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've yet to find a canon source that says the Iron Warriors didn't like MkIV. I've heard multiple people *claim* that it's in Angel Exterminatus, but the closest I can find is in chapter 2 where it notes the assembled Warsmiths all favoured the bulky protection of Cataphractii armour with only one wearing MkIV plate. But that - as with most other mentions of MkIV in the book (the only power armour mark I can find *any* mention of in the book) - appears to just be an embellishing detail ala "The GI levelled his M16" as opposed to "The GI levelled his rifle", the only mention I can find anywhere in the book that refers to MkIV specifically as a model is the description of the Thorakites who wore: "helms fashioned in the image of a Mark IV suit", it seems a bit strange that the Iron Warrior's auxiliaries would want to have helmets 'fashioned in the image' of an armour their masters supposedly don't wear..

I've also heard a fair few claim that Perturabo himself was against MkIV, finding it under-armoured, but that appears to be a case of people getting mixed up with the fluff about the Mk*VI* prototype (tentatively designated MkV) in Extermination, which was issued in limited numbers for evaluation purposes to the Iron Warriors and Salamander prior to the Heresy.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I've haven't read that point of view on the mk4 (which isn't to say it doesn't exist).

However, while slower but slightly more frontal protection makes sense for a frontal assault, it really doesn't . The superior mobility, communications and optics of the mk4 would be a much bigger asset to an IW doing IW stuff than the mk3. The speed to close in on your target, ability to coordinate the movement and capability to fire on target during movement to target on a frontal assault would be more appreciated than the ability to potentially take a little bit more damage.

One could wonder why they wouldn't just field modify the mk4 like they did to the mk2 fo make mk3. Similar to mk4 destroyer modifications or likely the eventual mk4 breacher.

As I said I don't expect GW and FW writers to know why their explanations don't make sense. If they say X legion does X warfare and thus uses X gear, the rational for it all can be a little wonky sometimes. IW are bunker breakers and fortification breachers, sounds like that means siege with trenches and artillery, in reality it would mean mobile assaults under heavy cover fire. They do get the attrition aspect correct though lol. So I'm usually dubious of "offical" fluff specifics and go with fluff intent.

1) The mobility deference is negligible, as is the communication differences as all power armour still utilize similar technology.
2) Because MK IV is one of the most difficult armours to modify because the extreme amount of expertise required for even the most basic repairs, let alone major modifications. the only 'official' model for MK IV breachers are ones that happen to use the shield kit meant to represent the MK VII siege manacles.
3) I don't really follow your reasoning here. They are tench fighters who frequently go 'over the top' so to speak, who spend most of the time either crossing zones of fire, or in hand to hand combat. as such, somehow they would like hard to maintain, slightly easier to critically damage MK IV, instead of the prefered-for-close-combat MK III armour? 'Mobility' is usually on the bottom of an IW's means of combat, as it's either: "March up to the giant hole in the wall", or "Sit in our fort gunning them down."

All fluff I have seen makes note that the mobility difference between mk3 and mk4 is considerable. The mk4 is supposed to have enhanced optics and communications also. Why would the Imperium implement the mk4 as an advanced design using advanced features if it was negligible?

IW are trench fighters because GW and FW writers don't understand breach warfare or siege for that matter.

Crossing no mans land would favor speed over marginal protection. Time between the open ground and cover is life or death and no matter how heavy you are armored, if your slow they will bring the fire necessary to kill you.

Trench warfare is an utter waste of Astartes quality, rapid action breaching maneuvers would achieve trench siege objectives in minutes rather than months. So either the IW are one of THE worst breaching forces the Imperium has to offer or GW/FW writers made the mistake of not understanding the nature of their warfare.

Mk3 is favored in low maneuverability environments, such as ship assault actions (like the Fists), in dedicated breach pushing, ZM...etc etc. General battlefield roles its describe as being inferior to even mk2.

People seem to just assume IW would favor mk3 because it has IRON as its name and looks heavier duty.

Which none of this matters, if you have a all mk3 IW then I bet it looks awesome and if you have an all mk4 I also bet it looks awesome. Both are fully fluffy nobody should think less of another for their armor style choice.

Mk3 is described as being clumsy (see below) rather than slow, which I imagine would be an even bigger hinderence trying to make your way across a cratered no-mans land or clamber up the rubble of a breached wall. In addition the uneven armour will be of detriment as often as it of benefit if the enemy is lobbing artillery shells at you: In event of a direct hit the reduced casualties to the rear ranks will be offset by increased casualties to the front ranks, whilst a near-miss has maybe a 50/50 chance of benefit/detriment (possibly worse: if the gunners are firing at the units current position whilst it maintains a forward momentum, more shells are likely to be landing behind than in front).

"While a successful solution to a specific need, Mark 3 armour is too clumsy and uncomfortable for every day use." (WD129/RT Compilation/IA Apocrypha)

"..despite being clumsy and awkward to wear." (Deathwatch:Rites of Battle)

Mk2 and Mk3 I'd imagine are somewhere between a powered version of medieval knight's armor and space suit with heavy armor plates bolted on; that it's something put on in layers and certain components where pieces are only crudely attatched and might dangle or rattle. The Mk4 is more purpose built and can probably be thought of as almost a vehicle that's worn by the marine, in terms of its construction. The Mk2 and Mk3 likely rely on some under most layer that is a space suit and the armor is just armor, but the Mk4 is clearly built with the armor plates being incorporated as a sealed structure.

I have seen some people upset that they(FW) retooled a bunch of stuff to fit ith only B@C. Specifically the change to hands on weapons. that they where left Hi-And-Dry with bolterswithout the hands.
IDK, I also think part of it has to do with how static some of the models are aswell. Like the Contemptor is so boring. Like really boring. Im cutting mine up for more dynamic poses. But I can see why people dont like it.

I really hate the whole land modeled on thing
only because it removes options for modeling.

as to BaC being cheat mode?
no. its not really cheating. and it doesn't cheapen 30k asides from the money barrier.

Also oh god its such an improvement compared to all the slip mold legs and arms i got from Forgeworld. especially the stud legs.

Oh and the back packs.

And the guns not being super thin and strange looking.

I think as long as you put some care and attention to appropriately modeling your BaC guys they are totally fine for any legion in HH.

I'm using 2 boxes as the foundation of my infantry heavy Iron Warriors army. At first I thought they just wouldn't look like IW, but then I gave them tons of extra kit (ammo pouches, hip flasks) and then stuck entrenching tools all of over them to represent their work in the trenches and siege works and I think they'll really work once I get them painted.

As a bonus, it makes the MKIII I got really stand out and easily denotes my Iron Havoc squads from my normal HS squads.

I think BaC MK4 looks better than FW MK4.

FW MK4 is too slim.

One of very few cases where the GW alternative is better.

The Terminators are equal as far as I can tell, but FW's Contemptor is naturally far superior.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I think BaC MK4 looks better than FW MK4.

FW MK4 is too slim.

One of very few cases where the GW alternative is better.

The Terminators are equal as far as I can tell, but FW's Contemptor is naturally far superior.

being that i own a ton of both : FWs Cataphractii is better: the detail on the back and the tassels are much nicer from FW, and the shoulder pads are no where near as unintuitive on the GW version. HOWEVER, they are both still super good.

I kinda like that FW MK IV is more slim: it makes the contrast a bit more, makes it look more sleek and advanced than the giant bulky suits of MK II or III. However, I see why others don't. IMO the worst thing about the Calth MK IV specifically is the crappy "pop-a-squat" leg poses they got from the normal tactical squad box :( would it have been so much to get a walking pose or something different?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I think BaC MK4 looks better than FW MK4.

FW MK4 is too slim.

One of very few cases where the GW alternative is better.

The Terminators are equal as far as I can tell, but FW's Contemptor is naturally far superior.

I quite like the slim MkIV. I also prefer the leg poses of the FW ones to the plastics. The price makes up for it though haha.

Oh man i do love the leg poses but god i hate the mold slippage. especially on later mold casts. its basically impossible to use if they have studs.

also the prices

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I think BaC MK4 looks better than FW MK4.

FW MK4 is too slim.

One of very few cases where the GW alternative is better.

The Terminators are equal as far as I can tell, but FW's Contemptor is naturally far superior.

I quite like the slim MkIV. I also prefer the leg poses of the FW ones to the plastics. The price makes up for it though haha.

I mean, I feel like it looks almost implausibly thin. Like, I look at them and think 'dude, is that not how thin their unarmored leg should be?'

 Ashiraya wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I think BaC MK4 looks better than FW MK4.

FW MK4 is too slim.

One of very few cases where the GW alternative is better.

The Terminators are equal as far as I can tell, but FW's Contemptor is naturally far superior.

I quite like the slim MkIV. I also prefer the leg poses of the FW ones to the plastics. The price makes up for it though haha.

I mean, I feel like it looks almost implausibly thin. Like, I look at them and think 'dude, is that not how thin their unarmored leg should be?'

Oh yeah, I get it. They are too thin. I'd just got used to them so the plastics seem a bit bulky now.

BaC is why I even started 30k. Over the years it was always "that looks so cool, but it is so expensive" that turned into "That looks cool, and I can finally start at a cheaper price." BaC plus some shoulder pads and helms make them look good to me.