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.

Hey

I couldnt find this on my own so i wanted to know if anyone knew of a chapter that had a large amount of mk v heresy armor. Im slowly but surely building up a collection of the armor, and if i could incorporate it into some fluff, all the better.

don't know. but i do know this, you can create your own chapter, that is so hated by the imperium that they never got newer models of armor. or perhaps they recently took such a massive loss, that they had to reissue old models. just make your own fluff

Older patterns of tech tend to be more reliable, even though more modern ones may offer miniscule advantages in "crude" effects like basic protection. Space Marines are quite fond of wearing older armour, especially pieces that have been worn by popular Chapter heroes.

Perhaps your Chapter is old, but just didn't see lots of combat? Thereby not having a need for much replacement, and (due to this) also getting fewer newer patterns?
Perhaps its homeworld got stuck in a Warpstorm for several millennia, with lots of civil unrest they had to fight locally?

The Charcarodons are famous for using old gear, here's a quote from IA 10 "Also of ancient provenance were much of the Chapter's arms, vehicles and wargear, with types such as the Phobos R/017 pattern boltgun Mark V Heresy pattern power armour predominating". The background is that they have been fighting on the outskirts of the galaxy and they rarely make contact with the rest of the IoM for resupply.

Maybe they didnt take a lot of casualties? So the older armor is still in better shape on the whole?

Maybe the chapter is one that sees the value of the older pattern armor and has dealings with many other chapters who they "convince" to hand over their older pattern gear in exchange for services or newer pattern equipment? Though this is a long shot, I'm sure you could find a way to develop this into an interesting back-story for your own personal chapter. With the right tweaking and your own personal twist I bet you could make this work to your favor.

The original fluff for MkV was that is was pretty dire, it seemingly offered better protection than MkII (since there would be little point in rushing it into prodution otherwise) but had serious power issues, forcing the wearer to either endure poor performance from the suit or else cranking the power up endure 'unbearable' heat - which would hamper the performance of the wearer. The original fluff stated few full suits still existed as most chapters chose cannibalise the suit for spare parts as soon as possible 'to forget the dark days of the Horus Heresy'

Forge World - wanting to see more minis - left out the bit about it being BAD and instead wrote that some chapters value its robust design and ease of repair..

I could see some of the more zealous chapters perhaps favouring the suit for its connection to the Emperor's Ascension.

 Lynata wrote:
Older patterns of tech tend to be more reliable, even though more modern ones may offer miniscule advantages in "crude" effects like basic protection. Space Marines are quite fond of wearing older armour, especially pieces that have been worn by popular Chapter heroes.

That's actually not true of PA.

The modern Aquila armor is superior to all the marks that came before overall.

PA has been increasing its quality over time. The only ways older armor is better is Iron has better frontal protection, Heresy has a little better armor overall, and Corvus has improved sensors in the helmets.

But all things considered, Aquila and Errant pattern armor is superior to older marks.

 Grey Templar wrote:


That's actually not true of PA.

The modern Aquila armor is superior to all the marks that came before overall.

PA has been increasing its quality over time. The only ways older armor is better is Iron has better frontal protection, Heresy has a little better armor overall, and Corvus has improved sensors in the helmets.

But all things considered, Aquila and Errant pattern armor is superior to older marks.

Depends. Corvus is lighter with superior sensors and redundancy, a very small difference in armor protection and superior articulation and freedom of movement overall. That and it's easy to repair with commonly available parts. Iron has superior frontal armor to all types but Errant and the highest level of strength enhancement.

Overall, while more recent types have better raw armored protection, Corvus is the best overall armor if you factor in the superior mobility and very small difference in level of protection. Extra redundancy and ease of repair in the field is just icing on the cake.


Further, all armor patterns except Errant, which is little more than a moderately upgraded Aquila, were developed before, during, or very shortly after the Heresy.

Grey Templar wrote:That's actually not true of PA. [...] PA has been increasing its quality over time.

That's not what I read.

"Brother Beliasus was struck square in the chest. Flecks of melted ceramite sprayed across his face plate and icons across his helmet display flickered orange warnings as his armour struggled to keep him upright. It failed and he went down on one knee. Not two yards away Brother Eveay fell with two fist-sized holes through his abdomen, his bright blood mixing with the dark earth. At that instant the heavy weapons of the Devastators spoke with one voice and the perimeter buildings were rent by fiery explosions. Almost immediately, the Orks' firing slackened to sporadic bursts.
Beliasus heaved himself upright, the armour's musculature grinding as it tried to keep up with his movements. Icons were still flashing as he leveled his bolter and blasted a figure silhouetted in a ruined window. The greenskin disappeared under the hail of explosive bolts and Beliasus boosted the power to his legs to lope forward and regain his place in the battleline.
His armour hadn't been the same since the insurrection on Lannix IX five years ago. The armour had never truly recovered its spirit since the injury and the replacement parts were weaker and slower than the old ones. The Tech-Priests had lost so much knowledge, they simply didn't make things like they used to."
- 3E Codex: Space Marines p.4

There's a difference between "crude" improvements such as additional armour plates (e.g. the belly piece of the MkVIII) or additional sensorics - and the sheer reliability of everything that makes up the armour. And I would be confused as to why power armour should be the big exception to the ongoing decline in technological knowledge that has befallen the Imperium. It's a combined problem of personnel not being as knowledgeable and skilled as they were millennia ago (this also affects the creation of new Space Marines), as well as more gadgets introducing more possible failures into the existing system.
Where exactly did you read that "modern" PA is supposedly more reliable and less prone to malfunction? Was that a newer GW book, or some outsourced product?

Read the Lexicanum article on Power Armor. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Power_Armour#.Uj28q5xH6EE

As it describes successive marks of armor, it only speaks of improvements on the older patterns. There is no hint of armor getting worse over time.

Mk2 and Mk3 were seriously inferior to Mk4. When the Heresy broke out the loyalists were operating mostly Mk2 and Mk3. Mk5 was developed during the Heresy as an Ad Hoc suit, and thus could actually be inferior to Mk4.

Mk7 was developed shortly before the Siege of Terra and included armor improvements over Mk6.

 Grey Templar wrote:

PA has been increasing its quality over time.

That's not the tone taken by the original fluff article - which admittedly was written in 1st edition, but was up on on the French GW site during 4th edition and its the root from which both the Deathwatch RPG and Forge World is derived.

Said article stated that MkV was a desperate measure and a definite backward step (ala the last iteration of the Panzer IV during WW2 - the Germans were so desperate for tanks that they 'upgraded' from an electrically traversed turret to a manually hand-cranked one to ease manufacture). MkVI and VII were both superior to MkV but both the original article and the Forge World write-up are somewhat ambiguous as to whether they actually surpassed the technological marvel of Maximus armour or fell somewhere between V & IV.

 Lynata wrote:

Where exactly did you read that "modern" PA is supposedly more reliable and less prone to malfunction? Was that a newer GW book, or some outsourced product?

The outsourced actually says that the Corvus is superior as far as redundancy goes(and from the description in the flavor text you quoted, this would be the exact problem if you replaced parts from a Corvus with Aquila parts. Even though the two are interchangeable, the Aquila parts do not work as well as the Corvus ones for reaction time, etc) Remember that Corvus was the final model developed before the Heresy, but not widely available until afterward.

SerQuintus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

PA has been increasing its quality over time.

That's not the tone taken by the original fluff article - which admittedly was written in 1st edition, but was up on on the French GW site during 4th edition and its the root from which both the Deathwatch RPG and Forge World is derived.

Said article stated that MkV was a desperate measure and a definite backward step (ala the last iteration of the Panzer IV during WW2 - the Germans were so desperate for tanks that they 'upgraded' from an electrically traversed turret to a manually hand-cranked one to ease manufacture). MkVI and VII were both superior to MkV but both the original article and the Forge World write-up are somewhat ambiguous as to whether they actually surpassed the technological marvel of Maximus armour or fell somewhere between V & IV.

Your correct.
Heresy armor was an arms race armor
And was developed to have strong front armor. But very weak behind armor. It was meant as a fast production armor not an actual replacement of the old armor.

 Asherian Command wrote:

SerQuintus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

PA has been increasing its quality over time.

That's not the tone taken by the original fluff article - which admittedly was written in 1st edition, but was up on on the French GW site during 4th edition and its the root from which both the Deathwatch RPG and Forge World is derived.

Said article stated that MkV was a desperate measure and a definite backward step (ala the last iteration of the Panzer IV during WW2 - the Germans were so desperate for tanks that they 'upgraded' from an electrically traversed turret to a manually hand-cranked one to ease manufacture). MkVI and VII were both superior to MkV but both the original article and the Forge World write-up are somewhat ambiguous as to whether they actually surpassed the technological marvel of Maximus armour or fell somewhere between V & IV.

Your correct.
Heresy armor was an arms race armor
And was developed to have strong front armor. But very weak behind armor. It was meant as a fast production armor not an actual replacement of the old armor.

That's Iron armor you're describing. Heresy armor was a desperate attempt to replace the aging Mk2 and Mk3 armor with something that could take on the Mk4 equipped traitors.

Grey Templar wrote:Read the Lexicanum article on Power Armor. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Power_Armour#.Uj28q5xH6EE

Lexicanum isn't a source, and it contradicts studio material on quite a number of occasions, or leaves out fluff on a subject entirely.
We have to keep in mind that the Lexicanum is a fan-edited wiki, and that it often merges information from sources that were never meant to tie into each other and which were written by people with conflicting ideas. Such "mergers" are defined by the personal interpretation of the fan who wrote the article, just like Lexicanum may miss information entirely simply because no editor has either seen the source in question, or did not bother to work it into an article. I've even encountered cases where an article said something that the original source, upon which the article supposedly built upon, did not say at all.

What was the exact source in case of your argument, according to the article?

Lexicanum may be fan edited, but they reference everything very well. You can see the references at the bottom of the page.

Specifically reference 1. WD129 article by Rick Priestly on Space Marine Power Armor.

Lexicanum says of MkV:
"Astartes plate needed to be proof against their own penetrator weapons, and it was discovered that power armour would benefit from additional reinforcing in this regard.[6] All sorts of improvised additional armour can be seen on Mark V suits, but the most common technique was affix additional layers of armour with the aforementioned molecular bonding studs. This relatively quick and simple technique effectively added another ablative layer to marine armour suits."

This implies it was uparmoured over MkIV however this not what WD129 said, which was that the extra plates were used to offset the loss of protection resulting from the use of substandard materials once the advanced alloys used in MkIV were expended.

I think the confusion lies in erroneously equating newer versions of armor with new armor. A brand new suit of shiny PA is going to be inferior to a venerable suit of the same version produced around the time of the Heresy. They may both be "MKV" but the suit brother Badass wore 3k years ago will most likely be superior. I think this is pretty clearly supported in both the fluff and on the tabletop.

Heresy pattern armour wasn't made specifically to be superior to the mk4, it was basically the mk4 with scavenged parts used for repairs and some, I think, ablative armour in an attempt for extra protection. Significant improvements didn't come in until the mk6 was unveiled and handed over to the raven guard.

There's a few good reference points on this in the hh book deliverance iirc.

Can't comment on the rest though as I simply don't know for sure, though I recall seeing a poster issued by gw that outlined the improvements each iteration of armour offered over their predecessor's.

Wait, something in Warhammer that has been improved? Liar!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

SerQuintus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

PA has been increasing its quality over time.

That's not the tone taken by the original fluff article - which admittedly was written in 1st edition, but was up on on the French GW site during 4th edition and its the root from which both the Deathwatch RPG and Forge World is derived.

Said article stated that MkV was a desperate measure and a definite backward step (ala the last iteration of the Panzer IV during WW2 - the Germans were so desperate for tanks that they 'upgraded' from an electrically traversed turret to a manually hand-cranked one to ease manufacture). MkVI and VII were both superior to MkV but both the original article and the Forge World write-up are somewhat ambiguous as to whether they actually surpassed the technological marvel of Maximus armour or fell somewhere between V & IV.

Your correct.
Heresy armor was an arms race armor
And was developed to have strong front armor. But very weak behind armor. It was meant as a fast production armor not an actual replacement of the old armor.

That's Iron armor you're describing. Heresy armor was a desperate attempt to replace the aging Mk2 and Mk3 armor with something that could take on the Mk4 equipped traitors.

It was suppose to be a replacement. But was found inferior to the Mark 4. In addition the Mark 5 had severally lacking breathers. It is also designed to fight other astartes. But it failed in this regard as it made them cumbersome and very slow compared to their other Power Armor Counterparts. It was considered a failure compared to the Mark 4 and the Mark 6 (Corvus). There is a reason many of them were either salvaged or destroyed. (though this maybe because they did not want to remember fighting their brethren, but due to design flaws this maybe another reason why it was salvaged for parts.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Read the Lexicanum article on Power Armor. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Power_Armour#.Uj28q5xH6EE

Lexicanum isn't a source, and it contradicts studio material on quite a number of occasions, or leaves out fluff on a subject entirely.
We have to keep in mind that the Lexicanum is a fan-edited wiki, and that it often merges information from sources that were never meant to tie into each other and which were written by people with conflicting ideas. Such "mergers" are defined by the personal interpretation of the fan who wrote the article, just like Lexicanum may miss information entirely simply because no editor has either seen the source in question, or did not bother to work it into an article. I've even encountered cases where an article said something that the original source, upon which the article supposedly built upon, did not say at all.

What was the exact source in case of your argument, according to the article?

Lynata there is something called source material on the bottom that is enough to use as a reference.

Like I said, it was a desperate attempt at replacement. but it ended up being inferior. This is the only case where a new type of PA is explicitly inferior to the one before it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Like I said, it was a desperate attempt at replacement. but it ended up being inferior. This is the only case where a new type of PA is explicitly inferior to the one before it.

Exactly
Would like to see a new power armor. In my honest opinion it would be interesting to see a new mark. But thats just me.

Its still the exception to the clear tread of PA improving with time.

Conversely, we have the Aquila being inferior to the Corvus in all respects other than chest armor.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Conversely, we have the Aquila being inferior to the Corvus in all respects other than chest armor.

No, its got better armor all around.

The only way its inferior to Corvus is stealth capabilities and sensors.


Mk6, 7, and 8 are all very similar anyway.

Asherian Command wrote:Lynata there is something called source material on the bottom that is enough to use as a reference.

Yes, but has either of you read said source material? Are you able to give me an exact quote?

I've already pointed out that Lexicanum isn't that reliable. Its basic idea of mixing sources that were often not meant to be compatible with each other means that the various articles may not accurately reflect what the source actually said, but rather how the editor thought it would fit together.
I was in the past forced to deal with fans citing incorrect information just because it was claimed on the wiki, such as when the SoB article claimed Miriael Sabathiel would be mentioned in the 3E Codex (when she wasn't), or that according to the 6E rulebook each Major Order would have tens of thousands of warriors (when the book actually said "thousands"). Just a few examples off the top of my head.

Lexicanum works very well as an index of sorts, but please don't just blindly trust the stuff written there and rather hunt down the original material. You'd be surprised how different it sometimes may sound. The Deathwatch article is another good example of trying to reconcile two incompatible visions (GW vs FFG) by simply dismissing information from both ...

This is important especially when it is a question of exact wording, such as the difference between reliability and superiority. To use a real world analogy, a modern US car may be superior to some old soviet model, but it may not be as reliable.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The only way its inferior to Corvus is stealth capabilities and sensors.

Weight, agility, redundancy, and the ability to repair in the field, too. Remember that, again, fluff states that the Corvus can accept commonly available parts as substitutes for it's rarer components. While components of the Corvus can be swapped with most earlier patterns and the Aquila, it's not made clear if this is an aspect of it's ability to accept simple parts to replace more advanced pieces.