I've heard it said that Sam had mentioned at one time that if you compare a character with 40 strength to a character with 50 strength, the 50 strength character is actually TWICE as strong as the guy with 40 strength. That means that every 10% up the scale is exponential. A guy with 40 Intelligence would be twice as smart as a guy with 30 intelligence and so on. What this doesn't account for is a measurement of strength bonus.....or would it still apply?

If so, it sort of helps the universe make more sense to me in terms of the scale of power in 40k when compared to your average joe. A Bloodthirster with a strength in the 90's goes from super strong to epic-strong and seems more capable of challenging an army properly!

What do you all think? Is this confirmed anywhere in the books?

Dang, where's the edit button? The title should say "exponential."

Never heard that before, sorry

Seems to make sense though. A space marine with a 50 or 60 in toughness doesn't seem too much tougher than an acolyte with 40 based on just numbers. I like this concept.

Control said:

Which is exactly what Unnatural Characteristics are meant to cover.

I've heard of the idea that the wargame stats are exponential, but I've never heard of that for the RPGs...

MILLANDSON said:

Forgot about those, I retract my statement good sir.

Its a neat idea, just like decibels, though I think there are some problems with it.

If someone with a 40 Strength is 10 times as strong as someone with a 30 Strength, when why are they only 10% more likely to accomplish the same feat of strength? Why are they only doing 1 extra point of damage in close combat? While it would seem to make sense that the standard human scale for strength likely doesn't linearly represent lifting ability, it seems as though making it represent exponential increases is a bit too much. I can understand the desire to say this though, because the system as it stands seems to have too low of a variation in calibration to represent a full human range of ability.

Well I do think that 10 times is a but much, but double sounds feasible to me from a fluff standpoint. However you're right; the results yielded should reflect the magnitude of difference. I've never read anything directly about this besides a forum member attributing the concept to Sam. With the single-digit nature of the tabletop game, it seems to make even more sense since the abstraction is greater. Over all if this interpretation proved to be accurate and an additional explanation/comparison was given for attribute bonuses and weapon damage, it would really frame the numerical portion of the rule set better for me.