36143
Post by: snake
Looking for some canon info on the height and weight of an "average" unarmored tactical marine, and then the height and weight of an "average" tactical marine in power armour (Mk 7 or 8). Are there any hard and fast citations on these numbers?
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
I think they're 9-10 feet tall.
41879
Post by: Sabet
there 7-8 feet tall out of armour. 8-9 in armour, a few 10 i believe.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
It varies, as it does with humans.
On average, outside of the armour marines are 7 feet tall I think, 8 in.
Cannot check any codex for verification at the moment though.
20700
Post by: IvanTih
Void__Dragon wrote:It varies, as it does with humans.
On average, outside of the armour marines are 7 feet tall I think, 8 in.
Cannot check any codex for verification at the moment though.
The height varies from 7 feet to 9 feet ( based on numerous sources).
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
snake wrote:Looking for some canon info on the height and weight of an "average" unarmored tactical marine, and then the height and weight of an "average" tactical marine in power armour (Mk 7 or 8). Are there any hard and fast citations on these numbers?
About 7-8ft, they weigh roughly a metric ton with their armour on.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Wow, where do you people get these numbers from? This is just like all those myths and legends in real life that were probably based on real events. 
They're 7 feet on average. This includes wearing power armour and means that some may grow a little larger whilst others would grow a bit smaller.
When Jes Goodwin worked on GW's Inquisitor RPG, he drew a life-sized Space Marine on a wall. This is the photo of him sitting next to said drawing.
PS: note that for some weird reason the height scale begins at 1 foot and not 0, so the "8" on the top should obviously be a "7".
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Lynata wrote:Wow, where do you people get these numbers from? This is just like all those myths and legends in real life that were probably based on real events.
They're 7 feet on average. This includes wearing power armour and means that some may grow a little larger whilst others would grow a bit smaller.
When Jes Goodwin worked on GW's Inquisitor RPG, he drew a life-sized Space Marine on a wall. This is the photo of him sitting next to said drawing.
PS: note that for some weird reason the height scale begins at 1 foot and not 0, so the "8" on the top should obviously be a "7".
Notice how wide his legs are spread. 
42342
Post by: Smacks
Quoted from another topic...
Æscholt wrote:Here's a summary of the various 'canon' heights Marines have been given from time to time. If anyone has an example I've missed, then please don't hesitate to mention it.
• Deathwatch says that "whilst wearing their power armour, an unarmed Space Marine typically stands slightly over 2.1 metres tall".
• The current Codex: Chaos Space Marines says Marines "stand seven feet tall".
• 2nd edition's Codex: Angels of Death describes a Marine as "seven foot tall".
• Jes Goodwin has said that Marines are "seven to seven foot six", and his "life size" drawing of an armour Space Marine was 7′ tall.
• James Swallow's Blood Angels series features Marines who stand "well over two metres" tall.
• Dan Abnett's books usually place a Marine as being about a metre taller than a human, and in Horus Rising describes Loken as being "a giant, two and a half metres tall".
• Anthony Reynolds's Word Bearers are shorter than three metres, with an "almost three metres" tall staff being "taller even than" the Marine carrying it, and a three metre tall Ogryn "dwarfed even the Terminators".
• And lastly, Ben Counter describes Marines as being "three metres tall" in his Soul Drinkers novels.
This gives Space Marines an average cannon hight of around 7.6 foot tall. But the median and mode heights are 7 foot.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Void__Dragon wrote:Notice how wide his legs are spread.
Obviously a Marine can only walk or stand with his legs spread apart as to not crush his giant adamantium balls.
Also, lol @ some of those BL authors. Actually that makes me curious as to how large Goto makes Space Marines in his books. Was it ever mentioned there?
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Lynata wrote:Obviously a Marine can only walk or stand with his legs spread apart as to not crush his giant adamantium balls.
Also, lol @ some of those BL authors. Actually that makes me curious as to how large Goto makes Space Marines in his books. Was it ever mentioned there?
Who do you think they are, guardsmen?
I don't know, I assume that the Multilasers that they have strapped to their feet adds a foot or two.
Actually, in a related topic, how tall were the Primarchs, on average?
They were said to tower over Space Marines, but I don't know how much.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
There've been hints that the Heresy era marines were larger due to purer geneseed and better technology, one of the HH books had them at 3 meters (10' tall).
I also imagine it varies by chapter, I've heard GKs are a bit shorter and stockier due to Titan's higher gravity.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Void__Dragon wrote:Who do you think they are, guardsmen?
Touché! 
Concerning some of those sources - keep in mind that Black Library books cannot create canon; each "average height" given in various licensed works is, at the end of the day, part of that individual author's interpretation.
May suck concerning continuity, but GW has adopted the "Star Trek" way of dealing with their setting. On the other hand, things like those multilasers etc make me feel glad it's that way.
That doesn't have to mean that there aren't any Chapters with "Three Meter Marines" (could qualify as part of their geneseed mutation or genetical trait of the local recruitment stock, after all; the 7 feet are really just the official standard) - just that it's not " GW-approved" either.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Kid_Kyoto wrote:I've heard GKs are a bit shorter and stockier due to Titan's higher gravity.
Titan has higher Gravity? As in... compared to Earth?
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I'm glad I got in late on this one, because I would have thrown my lot in with the '9-10' crowd. Lynata, Smacks, thanks for the information.
But still...seven feet? I'm so underwhelmed. The photo Lynata linked, especially, is disappointing. (First off, if you're trying to give me a size comparison Jes, then maybe you should position yourself in the same pose as the drawing.) Seven feet outside of power armor I can dig, but if you stuck me in power armor I would be closing in on the seven foot mark.
In my head I still always see them between seven and eight feet tall out of the armor, with the armor adding about six inches. The size that the cited fluff (and scale drawing) has them at isn't really big enough to give me that 'giant among men' feel.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Hmm, I don't actually think that power armour adds that much to one's height. Looking at the drawing, the soles and he (neglectable) helmet might account for, say, 6-8cm together, but that's about it.
That said, one shouldn't forget how wide Marines are. Whilst probably just a single head or two above most people, they look like they're easily three times as broad!
That "giant amongst men" thing is probably mainly cultivated via over-the-top appearances in various novels, I suppose. Keep in mind they have to fit into that Rhino somehow. 
Oh, and - glad the pic is appreciated. I admit I'm a sucker for such details, and even though I've concentrated my research on SoB and IG, I often stumble upon the odd bit of cool Astartes fluff (mainly when looking for technical specs on various equipment).
42342
Post by: Smacks
Jimsolo wrote:In my head I still always see them between seven and eight feet tall out of the armor, with the armor adding about six inches. The size that the cited fluff (and scale drawing) has them at isn't really big enough to give me that 'giant among men' feel.
I think perhaps height is one of those things that just keeps getting exaggerated. I think a lot of people also might fail to visualise just how tall 7 foot really is. Andre the giant was clearly a giant among men. His actual height was 6'9.75" (measured by the French Athletic Federation in 1970 at 24 years of age.). He dwarves Hulk Hogan (who I would personally consider a giant of a man).
I have a friend who is about 5 inches taller than me (he is a giant of a man). But when he stands in front of you, that 5 inches feels more like about a foot and a half. If a guy 7'+ tall with a muscular build, where to stand in front of me, I think he would probably appear monstrous, and feel double my height (In reality I'm considerably taller that 3'6"). I think even Andre the giant a 6'10 would find such a person huge and intimidating.
When people talk about someone 9-10 foot, I think it starts to get absurd. Such a person would be so tall that I'm not even sure we could interact with each other, it would be like hanging around with a giraffe. I don't think marines really need to be so tall to be impressive, 7 foot tall is already quite obscene IMO.
31638
Post by: UNREALPwnage
Imagine a half ton basketball player. That is what you are looking at for the size and weight of a fully loaded out marine
20700
Post by: IvanTih
Lynata wrote:Void__Dragon wrote:Who do you think they are, guardsmen?
Touché!
Concerning some of those sources - keep in mind that Black Library books cannot create canon; each "average height" given in various licensed works is, at the end of the day, part of that individual author's interpretation.
May suck concerning continuity, but GW has adopted the "Star Trek" way of dealing with their setting. On the other hand, things like those multilasers etc make me feel glad it's that way.
Everything in 40k is canon and Goto isn't that bad, he actually gave a good options for the Space Marines Devastators because marines aren't limited to the weapons we see on the tabletop.
“Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about “canonical background” will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history…
Here’s our standard line: Yes it’s all official, but remember that we’re reporting back from a time where stories aren’t always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let’s put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex… and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.
I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.
Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.
But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.
It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.
Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.
To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW’s definition of canon? Perhaps we don’t have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I’m not telling you.”
-Marc Gascoigne
Automatically Appended Next Post: Void__Dragon wrote:Lynata wrote:Obviously a Marine can only walk or stand with his legs spread apart as to not crush his giant adamantium
Actually, in a related topic, how tall were the Primarchs, on average?
They were said to tower over Space Marines, but I don't know how much.
It depends on a primarch, Alpharius and Omegon were the shortest ones, tall approximately as or little more than a Space Marine, Ferrus Manus and Leman Russ IIRC were towering over the Terminators.
42589
Post by: the color purple
Smacks wrote:Jimsolo wrote:In my head I still always see them between seven and eight feet tall out of the armor, with the armor adding about six inches. The size that the cited fluff (and scale drawing) has them at isn't really big enough to give me that 'giant among men' feel.
I think perhaps height is one of those things that just keeps getting exaggerated. I think a lot of people also might fail to visualise just how tall 7 foot really is. Andre the giant was clearly a giant among men. His actual height was 6'9.75" (measured by the French Athletic Federation in 1970 at 24 years of age.). He dwarves Hulk Hogan (who I would personally consider a giant of a man).
I have a friend who is about 5 inches taller than me (he is a giant of a man). But when he stands in front of you, that 5 inches feels more like about a foot and a half. If a guy 7'+ tall with a muscular build, where to stand in front of me, I think he would probably appear monstrous, and feel double my height (In reality I'm considerably taller that 3'6"). I think even Andre the giant a 6'10 would find such a person huge and intimidating.
When people talk about someone 9-10 foot, I think it starts to get absurd. Such a person would be so tall that I'm not even sure we could interact with each other, it would be like hanging around with a giraffe. I don't think marines really need to be so tall to be impressive, 7 foot tall is already quite obscene IMO.
I agree with this. If marines were running around at 9-10', they would be stooping through doors and down corridors and simply wouldn't fit into vehicles like rhinos. And that's not even considering width. Space marines would be much, much bigger and broader than normal 7' humans. At 9' they would be turning sideways to get through openings built for people our size. The Horus Heresy series depicts marines and normal humans living comfortably on the same ships. Either the Imperium is vastly more generous than modern navies in providing moving and living space for their crews, or space marines are moving around in all those scenes bent over and strafing sideways.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Imperial ships are more like cathedrals than modern naval vessels.
36143
Post by: snake
So 7ish feet...kinda underwhelming imo, but I guess it works. Although it does not mesh greatly with the giants-vastly-superior-to-men image. And fitting a half a ton of weight over a 7' frame would be very awkward. I guess marines are squares?
45703
Post by: Lynata
IvanTih wrote:Everything in 40k is canon [...]
"Everything" cannot be canon, for that's like saying "yes" and "no" are both true - or that Tau have hooves (actual GW minis) as well as feet ("Xenology"). Where contradictions arise, one source is obviously either wrong or supersedes the other. George Mann - the Head of Publishing - has made it a little bit clearer than Marc Gascogne, who is "just" an author. The following is from the 2008 GW Annual Meeting, where he was confronted with this very question:
In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work.
This essentially mirrors what Gav Thorpe and Aaron Dembski-Bowden have mentioned on their blogs. The latter actually clearly stated he doesn't care what some other novel author writes if he thinks it's crap, as BL does give him the freedom to simply disregard it.
http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/
Which is exactly what Gav wrote about GW sometimes adopting novel aspects they like, but not actually feeling in any way bound to do so.
http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/
I have to add that - for many years! - I too thought that Black Library stuff was as canon as GW books. It was not until I noticed more and more contradictions, some of whom even go against the very spirit of an army, popped up that I actually went to investigate this further, looking for insider statements such as the ones mentioned above. Now I can rest easy, knowing that certain BL slip-ups can be ignored, whilst I'll still take inspiration from things that sounds like they'd fit.
46359
Post by: FuryTheBerserker
 the english metric system!
(taken from Warhammer 40k wikia)
I hope you dont mind the size of the picture.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
snake wrote:So 7ish feet...kinda underwhelming imo, but I guess it works. Although it does not mesh greatly with the giants-vastly-superior-to-men image. And fitting a half a ton of weight over a 7' frame would be very awkward. I guess marines are squares?
They are very, very stocky, yes. To be fair, it's more like 7'6'', which is actually quite an intimidating height, when you think about it. Given that the average human stands at around 6ft, this puts the marines (considering their width as well as height) as a considerable size advantage to them, which is further enhanced by the power armour.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:To be fair, it's more like 7'6''
As per GW, apparently not. Why the bartering for inches?
Smacks actually raised a very good point. 7 feet is freakishly huge already. There's really no need to go beyond this size as the established average just to prove a point. From an outside perspective, that just sounds as if their fans would perceive the Marines as not being "l33t" enough as they are as per what GW intended, or that they feel threatened that there's a chance the Astartes might get pushed out of the limelight every so often.
Personally, I find the whole "power creep" that takes places in various licensed works irritating, be it in relation to their size, their toughness or their equipment - especially given that it focuses on the most popular army with the intent to make them even more popular. It's like the Hollywood movies where every action movie has to incorporate more explosions than the prior one, until it reaches a point that just looks over the top. Though admittedly where that point lies depends heavily on one's personal preferences - but you get my drift...
Anyways, there seems to be a strong mythos-thing going on. Just look at how many people think the Movie Marines article is intended to present Marines in a "realistic" manner, when the article itself (and its very name!) clearly states the opposite.
20700
Post by: IvanTih
Lynata wrote:*snip*
BL stuff has to adhere to the defined elements of the 40k setting, that's why we have Heretic Tomes after all.
And a lot of those contradictions can resolved by look at the size of the Imperium, after all a galaxy sized empire is full of a people with different opinion.
45703
Post by: Lynata
IvanTih wrote:BL stuff has to adhere to the defined elements of the 40k setting, that's why we have Heretic Tomes after all.
That's the problem, for there are two things:
- authors DO make mistakes which do not get corrected by editors (Ecclesiarchy having its own battleships, Terminators doing backflips, Multilaser-Marines, D-cannons firing projectiles, Schola Progenium not being gender-divided, ... etc pp)
and
- novels still cannot establish any canon on their own (else BL would demand its writers to respect each other), so what's the point in pulling them as a source?
As Gav Thorpe said in the blog I linked above:
"On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
One question though, what's a Heretic Tome? I admit I've not heard of such thing yet. 
IvanTih wrote:And a lot of those contradictions can resolved by look at the size of the Imperium, after all a galaxy sized empire is full of a people with different opinion.
Some, yes. As I said, uberhuge Marines in one book could be explained-away by thinking of geneseed mutations etc - but other things such as the cited examples on novel flaws are simply facts that are valid everywhere, be it due to the technical principle working as invented by GW, or because of some general rule promulgated by the studio material.
I, too, still like to adopt certain ideas from various novels that I personally like and where they do not contradict anything defined by GW. That said, I have to keep in mind that GW may overrule them any day. They don't feel in any way bound to what BL churns out.
20700
Post by: IvanTih
Lynata wrote:IvanTih wrote:BL stuff has to adhere to the defined elements of the 40k setting, that's why we have Heretic Tomes after all.
That's the problem, for there are two things:
- authors DO make mistakes which do not get corrected by editors (Ecclesiarchy having its own battleships, Terminators doing backflips, Multilaser-Marines, D-cannons firing projectiles, Schola Progenium not being gender-divided, ... etc pp)
and
- novels still cannot establish any canon on their own (else BL would demand its writers to respect each other), so what's the point in pulling them as a source?
I will see this thread later , but I edited the post above, so can you edit the quote?
45703
Post by: Lynata
IvanTih wrote:I will see this thread later , but I edited the post above, so can you edit the quote?
Done!
20700
Post by: IvanTih
See this quote, clearly states that everything is canon. As for Heretic tomes. http://www.blacklibrary.com/Blog/Heretic-Tomes-The-truth-revealed.html
I wonder why you whine about C.S Goto giving Space Marines multilasers, marines aren't limited to weapons we see on tabletop. We also see SW using Hellguns in one of the SW novels.
(Marc Gascoigne - Publisher @ The Black Library and Black Flame)
Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.
As for your quote it merely states that BL books are still an accurate mirror of the 40k as they must use what codexes and rulebooks say.
45703
Post by: Lynata
IvanTih wrote:See this quote, clearly states that everything is canon.
For a licensed product, the term "official" isn't exactly the same as "canon", though I would agree that this alone doesn't make a very convincing argument. However, Marc Gascogne is just a single mercenary author who quite simply doesn't have the insige knowledge of people like George or Gav. Also, if you are going exactly by what Marc Gascogne said, there would not be any canon in 40k because it's all lies and everything is unreliable. Which would make this sub-forum redundant.
IvanTih wrote:I wonder why you whine about C.S Goto giving Space Marines multilasers, marines aren't limited to weapons we see on tabletop. We also see SW using Hellguns in one of the SW novels.
Please, it's not "whining", it's giving examples of obvious flaws that contradict what we have seen elsewhere. But apart from the technical limitations (do you know how large a multilaser battery is?), why do you think that this usage of weaponry is nothing special when it doesn't get mentioned anywhere in the respective Codices' wargear sections?
And SWs with Hellguns just sounds like yet another mess-up from some BL novel.
I don't intend to "bash" BL (I own a fair number of their books myself and fully intend to continue buying those that are of interest to me), I'm just advocating to see it for what GW's own Head of Publishing himself has said. Also solves a lot of conflicts, I would say.
IvanTih wrote:As for your quote it merely states that BL books are still an accurate mirror of the 40k as they must use what codexes and rulebooks say.
Which obviously often enough is not the case due to faulty editing, prompting the statements mentioned earlier.
Also, the quote actually says far more than that. It also confirms what Aaron wrote in his blog about BL authors not having to care in the slightest what another BL author has written. An artistic freedom he does make use of when writing his novels.
This leaves us with the following chain of facts:
- BL novels cannot "create canon" as another author is perfectly free to write the exact opposite in the very next book
- when BL novels cannot create canon, all they can do is use canon from GW material
- so when said BL novel states something that is in conflict with said GW material ... where is it from? if it's not from GW, it obviously cannot be canon, q.e.d.
But I also recommend you give those two blogs a read. It's very interesting to read how this issue is explained by the people who actually work with this stuff on a professional basis.
Thanks for explaining the "Heretic Tomes" though!
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I agree with Lynata that continuity errors exist in the canon, but you can't throw them all out. What they establish is precedent. You can still cite an old court case for precedent, even if it has been overturned at a later date, provided it still has bearing on your current case. I think that's a fair way to approach the background novels. I'm not going to take their word as gospel, but it certainly establishes a starting point. Official supplements, of course, supercede any novels, no matter the author. The picture provided that shows the scale between marines and a standard human makes it all make a little more sense, at least to me. (And makes me happy that I could theoretically carry on a conversation with a Space Marine in a normal fashion.)
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
Space Marines are ten feet tall.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Jimsolo wrote:I'm not going to take their word as gospel, but it certainly establishes a starting point. Official supplements, of course, supercede any novels, no matter the author.
That's pretty much what I meant by taking novels as inspiration where their stuff fits to what GW themselves establish (for example, I've incorporated James Swallow's idea of a hidden blade within the Chaplet Ecclesiasticus into my current Dark Heresy P&P campaign). I just feel that such an approach is "the best of both worlds".
Of course, problems arise when BL book A says something and BL book B claims another (see Aaron's blog), but I suppose these are the cases where one just has to use his or her own judgment and personal preference. When a BL novel author is officially allowed to call stuff from another BL novel silly and ignore it, so can every other player. *shrugs*
Actually, on that note I get the feeling that GW takes the subject of canon far less serious than we do, but I guess that's just our way of adoration. 
44688
Post by: TrollPie
There's a photo in the Tau codex somewhere with an armoured marine, a Guardsman and a Fire Warrior. The Marine is about 75% taller than the other two. Probably exaggerated, but I'm jus throwing it out there.
20700
Post by: IvanTih
Seems you never read SW novels, if you took context you would have seen why they took Hellguns. IIRC they ran out of the ammo and had to improvise, a SW even comments how they backpack reactor gives them unlimited ammo.
Marines aren't stupid.
About canon see the link that I PM you, it saves me from a lot of words.
25220
Post by: WarOne
The general Dakka consensus is that Space Marines are at least ten feet tall.
Some chapters from weaker gravity worlds probably eclipse twelve or even thirteen feet too.
45703
Post by: Lynata
IvanTih wrote:Seems you never read SW novels, if you took context you would have seen why they took Hellguns. IIRC they ran out of the ammo and had to improvise, a SW even comments how they backpack reactor gives them unlimited ammo.
Ah. But picking up random weapons from the ground is not quite the same as having them in one's loadout by standard, though. As you said, context is important, and the one you just explained would make the SW example incomparable.
Heck, according to that conversation, even George Mann agrees that the multi-laser incident is considered silly when he says that it "could have benefited from the editor's red pen"...
That said, this was just one example from my list posted earlier (though I tend to stress this one because the vast majority of people seems to have heard of it, so it makes a good case). I could probably add to it if I'd look further, as could a lot of other people with more BL novels in their possession I am sure...
Also, PM'd back.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Didn't Goto allegedly give Carnifexes Multilasers?
Because that seems kind of silly.
45703
Post by: Lynata
I think that was just a joke. At least I hope so.
He did the backflipping Terminators, though. And Astartes that surf into battle on top of their Razorbacks/Landraiders. *shrugs*
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Lynata wrote: And Astartes that surf into battle on top of their Razorbacks/Landraiders. *shrugs*
I see no problem with this.
That's manly, all Marines should do it.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Now that you mention it, yeah - it seems odd, but not impossible. I could see SW doing that by default.
Children crippling an Eldar Falcon grav-tank by ramming rocks into it, on the other hand ... a wee bit over the top. Probably depends on one's personal preferences, I know I can be pretty anal with such details when I really want to analyze something. I guess the best advice really is just to focus on the story and not try to squeeze any "canon facts" out of it.
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
Lynata wrote:Children crippling an Eldar Falcon grav-tank by ramming rocks into it, on the other hand ... a wee bit over the top.
This happened?
But my general stance on BL canon is: Only what I like is canon.
34682
Post by: ToBeWilly
Lynata wrote:And Astartes that surf into battle on top of their Razorbacks/Landraiders. *shrugs*
He isn't the first to say this. Old fluff for Jaghatai Khan, Primarch of the White Scars, is said to have fought from the top of his Landraider or Rhino, I don't remember which.
45703
Post by: Lynata
ToBeWilly wrote:He isn't the first to say this. Old fluff for Jaghatai Khan, Primarch of the White Scars, is said to have fought from the top of his Landraider or Rhino, I don't remember which.
Thanks for mentioning that, I stand corrected - in retrospect this really doesn't seem so bad. Still weird, but given that this is 40k ...
Actually, after having read his interviews on his website [ #1, #2], I have to say he really seems like an okay guy. Doesn't make his books and some of his ideas less strange and occasionally non-canon, but I think he catches too much personal attacks just because some people are upset with his writings. Just something to keep in mind, I think.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Warriors of Ultramar has Ulriel Ventris surfing a Rhino through a horde of Tyranids. Goto messed his books up fairly well, but he shouldn't be hated this much.
44162
Post by: Raulmichile
To put things in context and for those who think 7'6" is not impressive enough lets put names in the equation:
An "average" SM is like having Shaquille o'Neal to begin with (a far above average athlete), then add 5" more (13 cm), multiply his weight by two and then add another 134 lbs (61kgs), runs quicker and move faster than Michael Jordan and with enough stamina to play all 7 NBA final series in the same day without taking breathe or touching the bench ever. (Although he should take a couple of breaks to drink water I think). And that is without power armour help.
10 feet is a little bit too much. You don't need that.
The only figure I find a little over the top is the weight of a SM. 355kg is a little OTT for my tastes.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
WarOne wrote:The general Dakka consensus is that Space Marines are at least ten feet tall.
Some chapters from weaker gravity worlds probably eclipse twelve or even thirteen feet too.
After reading the first sentence, I was ready to call you an idiot. After the second, I realized you're clever.
41298
Post by: Shayden
I always thought they were 8 feet tall. I think 8 feet is suitably large, without being over the top. That's my opinion anyway.
42342
Post by: Smacks
WarOne wrote:The general Dakka consensus is that Space Marines are at least ten feet tall.
Some chapters from weaker gravity worlds probably eclipse twelve or even thirteen feet too.
Seriously? The official books all say 7'-7'6 without deviation. Some black library books go a little higher (which may or may not be artistic licence).
13 feet! To put that in perspective. This statue is a little under 15 feet tall.
You're saying that Space Marines are about a head shorter than this statue, and ordinary humans only come up to their knee... Maybe in your own world, but there is no way that's supported or even implied by any official sources. Space Marines are nowhere near that tall. Even Ogryns aren't that tall, and they are way taller than marines.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I think people are forgetting that IG are very tall. Being select specimens, they are all a good six feet six to seven feet, and built to match.
Against that, SMs need to be nine feet tall to look at all impressive.
44162
Post by: Raulmichile
Kilkrazy wrote:I think people are forgetting that IG are very tall. Being select specimens, they are all a good six feet six to seven feet, and built to match.
Against that, SMs need to be nine feet tall to look at all impressive.
Being select specimens doesn't necessarily means being tall. We don't know how the galaxy (not space) treats human body and we generally assume that anything outside earth means being stronger and taller. That is not correct. It may be sometimes but not always. As an average real human soldiers are between 1.7m and 1.85m. (5'8" - 6'2") 7'6" of a SM is certainly impressive against the average soldier. We are talking about 45cm more (1'6") and 260kg more weight.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Raulmichile wrote:Being select specimens doesn't necessarily means being tall.
Indeed. Whilst body height may matter for recruitment on some worlds' PDF, this does neither address the actual range of the population on said world, nor does this mean that the Munitorum is doing the same.
PS: What's the exact source for Jes talking of 7' to 7'6"? Just asking as this would probably skew the average of 7 feet a bit, and so far GW has been pretty consistent about it.
I've tried looking for it on the interwebs, but I only see people using his name to claim various sizes up to 8 feet, so unless he contradicted himself several times this might be another case where "hearsay" (and wishful thinking I guess) has warped actual fluff a bit.
42589
Post by: the color purple
If we use the models as canon, the average Cadian male is about 7'4" and as broad as a power armored Astartes. His skull is the size of an Astartes helmet, and his hands just slightly larger than a power gauntlet. This build may seem excessive, but it is quite necessary to heft the standard pattern lasgun, which is as wide as a man's head and and over 5 feet in length.
I think using any one specific source as the "cannon" number is silly in 40k, and we should defer to common sense, which in my mind says a marine is about 7.5 feet. That CG diagram earlier is pretty much perfect in my mind.
44591
Post by: LumenPraebeo
FuryTheBerserker wrote: the english metric system!
(taken from Warhammer 40k wikia)
I hope you dont mind the size of the picture.
wait....a basketball player even at 7'6 weights 350lbs? Isn't that a bit heavy? I mean...at the most, i think they would weight 250.
And wouldn't it be a little over doing it to give anything humanoid that much bulk?
Walking would be very awkward for them, and god forbid if they fell down....which would be pretty easy, considering their bulk
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Michael Jordan is six feet six inches, and weighs 215 Lb.
44591
Post by: LumenPraebeo
Kilkrazy wrote:Michael Jordan is six feet six inches, and weighs 215 Lb.
Add a few inches and the proper weight should come in close to 250....over 300lbs is a bit bad when it comes to judging basketball players imo
Unless of course, they look like a skinny version of a space marine.....from that same picture
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
LumenPraebeo wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Michael Jordan is six feet six inches, and weighs 215 Lb.
Add a few inches and the proper weight should come in close to 250....over 300lbs is a bit bad when it comes to judging basketball players imo
Not really, do some research on the square-cube law. Yao Ming is 7'6" and 310 pounds. He looks a skinny as a twig. Marines look bulky.
36143
Post by: snake
Shaq is 7'1" and over 300, but not 350...
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
snake wrote:Shaq is 7'1" and over 300, but not 350...
Shaq is 7'2" and 330 pounds.
Given the basketball player's build in that picture, 350 is no stretch at 7'6".
44591
Post by: LumenPraebeo
Yikes...really? 350 pounds? how do they run so fast with so much mass dragging on them? I can guess that they have around a 50-60% muscle on their body, but still, that's alot of weight to be dragging around. Or is a basketball court not as big as I think it is? I'm not very knowledgeable on basketball
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
LumenPraebeo wrote:Yikes...really? 350 pounds? how do they run so fast with so much mass dragging on them? I can guess that they have around a 50-60% muscle on their body, but still, that's alot of weight to be dragging around. Or is a basketball court not as big as I think it is? I'm not very knowledgeable on basketball
They have long legs, increasing their stride.
And most basketball players are not 7'6" lol.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
They're really, really strong and have two hearts and, iirc, three lungs (or was it four?).
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
Psienesis wrote:They're really, really strong and have two hearts and, iirc, three lungs (or was it four?).
Space Marines have three lungs.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
LumenPraebeo wrote:Yikes...really? 350 pounds? how do they run so fast with so much mass dragging on them? I can guess that they have around a 50-60% muscle on their body,
Much lower on most of them. They are mostly very skinny. Being tall makes you extra heavy because as height increases linearly, volume increases quadratically.
A two foot tall toddler might weigh 30 pounds, but a six foot tall man is not 90 pounds (3 times as much), he's 200ish.
42342
Post by: Smacks
DarknessEternal wrote:LumenPraebeo wrote:Yikes...really? 350 pounds? how do they run so fast with so much mass dragging on them? I can guess that they have around a 50-60% muscle on their body,
Much lower on most of them. They are mostly very skinny. Being tall makes you extra heavy because as height increases linearly, volume increases quadratically.
A two foot tall toddler might weigh 30 pounds, but a six foot tall man is not 90 pounds (3 times as much), he's 200ish.
Indeed, Robert Wadlow (The tallest man ever recorded at 8'11) was built like a 9 foot Peewee Herman, but he still weighed 485lbs. You could expect a body builder the same hight to be double that weight, and a Space Marine would probably be well over 1000lbs.
Realistically these kind of weights are not practical. Robert Wadlow was hardly able to walk. The fact that he could walk at all was impressive, most people become crippled by their weight before they get anywhere near his size.
If I was going to design a super soldier to fight on a million different worlds all across the galaxy, then the last thing I would want to do is make him 9 foot tall. His size would constantly present a problem. Making him Smaller would be much more efficient and tactically flexible. Space Travel, Food, Supplies, Armour, would all be made cheaper by making the soldier smaller. On the battlefield he would find it easier to hide or take cover, or move through confined spaces if he were smaller. He would also be less impaired by the effects of high gravity, and generally have a lower centre of gravity.
If I where going to design my soldier around humans, then the best height would probably be regular human height (about 6 foot). Perhaps they would reach 7 foot or more due to extreme health, but I wouldn't want them any bigger. Making them bigger would only impair their ability to fight and use regular human equipment (guns, cars, ships etc...).
34826
Post by: ChaosGalvatron
Smacks wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:LumenPraebeo wrote:
If I was going to design a super soldier to fight on a million different worlds all across the galaxy, then the last thing I would want to do is make him 9 foot tall. His size would constantly present a problem. Making him Smaller would be much more efficient and tactically flexible. Space Travel, Food, Supplies, Armour, would all be made cheaper by making the soldier smaller. On the battlefield he would find it easier to hide or take cover, or move through confined spaces if he were smaller. He would also be less impaired by the effects of high gravity, and generally have a lower centre of gravity.
If I where going to design my soldier around humans, then the best height would probably be regular human height (about 6 foot). Perhaps they would reach 7 foot or more due to extreme health, but I wouldn't want them any bigger. Making them bigger would only impair their ability to fight and use regular human equipment (guns, cars, ships etc...).
6 foot soldiers would get their asses kicked by everything in the 40k or 30k world. Space marines were built to wear the best armour and use the best guns.
why do you want them to be 6ft? why not make em 4/5ft tall? and call em. i dont know. squats for example.
42342
Post by: Smacks
ChaosGalvatron wrote:6 foot soldiers would get their asses kicked by everything in the 40k or 30k world. Space marines were built to wear the best armour and use the best guns.
why do you want them to be 6ft? why not make em 4/5ft tall? and call em. i dont know. squats for example.
I'm sorry but hight is a very weak indicator of strength or fighting ability. I guarantee you that a 4 foot chimpanzee would literally tear you limb from limb in a fight. Chimps being pound for pound twice as strong as humans.
The reason I picked 6 foot is because Marines begin their life as normal humans, and 6 foot is quite a normal height for normal humans, so I wouldn't mess with it. If I really had free reign to make troops however I wanted then I would not base them on humans at all, I would probably design them to be ant sized, or microscopic nano-bot type things, that can eat through metal. Then I would produce billions upon trillions of them and own everything.
I'd like to see how a Space Marine is supposed to fight a million nano-bots eating him away from inside his armour.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Lynata wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:To be fair, it's more like 7'6''
As per GW, apparently not. Why the bartering for inches?
Smacks actually raised a very good point. 7 feet is freakishly huge already. There's really no need to go beyond this size as the established average just to prove a point. From an outside perspective, that just sounds as if their fans would perceive the Marines as not being "l33t" enough as they are as per what GW intended, or that they feel threatened that there's a chance the Astartes might get pushed out of the limelight every so often.
Which is what I said about people who are over 7ft tall. Why restate my point? I chose 7ft6in as it seemed to be the most common measurement of their height.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Why restate my point? I chose 7ft6in as it seemed to be the most common measurement of their height.
Ah, sorry, it wasn't really "focused" on you in particular - I just have the impression that a lot of fans seem to ignore actual GW statements (-> 7 feet) in favor of something else out of personal preference (Marine badassery) . Even a single additional inch raises the average above the height stated by the studio, and it is such a "creeping growth" that results in a word of mouth-style dissemination of flawed information, which is probably why some people truly believe that Marines are 8 or 9 feet high by now. I've even honestly read someone claiming 11 feet once.
It's all part of what seems to be a popular myth making more of Marines than they actually are (as defined per GW) - as if that wouldn't be enough already. Let's just say I am a stern opponent of this myth (which seems to originate in various BL novels unsurprisingly focused on the Astartes as invincible heroes), as I've now seen the negative effects this can have on the perception of other armies.
So, I've misunderstood your reasoning behind the height you've mentioned. If the "correction" came off as snarky, I apologize!
46758
Post by: Lord of Baal
The average height for Greeks was 5 ft. 6 in. 2000 years ago, and now the average height is 5 ft. 8 in., 2000 years later. By doing the math they should be about 8 ft. 10 in.
35930
Post by: Daedricbob
Quick piccie showing the difference between a 4' 11" muscled guy and a 6' 5" muscled guy. There's only 1' 6" between them but the difference looks massive! Add around a foot on each and you have a rough size comparison between an above average human and an average space marine... gulp...
44162
Post by: Raulmichile
Daedricbob wrote:Quick piccie showing the difference between a 4' 11" muscled guy and a 6' 5" muscled guy. There's only 1' 6" between them but the difference looks massive! Add around a foot on each and you have a rough size comparison between an above average human and an average space marine... gulp...
Yeah, its like the difference between a Catachan and a Marine
46864
Post by: Deadshot
Lynata wrote:Void__Dragon wrote:Notice how wide his legs are spread.
Obviously a Marine can only walk or stand with his legs spread apart as to not crush his giant adamantium balls. ?
why?he doesn't need em?does he?
46249
Post by: Inquisitor Hexx
I used to be friends with a guy who was 6'10" and weighed 550lbs. Words cannot describe how enormous he appeared compared with everyone else. We nicknamed him "the mad mountain" and it was fitting. I had another friend who was 6'8" and 300lbs, and he looked small next to the mad mountain even though he was a giant himself. I'm 6'1" and can't express just how tiny I felt around both of these guys.
A guy standing 7' - 7'6" and weighing close to a metric ton in power armor would seem absolutely monstrous to a normal person, even someone 6'+. You just can't comprehend the scale of that until you're staring straight ahead into his belly button and reaching up to tap him on the shoulder...
edit because I forgot to mention how perfect that pic Daedricbob posted is!
89568
Post by: Saul Tarvitz
Back in the day, before the horus heresy space marines were 8ft, I don't know where this 7'6'' rubish is coming from. I'll always see them in the horus heresy 10' tall way. I mean 8 foot isn't exactly superhuman or impressive in my opinion.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Back in the day?
You mean when this picture came out?
If he stands at 7 feet slightly hunched, then 7'6" is where that number came from.
At 7'6, with denser bones, denser musculature, and an expanded system of internal organs, I'd guess that 600 pounds would be the low end estimate for the weight of a Space Marine unarmored.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Saul Tarvitz wrote:Back in the day, before the horus heresy space marines were 8ft, I don't know where this 7'6'' rubish is coming from. I'll always see them in the horus heresy 10' tall way. I mean 8 foot isn't exactly superhuman or impressive in my opinion.
Uhh... an 8' foot tall supersoldier in bulky armor carrying a highly advanced automatic rocket launcher isn't impressive to you? You, sir, are difficult to impress.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
 FuryTheBerserker wrote: the english metric system!
(taken from Warhammer 40k wikia)
I hope you dont mind the size of the picture.
I now have an urge to punch anybody who uses this pic, or goes on the W40K wiki for information. This is unofficial fanon, and I should add that the artist, despite his official links with 40K, is an idiot as he appears to have completely forgotten what power armor even is and how it functions. It's not skin tight, and quite explicitly so.
As for height, it varies anywhere from seven to ten feet.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Saul Tarvitz wrote:Back in the day, before the horus heresy space marines were 8ft, I don't know where this 7'6'' rubish is coming from. I'll always see them in the horus heresy 10' tall way. I mean 8 foot isn't exactly superhuman or impressive in my opinion.
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
76079
Post by: Pendix
 Ashiraya wrote:
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
Wonderful little snap shot of Dakka history though.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
 Pendix wrote: Ashiraya wrote:
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
Wonderful little snap shot of Dakka history though.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Ashiraya wrote:Saul Tarvitz wrote:Back in the day, before the horus heresy space marines were 8ft, I don't know where this 7'6'' rubish is coming from. I'll always see them in the horus heresy 10' tall way. I mean 8 foot isn't exactly superhuman or impressive in my opinion.
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
Same here. Although I do still want to smack anybody who brings up sibbering with a codex.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
 Wyzilla wrote: Ashiraya wrote:Saul Tarvitz wrote:Back in the day, before the horus heresy space marines were 8ft, I don't know where this 7'6'' rubish is coming from. I'll always see them in the horus heresy 10' tall way. I mean 8 foot isn't exactly superhuman or impressive in my opinion.
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
Same here. Although I do still want to smack anybody who brings up sibbering with a codex.
Yeah, he even makes it clear on the page that it's only his opinion.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Ashiraya wrote: Wyzilla wrote: Ashiraya wrote:Saul Tarvitz wrote:Back in the day, before the horus heresy space marines were 8ft, I don't know where this 7'6'' rubish is coming from. I'll always see them in the horus heresy 10' tall way. I mean 8 foot isn't exactly superhuman or impressive in my opinion.
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
Same here. Although I do still want to smack anybody who brings up sibbering with a codex.
Yeah, he even makes it clear on the page that it's only his opinion.
And his opinion is also very silly and demonstrates that he doesn't know what armor even is, let alone power armor.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
It's seven foot. Full-stop.
The bottom of the Marine's boot starts at the 1-foot mark.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Clearly nothing more than a foul in-universe rumour spread to make the Marines seem smaller and thus their feats more extraordinary!
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Can't be. The image is too high-quality to have been snapped by a pic-capture skull.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
 Psienesis wrote:Can't be. The image is too high-quality to have been snapped by a pic-capture skull.
Imperial propaganda-spreaders have good equipment.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Heh, I remember this topic. Because it comes up a lot I tried to get all the fluff accounts on the first page, so the 7 foot camp could win before the arguments started with the 9 foot camp.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
It seems like you won, in the sense that you did all the right things and nobody managed to contradict you at all, because you are completely correct.
History will record the victors as being the thousands of guys running around thinking that 9 is more than 7, and besides which they heard some guys talking down at the shop so nine feet must be right.
It would be satisfying to find out if the poster who resurrected the thread ever checks it again/had read the first page. Gonna watch his post count real assiduously.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
People who keep saying they want space marines taller than 7.5 feet are forgetting a few things.
1. Their mass is FAR greater than a 7'6" basketball player.
2. Their bodies are more than just upsized humans. They are genetically modified and far stronger and more powerful than an upsized human.
3. Marines still need to function in human environments, at least a little. If they were much larger than seven and a half feet in armor, they wouldn't be able to use human doors, hallways, vehicles (in a pinch) or equipment.
88854
Post by: Jaq Draco lives
All of the important stuff has been said that makes the 9 and 10 foot camp seem a little silly.
I did enjoy the more sensible posts of the thread. Good necro.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
 PhillyT wrote:People who keep saying they want space marines taller than 7.5 feet are forgetting a few things..
Your points are all good. Besides, anyone who thinks 7 feet isn't impressive enough is a person who never got close to his local basketball team or whatever. A tall muscular man will "tower" over 99% of us even if he's not seven feet but only 6 and six inches.
Just look at those "world's strongest man" guys. They're not the tallest, they don't have Schwarzenegger muscles - but they lift a normal man in each hand at the same time. 1.91 (6' 3'') at 130 kg is a huge man. 206 (6' 9'') and 140 kg is a giant among men. And a marine is going to be a lot wider, with even more raw muscle on him.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
PhillyT wrote:People who keep saying they want space marines taller than 7.5 feet are forgetting a few things.
1. Their mass is FAR greater than a 7'6" basketball player.
2. Their bodies are more than just upsized humans. They are genetically modified and far stronger and more powerful than an upsized human.
3. Marines still need to function in human environments, at least a little. If they were much larger than seven and a half feet in armor, they wouldn't be able to use human doors, hallways, vehicles (in a pinch) or equipment.
The last point has been refuted a gazillion times. The Imperium has oversized architecture to the point where this does not really matter.
The other two are just 'they are good enough' points, which is entirely irrelevant. I propagate 9' due to aesthetics, not combat power.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
The Imperium has huge buildings, sure.
The Space Marines spend an awful lot of their time in not-huge buildings or tunnel complexes and the like. A person the size and mass of a Space Marine is going to have further tactical complications that someone who is "only" 7 feet tall.
Further, a ten-foot-tall dude is a much easier target to hit.
71038
Post by: Kerrathyr
Mmmh... Just to "create" some perspective
I'm 6'1" by 164 lbs... My girlfriend is 5'1.4"... She reaches a smidge under my shoulder (without heels)
7' is about the height of a standard doorframe... (Here, at least)
Another reference: Arnold Schwarzenegger is 6'2" tall, weights around 260 pounds, and looks like a giant.
Now, someone as tall as said doorframe is quite imposing, to me, with a mere 11" difference.. To my gf, the difference in height climbs to 23" (58.42 cm - over half a metre), and someone that tall would look simply huge (she would reach a bit over its waist).
From a human 'narrative' point of view, then, the description of a transhuman as an astartes may get biased by perspective (I myself would reach around the chest of someone 7'6" tall). From the "height bias" to other descriptive liberties, it's a short trip.
On the weight side, I'd start from an esteem of 280 pounds for a "normal" 7'6" person. From here, if memory serves me right.... I recall having read years ago (maybe during 2nd or 3rd edition description on the stages to make an astartes, it was a WD article), it stated (I think) that ossomodula and bioscopea implants alter mainly the density of a space marine body, resulting in a not much different frame, but with a 10% increment in weight. Assuming that my... ehrm... assumption is right, we get a 280+28=308 lbs. for a 7'6" astartes (225 cm by 140 kg) , or 220+22=242 lbs. for a 7' one (210 cm by 110 kg); both are very impressive frames and bulks, for "people".
Closing reference: the great khali (wwe) is 7'1" by 347 lbs, and looks like a freaking giant.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Bodybuilders often weigh in easily close to or over 300 pounds at 6'. Ronnie Coleman is a good example and he's 5'11.
There's no way that at 7-7.5 feet tall (people forget the "7 foot" Marine in the picture isn't standing straight up) is going to weigh only 242-308 pounds. They're packing two hearts, a denser skeletal structure, denser musculature, and are broader and thicker than a regular human being.
People get fooled by the "average" charts for height and weight. "Normal" is a soft and squishy civilian, not an professional soldier, let alone a biologically modified one.
Paul Sturgess is 324 pounds at 7'8". Kenny George is 7'7 and 370 pounds. And these guys are just basketball players.
I mean, at 6'1, 164, you're skinny. And that's not meant to be derogatory, but at my fighting weight in the Marines I was 6', 190-195, and I wasn't nearly the biggest guy in any of my platoons.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
PhillyT wrote:People who keep saying they want space marines taller than 7.5 feet are forgetting a few things.
1. Their mass is FAR greater than a 7'6" basketball player.
2. Their bodies are more than just upsized humans. They are genetically modified and far stronger and more powerful than an upsized human.
3. Marines still need to function in human environments, at least a little. If they were much larger than seven and a half feet in armor, they wouldn't be able to use human doors, hallways, vehicles (in a pinch) or equipment.
Except this line of thinking doesn't work, as anything built by non-Feral world humans is absolutely gigantic and over sized gothic architecture in 40K. The smallest causeways still allow terminators to squeeze through.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Here is a pretty good example.This robocop statue is a little under 10 feet tall, and about the right girth:  I think it should be obvious that this guy would have great difficult operating anything made for humans. Imagine him trying to operate that camera, or eat a bowl of cereal. While there are some big open-plan buildings in 40k, I find it hard to imagine that things like vehicles (motorbikes?) bunkers etc... are going to be compatible with this guy. Imagine the poor Orks who have to fight this guy? They'd hardly come up to his belly button. Imagine trying to have a conversation with him, or what he'd look like walking around and sitting in a chair. I can imagine Primarchs and odd characters like Ranulf being this tall, but it seems (to me) excessive for ordinary marines to all be this big. Is this really how other people see them?
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
It is. Looks good. Hell, there's a lot of references to how items made for humans are too small for Astartes use, and I have two sources (First Heretic and BA Omnibus) explaining how Astartes bolters are too heavy for humans to lift.
With a universe filled with giant orks and giant tyranids and giant daemons and various other giant xenos, designing human giants to fight them seems logical.
42342
Post by: Smacks
I grew up with artwork like this:
So I find it a difficult to think of them as giants. But I of course YMMV.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
That picture, so cringeworthy on so many levels.
Thank the Gods that things have progressed very far since those days.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
Ashiraya wrote: PhillyT wrote:People who keep saying they want space marines taller than 7.5 feet are forgetting a few things.
1. Their mass is FAR greater than a 7'6" basketball player.
2. Their bodies are more than just upsized humans. They are genetically modified and far stronger and more powerful than an upsized human.
3. Marines still need to function in human environments, at least a little. If they were much larger than seven and a half feet in armor, they wouldn't be able to use human doors, hallways, vehicles (in a pinch) or equipment.
The last point has been refuted a gazillion times. The Imperium has oversized architecture to the point where this does not really matter.
The other two are just 'they are good enough' points, which is entirely irrelevant. I propagate 9' due to aesthetics, not combat power.
Where has it ever been stated that they are 9' tall? Hasn't it been specifically stated in the fluff that they are in the 7' range?
As far as architecture, because some buildings use gothic architecture all are wide open and over engineered to fit giants? DOn't tell that to the tank hatches. Or to the humans like the Sisters who use space marine transports regularly.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
PhillyT wrote: Ashiraya wrote: PhillyT wrote:People who keep saying they want space marines taller than 7.5 feet are forgetting a few things.
1. Their mass is FAR greater than a 7'6" basketball player.
2. Their bodies are more than just upsized humans. They are genetically modified and far stronger and more powerful than an upsized human.
3. Marines still need to function in human environments, at least a little. If they were much larger than seven and a half feet in armor, they wouldn't be able to use human doors, hallways, vehicles (in a pinch) or equipment.
The last point has been refuted a gazillion times. The Imperium has oversized architecture to the point where this does not really matter.
The other two are just 'they are good enough' points, which is entirely irrelevant. I propagate 9' due to aesthetics, not combat power.
Where has it ever been stated that they are 9' tall? Hasn't it been specifically stated in the fluff that they are in the 7' range?
As far as architecture, because some buildings use gothic architecture all are wide open and over engineered to fit giants? DOn't tell that to the tank hatches. Or to the humans like the Sisters who use space marine transports regularly.
They use the same STC. Using different scales for different users is nothing else than logical. Hell, Inquisitorial Rhinos supposedly also fit ten henchmen, and if you think ten henchmen take as much space as ten Marines- even at 7'- I firmly disagree.
It has been stated that they are 7'. It has also been stated that they are 8', 7'6"... There are various other descriptions ('Half again the height of a man', do the math). All of it is equally canon/noncanon/halfcanon/whatever.
As an example of the 'different scale' assertion, let's look at bolters. We know humans use bolters, but we also know Astartes bolters are too big for humans to lift (Sources: TFH, BAO). What is the conclusion? Marines use things that are adjusted for their size.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
At no point has it ever been said they were 9' tall on average.
On the other hand, it has been specifically referenced in fluff and by designers that they are in the 7' range.
As far as difference in engineering, the hatches are the same size for all of the rhinos and landraiders...
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
PhillyT wrote:On the other hand, it has been specifically referenced in fluff and by designers that they are in the 7' range.
Unfortunately that might just be in-universe propaganda.
86450
Post by: Alcibiades
The Imperial architecture depicted in artwork is mostly cathedrals and suchlike, which are intended to be vast buildings.
It is quite ridiculous to expect that to be Imperial standard (in fact, there is no such thing), as if hab workers lived in vast halls. It is like extrapolating from Note Dame to thinking that everybody in the Middle Ages lived in immense stained-glass buildings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or ancient Egyptians all lived in pyramids.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Alcibiades wrote:The Imperial architecture depicted in artwork is mostly cathedrals and suchlike, which are intended to be vast buildings.
It is quite ridiculous to expect that to be Imperial standard (in fact, there is no such thing), as if hab workers lived in vast halls. It is like extrapolating from Note Dame to thinking that everybody in the Middle Ages lived in immense stained-glass buildings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or ancient Egyptians all lived in pyramids.
Space Marines are not supposed to enter hab units, either. The oversized Imperial architecture tends to be mainly in important structures and on ships, just where the SM want to be.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
I don't agree with that assessment.
Space marines go where they are needed, not where they are supposed to be. If they needed to do a mission in a tight cave complex it seems hilariously silly to think they will need to send in storm troopers because marines are too big. Bigger marines lose all flexibility, which is the entire point of them.
There is no demonstrable reason to have such oversized marines as 9' plus. They can get everything done they need to at 7.5'. A marine of that size is no less strong or capable as a taller one and is still a match for a 10' ork nob.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
PhillyT wrote:I don't agree with that assessment.
Space marines go where they are needed, not where they are supposed to be. If they needed to do a mission in a tight cave complex it seems hilariously silly to think they will need to send in storm troopers because marines are too big. Bigger marines lose all flexibility, which is the entire point of them.
There is no demonstrable reason to have such oversized marines as 9' plus. They can get everything done they need to at 7.5'. A marine of that size is no less strong or capable as a taller one and is still a match for a 10' ork nob.
Seems like some awfully arbitrary cave system that disabled 9' but allows 7'5".
Can you explain why there are no cave complexes that they have to enter but that are below 7'5" in height?
If they really have to get into that hab unit, they have explosives or can just smash their way inside.
86450
Post by: Alcibiades
Ashiraya wrote:Alcibiades wrote:The Imperial architecture depicted in artwork is mostly cathedrals and suchlike, which are intended to be vast buildings.
It is quite ridiculous to expect that to be Imperial standard (in fact, there is no such thing), as if hab workers lived in vast halls. It is like extrapolating from Note Dame to thinking that everybody in the Middle Ages lived in immense stained-glass buildings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or ancient Egyptians all lived in pyramids.
Space Marines are not supposed to enter hab units, either. The oversized Imperial architecture tends to be mainly in important structures and on ships, just where the SM want to be.
Space Marines should be able to operate inside hive cities, where most of the population lives. In fact, we know they do.
Ships are obviously mostly cramped structures by necessity.
Anyway, I find the idea that marines should be 8, 10, 12, whatever feet tall to be very strange. Who would think this was cool? . It's the kind of thing that I would have thought was cool when I was a kid. now it seems silly. It makes no sense, either practically or aeshetically.
Each to their own however.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Alcibiades wrote:Who would think this was cool? . It's the kind of thing that I would have thought was cool when I was a kid. now it seems silly. It makes no sense, either practically or aeshetically.
Implying it is childish to prefer the aesthetics of having them very large? :|
10667
Post by: Fifty
Pendix wrote: Ashiraya wrote:
10' is a bit OTT imo.
9' is a nice middle ground which I think works best.
Edit: Just realised the post I quoted is a necro post...
Wonderful little snap shot of Dakka history though.
*cough* spacecorridors*cough*
42342
Post by: Smacks
Ashiraya wrote:Rhinos supposedly also fit ten henchmen, and if you think ten henchmen take as much space as ten Marines- even at 7'- I firmly disagree.
maybe 'Space Marines' is actually sort for 'Space-saving Marines'?
I remember this question came up before when people asked why Ratlings take up the same amount of space as Marines. The official line was that they carry around lots of luggage.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
 Smacks wrote: Ashiraya wrote:Rhinos supposedly also fit ten henchmen, and if you think ten henchmen take as much space as ten Marines- even at 7'- I firmly disagree.
maybe 'Space Marines' is actually sort for 'Space-saving Marines'?
I remember this question came up before when people asked why Ratlings take up the same amount of space as Marines. The official line was that they carry around lots of luggage.
They would need to carry something like 1000% of their body weight in luggage for that to work. Especially since Rhinos are consistently depicted as able to carry 10 Marines with space to move.
I don't buy it.
42342
Post by: Smacks
There are only ten life jackets under the seats, so eleven passengers is against health and safety regulations!
50012
Post by: Crimson
Ashiraya wrote:
Seems like some awfully arbitrary cave system that disabled 9' but allows 7'5".
Not really. Seven foot marines can fit in spaces that are built so that normal sized people can comfortably move in them, without having huge amount of wasted space. Now try imagine nine foot marine in your apartment; do you see the problem?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Ashiraya wrote: Smacks wrote: Ashiraya wrote:Rhinos supposedly also fit ten henchmen, and if you think ten henchmen take as much space as ten Marines- even at 7'- I firmly disagree.
maybe 'Space Marines' is actually sort for 'Space-saving Marines'?
I remember this question came up before when people asked why Ratlings take up the same amount of space as Marines. The official line was that they carry around lots of luggage.
They would need to carry something like 1000% of their body weight in luggage for that to work. Especially since Rhinos are consistently depicted as able to carry 10 Marines with space to move.
I don't buy it.
These are Ratlings. 1000% of their body-weight is referred to as "lunch".
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
 Crimson wrote: Ashiraya wrote:
Seems like some awfully arbitrary cave system that disabled 9' but allows 7'5".
Not really. Seven foot marines can fit in spaces that are built so that normal sized people can comfortably move in them, without having huge amount of wasted space. Now try imagine nine foot marine in your apartment; do you see the problem?
Fortunately, moving around in my apartment never was one of their jobs.
Honestly, I never saw why Marines must enter hab units all the time. Scouts, maybe (They also are small enough to do so) but Tactical Marines are supposed to attack ships, key positions behind frontlines, and buildings of high importance, all of which are almost gauranteed to be able to accomodate their size.
Tyranid Warriors and Nobz do their jobs perfectly well, and so can Marines.
It's like the whole 'Tauren can't be 10 feet!' debate from the WoW forums all over again.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Ashiraya wrote:
They use the same STC. Using different scales for different users is nothing else than logical. Hell, Inquisitorial Rhinos supposedly also fit ten henchmen, and if you think ten henchmen take as much space as ten Marines- even at 7'- I firmly disagree.
Yet ten allied Space Marines fit in that Inquisitorial Rhino just fine! These different sized Rhinos are completely your invention, and are supported by absolutely nothing.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Crimson wrote: Ashiraya wrote:
They use the same STC. Using different scales for different users is nothing else than logical. Hell, Inquisitorial Rhinos supposedly also fit ten henchmen, and if you think ten henchmen take as much space as ten Marines- even at 7'- I firmly disagree.
Yet ten allied Space Marines fit in that Inquisitorial Rhino just fine! These different sized Rhinos are completely your invention, and are supported by absolutely nothing.
Logic.  The same Rhino stats is game mechanics and/or model scale wipe.
Or are you asserting that ten henchmen and ten Marines take the same amount of space?
It's not like there is no precedent for Marines getting bigger equivalents of other things.
“He saw Tycho’s combi-weapon lying on the floor and took a half-step toward it. The idea of taking it up himself died in this mind; the gun was so massive he would never have been able to lift it.”
Pg.320 Blood Angels Omnibus
The angel’s brethren emerged from the dark interior of their landing craft and descended to the plaza. All wore armour of the same blue. All of them carried great weapons too heavy for a mortal man to lift unaided.”
Pg.20 The First Heretic
50012
Post by: Crimson
Ashiraya wrote:
Or are you asserting that ten henchmen and ten Marines take the same amount of space?
No. But this is an abstraction bue the lack of granularity, as there is not 'slightly bulky' rule. Rhino's however are the same, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.
It's not like there is no precedent for Marines getting bigger equivalents of other things.
Yes, but history of different sized bolters is murky. In the Inquisitor they're the same. I am not really convinced that there are supposed to be different sized bolters.
“He saw Tycho’s combi-weapon lying on the floor and took a half-step toward it. The idea of taking it up himself died in this mind; the gun was so massive he would never have been able to lift it.”
Pg.320 Blood Angels Omnibus
Combiweapon is not a mere bolter.
The angel’s brethren emerged from the dark interior of their landing craft and descended to the plaza. All wore armour of the same blue. All of them carried great weapons too heavy for a mortal man to lift unaided.”
Pg.20 The First Heretic
These guys were devastators, right?
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
It's ludicrous to ever use the tabletop game as a reference for discussing the universe.
The 40K tabletop game is some kind of imaginary version of how combat works in an already imaginary universe, lol. Where battles are fought on neutral ground by evenly matched forces whose individual values shifts depending on what the marketing department says will best promote sales.
A Rhino holds 10 henchmen and 10 Marines because in the game it has a transport capacity measured in "models", not weight, or space.
Let's derail this discussion before it crosses from silly, to stupid.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Crimson wrote:
No. But this is an abstraction bue the lack of granularity, as there is not 'slightly bulky' rule. Rhino's however are the same, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Nothing but reason. You have a transport that can carry ten guys. Now you want it to carry ten much bigger guys. Then the transport must be much bigger too, to fit them. I mean, 40K loves spitting on physics, but still.
It really is not any more complicated than that.
Yes, but history of different sized bolters is murky. In the Inquisitor they're the same. I am not really convinced that there are supposed to be different sized bolters.
Inquisitor is old, and RPGs are weird. In Deathwatch a Marine can easily jump like 12 meters. Sure, it's FFG, but it's just as canon as Inquisitor. It's actually debatable if it is more canon since it is newer, despite being made by another studio.
Combiweapon is not a mere bolter.
No, but a flamer attachment does not make a combat rifle that is above average weight impossible to even lift.
These guys were devastators, right?
Nope. Tacticals. And even if they had been, you are basically asking 'Is Straken a mortal?'
17927
Post by: Gogsnik
You can add a quote from Space Wolf by William King to the list of large Astartes weapons as Sergeant Hakon's chainsword is described as 'massive' and Strybjorn only just about lifts it two-handed even though he is supposed to be strong and fit.
I don't think it has been mentioned but Astartes Power Armour is said to be 250lbs in Codex: Angels of Death.
91
Post by: Hordini
On Giant Worlds, the size of fauna can almost double, so I wouldn't be surprised if Marines from a Chapter based on a Giant World might reach up to 15-18 feet tall, assuming they recruited from the local population.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Yeah, uh, beware the mutant, the alien, the heretic and all that jazz.
There's a reason we don't have Ogryn Marines, lol
91
Post by: Hordini
 Veteran Sergeant wrote:Yeah, uh, beware the mutant, the alien, the heretic and all that jazz.
There's a reason we don't have Ogryn Marines, lol
But it's not a mutation if they're from a Giant World. It's just the way the inhabitants are. Otherwise Space Marines would be considered mutants as well. I'm not talking about Ogryn Marines here. That would be ridiculous!
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
 Hordini wrote: Veteran Sergeant wrote:Yeah, uh, beware the mutant, the alien, the heretic and all that jazz.
There's a reason we don't have Ogryn Marines, lol
But it's not a mutation if they're from a Giant World. It's just the way the inhabitants are.
Uh, no. That's what made Ogryns. Otherwise Space Marines would be considered mutants as well.
From a strictly biological standpoint, yes, they are. However, Space Marines are intentionally created to be huge. Any humans who had been affected so drastically by their environment to grow ten feet tall would most certainly be at the very minimum classified as abhuman, like Squats and Ogryns, and thus unfit for transformation to Space Marines.
69829
Post by: Thatguyhsagun
For those that dont consider 7/7.5 feet to be huge, perhaps the average height in 40k is below todays standard? I could understand it. Most of the population works in bad conditions, is ill-fed and is rather young, at least as far as hive worlds go. It would make sense that throughout generations of these conditions the population has seen a decrease in average height.
Perhaps in 40k the average citizen is only 5'6, that would make the marine between one and a half or two feet taller than them. which would make them a fairly imposing sight.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
Veteran Sergeant wrote:It's ludicrous to ever use the tabletop game as a reference for discussing the universe.
The 40K tabletop game is some kind of imaginary version of how combat works in an already imaginary universe, lol. Where battles are fought on neutral ground by evenly matched forces whose individual values shifts depending on what the marketing department says will best promote sales.
A Rhino holds 10 henchmen and 10 Marines because in the game it has a transport capacity measured in "models", not weight, or space.
Let's derail this discussion before it crosses from silly, to stupid.
And yet, there are rules for particularly large beings consuming greater transport space...
71038
Post by: Kerrathyr
Ashiraya wrote:[Fortunately, moving around in my apartment never was one of their jobs.
Honestly, I never saw why Marines must enter hab units all the time. Scouts, maybe (They also are small enough to do so) but Tactical Marines are supposed to attack ships, key positions behind frontlines, and buildings of high importance, all of which are almost gauranteed to be able to accomodate their size.
Tac marines are deployed in cities, too. And there might be the need to search for something inside a hab unit. Not demolishing it. Maybe searching for "tactical" objectives.
Rhinos: if a "medium sized" rhino is a stc (standard template construct... Bear with me... Standard), a large scaled one doesn't follow the template, and deviates from the standard. Mechanicus does not dare to move a single screw, I doubt that they would think to odify the scale of the project (that would be heresy, wouldn't it?)
Guardsmen take the same room takey by marines? Well, they carry more supplies: thinking interms of days and weeks of combat, a marine needs way less water and food, and don't bring trinkets and comfort goodies (chocolate bars, cigarettes). I also suspect guardsmen fidgeting and moving way more than a marine, who could ride seating rather immobile.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
 Kerrathyr wrote:Guardsmen take the same room takey by marines? Well, they carry more supplies: thinking in terms of days and weeks of combat, a marine needs way less water and food, and don't bring trinkets and comfort goodie.
And ofc, if the IG is anything like a modern army every squad will have so-called "squad equipment" that takes up room. Tent, a small heater unit, camo nets, entrenching tools etc. On the platoon level they'll have another stack of such, like medical supplies, replacement weapons and other useful stuff.
The marines carry way less of such chaff because of their fighting style - in and out before they even have to think about a coffee break.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
I doubt this 'squad equipment' would take anywhere near enough space to compensate.
As for deviating from the STC, Marines do this all the damn time. Combiweapons, stalkers/hunters, LRC, Vindicators, stormravens, hell even Razorbacks are things the Marines either invented, dug up or jury-rigged.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
Honestly folks, if you want to imagine them being more than 7' on average go for it. It changes nothing in terms of how they act on the table. They are not 9' tall on average. In novels, fluff, and from the creators themselves, space marines have settled into a 7 - 7.5 foot average. There are some taller, but that doesn't make them the average.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
The admech isn't totally unwilling to approve of modifications to STC designs. They just don't like it when your average Joe Schmoe starts screwing around with their crap.
Besides, I think the Rhino upscaling would have been sorted out during/before the Great Crusade. They were doing more inventing/modification back then.
69829
Post by: Thatguyhsagun
 TheCustomLime wrote:The admech isn't totally unwilling to approve of modifications to STC designs. They just don't like it when your average Joe Schmoe starts screwing around with their crap.
Well that explains why my blood angels techmarine never manages to repair anything on a rhino chasis.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
PhillyT wrote:Honestly folks, if you want to imagine them being more than 7' on average go for it. It changes nothing in terms of how they act on the table. They are not 9' tall on average. In novels, fluff, and from the creators themselves, space marines have settled into a 7 - 7.5 foot average. There are some taller, but that doesn't make them the average.
Your post doesn't make sense. No, it won't change their stats, but that's because there is no height stat.
Also, the fluff you prefer does not become more 'true' just because you want it to be. It's important to recognise this. And 40k is filled with explicit and implicit examples of other heights than what you would prefer to be the One Truth.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
Find a place where it specifies they are 9' tall. Find a designer who has claimed this. Find a piece of art showing a 9' tall space marine.
If you want to think they are 9' tall, go for it. The vast majority of information available doesn't put them anywhere near that, either in crunch, fluff, or table top models themselves.
89289
Post by: CShaffer
I think its kind of funny that this thread is still going on, it seems like from the post here. The fluff states 7-7,6.
The rhino probably is not scaled up for Space Marines, I would say that in actualy terms you could probably fit more then 10 Inquist Henchmen in a Rhino but they wanted 10 to be the number everybody used. Thats my take on it at least.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
PhillyT wrote:Honestly folks, if you want to imagine them being more than 7' on average go for it. It changes nothing in terms of how they act on the table. They are not 9' tall on average. In novels, fluff, and from the creators themselves, space marines have settled into a 7 - 7.5 foot average. There are some taller, but that doesn't make them the average.
When has the fluff ever stated Astartes height to be seven feet? It's typically described as over two meters, but 2.7 meters is nine feet.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
One of the space marine codex did specifically says they are over seven feet tall. I'll have to double check.
Also, in the Horus Heresy books, doesn't it say Alpharius (or was it Fulgrim?) is only 7'6" and it states specifically that that is almost the height of normal marines?
Even if you go with the over two meters line, that means they are taller than 6'6". Jumping all the way to 9' seems like quite a stretch to me!
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
PhillyT wrote:One of the space marine codex did specifically says they are over seven feet tall. I'll have to double check. Also, in the Horus Heresy books, doesn't it say Alpharius (or was it Fulgrim?) is only 7'6" and it states specifically that that is almost the height of normal marines? Even if you go with the over two meters line, that means they are taller than 6'6". Jumping all the way to 9' seems like quite a stretch to me!
Jumping by a decimal ain't much.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Wyzilla wrote:
When has the fluff ever stated Astartes height to be seven feet? It's typically described as over two meters, but 2.7 meters is nine feet.
I think codex CSM is the latest source for the seven feet figure. It has been pretty consistent since the second edition. (And no person actually using metric system would describe a nine feet tall individual as 'over two metres tall", even though that is technically true.)
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Crimson wrote: Wyzilla wrote:
When has the fluff ever stated Astartes height to be seven feet? It's typically described as over two meters, but 2.7 meters is nine feet.
I think codex CSM is the latest source for the seven feet figure. It has been pretty consistent since the second edition. (And no person actually using metric system would describe a nine feet tall individual as 'over two metres tall", even though that is technically true.)
I don't recall height being mentioned at all in the 6th Edition Space Marine codex, not to mention that older codices are old and irrelevant anyway.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
I don't recall height being mentioned at all in the 6th Edition Space Marine codex, not to mention that older codices are old and irrelevant anyway.
Incorrect assertion. Older Codices are replaced only when information in a new Codex replaces it. Such as the statement that the SOB are the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus from C: WH being replaced by CAS stating that they simply "work closely".
86810
Post by: PhillyT
Wyzilla wrote: PhillyT wrote:One of the space marine codex did specifically says they are over seven feet tall. I'll have to double check.
Also, in the Horus Heresy books, doesn't it say Alpharius (or was it Fulgrim?) is only 7'6" and it states specifically that that is almost the height of normal marines?
Even if you go with the over two meters line, that means they are taller than 6'6". Jumping all the way to 9' seems like quite a stretch to me!
Jumping by a decimal ain't much.
Yeah, but to get close to nine feet wouldn't they say more than two and a half meters?
Seriously though, there is nothing to support a 9' height as an average. Never has been. The OP wanted to have some tangible evidence or printed information. Tangible evidence points to seven feet or so. That doesn't mean a person can't imagine them being taller.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
PhillyT wrote:Find a place where it specifies they are 9' tall. Find a designer who has claimed this. Find a piece of art showing a 9' tall space marine. If you want to think they are 9' tall, go for it. The vast majority of information available doesn't put them anywhere near that, either in crunch, fluff, or table top models themselves.
The problem here is that you are effectively saying 'It is fine to go with the sources that say they are something else than 7', but you are wrong' which is rather contradictory. The Last Detail speaks of Brother Genericus being 'half again the height of a man' (Do the math) and Brothers of the Snake speaks of a 8' tall Marine. Neither were ever mentioned as being of above average size, for an Astartes. And that is just off the top of my head. If you want to think they are 7'-7'6" tall, go for it. There's plenty of material, that is just as canon, saying otherwise. The tabletop models are something like 5' or 6'. They hold no weight whatsoever as an argument (Well, they are canon too I guess, but I respectfully reserve the right to consider any notions of 5' or 6' Marines implausible). The 'crunch', by which I assume the game rules, offer no description for warrior size beyond telling us that Marines are too big to be swarms and too small to be Monstrous Creatures.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Psienesis wrote:I don't recall height being mentioned at all in the 6th Edition Space Marine codex, not to mention that older codices are old and irrelevant anyway.
Incorrect assertion. Older Codices are replaced only when information in a new Codex replaces it. Such as the statement that the SOB are the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus from C: WH being replaced by CAS stating that they simply "work closely".
Except by that logic then Madboyz should still be a thing. An outdated codex is just that, outdated.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
There isn't as much evidence for that though Ash. Codex say 7 - 7'6". Designers say 7' - 7'6". Novels say a Primarch is seven and a half feet tall and not much larger than a normal Marine.
Again, you REALLY want 9' marines. Good for you. The OP wanted as close to canon as he could get, or it seemed that way to me. If the ONLY evidence you have for a 9' marine is "Half again the hieght of a man" that doesn't really counter the above points.
Come on man. I don't care too much. IF the codex came out in 8th saying they were 9' tall, I couldn't care less. I am just trying to give the OP what he asked for, and that is that the majority of the information available makes it VERY clear that they are in the seven foot range. Some, like Abaddon, are monstrously large. Some might even be 9' tall. But thats not the norm.
Marine size has remained consistent in every source I have seen since 1999. I am not trying to be condescending, I am saying it is tough to get me to accept 9' if there are real numbers printed in multiple books from multiple sources pointing to the same number.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Considering some regular humans are only 5 foot 9 like me, and some are over 7 feet tall I dont see why this question endlessly causes such furious debate.
I think obviously some regular humans are even taller, but they are super rare so lets not count them, the point is obviously that being a little over 7 isn't actually that rare, because I read that something like 20% of NBA players leave the 6's behind.
Anyway, doubtless Jes said 7 at the time, but after a little thought the idea has been expanded upon by BL writers, and rightly so in my opinion.
Considering how much height varies in humans, it doesn't seem silly to say the same about Space Marines, but with all of the extra nutrition and enhancements I would reckon 7 foot is the low end for Space Marines. So probably between 7-10 doesn't seem to be ridiculous... considering regular people have such diversity, why would they be any different?
Oh, and I found this cool picture while reading up on the subject.
Taken in 1900, from left to right - British, American, Australian, Indian, German, French, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan. I suppose we (Brits/Yanks) had the best food and quality of life at the time or something?
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
PhillyT wrote: Veteran Sergeant wrote:It's ludicrous to ever use the tabletop game as a reference for discussing the universe.
The 40K tabletop game is some kind of imaginary version of how combat works in an already imaginary universe, lol. Where battles are fought on neutral ground by evenly matched forces whose individual values shifts depending on what the marketing department says will best promote sales.
A Rhino holds 10 henchmen and 10 Marines because in the game it has a transport capacity measured in "models", not weight, or space.
Let's derail this discussion before it crosses from silly, to stupid.
And yet, there are rules for particularly large beings consuming greater transport space...
Yeah, and shockingly, they're models mounted on a larger base size, almost without exception. And it's done in whole numbers, not fractions.
What did I just tell you about going from silly to stupid?
15283
Post by: tgjensen
Wyzilla wrote:Except by that logic then Madboyz should still be a thing. An outdated codex is just that, outdated.
Eh? Madboyz are still a thing in the fluff. They just don't have rules to represent them in Warhammer 40k.
88854
Post by: Jaq Draco lives
OK the pictures have been shown of something 10 foot tall and they are so unbelievably ridiculous as to make this debate silly.
There are stories of marines and humans interacting somewhat normally, of humans only reaching the marines chest etc. of humans duelling with marines and surviving (if not for long) I'll just bring up Ciaphas Cain here as one random example of being able to deflect two strikes.
http://media.islandpacket.com/smedia/2014/09/02/15/06/18-usLd0.AuSt.55.jpeg
That is 9 foot tall. A space marine that tall would be wielding a blade the size of the man working on him, it says the weapons are to big for a human to lift sometimes but OF course that is true if a 7-6 super muscled human has a gun of course it is going to be to big to lift. Hell if I was wielding a zweihander sword (strong 6 foot bloke) then my 5 foot wife definitely can barely pick it up let alone swing it.
But it doesn't say that a space marine wields bolters and chainblades as big as a human.
Its all very silly. People want Space Marines to be primarch sized? And can someone explain to me why pg26 of the space marines codex is not enough?
2.5 meters is 8.2 feet btw.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Jaq Draco lives wrote:OK the pictures have been shown of something 10 foot tall and they are so unbelievably ridiculous as to make this debate silly.
There are stories of marines and humans interacting somewhat normally, of humans only reaching the marines chest etc. of humans duelling with marines and surviving (if not for long) I'll just bring up Ciaphas Cain here as one random example of being able to deflect two strikes.
http://media.islandpacket.com/smedia/2014/09/02/15/06/18-usLd0.AuSt.55.jpeg
That is 9 foot tall. A space marine that tall would be wielding a blade the size of the man working on him, it says the weapons are to big for a human to lift sometimes but OF course that is true if a 7-6 super muscled human has a gun of course it is going to be to big to lift. Hell if I was wielding a zweihander sword (strong 6 foot bloke) then my 5 foot wife definitely can barely pick it up let alone swing it.
But it doesn't say that a space marine wields bolters and chainblades as big as a human.
Its all very silly. People want Space Marines to be primarch sized? And can someone explain to me why pg26 of the space marines codex is not enough?
2.5 meters is 8.2 feet btw.
To be fair, that guy looks smaller by being at the far end.
Otherwise that looks like a very good size for Marines to be.
57757
Post by: Arcsquad12
Good god, who the hell cares about how tall a fictional goddamn monk is? Does it really kill your enjoyment if a Marine is seven or nine feet? Is that really the deal breaker when you have crap like Spiritual Liege's to gripe about?
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
 Arcsquad12 wrote:Good god, who the hell cares about how tall a fictional goddamn monk is? Does it really kill your enjoyment if a Marine is seven or nine feet? Is that really the deal breaker when you have crap like Spiritual Liege's to gripe about?
This is the 40k Background forum. Debating over trivial stuff like that is just what we do.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
TheCustomLime wrote: Arcsquad12 wrote:Good god, who the hell cares about how tall a fictional goddamn monk is? Does it really kill your enjoyment if a Marine is seven or nine feet? Is that really the deal breaker when you have crap like Spiritual Liege's to gripe about?
This is the 40k Background forum. Debating over trivial stuff like that is just what we do.
Exactly.
I think the real issue here is that people are trivializing just how tall 7'6" actually is when you also add a massive amount of muscle to that.
The largest person I have ever spent any amount of time with was The Big Show from the WWE. I met him in Portland Maine back in 1997. I had seen Kane earlier in the night from a distance and he looked really big, but Big Show was totally different. He got out of a Ford Expedition and came around the back. The roof at the back of the expedition was at his collar bone. His girlfriend (I assume it was his girlfriend) came up just past his belly button. The top of her head wasn't even at his pec. When I shook his hand, it was a mit, not a hand. Crazy how huge the guy was. He is billed as 7'4" or something. I don't know if that is accurate, but he was much taller than Kane who is likely around 6'11". But beside that, he was just massive.
Take someone like him, turn the fat into genetically engineered muscle, add about 200 pounds and stretch him another 3 or 4 inches and you have a space marine. The thing people seem to forget is that space marines are not only massive, they are insanely quick, especially given their enormous size.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
I am not forgetting anything, yet I still argue for 9'.
In fact.
Codex: Chaos Space Marines 6th edition, Chaos Space Marines entry, first paragraph wrote:The Adeptus Astartes were created as the Emperor's
ultimate fighting force. Implanted with the gene-seed of
the Primarchs, the Space Marines stand seven feet tall,
with thickened bones, two hearts, hyper-dense muscles and
all manner of special organs that allow them to survive
and fight in the most hostile conditions. They feel little
pain and heal wounds at a remarkable rate. Their wiII is
hardened by constant training and fighting, and they battle
with dedication and zeal, brooking no hesitation, mercy
or cowardice. All of these things combine with the best
weaponry and armour in the galaxy to make the Space
Marines the most fearsome warriors of the Imperium.
Isn't it funny how everyone says 'It definitely says seven feet, it must be true!' and when it equally specifically states a few sentences later that they have the best wargear and weapons in the galaxy, it is brushed off as propaganda?
The double standard is pretty funny. If you too are going to cherrypick what you prefer, then at least admit you do. Don't point fingers when others do the same while you are trying to hold on to the high ground.
In fact, I am firmly of the belief that both 'seven feet' and 'best armour and weapons in the galaxy' is propaganda.
Make of that what you will.
(Edits: Typos, additions, and more typos.)
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Jaq Draco lives wrote: But it doesn't say that a space marine wields bolters and chainblades as big as a human.
That's because "real" weapons aren't made to be too massive for a guy (even a huge strong guy) to use all day. Assault rifles weigh 3-4 kilograms at most, and they're not made in heavy versions for a bigger guy. Any real zweihander swords - as in these were actually meant to be used - weighed 2-3 kilograms. Anything 4 kg or above was what the Germans usesd to call a "Paratschwert", a ceremonial (useless) weapon. And the soldiers selected to weild such things on a field of battle were generally quite big and strong for the period. Someone who had to overcompensate could ofc ask a smith to make a bigger heavier blade, but seeing what the normal size did to people it was just overkill and posturing.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
Yes, because propaganda often portrays those we are trying to uplift as being less important and significant...
I am done. carry on your one man crusade. The original poster has his answer and we can all move on as better people.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Spetulhu wrote:Jaq Draco lives wrote: But it doesn't say that a space marine wields bolters and chainblades as big as a human.
That's because "real" weapons aren't made to be too massive for a guy (even a huge strong guy) to use all day. Assault rifles weigh 3-4 kilograms at most, and they're not made in heavy versions for a bigger guy. Any real zweihander swords - as in these were actually meant to be used - weighed 2-3 kilograms. Anything 4 kg or above was what the Germans usesd to call a "Paratschwert", a ceremonial (useless) weapon. And the soldiers selected to weild such things on a field of battle were generally quite big and strong for the period. Someone who had to overcompensate could ofc ask a smith to make a bigger heavier blade, but seeing what the normal size did to people it was just overkill and posturing.
And while I am not sure of what the average adult human male is capable of lifting, I am pretty sure it is a helluva lot more than what those guns weigh. Automatically Appended Next Post: PhillyT wrote:Yes, because propaganda often portrays those we are trying to uplift as being less important and significant...
Of course. With a few seconds of thought, you can find several plausible reasons. It is in a Chaos Space Marines codex, so it might be in their interest to portray Marines as small (It should be noted that this seven feet passage specifically refers to the Emperor's Space Marines, nothing else). Conversely, if this is assumed to be an Imperial text, the Imperium may want to make Marines seem less powerful and thus their deeds more heroic. After all, if all those insane feats were committed by warriors not much taller than you or me, perhaps you, the common guardsman, has hope of doing something similarly heroic? I am done. carry on your one man crusade. The original poster has his answer and we can all move on as better people.
Not sure what you are implying here, but it did not look very nice. Is debating Marine height ITT and being ''''''''''''''better people''''''''''''' mutually exclusive?
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Ashiraya wrote:And while I am not sure of what the average adult human male is capable of lifting, I am pretty sure it is a helluva lot more than what those guns weigh.
Yes. But you have to be able to lug it around all day, and keep using it all day. Just take a 3-4 kilogram weight from the local gym and carry it with you for a day, then decide if you want a bigger weapon just because you can carry that weight. And try to use that weight for an extended period of time. A battle is not ten repetitions with a minute of rest after, it might be a hundred or a thousand without any rest.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Spetulhu wrote: Ashiraya wrote:And while I am not sure of what the average adult human male is capable of lifting, I am pretty sure it is a helluva lot more than what those guns weigh.
Yes. But you have to be able to lug it around all day, and keep using it all day. Just take a 3-4 kilogram weight from the local gym and carry it with you for a day, then decide if you want a bigger weapon just because you can carry that weight. And try to use that weight for an extended period of time. A battle is not ten repetitions with a minute of rest after, it might be a hundred or a thousand without any rest.
Marines are very very resistant to tiring, mind you.
The fact that Marines carry weapons too heavy for humans to lift implies more than that their lifting capacity is higher than a human's. It indicates that the weight Marines are capable of carrying as their assault rifle is more than what a human can lift, which is something significant indeed!
42342
Post by: Smacks
I feel like 'too heavy to lift' might be exaggerated language. People can lift quite a lot. For a boltgun to be so heavy that no human could lift it, it would probably need to be car sized.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Smacks wrote:I feel like 'too heavy to lift' might be exaggerated language. People can lift quite a lot. For a boltgun to be so heavy that no human could lift it, it would probably need to be car sized.
I think the statement is an exagerration.While a human can lift and fire a boltgun they just can't use them nearly as fluidly as an astartes can.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
It's probably not just weight, but size too. A cinder block is heavy, but it's compact.
An FN MAG machinegun is both heavy, and long. The average person (heck, the average real world soldier) would struggle to shoulder it to fire standing up because its weight is distributed across its nearly 50" length. The average arm length for a male is only 32 inches, by comparison, and if you've tried to hold something heavy steady at arms-length you can imagine where the weight of a boltgun isn't just about "lifting" it.
You can see how big that weapon is, and it weighs only almost 30 pounds (unloaded), lol.
Now imagine a magazine fed rocket rifle designed for a seven foot superhuman.
It's not that nobody could do it. It's just that most people couldn't.
42342
Post by: Smacks
But is it designed for a superhuman? Sisters carry bolters too, and they're girls :p
Also machine guns are made of steel, which is heavy. 40k is supposed to have better metals, which are likely stronger and lighter. Also a rocket 'launcher' shouldn't need to be heavy since there isn't as much force acting inside the chamber. You can launch a rocket out of a cardboard tube.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Smacks wrote:But is it designed for a superhuman? Sisters carry bolters too, and they're girls :p
Also machine guns are made of steel, which is heavy. 40k is supposed to have better metals, which are likely stronger and lighter. Also a rocket 'launcher' shouldn't need to be heavy since there isn't as much force acting inside the chamber. You can launch a rocket out of a cardboard tube.
They're probably upscaled for Marines. It's debatable whether or not they chambered for a larger cartridge (Most likely) but I would hazard a guess that Marine boltguns has a much more dense and/or strong construction for the same reason Ripper Guns are: So that the super strong wielder doesn't break the damned thing.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Smacks wrote:But is it designed for a superhuman? Sisters carry bolters too, and they're girls :p
Also machine guns are made of steel, which is heavy. 40k is supposed to have better metals, which are likely stronger and lighter. Also a rocket 'launcher' shouldn't need to be heavy since there isn't as much force acting inside the chamber. You can launch a rocket out of a cardboard tube.
Considering bolters have been depicted as being ruggedized so you can use them to bonk large, disagreeable aliens on the head with them in a pinch, I'm guessing they aren't too light.
As far as the Sisters weapons, they've been occasionally depicted as being smaller in both caliber and size than the ones Marines carry, but not enough of a difference that it impacts how the bolters stats are depicted in the tabletop game (obviously when you're working on a fixed 16.7% margin of error/difficulty there isn't any room for small nuance like that). I'd imagine the weapons scaled for normal human use are similarly downsized.
When the game talks about lifting weapons not meant for regular humans, I'm guessing they refer to the Marines' ability to lug around heavy weapons though. Not just the Marine bolters.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Smacks wrote:But is it designed for a superhuman? Sisters carry bolters too, and they're girls :p Also machine guns are made of steel, which is heavy. 40k is supposed to have better metals, which are likely stronger and lighter. Also a rocket 'launcher' shouldn't need to be heavy since there isn't as much force acting inside the chamber. You can launch a rocket out of a cardboard tube.
Considering bolters have been depicted as being ruggedized so you can use them to bonk large, disagreeable aliens on the head with them in a pinch, I'm guessing they aren't too light. As far as the Sisters weapons, they've been occasionally depicted as being smaller in both caliber and size than the ones Marines carry, but not enough of a difference that it impacts how the bolters stats are depicted in the tabletop game (obviously when you're working on a fixed 16.7% margin of error/difficulty there isn't any room for small nuance like that). I'd imagine the weapons scaled for normal human use are similarly downsized. When the game talks about lifting weapons not meant for regular humans, I'm guessing they refer to the Marines' ability to lug around heavy weapons though. Not just the Marine bolters.
Also, an Astartes bolter recoil would probably kill or seriously maim a mortal human being. Seeing how we finally got sensible bolter casing sizes in the new Deathwing trailer, bolters are pretty using an AA round for a rifle.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Wyzilla wrote: Veteran Sergeant wrote: Smacks wrote:But is it designed for a superhuman? Sisters carry bolters too, and they're girls :p
Also machine guns are made of steel, which is heavy. 40k is supposed to have better metals, which are likely stronger and lighter. Also a rocket 'launcher' shouldn't need to be heavy since there isn't as much force acting inside the chamber. You can launch a rocket out of a cardboard tube.
Considering bolters have been depicted as being ruggedized so you can use them to bonk large, disagreeable aliens on the head with them in a pinch, I'm guessing they aren't too light.
As far as the Sisters weapons, they've been occasionally depicted as being smaller in both caliber and size than the ones Marines carry, but not enough of a difference that it impacts how the bolters stats are depicted in the tabletop game (obviously when you're working on a fixed 16.7% margin of error/difficulty there isn't any room for small nuance like that). I'd imagine the weapons scaled for normal human use are similarly downsized.
When the game talks about lifting weapons not meant for regular humans, I'm guessing they refer to the Marines' ability to lug around heavy weapons though. Not just the Marine bolters.
Also, an Astartes bolter recoil would probably kill or seriously maim a mortal human being. Seeing how we finally got sensible bolter casing sizes in the new Deathwing trailer, bolters are pretty using an AA round for a rifle.
I don't think the recoil is that bad. It is a rocket propelled grenade that the bolter is firing.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
TheCustomLime wrote: Wyzilla wrote: Veteran Sergeant wrote: Smacks wrote:But is it designed for a superhuman? Sisters carry bolters too, and they're girls :p
Also machine guns are made of steel, which is heavy. 40k is supposed to have better metals, which are likely stronger and lighter. Also a rocket 'launcher' shouldn't need to be heavy since there isn't as much force acting inside the chamber. You can launch a rocket out of a cardboard tube.
Considering bolters have been depicted as being ruggedized so you can use them to bonk large, disagreeable aliens on the head with them in a pinch, I'm guessing they aren't too light.
As far as the Sisters weapons, they've been occasionally depicted as being smaller in both caliber and size than the ones Marines carry, but not enough of a difference that it impacts how the bolters stats are depicted in the tabletop game (obviously when you're working on a fixed 16.7% margin of error/difficulty there isn't any room for small nuance like that). I'd imagine the weapons scaled for normal human use are similarly downsized.
When the game talks about lifting weapons not meant for regular humans, I'm guessing they refer to the Marines' ability to lug around heavy weapons though. Not just the Marine bolters.
Also, an Astartes bolter recoil would probably kill or seriously maim a mortal human being. Seeing how we finally got sensible bolter casing sizes in the new Deathwing trailer, bolters are pretty using an AA round for a rifle.
I don't think the recoil is that bad. It is a rocket propelled grenade that the bolter is firing.
....
You do know how missiles work, and how bolters are completely different from them, yes?
42342
Post by: Smacks
TheCustomLime wrote:I don't think the recoil is that bad. It is a rocket propelled grenade that the bolter is firing.
Yeah, I'm never sure what the official line is on this. A rocket propelled grenade should not really produce any recoil (hardly any). But I guess they could have a small cartridge to get them started. Some of the artwork shows cartridges being ejected, but that might just be an error by the artist.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Smacks wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:I don't think the recoil is that bad. It is a rocket propelled grenade that the bolter is firing.
Yeah, I'm never sure what the official line is on this. A rocket propelled grenade should really produce any recoil (hardly any). But I guess they could have a small cartridge to get them started. Some of the artwork shows cartridges being ejected, but that might just be an error by the artist.
Bolters have multiple charges- a primary gunpowder charge to kick it out of the barrel, and then the gyrojets which activate long enough after leaving the barrel that they do not kill the person firing it. All personnel missile weapons with large rockets (like a bolter) has a hole on the end of the "gun" which is worn on the shoulder. The explosion as the rocket activates is harmlessly blown out behind the shooter's back in a large fireball as the rocket launchers the grenade away. Bolters however, are a just a traditional gun. If they fired it with purely rockets, the kickback of the flames would either maim or kill the shooter, not to mention the recoil of firing a 20mm round would probably kill them or shatter their shoulder. And they would have kick, because there's no hole in the back to direct away the force. Bolters are like rifles, they're a closed cylinder to build up pressure, where-as a missile launcher is an open tube.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
@Wyzilla
Bolters function by firing a miniature rocket which, after a certain distance, engages it's rocket engines to accelerate it to it's maximum speed. I would imagine that there is some recoil to the gun since Marines need a round that can still punch but not as much as one would think since a bolter round doesn't need the same amount of initial force to reach it's optimal velocity.
Unless, of course, it -does- fire with the full force such a round can offer and the rockets in the bolt propels it to even greater speeds.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
TheCustomLime wrote:@Wyzilla
Bolters function by firing a miniature rocket which, after a certain distance, engages it's rocket engines to accelerate it to it's maximum speed. I would imagine that there is some recoil to the gun since Marines need a round that can still punch but not as much as one would think since a bolter round doesn't need the same amount of initial force to reach it's optimal velocity.
Unless, of course, it -does- fire with the full force such a round can offer and the rockets in the bolt propels it to even greater speeds.
Yes.... but in order to actually hit what you were aiming at, it would still need enough gunpowder to send it flying straight, and you're firing a weapon that uses anti-aircraft caliber rounds.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Wyzilla wrote:All personnel missile weapons with large rockets (like a bolter) has a hole on the end of the "gun" which is worn on the shoulder. The explosion as the rocket activates is harmlessly blown out behind the shooter's back in a large fireball as the rocket launchers the grenade away. Bolters however, are a just a traditional gun. If they fired it with purely rockets, the kickback of the flames would either maim or kill the shooter, not to mention the recoil of firing a 20mm round would probably kill them or shatter their shoulder.
But we already have/had experimental gyrojet sidearms, they were light and had much less in the way of 'flames' and recoil than regular ammunition.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Wyzilla wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:@Wyzilla
Bolters function by firing a miniature rocket which, after a certain distance, engages it's rocket engines to accelerate it to it's maximum speed. I would imagine that there is some recoil to the gun since Marines need a round that can still punch but not as much as one would think since a bolter round doesn't need the same amount of initial force to reach it's optimal velocity.
Unless, of course, it -does- fire with the full force such a round can offer and the rockets in the bolt propels it to even greater speeds.
Yes.... but in order to actually hit what you were aiming at, it would still need enough gunpowder to send it flying straight, and you're firing a weapon that uses anti-aircraft caliber rounds.
This is true.
Okay, so, Spess Mureen bolters can kill a normal wo/man. This would mean that Guard/Sororitas bolters would fire a smaller cartridge. In fact, since Sororitas tend to wear power armor which can help brace against recoil I would guess Guard bolters fire the weakest round. Automatically Appended Next Post: Smacks wrote: Wyzilla wrote:All personnel missile weapons with large rockets (like a bolter) has a hole on the end of the "gun" which is worn on the shoulder. The explosion as the rocket activates is harmlessly blown out behind the shooter's back in a large fireball as the rocket launchers the grenade away. Bolters however, are a just a traditional gun. If they fired it with purely rockets, the kickback of the flames would either maim or kill the shooter, not to mention the recoil of firing a 20mm round would probably kill them or shatter their shoulder.
But we already have/had experimental gyrojet sidearms, they were light and had much less in the way of 'flames' and recoil than regular ammunition.
The gyrojet guns are to bolters what a matchlock pistol is a Chey- Tac intervention.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Smacks wrote: Wyzilla wrote:All personnel missile weapons with large rockets (like a bolter) has a hole on the end of the "gun" which is worn on the shoulder. The explosion as the rocket activates is harmlessly blown out behind the shooter's back in a large fireball as the rocket launchers the grenade away. Bolters however, are a just a traditional gun. If they fired it with purely rockets, the kickback of the flames would either maim or kill the shooter, not to mention the recoil of firing a 20mm round would probably kill them or shatter their shoulder.
But we already have/had experimental gyrojet sidearms, they were light and had much less in the way of 'flames' and recoil than regular ammunition.
And they used a ridiculously small charge, were horrendously inaccurate, and firing a small round at low velocity.
These are bolter rounds.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Wyzilla wrote: And they used a ridiculously small charge, were horrendously inaccurate, and firing a small round at low velocity. ... These are bolter rounds.
Yeah, I'd appreciate you not throwing in the facepalm smiley like I said something stupid. And I don't need to be shown pictures of bolters, I've been looking at them for well over 20 years now. The fact the gyrojet ammunition is smaller is not the point, what is important is that is they had less recoil and flames than equivalent sized ammunition. So you can't just assume a bolter is going to have the same recoil as an A10 gatling, just because the rounds are the same size, that would be insane (even for a 10 foot super human). The technology is completely different.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
Smacks wrote: Wyzilla wrote:
And they used a ridiculously small charge, were horrendously inaccurate, and firing a small round at low velocity.
...
These are bolter rounds.
Yeah, I'd appreciate you not throwing in the facepalm smiley like I said something stupid. And I don't need to be show pictures of bolters, I've been looking at them for well over 20 years now. The fact the gyrojet ammunition is smaller is not the point, what is important is that is they had less recoil and flames than equivalent sized ammunition. So you can't just assume a bolter is going to have the same recoil as an A10 gatling, just because the rounds are the same size, that would be insane (even for a 10 foot super human). The technology is completely different.
No, because it uses a charge of gunpowder to get it out the barrel first. Gyrojets are a terrible comparison to bolters due to them being far smaller than 20mm or 25mm (heavy bolter) and having a pathetic velocity of just supersonic at 1,250fps (and that's increasing over time, not even the muzzle velocity!). And note I only describe bolters as gyrojet due to there being no other explanation as to how the things fly straight- GW just describes them as rockets but never mentions fins. Bolters fire rounds the size of the blue capped round at speeds sufficient to punch through armor.. Bolters clearly do no use the rockets as the primary charge to exit the barrel of the gun- doing so would damage the barrel and would have more force due to bolters probably having a velocity well over 2,000fps to punch through armor. Gyrojets had less velocity than normal ammo because of their pathetically short range and low velocity. The 7.62 for comparison has a velocity of roughly around 2,600fps.
Not to mention for propelling something as large as a bolt at speeds necessary to puncture stuff like power armor... there's going to be a lot of blowback if it's not a two stage round.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Wyzilla wrote:Bolters clearly do no use the rockets as the primary charge to exit the barrel of the gun- doing so would damage the barrel and would have more force due to bolters probably having a velocity well over 2,000fps to punch through armor.
I don't know why you have this idea that a system where propellant steadily accelerates a round up to speed over time (rocket) would damage a barrel or recoil more than a system where the propellant suddenly explodes all at once (gun), but it is making the conversation difficult.
88854
Post by: Jaq Draco lives
My point was much more clearly made by the person with the modern day gun analogy and I'm happy about that thank you.
So yeah I mean it just has to be accepted that a 7.6 foot superhuman that is far stronger pound for pound than your average human could easily lift and use a gun that a normal human would find next to impossible. His example has shown how easily that can be true for normal human to human never mind adding another few foot and exponentially more muscle and strength.
None of which takes away from the original fluff statements that back that up again and again nor the practicalities.
|
|
