I'm on my first read-through of the beta, and starting to put together my first game with it. I need to substantially pad out the NPC Profiles at the back of the book and I'm wondering how to go about this. Ultimately, I'll probably just throw in what numbers make sense to me, but whilst I'm still getting a feel for the power levels and talents, etc., I've been building NPCs according to the PC generation rules. Do other people do this? It seems to work quite well for me, but it leads to more involved profiles than those given in the book. Also, where do you pitch Novice vs. Elite vs. Master? If they're ordinary and there are a number of them, I use Novice. If they're not ordinary and there's a number of them, I use Elite. If they're not ordinary and they're one of a kind, that's when I start thinking about using Master.

Anyway, I'll need an Adepta Sororitas for my first game. She's not a villain, but I'm allowing for the possibility of combat given the circumstances of the mission. I wanted to make a standard Battle Sister. Fluff-wise, I've gone for "Imperial Guard would be definitely outclassed.They wont be purging chapters of Space Marines". Essentially Badass, not Badass+. Starting groups should be badmouthing their GM, not attacking him with dice.

Adepta Soroitas, Battle Sister rank

(Elite, Threat Rating 11)

WS    BS    S    T    A    I    P    WP    F
36    46    35  45   40   35    41   55    39
           (45)

Head    Body    Arms    Legs
  9      11      10      10

Skills@2
Athletics, Command, Evade, Medicae, Navigate, Observe, Pilot, Stealth, Survival

Talents
Brace for Impact, Evasive, 
Hatred (Heretics), Lethal Blows, Nerves of Steel, Overwatch, 
Rite of Cleansing, Specialist (Adepta Sororitas), 
Weapon Training (Bolt, Flame, Las, Solid Projectile)

Equipment
Light Power Armour, Boltgun, Boltpistol

I figured Rank 5 was about right for the elite military force that is the Adept Sororitas, so I started with a Shrine World origin, added an Imperial Guard background as the closet thng and (obviously) a Warrior role. I then just kept buying advances. But I found by the time I'd got to mid Rank 4 (6,250) I already had something that I considered pretty fearsome and I didn't want to take her any higher.

So what do people think? Is this the right approach for NPCs? Too many talents? If so, how would you simplify but keep the power level? Is the sister about right or waaaay over-powered (I haven't actually run a game yet). And how do you guesstimate the Threat Level. I basically pegged the above one to be around the officer level military profile in the book.

Really interested in your responses and any discussion as I haven't really seen much in the way of what other people have created or how they go about this. Feel free to post anything you've created as I think examples can really help with getting to grips with how the game plays and how balanced weapons and combat actually are!

I'm doing exactly the same thing for my Inquisitor's existing (older, experienced, about to die ) retinue right now.

Like you, I needed someone pretty powerful: A lone Space Marine. I decided to try how well this would work with normal character generation.

I wasn't sure how high to pump his characteristics, but decided I'd stay in the 80s. He'll be significantly stronger than the players (they're rank 2), but not rules-breaking strong.

I did opt to give him 2 traits: Size(1) and Regeneration(2).

I did a few field tests with him, in one-on-one battles. He consistently got his ass kicked by a Plaguebearer (should've been an even match for a Rank 7, at Threat 17) but completely wrecked a Rogue Trader (Threat 25) every time.

Like you, I had problems with him having way too many Talents. I don't think this method is ideal, but it's probably the easiest way to figure out threat levels.

Feral World -> Imperial Guard -> Warrior

WS  BS  S   T   A   I   P   WP  F   IF
55  30  80  83  50  30  35  50  27  25

Skills
Athletics +0, Command +0, Evade +0, Navigate +0, Pilot +0, Survival +0

Talents
Brace for Impact, Resistance (Fear), Die Hard, Hardy, Evasive, Disarm, Counter Attack, Lethal Blows, Whirlwind, Takedown, Precise Blows, Lightning Attack, Sound Constitution, Iron Jaw, True Grit, Duelist, Unrelenting, Thunder Charge, Crippling Strike, Crushing Blow, Assassin Strike, Combat Master, Furious Assault

Traits
Size (1), Regeneration (2)

Equipment
Power Sword, Bolt Pistol, Light Power Armour (I didn't want to make up new equipment, although Light Power Armour clearly isn't the right choice)

That's really interesting. The Plaguebearer does have significantly higher defences than the the rogue trader! Were the fights taking place ranged or in close combat? That bolt-pistol is a bit underpowered against the Plaguebearer.

The fights very quickly got to close combat (which was probably the downfall for the Rogue Trader).

The big problem was the Plaguesword. It's a hell of a weapon. He couldn't get a lot of attacks per turn (due to low Agility), but the ones that did go in were very hard to evade (pretty high WS) and they hit hard. Meanwhile, his damage reduction was so great that the Space Marine was only slowly chipping away at him. Of course, luck of the dice had some say in that.

Another problem probably was that I couldn't keep track of all of my Space Marine's talents, which meant he didn't get every advantage he should have. That's a very real worry of using this method for NPCs.

EDIT: I should add that the Plaguebearer is a monster specifically in close-combat - he's probably not so bad if you kite him. I made the Space Marine to be a close-combat expert, so that's what I wanted to try out.

The fights very quickly got to close combat (which was probably the downfall for the Rogue Trader).

The big problem was the Plaguesword. It's a hell of a weapon. He couldn't get a lot of attacks per turn (due to low Agility), but the ones that did go in were very hard to evade (pretty high WS) and they hit hard. Meanwhile, his damage reduction was so great that the Space Marine was only slowly chipping away at him. Of course, luck of the dice had some say in that.

Another problem probably was that I couldn't keep track of all of my Space Marine's talents, which meant he didn't get every advantage he should have. That's a very real worry of using this method for NPCs.

EDIT: I should add that the Plaguebearer is a monster specifically in close-combat - he's probably not so bad if you kite him. I made the Space Marine to be a close-combat expert, so that's what I wanted to try out.

Yeah. That plaguesword is terrifying. 1d10+14®, Sapping(2), Toxic(2).

Regeneration(2) should have helped the Marine but it's still a pretty fearsome beast to try and take on one-on-one. Not to mention the Daemonic(2) trait vs. someone with no psy / force weapons. Plaguebearers really need a hail of fire to take down, or else someone with the staying power of a Baneblade. Were you using the original version of the Powersword or the updated one with Pen 8? That would have helped.

EDIT: Ignore that last bit - I've just re-checked the Plaguebearer stats and its Defence is nearly all it's horribly high Toughness. The extra 5 Pen would not have made much difference. (a point difference on limbs, that's all).

Just one more thought on the Plaguebearer fight. I notice the marine has both Furious Assault and Precise Blows. As the Plaguebearer has such high defence and the marine is not likely to score many hits anyway, did you think of just going called shot the whole way? You'd have been doing 2d10+20(E) to a chosen location and kept some AP back for defence.

It wouldn't be consistent due to the limited attacks and the annoying Daemonic quality, but once you pulled it off, you'd have a very good chance of leaving the daemon Dazed, probably Blind and at least you'd be damaging it. You could throw in the AP for Aim actions on each Called Shot as well, increasing your chance of pulling it off. Once you've got it Dazed and Blinded, you'll not be able to keep it that way all the time (probably), but you'll slow its ability to hurt you back and each round counts.

As mentioned, the Space Marine had so many talents that I completely forgot to use most of them - including that combo.

If this were a character I'd built up for myself over time, that wouldn't be a problem, but as an NPC fielded among several others, there's a good chance the GM wouldn't have the overview to keep track of it. The simpler adversary profiles are probably better suited for NPCs.

So, anyone got any comments on the Sister of Battle? Does she look about right? Opinions?

I think the Adeptus Ministorum background is a much better fit than IG for a Battle Sister -- the Sororitas are the militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, after all.

The Sister has the Lethal Blows talent but doesn't carry a melee weapon. Either remove the talent or give her a melee weapon to make use of it. Doing both might actually be appropriate -- Sisters aren't known for their melee abilities, but many soldiers carry a knife or bayonet for emergency self-defense.

Try beefing up the Sister's skills a bit -- adding Remembrance and Specialty (Adeptus Ministorum) is a good start. Even the most militant Sisters spend their early years in the Sororitas doing more mundane tasks such as studying the Imperial Creed.

Why does the NPC have Bastion of Iron Will? It's very high up the Mental Fortitude tree and does nothing for characters without a Psy Rating.

Overall, the NPC looks good. With a few tweaks she'll fit the role quite nicely

I think the Adeptus Ministorum background is a much better fit than IG for a Battle Sister -- the Sororitas are the militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, after all.

The Sister has the Lethal Blows talent but doesn't carry a melee weapon. Either remove the talent or give her a melee weapon to make use of it. Doing both might actually be appropriate -- Sisters aren't known for their melee abilities, but many soldiers carry a knife or bayonet for emergency self-defense.

Try beefing up the Sister's skills a bit -- adding Remembrance and Specialty (Adeptus Ministorum) is a good start. Even the most militant Sisters spend their early years in the Sororitas doing more mundane tasks such as studying the Imperial Creed.

Why does the NPC have Bastion of Iron Will? It's very high up the Mental Fortitude tree and does nothing for characters without a Psy Rating.

Overall, the NPC looks good. With a few tweaks she'll fit the role quite nicely

I wasn't quite sure of the Psyker rules when I created this and I thought Bastion of Iron Will would be fitting - trying to make her more than just an elite soldier but someone who would soldier on despite faith-testing psychic assaults. Re-reading the description, it does indeed do nothing for non-psykers. I've removed it. Lethal Blows, I just wanted her to be able to be a moderately decent hand-to-hander. As you say, it's not what they're known for but in the scenario I'm working on, the PCs will be alongside a small chapel of Adepta Sororitas and if one ends up in a punch-up with one of them (which I see as quite likely), I just want her to be able to make him feel it. I doubt it will come up most of the time.

Thanks for the feedback.

So for the scenario I'm working on, I need a lesser daemon. The beta rules provide one - the Plaguebearer, who is quite frankly horrifying in close combat with that plaguesword which does both Toxic and Sapping.

I'm not much of a Nurgle fan though, so I've used the Plaguebearer as a baseline for a Khornate daemon. I basically went back to the 1st ed. Daemon Hunter book and started drawing comparisons between the Plaguebearer and the Bloodletter and trying to represent them in the 2nd ed rules whilst still keeping the general power balance.

What I have produced is a monster! Any PC party should basically be trying to keep this thing as far away from them as possible whilst they hammer it with ranged weapons. Unfortunately it is fast and mobile. I'm picturing the PCs in a mountain castle watching several of these things leaping their way up the cliffs below and desperately trying to take them out before they come tearing over the walls.

Converting the Hellblade into 2nd rules using the 1st and 2nd ed versions of the Plaguesword as a guideline, you get a weapon which is considerably less damaging than the plaguesword (no toxic, no sapping), but with awesome penetration. That suits me fine. It's called a Bloodletter, after all.

So - what do people think?

Bloodletter (Elite)

Threat Rating 17

WS BS S T A I P WP F
71 15 71 72 54 37 53 63 01

Defence / Armour:
Head (11/4), Arms (10/3), Body (11/4), Legs (10/3)
Talents:
Hard Target, Combat Master, Whirlwind, Beserk*
Traits:
Daemonic(2), Fear -10(Flee), From Beyond

Hellblade: Basic Melee, RoF 2 ^Ab-3 , Damage: 1d10+14 ^Sb+7 , Pen 7 ^Sb

Beserk
Type: Utility
Action Points: 4
Use: The character spends a few moments working themselves up into a fury. They gain the Frenzied condition for the duration of the combat.

Pretty nasty (although bloodletters should be). I'd expect them to go in a frenzy, then charge until they reach their target (not much fine tactics there) so all they do in a given round is move - hard target gives them a -20 to being hit.

Now let's try to kill them

Let's try firing down at them with a heavy stubber first. I don't know the level of your players, but let's assume the gunner has a decent BS of 50. it's got a RoF of 3, and we're not going to score much more hits than that without aiming, so let's put 3 AP in aiming and 1 in firing the stubber. Check is 50+30-20=60. Good chance of getting 1 or 2 hits (DoS are mitigated a bit by the daemonic trait). The bloodletters aren't dodging, but with 1d10+5 pen 1 not all stubber rounds are going to cause a wound. (it's a 50/50 chance, actually) - so, firing auto bursts I'm causing a less than a single wound per round on average. In that same time the bloodletter closes 40 metres. The heavy stubber has a range of 180m so 4 rounds, averaging 3(? ballpark figure) wounds, before a single blootletter closes on a single gunner. not enough to take the thing down.

A heavy bolter has more range (200m) and more damage (1d10+12p4 tearing). that's an extra round of firing, and every hit counts, meaning the gunner can get in about 8 hits before they close, probably dropping a bloodletter and maybe damaging another one.

A sniper rifle has great range (400m) and consistent damage. It's accurate, so our to-hit chance stays the same. I'd say we can get a hit every other round, causing 5 wounds before the thing closes. It's definitely softened up, but probably not dead.

An autocannon would be sweet; the high damage (2d10+10) and p6 give a good chance of killing the bloodletter on the 3rd hit. the RoF is 1 lower than the stubber, but as we're probably not getting 3 hits in anyway, this is not much of an issue. Longer range means we get 7 rounds of fire. The gunner might be getting in about 10 hits, dropping 3 bloodletters with a bit of luck.

This is all back-of-my head math; the bloodletters are definitely nasty, but if your characters have the right equipment and some BS they should stand a chance. Keep in mind that these could cause carnage if even a single one gets through, though. I think the current wound system prevents a character from being killed in a single round (unless flanked by two of them).

For completeness: I'm missing damage type ®, and I'd change Fear -10 (Flee) to Fear -10 (Flee, Warp Shock). Overall, I've been missing the corruptive effect from daemons...

Hm, I think I missed some points in looking at those bloodletters.

First, while frenzied, their stats change as follows:

WS BS S T A I P WP F
71 -5 91 92 54 17 53 83 -19

For that reason, I'd increase BS, F and I to 25 (at least) so the stats stay positive.

Defense becomes:

Defence / Armour:
Head (13/4), Arms (12/3), Body (13/4), Legs (12/3)

That pretty much takes the heavy stubber out of the equation. You need to be really lucky to score a hit that causes a wound.

I also miscalculated the amount the bloodletters close; that should be 20 metres per round, not 40 metres. And I misread the effect of force fields (daemonic) - it means you're taking away 0-4 DoS.

Daemonic (2) reduces that as follows:

0 - 4%

1 - 12%

2 - 20%

3 - 28%

4 - 36%

That actually has a LOT more impact than I thought... with a modified roll of 60, there's still a 60% chance of scoring no hits at all, 9% chance of scoring a single hit, 10% for 2 hits and 21% for 3 hits (if the RoF allows it) - you're averaging 0.9 hits per round at RoF 3, 0.7 at RoF 2. however, we're getting 20 rounds of fire with the heavy bolter, 30 with the autocannon. The heavy bolter gets in 18 hits, the autocannon 14.

Well, you actual question was what I think of the bloodletters - They're capable of charging through a hail of heavy stubber fire nearly undamaged (which is what I'd expect) and do serious damage in melee, either whirlwinding or going all out against a single character. So yes, sounds fine to me (and I pray my character never runs into them... although the way the campaign is going that's exactly what's going to happen I'm afraid)

MHJFaase - Thank you very much for that feedback. It's incredibly useful and much appreciated!

It sounds from your calculations that I pitched them about right for what I want. The Plaguebearer that I used as my baseline for power is also quite terrifying in close combat but also has a ranged attack and whilst doing more damage in melee, has less penetration. Most of what I did was inline with how they compared to Plaguebearers in 1st ed. They feel about right to me in effect. I was going for a little bit of an Aliens vibe to them. You see one of these things running toward you, you kill it and you kill it and you kill it before it gets too close. The Hard Target was exactly so that I could produce this terrifying feel of onrushing murder in the PCs.

The way I figure it, is that this is a deamon and we're playing Dark Heresy so it's a pretty major opponent and the PCs are never going to just happen across one like a wandering monster. At least not unless they make it to a very high rank! Therefore this is going to be something that shows up in prepared encounters that the PCs have probably prepped for and wont just be a stand in a room and fight scenario. The actual scene that I am prepping with these, as it happens, is a finalé on top of a mountain watch-tower whilst the PCs wait for airbourne evac. These things will be clawing their way up the mountainside at speed whilst the PCs try to hold them off with whatever they've got (should include heavy bolters). Should be a pretty terrifying conclusion. Whatever scenario, I'll make sure that players are always aware of how dangerous these things are, even if that means giving the Bloodletter a couple of friendly NPCs to chew on for a round before coming after the PCs.

Quite honestly, these things scare me and I'm the GM.

Looks good. One thing about the Sororitas that should help (a bit) with preventing the GM from being pelted with dice:

Sororitas Battle Sisters (i.e. not veterans) do not wear helmets. The Sabbat-pattern helmet is generally the mark of a Sister Superior or Celestian veteran. I know light power armour is assumed by default to be all-encompassing, but that bare head is both canonical and a great equaliser for people capable of called shots. The 10% chance of random fire hitting it is probably not enough to justify a threat rating drop, though.

but that bare head is both canonical

In FFG's books.

Sorry for the nitpick, but the issue of "canon" is an ongoing crusade of mine - and though I can do little about it, I at least want people to realise that there is a difference between the Battle Sisters as written in the original material and as they are presented here. What they end up running with is, of course, their choice again.

Even then, there is a point in the fact that a lot of Sisters don't seem to wear helmets, for whatever reason (I highly doubt GW ever had one, but the art and the models support it, so).

Looks good. One thing about the Sororitas that should help (a bit) with preventing the GM from being pelted with dice:

Sororitas Battle Sisters (i.e. not veterans) do not wear helmets. The Sabbat-pattern helmet is generally the mark of a Sister Superior or Celestian veteran. I know light power armour is assumed by default to be all-encompassing, but that bare head is both canonical and a great equaliser for people capable of called shots. The 10% chance of random fire hitting it is probably not enough to justify a threat rating drop, though.

Good catch. Thanks. It didn't really strike me when I was writing this, but thinking back my mental image of them is always sans helmet.

As to the reasons, that's fairly obvious, imo. These are GW's iconic women-warriors. On small models, without the hair cuts they wouldn't be distinctively female short of exaggerating the armour-boobs even more than they already are so that they were properly noticeable on minis. (As they are, it probably already gives these warrior women a fairly large C-cup already). Plus they need to be distinct from the Space Marines. GW artists can't do their spikey-goth-chick art if they're all in helmets - with the power armour, it would just look like Darth Vader at a fetish drag night.

Vaguaries of what cannon actually means in WH40K, they rarely have helmets so it should probably be removed from my write-up.

Even then, there is a point in the fact that a lot of Sisters don't seem to wear helmets, for whatever reason (I highly doubt GW ever had one, but the art and the models support it, so).

Oh, I'm just going by the Sabbat-pattern helmet's description in the 3E Codex ("worn by the majority of Battle Sisters"). I think knasserll is spot-on by speculating that the reason was simply to make the miniatures easier to identify as females even from distance. Between showing their faces/hair and further enlarging their breasts/hips or giving them super-thin legs as is often done with female fighters in other games, I really think GW went the better way here.

The problem with body armour is that it often makes the wearer's gender very hard to identify. Would you have known this is a woman if she wore a helmet?

Also ... going purely by the miniatures, Space Marines return their helmets to the Armoury upon promotion to Sergeant.

Anyways, the more recent version of the Dark Heresy Battle Sister (dismissing the one from the Inquisitor's Handbook as that variant does not discuss armour at all and starts out as a novice) does not seem to get a helmet until Rank 5, so losing the helmet is probably appropriate if one wants to stick to the information contained in the "Blood of Martyrs" supplement. And it is certainly more iconic, purely going by the established general image.

Even then, there is a point in the fact that a lot of Sisters don't seem to wear helmets, for whatever reason (I highly doubt GW ever had one, but the art and the models support it, so).

Oh, I'm just going by the Sabbat-pattern helmet's description in the 3E Codex ("worn by the majority of Battle Sisters"). I think knasserll is spot-on by speculating that the reason was simply to make the miniatures easier to identify as females even from distance. Between showing their faces/hair and further enlarging their breasts/hips or giving them super-thin legs as is often done with female fighters in other games, I really think GW went the better way here.

The problem with body armour is that it often makes the wearer's gender very hard to identify. Would you have known this is a woman if she wore a helmet?

Also ... going purely by the miniatures, Space Marines return their helmets to the Armoury upon promotion to Sergeant.

Anyways, the more recent version of the Dark Heresy Battle Sister (dismissing the one from the Inquisitor's Handbook as that variant does not discuss armour at all and starts out as a novice) does not seem to get a helmet until Rank 5, so losing the helmet is probably appropriate if one wants to stick to the information contained in the "Blood of Martyrs" supplement. And it is certainly more iconic, purely going by the established general image.

The 'helmet for veterans' thing started out as a consequence of the model range; it was mentioned in the Witch-hunters codex that the fleur-de-lys helmet was the mark of a veteran. That was talking about the fleur-de-lys but it seems to have bled over into the helmet itself.

You see it in a lot of pictures of Sororitas armies - both official miniatures galleries and artwork (seriously, I think in all the paintings and sketches of battle sisters there are like something like with helmets on) and unofficial player armies - since a far higher proportion of models didn't have helmets than did, the helmetless ones tended to get used by players as 'generic mook' whilst helmeted ones were used for sister superiors who kept their bolters (making them stand out in the squad), and squad members of celestian and dominion and command squad units.

As you say, I'm far more of a fan of this approach to 'female armour' - unlike a lot of sci-fi and fantasy settings, the sororitas are at least wearing body armour you can actually see stopping some incoming fire rather than just showing off...ah... features . And unlike a lot of 40k "why the hell aren't you wearing a helmet", you have the perfect answer that they are all religious nutters who substitute zeal for tactical sense and think the emperor's going to save them personally.

Blood Of Martyrs is the first time I've seen the 'helmets are for veterans' canonised that explicitely, but it's been floating around as a concept before then. I did like the targeter system upgrade, as well - so that as well as just armour (which isn't a good enough reason - to Sororitas - by itself), it actually makes you better at murdering heretics.

The 'helmet for veterans' thing started out as a consequence of the model range; it was mentioned in the Witch-hunters codex that the fleur-de-lys helmet was the mark of a veteran. That was talking about the fleur-de-lys but it seems to have bled over into the helmet itself.

The Codex did indeed state that the helmet with the fleur-de-lys was a sign of a veteran - just like it stated that the one without it was worn "by the majority of Battle Sisters". If the former somehow bled over into the latter, then only in the minds of individual gamers or freelance writers working on licensed material.

Truth be told, the miniatures line does not support either the "everyone has helmets" nor the "helmets are for vets/leaders" interpretation - but if you look at this collector's guide (which also features a few minis I'm sure most people never knew existed!), you'll note that the majority of Sisters Superior as well as the Canoness are helmetless, and most minis with helmets are actually rank-and-file Battle Sisters.

Don't get me wrong, though: I have designed my TT army in a similar fashion as the one you mentioned, simply because the helmets are one of the few ways to discern Celestians from normal troops. This has little to do with the actual fluff, however, but rather just the somewhat .. limited selection of models.

I think I'm on the same wavelength as novel author James Swallow when, in his Sororitas books, he has protagonist Miriya tend to run around without wearing her helmet, but carrying it with her and occasionally don it as the situation demands. I see it as a compromise between the Sisters' role as an angelic symbol of the Imperial faith and simple military pragmatism/efficiency. When they're dealing with citizens or allies, including fighting at their side, they would want them to see their faces - but when purging heretic scum it may be entirely appropriate that the "face" reserved for the enemy is the unmoving grim mask of Imperial steel and the crimson-glowing lenses of the Sabbat-pattern helmet:

Kinda daemonic/terrifying, isn't it? An interesting shift in appearance - almost like a transformation, from the serene angel symbolising the purity of man's body and soul ... to the relentless executioner of the God-Emperor's divine judgment.

Blood Of Martyrs is the first time I've seen the 'helmets are for veterans' canonised that explicitely, but it's been floating around as a concept before then.

In some Black Library novels or some fans' minds, maybe, but to me this is just yet another example of where Blood of Martyrs doesn't synch with the Sisters' GW fluff. /nerdrage

The targeting bonus was indeed a neat idea, though, and something I've adopted into my own conversion.

The problem with body armour is that it often makes the wearer's gender very hard to identify. Would you have known this is a woman if she wore a helmet?

Actually, although I enthusiastically agree with your point, I could reliably tell that she is a woman even if helmeted. Her hips and waist are tell-tale signs. From the front I believe I could and from behind I certainly would as she is wearing loose combat trousers and her derriere would be discernibly female. (Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have fine-tuned that perceptive ability). I would not, if she were helmeted however, be able to tell how strikingly attractive she is!

From a distance or if this were artwork or a mini, it would be significantly harder to tell, however.

Alright, I'll trust your perceptive ability on that matter.

I remember a lot of remarks of how difficult it would be for troops in modern military armour, though, so it may be a question of what exactly someone is wearing. Then again, body armour designed for female soldiers is only now starting to be distributed, with everyone so far wearing the same (male-body-fitted) armour. I suppose it remains to be seen how this will affect identification.

Alright, I'll trust your perceptive ability on that matter.

I remember a lot of remarks of how difficult it would be for troops in modern military armour, though, so it may be a question of what exactly someone is wearing. Then again, body armour designed for female soldiers is only now starting to be distributed, with everyone so far wearing the same (male-body-fitted) armour. I suppose it remains to be seen how this will affect identification.

Heh. I have a lot of faith in my ability to spot a female of my species.

But I really do agree with your post. If she were in power armour, it would be a whole different situation.

But I really do agree with your post. If she were in power armour, it would be a whole different situation.

Or I could be wrong...