I've noticed that Black Crusade reassigned some of the characteristics linked to skills. The errata indicates that Willpower should be linked to Intimidate (but note that this is not carried over into Only War - pointed out because this is the newest and theoretically most playtested ruleset). However, there are others that stand out too:

The character sheet indicates that Operate (Voidship) should be Agility while Table 3-2 and the skill section says it should be Intelligence. Only War links this skill to Agility.

The character sheet and the skill section indicate that Inquiry should be Fellowship while Table 3-2 says it should be Intelligence. Only War links this skill to Fellowship.

My own feelings on these are leaning toward Table 3-2. This table already had Intimidate linked to Willpower, and I think I prefer that both Operate (Voidship) and Inquiry to br linked to Intelligence.

Is there any official answers on these skill/characteristic sets? Is there any known reason that Only War reverted Intimidate back to Strength?

Pretty sure the Character Sheet is wrong.

That still leaves questions. The character sheet is just one of the conflicts I mentioned.

HappyDaze said:

For OW:s choice of chancing Intimidate (Willpower) to (Strength) is little obscure. Might be that it's easier to use your own bulk (Strength) to make people affraid of you.

Operate (Voidship) is understandaple mistake as Operate (Surface, Aeronautical) are Agility based and only place where in OW it says it's Intelligence based is p.129 upper left corner sidenote. And make note that they don't separate Operate Skill in the OW table 4-3 like in BC table 3-2

Inquiry Fellowship or Intelligence? For Fellowships defence it would be understandable that people like you and you know how to talk to them (like in OW:s choice of Fellowship & Social Aptitudes) but for Intelligence's defence you would need to know what questions to ask and where.

Must wait till they publish Errata to see what possible changes they are going to make for OW in Errata.

Routa-maa said:

If in doubt just go with the Skill Description, not the tables, until it gets cleared up.

@Felenis

Actually in BC Errata they changed Intimidate (Strength) to Intimidate (Willpower) so that should be answered about.

And for Operate (Voidship (Intelligence), BC has it in skill table & description and OW has only little sidenote talking its less agility, more intelligence.

But it's always good idea to double check everthing, as there might be discrepancies in skill/talent/weapon description, table and character sheet, for these kind of little things. Now only if we could get FFG to notice these little discrepancies. Well might have to go and send rules question to FFG about these

But for Inquiry and Intimidate in OW I think they are meant to be RAW as they have aptitudes that quite reinforce them. But waiting Errata to come and then well see how much there has been little errors

Like Shock table where there isn't any mention how much insanity guardsman will get from the failed fear test like in RT. Only mention is how much you get from failed fear test in non-combat situation.

Routa-maa said:

We have been using the ruling given all the way back in DH that states that you gain insanity points equal to the things fear rating. As in failing a Fear (3) test would give your character 3 insanity points. Its a nice simple guideline that also makes the game more… interesting

And to give my quarter of an euro to the conversation, Operate (Voidship) should indeed be intelligence skill. Whether Inquiry uses Fellowship or Intelligence depends on whether you are trying to find information from people or machines (otherwise the Interface Port implant would be quite useless, or atleast I would find it weird that, apart from finding comfort from it, a tech-priest would be better at talking to people ). The statistic that intimidate uses depends on how you use it. A strenght based intimidate is all about getting "in the targets face" as in lifting them up from the front of their shirt, toting a gun in their face and telling how you are going to eat their heart and drink their bone marrow. While a intelligence intimidate is more or less calmly informing that the enemy is surrounded and you have battle titans waiting your command to destroy them. Often failing a strenght based intimidate is a bit more severe than failing a intelligence one, altho succeeding is also much more effective. Likewise a fellowship Interrogate (asking nicely before the punching starts) is sometimes more appropriate than mentally breaking someone

On a side note, ever since BC came out and I DM'd it for my group we have had crazy amounts of fun with the "Using alternative characteristics" on pg. 92, such as impressing a bunch of ladies with a Fellowship based Operate (Surface) test while driving a bike around, a Fellowship Athletics test to get through a bunch of people effectively

Asoral said:

To use your example, I just don't see the strength of the guy pointing the gun at me to be important in the least - so long as he's strong enough to point the gun at me and pull the trigger, any excess muscle power beyond that is meaningless. For this reason, I think that making Intimidate Willpower-based was a good call.

I have to agree with you entirely on Inquiry. It's really two things - asking the right people the right questions (Intelligence) and asking in a way that they are likely to answer (Fellowship). I feel that the latter part is better handled through Charm and/or Deceive (both Fellowship-based), leaving Inquiry as the brains side of it (and why plugging into a data stack can help).

Frankly, this is too much rule-lawyering. I can see Intimidate being based on Strength and Willpower both, depending on the situation. Inquiry, on Intelligence or fellowship, again depending on the situation. Operating a Voidship larger than an attack craft has little to do with Agility. And so on, and so forth. Basically, whenever you want to make a test, do what I do: pick the most relevant stat, the most relevant skill, add 'em both, be done with it. And if a player starts quoting the rulebook, agree with him but demand he rationalizes his use of a specific stat/skill. Problem solved.

K0balt said:

The game defaults to having each Skill linked to one Characterisitic. Trying to figure out which Characterisitic is most correct (for the majority of situations) is hardly rules-lawyering in my eyes.

K0balt said:

This is total gamer wisdom here. Bravo!

DigitalRedneck said:

Reading back on my original post, my point didn't come up properly. What K0balt said is pretty much exactly what we do in our group. The rpgs have become so much more fun after that little "using skills with different characteristics" box appeared in BC. I found it really broadened my groups roleplaying imagination when they can think of non-RAW ways of using their skills to deal with a situation and getting the creative juices flowing