Swordsmanship vs Unit Training

[Velax]

Something I always wondered - if you recruit a unit with 90 Training (or f you train them up to that level), does that mean every soldier in that unit has the equivalent of 90 Swordsmanship?

[Cren]

I believe its the average stat of all your soldiers. My explanation, your unit captain is always the last man standing even if your unit is reduced to 1. So your captain is a better soldier than his subs, still his training is shown the same as the others. That means the stats are average values.

NOTE- All of this is from IC viewpoint.

[Tom]

There is no relation between character skills and unit training values. They don't mean the same thing, they are never compared with each other, they aren't used in place of each other. They are two numerical values on the same 1-100 scale that most things in BM use.

[Velax]

...they are never compared with each other, they aren't used in place of each other.

I know. I was mainly just curious if a soldier with a Training of 90 would be as a good with a blade as a noble with 90 Swordsmanship. It seemed a little odd if so, as it takes a hell of a lot more effort to get Swords to 90 than it does Training.

[egamma]

There's a large difference between being a blademaster and being a highly trained soldier. Soldiers are trained in group combat tactics, whereas a blademaster would largely be trained to fight alone.

[Foundation]

I doubt gunmanship is what makes an excellent marine.

[Tom]

I know. I was mainly just curious if a soldier with a Training of 90 would be as a good with a blade as a noble with 90 Swordsmanship.

Of course not. He's a commoner, even the thought that he could be as good as a noble is irrational.

[loren]

Well, a peasant in his prime might be a better swordsman than 102 year old Gregor 

[DamnTaffer]

Well, a peasant in his prime might be a better swordsman than 102 year old Gregor 

Pfft your peasants are getting uppity to consider themselves better swordsmen than such a veteran knight