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.

i was looking on forgeworld and i saw these models. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/MK-V-HERESY-ARMOUR.html
I looked at those and said" those are WAY too many studs. I also really enjoy reading the HH series but did the characters in those books also have this overstudded look?

If i remember right that version of the armour was weaker then normal... and they tried layering it ( kinda like plywood) Hence the studs to keep the layers bonded together more... If i remember my fluff right.

I also seem to recall some very old fluff that alluded to the reason that power armor was "powered" was because it incorporated a weak force field. The studs were electrodes to generate the field. I seem to recall that the original space marines wore beaky helmets for this same reason - there was a small disruptor field in the face of the helmet to help stop marines from getting shot in the head.

Of course, they eventually turned this idea into why terminators have invul saves, and so it was dropped from regular marines' fluff, and thus eventually from the models.

That would make sense if they dropped it.

Ailaros wrote:I also seem to recall some very old fluff that alluded to the reason that power armor was "powered" was because it incorporated a weak force field. The studs were electrodes to generate the field. I seem to recall that the original space marines wore beaky helmets for this same reason - there was a small disruptor field in the face of the helmet to help stop marines from getting shot in the head.
Of course, they eventually turned this idea into why terminators have invul saves, and so it was dropped from regular marines' fluff, and thus eventually from the models.

I'd be quite interested to know where you read that, since it doesn't fit with what I've found.

When 40K first came out, power armour was called "powered armour". This was likely in reference to the "electrically motivated fibre-bundles" which help overcome the weight and cumbersomeness of the armour. There wasn't any mention of an integrated energy field in Rogue Trader, although the armour could be taken with a separate energy field, if the player desired.
In 1990, Rick Priestly described the various marks of Power Armour, and explained the studs on Mark V and VI as "molecular bonding studs" used to affix a heavy outer layer. Also note that the early space Marine models were in Mark 6 armour, which only had studs on the left shoulder. It wouldn't make a huge amount of sense that the armour is called "power" because one shoulder has an energy field around it.

Regarding Terminator armour, they didn't initially have an energy field either. In Priestly/Warwick's rules early rules (back in '89) they could take a Refractor Field, but that was in addition to the base 2+ save. It was in 3E Andy Chambers gave Terminators a 5+ invulnerable save, this was to help balance them against the number of foes taking plasma and power weapons. At the time, this was explained as Terminator armour simply being "legendarily thick and heavily reinforced with armaplas and adamantium".

The studs aren't, as of now at least, any kind of bonding or force field generators.

They're simply like studded suits of leather. The suits were more vulnerable in close combat than to ranged fire, so they added bolt-on studs to help blades glance off the armor.

From what I remember from the old article the answer was the studs were used for reinforcement. The Mark V was designed in a hurry during the Horus Heresy and was made from lower quality materials that were available. The studs where a way to strenghten the armor.

"Old article" being the imperative.

Fluff gets altered, and that's the most recent thing I read from like 2-3 years ago.

Ailaros wrote:I also seem to recall some very old fluff that alluded to the reason that power armor was "powered" was because it incorporated a weak force field. The studs were electrodes to generate the field. I seem to recall that the original space marines wore beaky helmets for this same reason - there was a small disruptor field in the face of the helmet to help stop marines from getting shot in the head.

Of course, they eventually turned this idea into why terminators have invul saves, and so it was dropped from regular marines' fluff, and thus eventually from the models.

None of that corresponds to any of the fluff that is in the original Rogue Trader, nor any of the fluff in White Dwarf when this fluff was first being created, nor from the slightly later fluff in WD around 2nd Ed when they did a whole feature on the various Marks of armour to go with the same set that is still available these days. Nor does it match any of the fluff from the earliest versions of Epic.

I won't go into what is correct, however, as the various musings in this thread are close enough to correct. Basically, Mark IV armour was awesome, but when the Horus Heresy came along, the exotic materials needed for were unavailable, so more common, less effective alternatives were used. The studs are there to reinforce these weaker materials. The exact way the studs achieve that, and the materials they are made of varies slightly between sources. IIRC, one source may have even suggested that the material used for the studs was not even consistent, but I am not sure about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Æscholt wrote:

Ailaros wrote:...
Of course, they eventually turned this idea into why terminators have invul saves, and so it was dropped from regular marines' fluff, and thus eventually from the models.

Regarding Terminator armour, they didn't initially have an energy field either. In Priestly/Warwick's rules early rules (back in '89) they could take a Refractor Field, but that was in addition to the base 2+ save. It was in 3E Andy Chambers gave Terminators a 5+ invulnerable save, this was to help balance them against the number of foes taking plasma and power weapons. At the time, this was explained as Terminator armour simply being "legendarily thick and heavily reinforced with armaplas and adamantium".

In 2nd Ed, Terminators took their saving throws on 2d6, so were stupidly hard to penetrate, even if you had huge modifiers to the armour save. (Back then, 40k saves also worked similalyr (though not exactly the same) to WFB, in as far as every weapon had a save throw modifier rather than a simple AP value. The modifier was generally related to the strength of the weapon, but this was far from being true in all cases.) The invul save would have been to make up for this, I assume? (I never played any 3rd or 4th Ed at all. I assume AP replaced save modifiers in 3rd Ed?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and finally, the beaky part of the helmet had filters, sensors, etc.. depending on what fluff you read, but I don't recall ever hearing about a power field.

Kanluwen wrote:Fluff gets altered, and that's the most recent thing I read from like 2-3 years ago.

Kanluwen wrote:They're simply like studded suits of leather. The suits were more vulnerable in close combat than to ranged fire, so they added bolt-on studs to help blades glance off the armor.

Can you remember where it was you read that? I'm somewhat doubtful, particularly as "studded leather" is a fictional kind of armour. The closest actual armour to studded leather is the brigandine, in which the studs were the heads of rivets used to attach underlying metal plates.

Fifty wrote:In 2nd Ed, Terminators took their saving throws on 2d6, so were stupidly hard to penetrate, even if you had huge modifiers to the armour save. (Back then, 40k saves also worked similalyr (though not exactly the same) to WFB, in as far as every weapon had a save throw modifier rather than a simple AP value. The modifier was generally related to the strength of the weapon, but this was far from being true in all cases.) The invul save would have been to make up for this, I assume? (I never played any 3rd or 4th Ed at all. I assume AP replaced save modifiers in 3rd Ed?)

Yeah, 3rd edition had AP instead of save modifiers. Terminators initially had a straight up 2+ armour save in 3E, but enough people were taking AP2 or power weapons that Terminators just weren't survivable enough. While the usual response would be "So what? Learn to use them better", it got bad enough that they errata'd in a 5+ invulnerable save.

C'mon.. Anyone wearing mk5 is a Total stud

Æscholt wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:They're simply like studded suits of leather. The suits were more vulnerable in close combat than to ranged fire, so they added bolt-on studs to help blades glance off the armor.

Can you remember where it was you read that? I'm somewhat doubtful, particularly as "studded leather" is a fictional kind of armour. The closest actual armour to studded leather is the brigandine, in which the studs were the heads of rivets used to attach underlying metal plates.

And the coat of plates, and the corrazina, and splinted cuisses, shynbalds, vambraces, and rerebraces... but yeah, your point stands. Then again, you shouldn't be surprised if the people behind 40k are also prone to D&D-isms when writing fluff or sculpting models. So what if big, honking nubs are more likely to direct oncoming blows into the underlying structure than deflect them? They're there to look cool and needed an explanation, if I had to wager which came first. Still, I would also like to know where Kanluwen is getting his info from.

Personally, I'm in the "ridiculously large rivets securing multiple layers of plating" camp.

I get my info from all over the place actually.

Fairly certain that piece was mentioned in a random bit of short story that mentioned an Astartes hero who was wearing the armor and it was detailed as being such.

The accepted fluff that I'm aware of has the mkV being a cheap alternative to the mkIV during the Heresy as a result of supply and manufacturing problems. Instead of the superior type of armour that became available after the heresy, they had to rely on easier to make sheets of ceramite that were bolted together like plywood to make stronger armour.
Bonded ceramite armour was still available in small quantities and was used for the right shoulder pad as that apparently was the part most exposed to attack (presumably in close combat) with the left pad being the inferior studded type.
As the mkVI corvus armour began to be introduced, the left pad was created to look like the heresy era studded pad as a commeration of the heresy.

Fifty wrote: In 2nd Ed, Terminators took their saving throws on 2d6, so were stupidly hard to penetrate, even if you had huge modifiers to the armour save.

Oh yes. I remember those days. Ah, if Deathwing could retain this rule and overwatch