Stats - Bs

[Inquisitor Cade]

The plan here is for a living list, demonstrating the meaning of different values of different stats, hopefully we can use it to reach some form of concensus.

I've started with ballistic skill, as it has been a topic of discussion in other recent topics. What does anyone think of the definitions I've put in, and the placement on the scale of some famous characters.

Bs

100 - Bullseye (Dare Devil)
99
98
97 - Legolas (Lord of the Rings)
96
95 - River Tam (Firefly)
94
93
92 - Scaramanga (Bond)
91
90: An outrageously good shot. It is increadably rare for someone to have even the potential to achieve this level, and even then they have to train tirelessly to get this good. About average for a vindicare assassin.
89 - Mad Larkin (Gaunts Ghosts)
88
87 - Blondie (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly)
86
85
84 - Master chief petty officer John 117 (Halo)
83
82 - Jango fett (Star Wars)
81
80 - The best shots in the imperium, with sufficient training and experiance can get this good. Typical for space marines.
79
78 - Zoe Washburne (Firefly)
77
76- Bond, James Bond
75 - The most elite of soldiers, such as the SAS and stormtroopers
74
73
72 - Jack Bauer (24)
71
70 - Expert shots who out achieve their comrades, or veteran guardsmen from regiments renowm for thier marksmanship.
69
68
67 - Marcus Fenix (Gears of War)
66
65 - Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly)
64
63 - Han Solo (Star Wars)
62
61
60 - Fully trained soldiers with a decent abount of experiance, as most guardsmen have assuming they survive their first battle.
59
58 - John McClane (Die hard)
57
56 - Vincent Hanna (Heat)
55
54
53
52
51
50 - Men with basic training, but who lack experiance.
49
48
47
46 - Hoban Washburne (Firefly)
45
44
43
42
41
40 - Has had some small experiance with shoooting, or at least understands the theory
39
38
37 - Imperial Stormtroomer according to the films (Star Wars)
36
35
34
33
32
31
30 and below - Has never picked up a gun before, nor ever wanted to.

[MarcoSkoll]

I'm going to say that it's inherently a bad idea to put video game player characters on the list. Master Chief's shooting skill depends entirely on who's holding the controller.

Next thing I'd say is that I would argue against quite a lot of your placements.

To take one example, while I'm not one to deny that Zoe Washburne is an impressive shot, what's your justification for making her better than regularly trained and practised SAS soldiers?
You're telling Kaled that BS 75 would take repeated practice - but she gets BS 78 when with a lack of a shooting range aboard Serenity, she's probably not putting in all that much.

You also say that BS 60 is about the equivalent of a trained Guardsman who survives their first battle - but tell me that Silva's BS 63 is "higher than most guardsmen". Well, she's survived 20 years of battles - so surely, it'd go without saying that she'd be better than someone who's only made it through one.

So, in each case, which is it? Is your list, or the comments you've made elsewhere the one to go by?

[Alyster Wick]

[snark] When I initially saw this post I thought someone had finally come to their senses about the probability that we'd reach a consensus.[/snark]

In all seriousness though, if any claver takes a look at the past few character threads and analyzes the comments with any level of intellectual detachment I think you will reach the inevitable conclusion that there is no consensus to be had and that stats buggering should be left to groups that game together.  No headway is ever made and it just makes people angry. 

Take a look, there are active threads right now that have degenerated into back and forths with no end it sight.  Neither side ever presents a critique which the other side accepts.  I am saying this as a member who considered making a list like this in the past couple weeks, but after the rash of threads that essentially say nothing I'm ready to throw in the towel. 

That said, this will be my last post pertaining to this topic on any thread.  If others do find this a worthwhile pursuit than I will stop raining on anyone's parade as I'm starting to sound like a broken record myself.

[Myriad]

Without getting drawn into the debate about where various fictional characters rank, I think there is a fair degree of consensus on the general descriptions for 50, 60, 70 etc. 

Where we can't seem to agree is how easy it is for particular characters to achieve these levels.  To take the example of Kaled, is being a 300 year old veteran inquisitor mean he ranks up there with the most elite soldiers?  It comes down, really, to the discretion of the character's designer, possibly influenced by the environment the character will be used in.

[Inquisitor Cade]

Neither side ever presents a critique which the other side accepts.

Comming to the same conclution spurred this on. I realised that my take on the stats was not as well matched to the LRB as it could be, and that I have no reason to shift my standard in line with anyone elses. Putting this list together in practice has already refined my views, and I mean it to be a skeleton, that should be altered as I come to understand how others view the stat.

I'm going to say that it's inherently a bad idea to put video game player characters on the list

Legolas, Jango Fett and others have also appeared in games as PC's. Master Chief is a character in fiction as well as an avatar for the player and it was this I was basing it on.

Zoe Washburne

Zoe is a truely outstanding shot and she was once an elite soldier, I can never get over that time she shot the guy's gun from his had from accross a field in "Safe", though factoring in the exageration of the show makers though I was probably over generous. But this is the purpose of this thread. Where would you put her?

You also say that BS 60 is about the equivalent of a trained Guardsman who survives their first battle

Yeah, but most don't.
As I said though, making this list has already altered my veiw, I probably would have put average guardsman Bs at 55 before but this has changed my mind to 60 strate off.
Also my comment about Silva wasn't ment to imply that she was much better than a guardsman should be, but that she was literally beter than most, as everyone above average is, and that given her focus on Close combat I would have expected otherwise. When you pointed out she hadn't always been that way I realised that you were right, but maintain that, if you felt that she needed trimming down (which I though was your intension for Marco and Silva) then a small Bs loss would be a step you could take.

[Flinty]

Huh?!! You missed out Joe Pineapples from the ABC Warriors - 110 on a bad day. I agree that putting individuals in the scale is highly ''subjective''.

Whilst I do think there is mileage in trying to hammer out some sort of idea about where generic player character classes/types would sit - it seems fairly obvious from recent posts that everyone has thier own ideas for thier own PC's and retinues.

Arguably, the basics are already covered by the front of the LRB, but that doesnt really give anything apart from 'the average Joe' and perhaps one other example. It would be an idea to try and decide roughly where a range of generic descriptions would sit, i.e. IG 1 year conscript, Karskin squad member etc.

But.....I realise that even that is fraught with difficulty.



There was a sport I used to practice on a very regular basis; if I had spent my time doing nothing else I would not have reach anywhere near a professional level. I know...its a game not the real world - but I like to game like the real world. So my PC's always tend to be only a little bit above average. Personally, I think that an individuals apptitude and natural ability plays a part; in our world not every soldier in every army can shoot or gets any better over time, perhaps they just become less dangerous to thier squad mates.

As each person has an entirely personal and subjective view of what they want, I think this is a grand idea doomed to end in a morass of claim and counter-claim, I think it really would be easier to herd cats....

Edit: clarity?

[Kaled]

Defining our characters on a scale made up of other characters whose BS we also can't agree on seems like a flawed approach. Maybe it could work with 5 or 10 point ranges each of which has a description of that level of skill and a load of archetypes and characters who would fit in that range. However, I'm still not convinced that a consensus is possible, or even desired...

[Inquisitor Cade]

Defining our characters on a scale made up of other characters whose BS we also can't agree on seems like a flawed approach. Maybe it could work with 5 or 10 point ranges each of which has a description of that level of skill and a load of archetypes and characters who would fit in that range. However, I'm still not convinced that a consensus is possible, or even desired...

I think it  certaiinly is desired, but otherwise I think I agree, I've set about this the wrong way. I'll drop it for now. Maybe I'll try again if I think of a better approach. Even this failed attempt has helped me center my veiws though, for example I'd now concider Inquisitor Kaled to be very gifted in  ant areas, more so than most Inquisitors, but not implausably so as I previously believed.

[Kaled]

Maybe I'm wrong and people really do want a consensus - perhaps it's just me who doesn't see it as being all that important... I'd be interested to hear whether other people do think it's important? (And if they do, how they think we should reach that consensus?)

[MarcoSkoll]

Legolas, Jango Fett and others have also appeared in games as PC's.

I didn't necessarily rule them out as examples, but if you take Legolas or Jango Fett, most people will think of them as film characters (given that people are usually more familiar with the LotR films than the books).

But take Master Chief, and people will almost automatically think of the games first.

Zoe is a truely outstanding shot and she was once an elite soldier, I can never get over that time she shot the guy's gun from his had from accross a field in "Safe"

It's more accurate to say that she was once a soldier. A good one at that, but for her to have been a true elite, she would have had to have been picked out for an elite unit - and if you take the battle of Serenity Valley in the Pilot episode, it's pretty clear that their platoon is nowhere near that competent.

Allowing for the inflation of the heroes' shooting ability in film and television, I'd probably represent her with a BS in the mid to high 60s and Deadeye Shot.

Not that there aren't members of Serenity's crew who do deserve BS values in the 70s.

but maintain that, if you felt that she needed trimming down (which I though was your intention for Marco and Silva) then a small Bs loss would be a step you could take.

Trim down a little, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think every last stat needs adjusting.

I posted Marco because I thought he did need work. Silva I was happier with from the start, and I used her as something of a "baseline" to try and judge opinions.
A couple of her mental stats might come down a few points, but I doubt she's going to change much.

Maybe I'm wrong and people really do want a consensus - perhaps it's just me who doesn't see it as being all that important...

Well, I think that trying to pin down character archetypes into particular bands of BS isn't really feasible given the infinite variations of character training and background that are possible. You might be able to put down a "likely BS", but given varying interpretations of "how much better is a 5 point difference", you'll still end up with some things people don't necessarily agree on.

If anything, it may be worth avoiding having any "hard consensus", because then we've got something that people will feel they need to conform to, whether or not it's appropriate.
As long as the characters aren't so wildly different that they can't meet at the same table and still have a fun game, then there isn't really a whole lot that needs fixing.

[precinctomega]

[old man]Who are most of these people?[/old man]

R.

P.S. Obviously, being an old man isn't something that stops with some uBB code.

[Kasthan]

As long as the characters aren't so wildly different that they can't meet at the same table and still have a fun game, then there isn't really a whole lot that needs fixing.

I think this sums up the reason we are having these reoccurring discussions. We all want to be able to a 'fun game' without worrying that the person who we face is going to wipe us off the table in the first turn.

Having different stats is fine when people are with their normal group but when we come together at the GTs and Conclave meets the problem of stats appears. A generic consensus of what each stat roughly is equivalent to might be the way forward. The table by Inquis Cade (although I'd change a few of the references) seems a fairly good way of approaching this. 

[Molotov]

I posted a previous thread hoping we could try to come sort of agreement - or at least provide starting players with a more concrete guide. The problem for me was that I've been a fan of Inquisitor for a long time, but played it relatively little. I came online asking for help with stats from Inquisitor experts, only to be told "Use whatever stats you think are best."  - Something that didn't really help me feel more confident in creating characters.

[Kaled]

Having different stats is fine when people are with their normal group but when we come together at the GTs and Conclave meets the problem of stats appears.

I've been to a fair few Conclave events now and have never had a real problem - sure some people's stats are higher than I might have made them if the character was mine, but then other people's are lower.  Has anyone had a real problem at a Conclave event with someone using characters of a power level that was so different it spoiled the game?  As far as I can see, we're almost never talking about a difference in stats of more than about ten points - and in my eyes that sort of difference is minor and hardly worth the amount of time that we spend arguing over it.

Games at the IGT and Spring Conclave tend to be run by GMs, and it's his job to arbitrate and ensure that things are 'fair' - if one player has hugely powerful characters then the GM can ask him not to use all of them so he's outnumbered, or make his objectives harder to achieve, or anything else he deems necessary to balance things and ensure the game is fun for everyone.

The rulebook provides a vague outline of what stats represent, and more than one person has attempted to expand that and make it more comprehensive - but they don't provide concrete guidance because there's no way to clearly and concisely say whether a character is deserving of 'competant' or 'expert' so we still end up arguing.  This attempt to do it relative to other characters is flawed for reasons outlined above.  In many ways, I think Cade's list of archetypes (in the 'Conclave standard' thread) is pretty good - however my experience of Conclave events suggests that his profiles are a little lower than those that more people use at such events.  I therefore tend to consider those as being towards the bottom level of what you'd expect for that archetype - profiles that are probably perfect for NPCs, but PCs are a cut above and will often have slightly higher stats.

The best thing that new players could do is to look at a number of sources, the rulebook, the 'Conclave standard' thread, profiles of characters they're likely to face etc and then use whatever stats they think are best (sorry Molotov!).  The important thing though is not to consider those profiles fixed, but to feel free to tweak them if, after a few games (to give the dice time to 'settle down'), the character doesn't perform as you'd expect.  And that doesn't just mean up the stats that seem too low, but to also lower stats that turn out to be too high - the former is easy, the latter is less so because by definition you're changing your character to make him less capable, but it's a necessary part of creating a well-rounded character.

Unless anyone has a better way to bring us to a consensus that we can all agree on and is clear for new players, then I think the status quo is the best solution (apparently I'm an Amalathian!).

[MarcoSkoll]

I think this sums up the reason we are having these reoccurring discussions. We all want to be able to a 'fun game' without worrying that the person who we face is going to wipe us off the table in the first turn.

Well, to pick up on what Kaled has just said, I had Sgt Gillmore at the IGT - A heavily armoured and well armed Kasrkin, with stats in pretty much the same range as Silva.
It's probably reasonable to say he was one of the more powerful characters at the event - but he hardly dominated the table to the extent he wiped people off the table in the first turn.

First game, he shot a pilgrim by mistake and had a go at beating up a savant.
Second game, he killed Father Christmas Slaanesh Nik'las pretty much because he declared a shooting action at the daemon on the last game turn - GM decided this proved fatal in order to wrap up the game.
Fourth game, he got shot, dove for cover, then lost a swordfight to a girl. (Okay, said girl was a Techpriestess)

Is there anyone who would actually complain and say Kai dominated any of the games? Beyond, of course, what you would expect of a Kasrkin - frankly, I'd say he perhaps even underperformed, considering that he is a veteran and elite trooper.

I think there's too much fret over differences that aren't actually all that considerable on the table.