# Strength & toughness of modern day humans



## wombat_tree (Nov 30, 2008)

What do you think it would be I thought 3 for both but now I think that the average human would be only 2 and 2. The method behind my madness is that this is hundred of thousands of years into the future and by then I think evolution might have started kicking in and human toughness would increas or something like that to better withstand thousands of years of war. As well as that the living conditions are harder people probably would have toughened up to survive the harsh environments. But thats just my opinion what do you guys think?


----------



## CamTheApostle (Oct 31, 2008)

Considering that the only difference of one point of strength (such as from a IG and a SM) goes from a tough human to a two meter tall giant made of almost pure muscle, I am going to say that modern humans are still a S3 and T3. The scale is far too vast to compensate for minor things like that. For example, I am sure that stormtroopers are probably far stronger then a regular guardsmen (thanks to training and more strenuous requirements), but they both have a strength of 3.


----------



## Might of the Emperor (Feb 1, 2009)

I am going to have to agree with OP, I am sure there would probably be a rather significant difference between humans now and in the 41st millennium. Think just how far human development has come in the past 100 or so years, with drastically better health care, vast amounts of information gained about the body and how it functions, and lets not forget about how we are already starting to work with genetics. I am postive thirty nine thousand years from now there will be a marked difference between humans now and then.


----------



## Forty Three (Jun 20, 2008)

CamTheApostle hit it on the head I think, the thing with stats in wh40k (and especially S and T) is that they aren't linear, but rather exponential... I seem to recall reading that S and T in 40k signify orders of magnitude of strength, which means a weapon with S 5 is not 25% stronger than one with S 4, but rather 10 times stronger, which means the higher the S gets, the huger the damage... which means going from S 2 to S 3 isn't that big of an increase, but going from S9 to S 10 is huge (if you take the number to mean the number of 0s)


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

I think todays humans are a tiny bit weaker then the 40k ones, something must come from alot of years of evolution. Alltough im talking about the numbers found in Inquisitor not the 40k numbers which aren't really correct.

In 40k a guard have S3, in Inquisitor he has 55ish
In 40k a SM have S4, in Inquisitor he has 200ish

There are some diffrences here...


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

A scrawny, withered looking sanctioned psyker who barely looks able to hold his own head up, and a huge burly Catachan both have the same S and T scores.

The only things lower than them would be scrawny malnourished gobbos and pugdy, tiny ratlings, both barely a third our size

Meanwhile, 1 point stronger is 8-foot giants capable of ripping into tank armor with their bare hands (and a lucky 6 against AV10, but still, more than capable of destroing an un-armored vehicle like your car)

The stat ranges in 40k are just way too broad.

Ordinary humans are 3s, whether you're Phill Collens or Henry Rollins, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Tom Arnold


----------



## flankman (Jan 26, 2009)

a well built man will have s3-t3 whislt a nerd (moi) is more in the s2-t2


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

Well when you think about it, S3 T3 represents a human with military training and conditioning; I don't know how many of yall actually know anyone in the service, but even the desk jockeys are _big motherfuckers_. Honestly, I think the average S/T of the modern human would be S2 T2, but most people are pushing S1 T1 IMHO. I myself wouldn't claim to be any higher than S2 T2, and I consider myself an athlete.


----------



## TheUnmarked (May 19, 2008)

so you are saying that you are only as strong as a grot? I doubt that a grots probably as tough as an average 12 year old.
but seriously the average human may be very similar if not the same as now considering that major evolutionary change is a millions of years process not thousands, the difference over 39,000 years would be noticeable but not great unless something cataclysmic happened to the whole population to force a sudden change.
and also there are people living on lower gravity planets in the 40k universe (I believe that catachan is one such example) and the lower gravity would make them weaker and flimsier (like prolonged periods in no gravity does)


----------



## Fugital357 (Jan 19, 2009)

I'd say modern-day humans would be S2, T4, "Slow and Purposeful" judging how I'm the only person in my office that isn't morbidly obese.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Seriously, guys...go look in the summary charts for IG and inquisition

Sanctioned psychers have the same S&T as catachans, inquisitorial scribes have the same S&T, underfed conscripts have the same S&T

The only way a human being cvan have a strength or toughness outside of 3 is being weither massively crippled, or hugely augmented. 3 pretty much covers the wholer ange of humanity.

The average modern human probably has an abysmally low WS and Ld compared to a guardsman, but you;ve got the same S&T

If the difference between 3 and 4 is being able to punch a hole through an armored car, the difference between 2 and 3 mus the similarly astronomical. The only creatures that weak are tiny, child-sized.

Seriously, if you look at least as fit as the pudgy git with the scroll, or the scrawny blind guy on the left, then chances are you're S3 T3









Is a guardsman stronger than a modern human, on average? Yeah, probably. Just like how Catachans are stronger than average guardsmen.
Is that difference measurable by the way the scores are laid out in 40k? Nope.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Captain Galus said:


> Well when you think about it, S3 T3 represents a human with military training and conditioning; I don't know how many of yall actually know anyone in the service, but even the desk jockeys are _big motherfuckers_. Honestly, I think the average S/T of the modern human would be S2 T2, but most people are pushing S1 T1 IMHO. I myself wouldn't claim to be any higher than S2 T2, and I consider myself an athlete.


Different militaries have different emphasis on fitness and conditioning. I have served alongside the US military in various shitholes and they (on average) are heavily into lifting weights. In the British army we train a lot more on running.

The game stats are not linear and not quite exponential. For example against a T3 opponent a strength 4 model has a 2/3 chance of wounding. A strength 3 model only 1/2.


----------



## englanda (Dec 2, 2008)

Grots are s2 and they're 2 feet tall and scrawny. Marines are roids in power armor and are s4. So I'd guess s3. Don't forget that S doesn't necessarily represent how much you can lift, but the amount of damage you can do. Models aren't punching each other, they're using any and all weapons they can get their hands on. This is why and ork with a blunt choppa and a human with a sharp dagger have the same strength, they'd do the same damage.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

personally, i doubt that anything that could be helpfully regarded as 'evolution' would have taken place amongst the average population of the Imperium. technology effectively puts an end to the 'survival of the fittest' mechanism, and without it evolution hits a brick wall. the only people who would continue to 'evolve' are those under significantly different environmental factors i.e. those groups who live for large numbers of generation with little gravity, or with massive gravity. that being said, random mutation is supposed to be much more common place which is not something that technology could compensate for, but then such random mutation (as we have been shown it) would not lead to a consitant difference.

we are generally given the impression that the average Imperial citizen lives a life roughly equivelant in quality to a medieval European, so i would guess that the 'average' human in 40k, would be noticably shorter and weaker than a person of the same age in the modern era. but this is mostly due to health care, excersize and nutrition rather than genetics.



Might of the Emperor said:


> I am postive thirty nine thousand years from now there will be a marked difference between humans now and then.


possibly for the richest, and those living on the most densely populated planets. but i can't imagine that the 'average' would have anything like that. the impression we are given of most humans in 40k is that the quality of life is not good at all. it wouldn't surprise me if people joined the IG because they would live for longer on the front line (with medics, enough food and propper excersize) than they would if they remained at home.

40k is definately set in the future and that leaves an impression on the game, but it is also very backwards.



TheUnmarked said:


> so you are saying that you are only as strong as a grot? I doubt that a grots probably as tough as an average 12 year old.


the stats for 40k are all messed up in comparison to the background, because they are designed to create effective and enjoyable game-play and have little or bearing to the background they are meant to represent. so i think that the best way to think about where you would fit on the scale is to imagine who you could beat in a fight.

i don't regard myself as atheletic in any way, but i'm not particularly unfit. so i guess i'm fairly average. now, i've never been in a street brawl, but from what i have seen of them i imagine that i could take maybe one or two decent blows to the head before my ability to fight would be severely compromised. the other thing about street fights is that they take _forever!_ they are not quick things like in kung-fu movies, because generally those people involved are ill-equipped to deal with the situation. i have no reason to think i would be different. if i were to fight a trained soldier i think my chances would be significantly less.

so, could i take on a large dog? again, i've never fought a dog, but they do use them to stop hardend criminals with weapons. if a dog was genuinely going for me, with killer intent, i'd probably struggle, but i might win in the end. i guess anything smaller than a dog i'd probably be able to beat.

Grots/Goblins may well be small and weak in comparison to Orks and Space Marines, and they may even be quite short in comparison to Guardsmen, but then so are dogs. being 'greenskins' they are increadibly tough in comparison to humans. in a fight i might be able to have the upper-hand in strength, but it would wear me down eventuallty, and more than one and i'd be in trouble.

perhaps the most acurate stats for a non-combatant like myself would be S:3 T:2.


----------



## KarlFranz40k (Jan 30, 2009)

Thats a good point about gravity, technically in low gravity worlds compared to earth humans would either atrophy (spelling) or die, and if they survived they would be nearly useless in a fight against even even your granny. However on a world with higher gravity than ours, humans would die, period, they wouldnt adapt or evolve to be musclemen, they'd die.


----------



## Evil beaver2 (Feb 3, 2009)

Eldar guardians (who are realy just armored eldar civilians) are s3 t3, so humans probably are too. We arent grechin!!!!!


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Biologically we could change quite a bit in 40000 years. Although Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' no longer applies genetic drift and random mutation could take us in any direction.

But then didn't god make us exactly like this and therefore we won't change, if we accept intelligent creationism that is.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

Fugital357 said:


> I'd say modern-day humans would be S2, T4, "Slow and Purposeful" judging how I'm the only person in my office that isn't morbidly obese.


Haha they bear the Mark of Nurgle!! :mrgreen:


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

This is why the Sv comes into play with Initiative as the SM have a quicker response and better armour where as an IG is slower to respond even if his S is only 1 less than a SM. In the end think about it realistically it can come down to luck and postioning You may have an ultra strong person but he may be a bit slower and therefore if I can out manouver him I have a chance of winning eg an Orgryn Vs an Eldar Guardian - the Guardian can still win even though his stat line is lower showing that he is in with a slight chance.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

In the books it doesn't really hint that guardsmen are stronger either we just assume that because they are in the army- in the HH books it mentions rememberancers over throwing some guardsmen.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Evil beaver2 said:


> Eldar guardians (who are realy just armored eldar civilians) are s3 t3, so humans probably are too. We arent grechin!!!!!


i think you vastly over estimate yourself, or vastly under estimate the inhabitants of the 40kiverse.

firstly, Eldar are not human, they are physically far superior. even the laziest and most decrepit of Eldar will still out shine the average human. added to that that there is no such thing as an CW Eldar 'civilian', they all travel the path of the Warrior, joining one aspect and then another over time. Guardians are those that are not currently on part of a Aspect Temple; they are in-between Aspects, but they are not untrained militia.

also, i'd like to hear why you think that you are significantly stronger than a goblin. i haven't seen any such background produced by GW (or anyone else for that matter) that would indicate that a basic human would wipe the floor with a gretchin in a standard fight. could you beat a midget, just becaus he's shorter than you?



the cabbage said:


> Biologically we could change quite a bit in 40000 years. Although Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' no longer applies genetic drift and random mutation could take us in any direction.


we could, but in the background of 40k, there is little to suggest that the majority has. obviously Ogryns, Ratlings, Squats and other stable abhumans are different, but its not like the human race has split into a number of significant factions.

also, i'm not convinced that without the guiding hand of 'survival of the fittest' that genetic drift and random mutation would produce any sustained and/or corporate change in a breeding population of the human race. that's why mutants in the game are completely unalike. the only mutation that is prevelant is being a psyker.



the cabbage said:


> But then didn't god make us exactly like this and therefore we won't change, if we accept intelligent creationism that is.


personally, i couldn't say what the main tennants of 'intelligent design' are, as by far the majority of people that talk about it, are its opponents. it seems that the idea is a shadow that people enjoy boxing.

however, there are a significant number of perfectly reasonable and intellegent people in the world that don't believe that 'survival of the fittest' is real. i don't personally understand how the mechanism is supposed to work, so i'm not going to try and debate it. but i believe one of the main critiques of the concept is that its ability to generate new information seems to rather fly in the face of most other fields of study.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I honestly can;t fathom why people are still arguing for 2.

Take a look through the range of human miniatures, from the scabbiest, scrawniest necromunda scavie juvie to the biggest, buffest Catachan on the block, they're ALL S3 The scavie juvie may be a hell of a lot weaker than the Catachan heavy weapon trooper, but in game terms, they've got the same base stats. 

Look at the minis, then look at the stat line. Doesn't matter how scrawny and malnourished, or how huge and buff, if it's human it's 3 & 3


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

I'm with the S3 T3 crowd on this one, and I haven't really seen a credible argument to the contrary. As Gal said the S3 and T3 encompasses the whole range of 40K humans, and suggesting that 'evolution' and 'mutation' 39,000 years from now would have significantly increased the strength and toughness of your average human just smacks of ignorance and someone spinning bull shit. With such a vast difference in the circumstances of the various human populations in 40K- and I don't just mean rich and poor, but also culture, world type etc- then trying to impose any sort of condition where by the entire of humanity has progressed down the evolutionary path in a certain manner is farcical.


----------



## KarlFranz40k (Jan 30, 2009)

Chuck Norris Has *TOUGHNESS 10* *STRENGTH D*


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Galahad said:


> ...
> 
> Ordinary humans are 3s, whether you're Phill Collens or Henry Rollins, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Tom Arnold


Brilliant. If I was clever enough I'd put that in my sig.

Not sure though, I think maybe Schwarzenegger might _just_ be edging into Space Marine territory... or maybe he was in the 1970s, not so much now that he's about 60.

But; thinking about this sideways for a moment, the way I've always assumed Warhammer and 40k 'worked' was just smothing out averages. Think about the difference between an orc with a sword in Warhammer and an orc with a sword in (old style, I don't know how the new one works) D&D. In both cases we'll assume that the orc is fighting a low-level fighter type (Brettonian peasant? Empire state trooper? Someone like that). 

In WHFB, the trooper has 1 wound. The orc's weapon does 1 pt of damage. Thus the orc's weapon does enough damage to kill a low-level fighter. If the orc hits first, he will kill his target. 

In D&D, the trooper (1st level fighter) has 1 Hit Die (average 4.5 hit points). The orc's weapon does d8 damage (average 4.5 points of damage). Thus _on average_ the orc's weapon does enough damage to kill a low-level fighter. If the orc hits first, he will _on average_ kill his target.

In other words; what is a 'point' or a 'wound' in WHFB is a die-roll in other games, that have a more detailed scale. This is all well and good - WH and 40k that it spawned are battle-games, not RPGs. Who wants to individually calculate and roll hits for a unit that has 5, 3, 7, 6, 4, 6, 7, 1, 2, 6, 7, 4, 7, 6, 5, 4, 8, 4, 7, 3 and 7 hit points? Isn't "one die of damage against one die of wounds" ultimately the same as "one damage against one wound"?

This may not seem terribly relevant; but my point is that you could, if you like, infinitely increase this scale. Old D&D would have S3d6 instead of S3 and T3d6 instead of T3; again, the raw numbers in WHFB a ranges in other systems. But yo could if you like say that S3 represents a number from 21-30, or 201-300 or something like that. So a puny Necro ganger might be S201 but a Catachan jungle fighter could be S300. Both, in our averaging-out system, would both be '3' for battle-game purposes.

In the end, we're meat in the grinder; and the grinder works just as well on Catachans as on Necromundans. Some will be slightly more dead than others (going back to the original comparison, 6hp beaten by 7pts of damage is dead, 3hp beaten by 8pts of damamge is also dead... 'more' dead? Not really). But the differences will be slight.

As to evolution... pshaw I say. I'm not certain humans have changed spectacularly over the last 40,000 years (we're, on average, slightly shorter than Cro-Magnon humans, from the data I have). If that continues, we'll all be Ratlings... no, only joking, we'll be about 5'3" (about, 1.65m I think). So; not convinced that evolution will play a significant factor. Apart from everything else, those bulkier and taller individuals who breed will be counterbalanced and averaged out by the shorter skinnier ones... so _on average_ I figure we'll be pretty much as we are.

:slightly more than 2ps' worth of musings of the cyclops:


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I think that instead of it being a single point in the difference it's actually a power styled thing. for example a guardsman is S3, we'll use 2 as the main number here for the powers theory, so that's 2 to the power of 3, 2X2X2, which is 8. Now do that with a space marine, 2 to the power of 4, 2X2X2X2, and that 16. A major increase and tha's using a small number like 2. It could be with 5, or 10, or any number really. so instead of going up just one it's really going up a whole load and everything between those numbers, for the example given above 8-15 would be in 3. 16-31 would be 4 etc. 

Just my thinking on it. doesn't mean it's right....


----------



## Sephirros (Feb 6, 2009)

Consider this....

The SoB wear power armor, as do Space Marines. The SoB can carry and use Heavy weapons by themselves like Space Marines (ones the Guard have to crew serve and put on tripods). The SoB lack the genetic engineering and upgraded anatomy of Space Marines, but are made powerful through religious zeal. All of this, and yet the Sisters are stated down on the level of the Guard instead of up with the Space Marines. 

Perhaps the real question here is what are regular women stated at by 40k standards?

:wink:


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

I don't think it's a gender issue. Most of the gangers in Necro are male, and they take man-portable heavy weapons that Guard, as you say, put in 2-man units. The Escher, who are all female, take woman-portable heavy weapons that the Guard yada yada... are you arguing that there are (or should be) different stats for men and women, and Escher are 'stronger' than Guard, given that many Guard regiments have female soldiers anyway?

The point is "_humans_", both male and female, because no-one ever said this only applied to men, average a "3". Some may be 2.6 ("call it a 3"), some may be 3.4 ("call it a 3"). They are all "3", because that's just the top of the bell-shaped curve for the whole human population.

What the existence of the Sisters does is knock the idea of the 'superiority' of the Space Marines. If normal humans (ie, only fuelled by fanaticism, not genetically enhanced and steriod-pumped) can carry multi-meltas and wander about in power armour, why do SMs need all the gene-splicing mumbo-jumbo? Why don't they just give the power armour to regular Guards-men and -women, and why do the Guard need 2-person hevy weapons teams?

:crunching the numbers cyclops:


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

In all likelihood Ig prefer two man fireteams just for the sake of logistics and long-term portability. Sisters and Marines are both rapid-strike, specialist types. They battle for a day or two, either win or get wiped out, then move on to the next mission (same with the gangers, they're in it for the skirmish, not the war), meanwhile a guardsman often ends up stuck in, defending the same ground for weeks or months, so you may as well set up and get comfy. Likewise, haivng someone to carry your ammo and tripod is nice when you;ve got to lug that lascannon on a forty mile march. Their heavy weapons are also *bigger* than those used by marines and sisters and gangers, probably built to be more robust for long-term campaigning. 

I think Red's got it right with the whole decimal points system. Scrawny sanctioned psyker, huge burly catachan, they're both on total opposite ends of the spectrum of 3, one os obviously far and away stronger than the other, but in the grand scheme of things, they're just not 'two foot ratling' weak or 'eight foot marine' strong, so they average out to 3


----------



## HivefleetIngensus (Mar 3, 2009)

I would have to agree with the 3's croud, woman or man, scrawny or buff, humans are S3 T3. Lord Reevan basically explained why a super-human and a normal one are just one number apart.

Sephirros, Galahad got to the explanation before me, and he's right. Once again, the Reevan theory about super-humans and regular ones takes precedence.

The Reevan theory is the best name for it, in my opinion. He DID come up with it.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I imagine that Sisters have such an easy time carrying around heavy weapons because they're wearing power armor, which dramatically increases the strength and speed of the wearer.


----------



## dtq (Feb 19, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I imagine that Sisters have such an easy time carrying around heavy weapons because they're wearing power armor, which dramatically increases the strength and speed of the wearer.


Actually the power armour doesnt increase their strength because they dont have the black carapace, Which could potentially be the only reason marines in power armour get 4 strength instead of 3!


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

dtq said:


> Actually the power armour doesnt increase their strength because they dont have the black carapace, Which could potentially be the only reason marines in power armour get 4 strength instead of 3!


Actually, it does. Power armor is built "to replicate and enhance the movements of the wearer". Sisters just can't interface with power armor fully, unlike a Space Marine.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Actually, I always assumed all the strength and speed augmentation was just to make up for the bulk of the armor. A butt nekkid marine would be just as strong and fast as one wearing a couple hundred pounds of ceramite armor

After all, Scouts don't have power armor but are just as strong and fast

I figured the man-portable heavy weapons was mainly due to their design. IG heavy bolters and lascannons, etc are all much larger than the marine counterparts, probably using a different STC designed for prolonged field use. Their assault weapons are larger too, IG meltas and flamers aren't nearly as compact as marine or SOB ones.

Different gear, different tactical mindset. Marines and sisters are mission-oriented strike forces while IG are long-term campaigners.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Galahad said:


> Actually, I always assumed all the strength and speed augmentation was just to make up for the bulk of the armor. A butt nekkid marine would be just as strong and fast as one wearing a couple hundred pounds of ceramite armor


Naw, there's plenty of references that make it clear that power armor strengthens the wearer - take the Fallen Dark Angel in Gav Thorpe's Dark Angel novel (Angels of Darkness or something?). He mentions several times that he could have broken free of his restraints if he'd had his armor, and that when they initially put the manicles on his hands that he wouldn't have been able to break them even with his power armor on.

Also, I believe the Inquisitor game has rules on how power armor boosts the strength of its wearer, though I'm not sure.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Still, I suppose it's not enough of a boost to impact the stats in 40k

An armored marine is stronger than an unarmored one, but they're both still 4s. An armored sister is stronger than an unarmored one, but still just on the high end of 3, right next to the huge, burly house Goliath ganger hauling around a heavy bolter bare-handed.

Then you've got shit like this







LOL


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I picked up a very negligably damaged copy of Dark Heresy a couple days ago for ten bucks (steal, I know-- there's a slight warp in the front cover.) It says that power armor increases the strength and speed of the wearer. The increase in speed counteracts the huge amount power armour weighs, while the strength increase is enough to make the difference in lifting heavy objects in the like. 

Sisters can't interface with their armor, which is why their guns all have scopes and targeters and whatnot, and their helmets are smaller since they can't use the auto-senses that Astartes power armour has. Sisters' armor doesn't even incoroprate a lot of the systems that Space Marine armour does, because they -can't- use it. That's why it's much leaner-looking, and features a smaller power pack. 

Anyway, the benchmark for an unaugmented human, regardless of age or gender, is 3. When you have a 1 to 10 scale that represents everything from a housecat to a Tyranid Bio-Titan, each point of strength represents a really broad spectrum in and of itself. An Ork Boy is S3, for example, because an Ork isn't as strong as a Space Marine, but he's somewhat stronger than an average human. The Ork isn't strong enough to be considered comparably strong to a Space Marine, so it's S3 instead of 4.


----------



## dtq (Feb 19, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Actually, it does. Power armor is built "to replicate and enhance the movements of the wearer". Sisters just can't interface with power armor fully, unlike a Space Marine.


I didnt pull the fact out of thin air or base it upon an assumption.

Page 19 of the witch hunters codex says 

"The power armour worn by the battle sisters of the orders militant is _based_ upon the same archaic systems as that worn by the brethren of the adeptus astartes. It provides the same degree of armoured protection , yet must forgo the more advanced life support systems AND strength enhancing abilities used by the space marines, as the sisters of battle are not implanted with the black carapace.


----------



## Sephirros (Feb 6, 2009)

I think this is amusing, as we all know the Sisters power-armor being not as big and bulky as the SM armor is simply so we can tell they are women and to add a bit of attractiveness. The fluff was written around that. Otherwise a Sister would've been a SM with long hair and lipstick and an equally fluffed in reason as to why to not wear a helmet so we could see the hair and lipstick...


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Plus built in high heels and cast iron Madonna bras. Essential for combat in the dark future

In any event, whether or not the sisters have strength enhancements in their armor is beside the point. Their heavy weapons are smaller than those of the IG and are designed for portability. IG weapons are designed for prolonged field use and stable firing positions. I've seen IG models packing their own heavy weapons, so it's not impossible for someone to haul a heavy gun around and still be on the high end of S3.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

SoB are clearly just trying to get the Eldar to fall to Slaanesh


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Anyhoo, away from whether or not Sisters are "hawt" (there are precisely 28,762 other threads that deal with that very subject), Gal's totally right about the differences between Marine/Sister/Necromunda heavy weapon variants and standard IG variants.

Which is why "when I get round to doing"* the Devron 20th ("Headhunters") Regiment of the Imperial Guard, using substantially Necro minis, I'm using the Orlock heavy bolter guy with a ganger standing next to him as my Heavy Weapons team. They're jungle fighters and don't want poncy little cannon-carts for sitting behind, they want a beefy fella waving a big gun and shouting a lot, with a little guy watching his back and making irritating wisecracks.

:jungle-fighting, head-hunting cyclops with a big knife and a heavy bolter:

* in quotes because probably never.


----------

