experience, if you were to say 'That savant seems a bit strong...' your opponent is likely to have some answer as to why he is - you may disagree with it, but generally have to accept it and get on with the game.

Agree or disagree, the point of me trying to make classifications was to provide a better framework for criticism.  I think Kaled gets what I was going for (though I may have expressed it badly) but I do think it's beyond debate that there are different playing styles out there. 

QuoteThe former I see as wrong, the equivalent of saying let's give everyone in this game of 40k three extra to each stat. It doesn't add anything to the game, but makes dice rolling less relevant. I'd say the loss of excitement, as you can be sure most rolls will pass, and the departure from creadibility would make the game much less entertaining and worthwhile, excepting maybe a short lived novelty value.

Not to single you out Cade (and to a certain extent I agree with this on a personal level), but as Kaled (I think it was you Kaled, correct me if I'm wrong) has brought up in other threads it is this kind of attitude which can turn new players off to the game.  Some come in wanting it to be more like 40K where something significant happens each turn and jacked up states help.  The bigger variables in these games are damage dealt, not whether or not a blow lands.  People get hit more often but their armor and toughness lets them take more damage

In certain aspects it may actually be more realistic.  How often do you think a trained assassin will miss a straight forward shot at relatively short range (considering this assassin is allowed to live in their prime far past what average humans do today due to 40K tech).

Honestly, the "I see this as wrong" quote is indicative of exactly what I wanted to help avoid with this loose guide.  While a powerful character may not fit well at a conclave gathering that doesn't mean it won't be fun for that player in their group.  If we actually had classifications that could be posted as a sticky for reference it would allow for (IMO) an actual basis for criticism.  If someone asks for advice you say, "what's your playing style?" and give advice accordingly. 

The alternative is to have a group that shuns other styles of gaming as wrong.  While that wouldn't keep me from enjoying the conclave I think there's a real possibility that it could (and perhaps has) kept it from growing.

I hope this isn't too far off topic, I just wanted everyone to know my reasoning and why I feel it's important.  Apologies if this offends anyone. 

Quote from: Kaled on February 23, 2010, 07:01:02 PMThe first time most people playing at Conclave events find out whether the savant has a strength of 80 is when they either see his character sheet or attempt to engage him in an arm wrestling contest.

Actually, on that note, I'm reminded I need to do some discussion on the profiles of Marco's warband.

Not so much on the level of stats, but as of yet, they've only ever been used with my normal group - and as a result some of their skills have ended up a bit complex in some places, and rather abstract in others - one of them is basically "this skill is roleplayed. GM arbitrates".
That's not a problem if playing with one fixed group who know this stuff by heart, but not something I can inflict on the Spring Conclave. As such, some adjustment will be needed to make sure they can work in shorter games with "other" players.*

*If I don't find the right solution, I'll have to bring Lyra again. Not ideal, but not the end of the world.

QuoteIn my experience, if you were to say 'That savant seems a bit strong...' your opponent is likely to have some answer as to why he is.

I imagine so. I personally tend to have reams of background on my characters - and while I don't expect others to know it, if I'm asked, I have justifications for pretty much every part of my character sheets. Should I realise I don't have a good answer, I'll change it.

Indeed, it was one of your comments at the IGT that made me realise that Renatus needed a downgrade - he shouldn't have been as good at combat as he was. His replacement's stats will be mostly in the 40s, rather than around 60; Maya will still be a formidable psyker with a high Wp, but that will be now be properly paid for by her lack of skill in other areas.

I actually think she may be more effective for it, because then the only option is to use her properly - and when used properly, she can make trained soldiers wet themselves in terror and reduce Inquisitors to shaking incoherent wrecks.
It's odd that a more frail character can actually be more efficient - it shows that actually, a lot of a character's effect on the game is in how you use them, rather than just their profile and equipment.

Quote from: Alyster Wick on February 24, 2010, 02:37:29 AMHow often do you think a trained assassin will miss a straight forward shot at relatively short range.

Not all that often, but remember, the basic BS only refers to an unaimed snap-shot. Add in a level of aim, and most practised characters are unlikely to miss.

Quote from: Alyster Wick on February 24, 2010, 02:37:29 AM
Agree or disagree, the point of me trying to make classifications was to provide a better framework for criticism.  I think Kaled gets what I was going for (though I may have expressed it badly) but I do think it's beyond debate that there are different playing styles out there.

You're right, there are - the difficulty is in clearly classifying them.  Perhaps you could categories stats, equipment and game style seperately?  So stats could be 'Conclave Standard' or 'Rulebook Standard', game styles include skirmish, narrative skirmish and RPG etc.  Trying to classify everything in one go has the problem that few people fit into one category - so some people will play using 'Conclave standard' stats, but battlefield weapons and run the game as a skirmish between two kill-teams.  And of course there are characters who appear to be from a different category to the rest of the game - my multi-melta/missile launcher armed Praetorian springs to mind; he's very much a 'battlefield' character (especially in terms of his weaponry) but has worked quite well in what you termed 'True Grimdark' games.

I've been writing an intro guide to the 'Clave for new players (based on the one I published on B&C) which touches on the issue of stats and why people often use ones lower than the rulebook profiles - hopefully that'll give new members some idea of different approaches to the game.  Not sure when the guide will be published, but once it is, feel free to comment and suggest updates.

QuoteNot sure when the guide will be published, but once it is, feel free to comment and suggest updates.

I'll defer to experience on this one.  Originally I had wanted to create a system which included character type and scenario type (scenarios being campaign, one-off, and pick up game), but this thread popped up and I went in with everything a little early.  While I'm traveling for work I'll go back to the drawing board and message you with what I come up with down the line and if you feel it's useful then feel free to use it.

Hmm, I did sound fairly elitist there didn't I.

The problem I see with different 'levels' of play is if the levels are incompatable.

So there would be no problem as far as I'm concerned if the level depended of the characters, low level being maybe where the players have civilaians, gangers and regular guardsmen, mid level perhaps Inquisitors, veteran soldiers and other elite characters and high level being space marines, Battle ready inquisitors and imperial guard kill teams. In each case however, the stats, skill, and to a lesser extent kit, are based on a standard level of appropriateness. In games the 'power level' of a warband will depend on a scenario. Players won't be taking space marine squads on intellegence gathering missions, so there shouldn't be too much of one band outclassing another.

If on the other hand, a single character would be represented differently by each 'level' of the game, I'd say something was wrong. While technically the levels would be compatable, it would be really lame when the lower level gamer's expert marksman was outshot by everyone on the other team with a gun, and his swordsmaster could be effortlessly slain by the scolarly inquisitor of the other side. So this is what I mean by incompatable levels of play. The result of this when giving advice on a character is that the only answer we could give would be 'it depends on what the people you play with use'. Better by far I think to say 'In my opinion the level of skill the character is capable of is best represented by a stat of about X' and if the advisee disagrees about what stats represent or how available a peice of kit is then that's up to them. Trying to give advice based on the opinion of the person you are advising is redundant, as they have already taken their own opinion into account.

I have no problem with people wanting games with powerful warbands, but I think that the best way to do that is to take powerful characters, rather than by arbitrarily buffing all the stats of a weaker character.

For an example of what I mean, in Kaled's battle reports in 'Kaled Karandras & Exarratus' (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=25.0 (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=25.0)) we see Kaled take his savent and bodyguard in the first scenario, a 'low level' game involving meeting a contact, but for the last game, that he describes as 'basically a big battle' he takes a higher level warband, an ogryn and a stormtrooper, as well as picking up his bolter and force sword. I don't think that he boosted and of Kaled's stats for the game though, and I expect he would have been justifiably indignant if another player had brought a character with strate 100 stats because 'that was the level I play at'.

I hope that better excuses my position.

Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on February 24, 2010, 03:00:25 PM
Trying to give advice based on the opinion of the person you are advising is redundant, as they have already taken their own opinion into account.

I get what you're saying, but I'd argue that you're not trying to give someone advice based on their opinion - you'd be giving them advice based on the contaxt in which they use, or want to use, their character.  There's no point treating all characters on the basis of how you'd feel if you came up against them in a game - if someone's group plays using characters based on the 'Rulebook standard' (and it's usually easy to see whether they do, even if they don't say), then giving them advice based on the 'Conclave standard' is rather pointless.  On the other hand, if someone is designing a character to bring to the Spring Conclave, then it makes perfect sense to tailor advice based on the level that other attendees will be using.

QuoteI have no problem with people wanting games with powerful warbands, but I think that the best way to do that is to take powerful characters, rather than by arbitrarily buffing all the stats of a weaker character.

There's still the point that those people who do play by the 'Rulebook standard' could justifiably argue that it's their stats that are appropriate, and 'Conclave standard' ones are too low - there's a percieved inconsistency in the rulebook, and no real way of telling which is 'correct', only differing opinions.  That all said, 'Rulebook standard' and 'Conclave standard' aren't that different IMHO, certainly not to the extent that the two are inconsistent.  I've played games where my expert shot is outclassed by a character my opponent considers to merely be a competant shot - it was slightly annoying, but not to the point that it spoiled my enjoyment of the game.  In fact, I'd say that a player with a 'low level' warband would have more difficulty in a game against a 'high level' one, than a player with a 'Conclave standard' one would have against a 'Rulebook standard' warband.  All of these options are a possibility if you're playing pick-up games, such as at the Spring Conclave, and if it happens then you can either refuse to play or just get on with it and have fun (or have a debate on power-levels and waste valuable gaming time!).

Additionally to the above post by Kaled I'd say that even the accepted Conclave norm can vary quite substantially from case to case. I remember reading this (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=460.0) profile by Jarrick32 and thinking that it was rather over the top due to a combination of special skills, Balistic skill, gear, and weapon, but wasn't too badly recieved despite the fact that there was no miniature to back it up (which is something that I would consider to be important but that's subjective). I remember this example because at the same time I posted a character with model, which was almost certainly weaker in all respects, but was asked to justify the inclusion of special ammunition.

Quote from: Ferran on February 24, 2010, 05:51:12 PM
it was rather over the top due to a combination of special skills, Balistic skill, gear, and weapon, but wasn't too badly recieved despite the fact that there was no miniature to back it up

It is true that you can get away with a lot more when it comes to a character with a nice model than people would otherwise be happy with.  It's an idea I intend to push to it's limits at some point with my one-man-AdMech-warband idea - a Magos-Militant or Myrmidon of the Ordo Reductor; he'll probably be a bit dull to play and is more of a modelling project than a gaming one, but I imagine that when/if I build him I'll be tempted to try him out in a game at some point...

Sounds good. What scale would that be? I have a couple of Defiler kits that I intend to make into those Knight walkers. Since I don't collect IG/marines/admech 28mm to any great degree they'd be an Inquisitor creation.

Quote from: Kaled on February 24, 2010, 07:21:00 AMSo stats could be 'Conclave Standard' or 'Rulebook Standard'

Well, as far as "Rulebook Standard" one issue I've noted is that some players roll their dice, get a below average roll, then think "well, this character's supposed to be really skilled", and re-roll it because it's not "right".
This of course disregards the fact that the basic random profile already represents the best of the best. Not accepting a below average roll therefore multiplies it further to "the best of the best of the best".

Okay, if you're really going to play that way, but not accepting less than unbelievably exceptional is... well...

Quote from: Ferran on February 24, 2010, 05:51:12 PM...but wasn't too badly received despite the fact that there was no miniature to back it up (which is something that I would consider to be important but that's subjective).

Well, that very much depends on the way people work. 90% of the time, I design the character, drum out the concept and details until I'm happy with them, then make the model to fit those criteria.

Sure, I could wait until I'm done with the model before posting a profile, but then if someone makes a suggestion I like, I may have remodelling/repainting to do - and indeed, if I've got a model, then people might be less inclined to make suggestions for changes.

This approach (which we'll call "Character driven model", or CDM) is the reason I sculpt my characters, because that way, my creativity on the character front won't be stifled by what parts are available.
Yeah, many prefer to have the model before the character ("Model driven character" or MDC) - even I on occasion will make models on a whim.
And every now and again, there's a character where neither really comes first.

In the end, none of these ways is the "right" way.

Before anyone jumps on that "none of them is wrong" statement and tries to twist into the "power level" discussion, I would point out that the two discussions are not the same.
They are both player preferences, but while power levels can't really be mixed, there's no problem with mixing characters which were made one way around or the other.

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 24, 2010, 09:13:02 PM
Well, as far as "Rulebook Standard" one issue I've noted is that some players roll their dice, get a below average roll, then think "well, this character's supposed to be really skilled", and re-roll it because it's not "right".

True, people probably sometimes do that if they're rolling a random profile; but we would tell them that if the roll wasn't 'right' for their character then they should change it...  And surely the same is true of Cade's set of 'Conclave standard' profiles - people will look at them and want their characters to be above average so will tend to go with stats above those listed rather than seeing the list as representing an average - I don't see that as being specific to 'Rulebook standard', more to do with the attitude of the player.

Quote from: 1337inquisitor on August 31, 2009, 10:39:21 AM
It depends on the character you're making but here's my rough estimate of stats


WP/NV

0-20 little to no will
20-35 normal human
35-45 consprict soldier
55-69 Fighter
70s can withstand alot of mental punishment
80s Mentally solid
90s BALLS OF STEEL
100up would spit on a greater daemon's face while naked and unarmed

That last one....so like....he's Beowulf?  ;D

i'll just take the opportunity to bring this thread to the surface and to state my support for 1337's version.