Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There are roughly 1,000,000 Imperial Astartes at large in the Galaxy.

The Galaxy is unfashionably huge. As in, us mere real mortals really can’t grasp it, because our brains have never experienced such a vast area.

There are billions of Imperial Guard, at a conservative estimate.

And there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of active war zones across the Galaxy.

For the most part? The Imperial Guard and non-Astartes fighting forces are more than enough to get the job done. Sheer weight of numbers and favourable logistics will see to that.

The number of warzones that need Astartes intervention is comparatively small - and so to see an Astartes at war would be rare.

It’s only lynchpin worlds such as Armageddon where a serious and sustained Astartes presence is required. So even when the Astartes do turn up? Even a full battle Company? The majority of the Imperial forces aren’t going to see them, because their presence is so minimal, they’re almost exclusively reserved for decapitation or other vital streaks. In, wreck the place, out and onto to the next one.

Sure, you’ll hear they’re planetside. And you might even hear rumours of how terrifying they were to witness. And some very carefully selected pict-casts might make it into circulation.

But, thanks to Imperial propaganda, where the existence of Chaos is actively denied, and the threat of all Xenos seriously underplayed to prevent panic? You’re not going to get footage of the Astartes wrecking the place. That’s suppressed, especially as Astartes casualties are likely when taking out the enemy command,

This is all part of what makes 40K so immersive in my eyes.

I really dont like the "Shroeddinger Marine" theory... They are a miniscule force in the context of the setting but somehow they are omnipresent... WTF... Its either one or another... Or else they deserve the tittle of Marine Sue.

1000 chapters of 1000 marines is just a neat and simbolic number... Just like Christ being 33 when going to meet his fate.

Loyalist marines could be 10 or 100 times more numerous than the "canonical number" if only because nothing stops CSM from achieving those numbers over time.

Dude, if you’re just going to ignore any established background you personally don’t enjoy/agree with, you’re arguing in bad faith.

Well, is your POV.

Treating Marines as if they were an army of "Batmen" is just silly.

Not every body has to accept at face value the most obtuse elements of the lore... Specially when 40k is famous for its "unrelaible narrators".

Rigorism is not the only way to look at things.

You claim an issue with Astartes.

Others offer refutation, with citation.

You ignore the citation and claim the refutation to be without citation.

It’s like arguing with a flat earther.

I havent ignore any citation. I simply give them a different value than others.

The earth not being flat can be demosttated in an objective and scientific manner.

40K lore is a collection of contradictory myths and unreliable sources... I just frame those sources in a different manner.

Vatsetis wrote:I really dont like the "Shroeddinger Marine" theory... They are a miniscule force in the context of the setting but somehow they are omnipresent...

No-one said they're omni-present. They're constantly active and present at the most critical fronts, but the galaxy is still massive.

Space Marines are not a common sight, unless you found yourself always fighting at critically important warzones, and even then, unless you've been deployed somehow to a crucial elite battlefield where the line is seconds away from breaking, or just happen to be near a strategically vital point in the enemy line, you might still be on the same battlefield and never see an Astartes.

An example of this is in the Sabbat Worlds Crusade, specifically at Verghast. A massive Chaos rebellion ensues on the world, and whole forge complexes fall to Chaos-aligned forces. Three Space Marines are deployed, and even though Gaunt essentially takes on operational command of the entire defence on the planet, he never even sees the Astartes in action during the campaign.

Loyalist marines could be 10 or 100 times more numerous than the "canonical number" if only because nothing stops CSM from achieving those numbers over time.

They *could* be, but then it wouldn't be canon, would it?

As I've said, I'm fine with changing the canon when it serves a purpose for player enjoyment. What purpose does this serve? Making them "realistic"? Should we get rid of other unrealistic elements, like chainswords and psychic powers too?

Vatsetis wrote:Not every body has to accept at face value the most obtuse elements of the lore... Specially when 40k is famous for its "unrelaible narrators".

So what can we say is canon then? What can we not dismiss as "unreliable narrators"?

The point stands that these superhuman and "unrealistic" feats are the majority of depictions of Space Marines. If that's considered to be the most common depiction, why should we believe that it is all fake?

You mention obtuse elements, but where is the line drawn?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
I havent ignore any citation. I simply give them a different value than others.

A value of 0 is otherwise known as "ignoring".

The earth not being flat can be demostated in an objective and scientific manner.

40K lore is a collection of contradictory myths and unreliable sources... I just frame those sources in a different manner.

Otherwise known as ignoring when convenient for you.

But sure, we can play that game: Chaos doesn't actually exist, it's just a myth and any stories where it does exist are just propaganda and unreliable narrators. In fact, the only faction in the game is Tau, and every other faction is just a propaganda piece.

Savvy?

Actually the 3 Marines is Sanctus Reach not Verghast but the point remains. Out of the entire Gaunts Ghosts series we have a grand total of 10 Space Marines, and only 3 are Loyalists. Its made very clear that Astartes are rare even in important war zones.

For clarity.

My extensive knowledge of the background is never intended as a flex. Just as my height isn’t something I had control over, me getting into this hobby quite near the beginning should not be taken as a sign of superiority.

Indeed, I’m really not terribly well read in the modern era of 40K. And my knowledge of my own era is certainly incomplete.

But when all are invited to chip in, and the OP just sort of opts to ignore well researched and cited answers?

What the the bloody point?

You? Marines aren’t all that and a bag of potato chips;

Others? Well, actually * sources sources sources sources sources sources sources* kind of challenge your standpoint, but we’re willing to discuss it?

You? Yes but if we ignore all your sources, clearly I’m right.

It’s tiresome. It’s boring. You know when you acknowledged that, in my own peculiar way, I can get across transhuman dread? That was a glimmer of hope for your greater appreciation of just how the 40K background rabbit hole can go.

I do not, and will not, claim to be an authority on said background. Because frankly I’d become a colossal bore. Stuck in my ways, mired by my own interpretation thereof.

I’m at my Sad Old Git best when my take is actually challenged - hence I’ll often ask for citation. Not because “I are write”, but because I’m aware I’ve not read all the background and novels. When I ask for citation, it’s for my own learning - so I can go read it to.

Perhaps I’ll read and interpret the text in the same way. Perhaps I’ll come away with a different take. Either way, it’s a road to a healthy and frankly fascinating discussion.

You, my good man? “If it’s not my own pre-conceived notion, it must be wrong, because reasons”.

Stick around kid. I’ve a background thread which should include chapter and verse citations from very old books. And I’m very open to people challenging what I might post with more modern sources - and from there friendly and fascinating discussion will arise.

Just don’t stick your fingers in your ears and declare “La la la la la la I’m not listening la la la” as your counter point.

There’s an awful lot of knowledge amongst us Dakkanauts. And it’s freely given.

Accept it. Digest it. Consider it. If you’ve got a hot take, know your sources and be prepared to defend your take. Because others will challenge it.

Addressing the original poster:

This thread seems to be the Space Marine version of "What do you mean a person wearing plate mail can run?"

If your complaint is about the size of the shoulder pads in some depictions of marine armor, you should be filing that with the complaints about impossible anatomy (head vs. arms and shoulders placement on depictions of terminator armor, etc), huge heads, and so forth.

Just use the old multi-part non-monopose marine models for reference: the shoulder pads get held on by whatever you need to hold them on while not getting in the way of the arms.

I started this thread asking for any graphical evidence that SM can indeed fight while prone... Im still waiting

A lot of the information of this thread has been useful for me... the data on ground pressure and the auto-reactive armor has shown me that Astartes are indeed more maneuverable that what I initially thought.

Nevertheless, sources to be valid must have some credibility.

The legend of the so-called Battle of Covadonga (circa 722 AD) speaks about thousands upon thousands of Muslim troops being defeated because the Virgin Mary make their arrows and lances to be deflected back and killing the infidels... this is a Myth that speaks us about how "Spain" was build upon Catholic faith. But this is obviously religious and political propaganda... its reasonable to be skeptical about it.

If you ask the PR department of a fast food franchise they will surely tell you that their food is healthy and that they follow the highest quality standards... but this is marketing, and a smart consumer should be skeptical about the inherent quality of extremely cheap food.

Most of the 40K Lore mixes in universe propaganda with real world marketing. Many 40K stories are just written ads in which the protagonist have an easy time defeating their foes in cool manners as a way to better sell a power fantasy for the costumer and therefore more minis and merchandise... its all very clear and straight forward.

So when the lore is inconsistent ... making the Astartes both extremely rare and limited because of very convinient reasons (loyalist only get 1000x1000 marines to limit the individual power of a Chapter Master even doe the IOM wouldnt possibly be able to have the records to date, even doe every chapter will try to increase their numbers of brothers in arms, even doe to maintain those 1000 chapters as a fighting force and control constant SM rebelions a huge reserve of Astartes backup should be available. On the other side CSM cannot grow beyond very low numbers because of infigthing and warp instability even doe they have an unlimited amount of time to do so)... but making them ubiquitous because every individual marine is allegedly like an army of one (like the cheesy 80s action films) and are somewhat able to move arround the galaxy with ease (even doe they are constrained by the same warp travel limitations as the rest of the imperial forces)...well it makes no sense... its inconsistent and contradictory... therefore I have the right to take it with a grain of

The Codex and the lore about Astartes tells that they are a team players, they are a collective force that fight under a proper military structure of squads and bigger units... if you are looking for "Batman like" entities in 40K the Imperial Assasins and others are much better reference.

Of course you can accept the 40K stories at face value. That this lore is self sustaining even if its contradictory. But if you are going to follow this "Credo quia absurdum" approach you dont have any need to answer someone with a skeptical POV like me... dont get bored, dont try to double down on the weirdest elements of the fluff, just ignore this questions because (respecfully) they are not ment for you.

So when people insist to depict even the most standard Astartes as comic-book superheroes just because they can reference some story in which they crush some hepless chaos cultist gang or Planetary Defense Force... I basically think about all the horrors of the 40K Galaxy and suddenly the basic Tactical Marine or Intercessor turns into this...

Vatsetis, stop being disingenuous. Is obvious you don't want to change your view or opinion, and thats fine. Is your opinion about space marines.

But stop wasting everybodys time and being obtuse when ample evidence in how stuff works in universe is shown to you. If you don't like it thats fine, but thats how the authors of the universe want it to work. Thats it. Maybe I find absurd how pokemons can enter pokeballs but thats how that universe works.

When I play 40K, Space Crusade or Space Hulk I dont see Astartes in the same manner as Pokemon, or Looney toons.... doing so quite of undermines the setting, IMHO.

Im not writting in bad faith or being disingenuous... perhaps is just that this is the typical conflict between an Emic and an Etic approach:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/two-views-of-culture-etic-emic/

"I'm not arguing in bad faith!", as they argue in bad faith.

Ive re-read al my post in this thread and I really dont understand why people get so mad and speak of bad faith on my part.

Perhaps you are reading too far into my words.

It really doesn't matter how advanced the tech is and how much it moves with the body - putting extra inflexible layers on a body reduces motion. It's impossible to increase the circumference of all parts of a body and not affect its ability to move in some way.

 Hellebore wrote:
It really doesn't matter how advanced the tech is and how much it moves with the body - putting extra inflexible layers on a body reduces motion. It's impossible to increase the circumference of all parts of a body and not affect its ability to move in some way.

Space Marines should have some restriction in movement due to their armor and their general body type and training, but they are surprisingly more agile and fast than their appearance would let someone think and thanks to the Black Carapace, they are not encumbered by their armor nor does it slow down the movements they can accomplish. That's basically the gist of it. I don't think that anybody here is arguing that Space Marines can easily bend down and touch their toes without bending their knees.

Vatsetis wrote:
Ive re-read al my post in this thread and I really dont understand why people get so mad and speak of bad faith on my part.

Perhaps you are reading too far into my words.

You've been given many citations from the actual, GW-made lore, and completely ignored it. You've provided nothing on your side but "Nuh-uh!" and insist that Marines specifically have to work by real-world rules, yet seem completely unbothered by Dreadnoughts, or Ogryns, or Knights, or Titans, or Carnifexes, or Wraithlords, or...

Point is, you have to take the universe of 40k on its terms. You can have objections and critiques, for sure-I honestly think that they never should've given a solid number of Astartes. I'd rather they keep it vague, something like "A small fraction of the actual bodies of the Imperium's war machine, but wielding outsize power compared to their number," or something like that. But I accept that Marines still hold an important place in both the Imperium's war machine and the Chaos side as well.

I really dont understand why 40K lore has to be taken "on its terms"... When this is a lore famous for its inconsistency and contradictions (the power level of a given unit depends of wether or not is the protagonist of a given story) and the use of subjective unreliable narrators.

It is sort of asking to take a medieval chronicle "on its terms" and straight without applying any criticism. BTW also medieval chronicles have a very bad sense of scale regarding the number of soldiers involved in a campaign.

If suddenly Ogryns were ment to be sealth experts or Titans as common as Leman Russ tanks I would indeed be skeptical about those claims.

Certainly the basic marine Dreadnought seems a very unstable design and hardly unable to engage in melee combat... Also some SM aircraft seem to have absolutely no aerodynamic capabilities.

If the contradictions between lore capability and art/miniature design create a cognitive disociation I just point it out... Is not that a great deal.

After all Im not pretending to reform or change 40k to any extent, Im just trying to make sense of the setting.

Vatsetis wrote:
I really dont understand why 40K lore has to be taken "on its terms"... When this is a lore famous for its inconsistency and contradictions (the power level of a given unit depends of wether or not is the protagonist of a given story) and the use of subjective unreliable narrators.

It is sort of asking to take a medieval chronicle "on its terms" and straight without applying any criticism. BTW also medieval chronicles have a very bad sense of scale regarding the number of soldiers involved in a campaign.

If suddenly Ogryns were ment to be sealth experts or Titans as common as Leman Russ tanks I would indeed be skeptical about those claims.

Certainly the basic marine Dreadnought seems a very unstable design and hardly unable to engage in melee combat... Also some SM aircraft seem to have absolutely no aerodynamic capabilities.

If the contradictions between lore capability and art/miniature design create a cognitive disociation I just point it out... Is not that a great deal.

After all Im not pretending to reform or change 40k to any extent, Im just trying to make sense of the setting.

For me the cognitive dissonance you refer to is part of the appeal of the 40k setting. Its over-the-top nutso bonkers, and I enjoy that about it. Yes there are inconsistencies all over the place, I like specific stories to be narratively consistent, but I have no issue with plot armour and power levels varying from one story to the other in the service of telling a good story. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" and all that.

Specifically in reference to the Space Marines being Hulk and Batman at the same time, I think that is exactly what they are, and that is part of the appeal. In the setting some space marines are indeed sneakier than a ratling, there is even a first founding legion where that is there whole shtick.

As for marines lying prone, I can't think of an example in the artwork, but it definitely happens in the stories. So, the drawings don't exactly match the words... When do they ever? Let's not forget that the scale of everything in 40k is out of whack. The miniatures are in "heroic" scale, a lasgun isn't in-universe that big compared to the torso of a guardsmen. Sometimes the hands on a miniature are as large as a rifle or the same miniature's own torso.

Like with any work of fiction there is a requirement for the willing suspension of disbelief. Where one person draws the line on what is too much varies. I like the pseudo-science of 40k and I fully embrace the fantastical aspects of the setting too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/85rcug/proconverted_space_marine_in_a_stealthy_lying/

This guy converted a model.

Is the approximate weight of a power armoured Marine known? They have very wide feet with a pretty large surface area, so the ground pressure may not be all that high to be honest. They can probably go anywhere that can take the weight of, say, a large bull or draught horse (both of which can weigh over a ton and have much narrower feet).

I'm sure we could accurately guess. A horse is anywhere from about 400kg - 1000kg (1 ton). So a marine is probably somewhere around there.

I think todays soldiers traditionally carry around 15kgs of armour, which is probably similar to a Guardsmen's flak armour and helmet.

Something like an Imperial Guard stormtrooper in full carapace probably wears around 25kgs of armour, which would be around the same as a Medieval knight.

The 2 issues working out how heavy a marines power armour might be is 1) how thick the armour is; and 2) that it's powered so carry weight alone doesn't need to be considered.

An in universe example is the Sentinel. It's a 1 man vehicle, has 45mm of armour at maximum and weighs approximately 7 tons. Which is actually fairly reasonable, considering its compact nature and comparing it to many armoured vehicles.

Using the same thickness as the sentinel a marine, who's smaller again, a suit of power armour would probably be still pushing around 5 tons. If you dropped that to maybe 20mm you could be looking around 2 tons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/85rcug/proconverted_space_marine_in_a_stealthy_lying/

This guy converted a model.

Thanks Pal... that pretty much fulfills the thread aim for me.

Hasn't the marine numbers been changed now?
They no longer follow the 1000/1000 thing, as Girlyman raised many new (Primaris only) chapters and rescinded the limit on 1000 marines, reinforcing the chapters.

I doubt we have much more, but I can imagine that's doubled the number of marines or so.

Suddenly Im a huge RG fan... indeed he dosent get enough recognition

Gert wrote:Actually the 3 Marines is Sanctus Reach not Verghast but the point remains. Out of the entire Gaunts Ghosts series we have a grand total of 10 Space Marines, and only 3 are Loyalists. Its made very clear that Astartes are rare even in important war zones.

I think it's a different case of the three Marines too though - in the aftermath of the Verghast incident, I seem to remember that Gaunt is told that some Astartes even helped out in clearing out the last bastions of Zoican troops - but we never see them in the book, only mentioned.

I could be wrong, as I don't have the book on me.

Vatsetis wrote:I started this thread asking for any graphical evidence that SM can indeed fight while prone... Im still waiting

You were given written evidence. Why is that not enough?

I want graphic evidence of a Space Marine punching a Tau's head off. If I don't receive graphic proof displaying this, am I right in assuming they can't? What a pathetic claim.

Nevertheless, sources to be valid must have some credibility.

Define for us what a "valid" source is then, as we've all presented the implicit evidence of "Space Maines *do* perform all the feats we see".

The legend of the so-called Battle of Covadonga (circa 722 AD) speaks about thousands upon thousands of Muslim troops being defeated because the Virgin Mary make their arrows and lances to be deflected back and killing the infidels... this is a Myth that speaks us about how "Spain" was build upon Catholic faith. But this is obviously religious and political propaganda... its reasonable to be skeptical about it.

Unlike the real world, which *does* have observable, measurable physics, 40k does not. Therefore, the only baseline we have to go off of with 40k is "are we told they can do it with regularity?" and "do omniscient third person narrator sources tell us this happened?"
If yes to both of the above, why should it not be valid.

If you ask the PR department of a fast food franchise they will surely tell you that their food is healthy and that they follow the highest quality standards... but this is marketing, and a smart consumer should be skeptical about the inherent quality of extremely cheap food.

And who is being marketed to in this fiction you outline?

Most of the 40K Lore mixes in universe propaganda with real world marketing. Many 40K stories are just written ads in which the protagonist have an easy time defeating their foes in cool manners as a way to better sell a power fantasy for the costumer and therefore more minis and merchandise... its all very clear and straight forward.

So your claim is that "Space Marines are only described as powerful to sell the product to real world consumers"?

What stops anyone from claiming that *every* feat, every test of strength, every action performed by any of these fictional character isn't also propaganda? Guardsmen? Any demonstration of their strength is just false. Tau? Don't exist, their whole life is a propaganda effort to get people to collect a new army. Orks? GW's just making propaganda about fungi to get people to buy Orks.
What *is* real to you?

The Codex and the lore about Astartes tells that they are a team players, they are a collective force that fight under a proper military structure of squads and bigger units... if you are looking for "Batman like" entities in 40K the Imperial Assasins and others are much better reference.

Except the lore doesn't say that at all. In *many* cases of the lore, Space Marines deploy at the *squad* level, and sometimes even less. The Sabbat Worlds Crusade is an excellent example, but we see cases of these small sized forces in such cases as Knights of Macragge.

Of course you can accept the 40K stories at face value. That this lore is self sustaining even if its contradictory. But if you are going to follow this "Credo quia absurdum" approach you dont have any need to answer someone with a skeptical POV like me... dont get bored, dont try to double down on the weirdest elements of the fluff, just ignore this questions because (respecfully) they are not ment for you.

There's a difference between "being skeptical" and "sticking your head in the sand". Don't try and conflate the two.

And I ask again - what is "contradictory" in Space Marine physiology? What says that they *can't* go prone? Your understanding of physics? Does your understanding of physics encompass psychic powers too?

Vatsetis wrote:Im not writting in bad faith or being disingenuous... perhaps is just that this is the typical conflict between an Emic and an Etic approach:

Emic and etic approaches do not apply to this. 40k is a *fictional setting*, therefore there cannot be an emic understanding.

Vatsetis wrote:I really dont understand why 40K lore has to be taken "on its terms"... When this is a lore famous for its inconsistency and contradictions (the power level of a given unit depends of wether or not is the protagonist of a given story) and the use of subjective unreliable narrators.

But we see no such counterevidence that Space Marines *cannot* go prone. 40k should be taken on it's own terms *because it is not beholden to our terms, as a fictional setting*.

It is sort of asking to take a medieval chronicle "on its terms" and straight without applying any criticism. BTW also medieval chronicles have a very bad sense of scale regarding the number of soldiers involved in a campaign.

Medieval chronicles take place in the real world. 40k does not.

You *do* understand the difference between fiction and reality, yes?

If suddenly Ogryns were ment to be sealth experts or Titans as common as Leman Russ tanks I would indeed be skeptical about those claims.

But Ogryns shouldn't be able to move, according to "biology", and Titans shouldn't be able to walk because of "physics". Why are you not skeptical about those?

Certainly the basic marine Dreadnought seems a very unstable design and hardly unable to engage in melee combat... Also some SM aircraft seem to have absolutely no aerodynamic capabilities.

So do Dreadnoughts not exist then? Do Space Marines lack aircraft?
How do you reconcile such things?

After all Im not pretending to reform or change 40k to any extent, Im just trying to make sense of the setting.

And the way to make sense of the setting is to ignore real world logic, physics, biology, and rationality. It's 40k. It's not real, it's not rational, and it's not trying to be. If the lore says Space Marines can do what they can do, and there's nothing in the setting that says they can't, then they can. It's that simple.

Unless you can provide a counterargument *in universe* that Space Marines can't go prone, prevailing consensus would imply that they absolutely can go prone.

But I never claim that Astartes couldnt go prone.

I just make a question.

I was really curious to see an Astartes fighting while prone... both as a model or in a drawing.

Some people completelly miss the mark with my posts. Is puzzling.

The relationship between fiction and reality is not that straight forward... pretending they are two completelly separate bubbles is a very naive and reductive approach to the issue:

https://books.google.es/books?id=rs5eRutIV5cC&pg=PA2-IA3&lpg=PA2-IA3&dq=holistic+view+of+fiction+and+reality&source=bl&ots=zHhQkxjV4O&sig=ACfU3U2m38pzs3IRlXz2LpdGGUusiNA7Jg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY3L-ciqTyAhVJeMAKHed2BYkQ6AF6BAghEAM#v=onepage&q=holistic%20view%20of%20fiction%20and%20reality&f=false

Maybe it's because in the title and first post of this thread you ask if they can go prone?
If you ask one thing and mean another, it can often confuse people.

You didn't claim Astartes couldn't go prone you just argued that written evidence was worthless and that everyone's explanations were worthless. You asked a question then didn't like the answer so argued with people who gave you the answer.

Vatsetis wrote:

We can assume that teoretically in lore SM are able to go prone, but are they ment to be able to fire, move and fight normally in such position?

This is my second post in this thread... Im hardly arguing against SM being able to go prone.

If an Astartes needs to go prone he just punches the ground really hard to make an appropriate crater to account for any difficulties due to the pauldrons and so on. Of course, an unaugmented human could never do this, which is why you don't see Sisters of Battle going prone to fire.

Orks in powered armour can punch the ground to make craters but of course not as well as a fully functional marine and that's represented in their worse defensive stats and ballistic skill.

I look forward to next week's thread 'Are Space Marines the best at piano? After all they have heightened senses and reactions. Which Primarch would be the best concert pianist?'