Switch Theme:

Late Heresy Traitor Aesthetic  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Speedy Swiftclaw Biker





Glasgow, Scotland

Hey all,

Now that I've decided on my army list for my Iron Warriors and I've received, ordered or am about to order the last bits and pieces to put my list together, I'm starting to think about how I'm going to tackle painting the army.

One of the few things I know I want to do with this army is use a lot of MkIV armour - with some Mk II and Mk III for Veterans. I know that Mk III armour was primarily suited for Siege warfare (which goes hand-in-hand with the Iron Warriors), but I'm just all-around burnt out on Mk III from my Space Wolves, and would like to do a bunch more Mk IV instead (as the only other plastic armour mark).

To justify this decision a little more to myself, I've been thinking about setting my Iron Warriors later in the Heresy. I already cemented myself as post-Istvaan because I built my Perturabo with Forgebreaker, and I like the idea of a late (perhaps just shy of the Siege of Terra) stage Iron Warriors, deep into their Heresy. As a consequence, a lot of the Marines will have been refitted with shiny new Mk IV armour, whilst the Veterans - those returning from long and distant campaigns, for example - might still be using the Crusade or Iron pattern armours that they set out in.

I was just wanting if anyone had much knowledge as to whether the Traitor aesthetic changed much over the Heresy proper, or if the movement to the more jagged and angular backpacks, infatuation with spikes, etc all came after fleeing to the Eye of Terror? And what about mutations? I know, for example, in 40K that Iron Warriors aren't fond of mutation and tend to replace them with bionics - I was wondering if any of that would have been a concern during the Heresy or not (for the most part)? Anything else to keep in mind for a late-Heresy traitor legion?

Thanks in advance!

10,000 30K/40K Space Wolves, 6000pts 30K Iron Warriors, 3200pts Daemons of the Ruinstorm
3500pts AoS Maggotkin of Nurgle, 3000pts AoS Stormcast Eternals, 2000pts AoS Skaven
1800pts Middle-earth Rivendell, 1000pts Grey Company, 600pts Iron Hills
1800pts Middle-earth Angmar, 1100pts Moria, 1000pts Dol Guldur
Blood Bowl Skaven, Blood Bowl Orcs

Blog | Twitter | Instagram | Middle-earth SBG Hero Tracker - now on the Play Store
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Chicago

To my knowledge, the Iron Warriors didn’t change much during the Heresy. Hell, even 40k era Iron Warriors woiluldnt be that much different. Just have a bit more spikes.

The Mk IV armor makes sense from a later Heresy project. I’d add some trophy racks on vehicles, maybe with some Fists’ helmets.

Other Legions changed drastically during the Heresy and would look vastly different at the end. Emperors Children, World Eaters and Word Bearers would look more like their CSM versions for sure. Death Guard wouldn’t be Plague Marines until the Siege of Terra, Thousand Sons would still be red and Night Lords would be the same. Sons of Horus would just be spikier and carry more trophies but not as bad as Night Lords.

Alpha Legion and Iron Warriors would probably be the least changed of the Traitor Legions at any point in the Heresy. So you should be good!
   
Made in no
Fresh-Faced New User



Trondheim Norway

Also remember that iron warriors had early mk XI pattrns as it was supose to be a new siege armour but they rejected it cause it wasnt as durable.

My armies
4000+++ of orks
2500+ Imperial guard
2500p soon to be thousand sons.
5000p of orcs
3000p of ogres
2500p Chaos dwarfs!!

Trondheim warhammer forum www.wartrond.net

Up for a match on vassal send me a pm! or just message Rune m if im online on vassal  
   
Made in gb
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard



UK

Iron warriors have a high turn over their life gene seed makes replacements easy to come by so it makes sense they'd have newer armour.
   
Made in gb
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





 Haanz wrote:
I know that Mk III armour was primarily suited for Siege warfare (which goes hand-in-hand with the Iron Warriors)


Depends on who's writing it. The Legions at War booklet in Burning of Prospero reiterates the original fluff about MkIII having reduced rear armour to compensate for the frontal plates - something that's not a major problem for boarding actions and tunnel fighting (it's intended purpose according to both the original fluff and relevant Deathwatch RPG rule entry) but would be a *literal* pain in the ass whenever artillery comes into play such as in.. siege work (which was mentioned in neither source). The author of Angel Exterminatus was apparently aware of this as the Iron Warriors are portrayed as wearing MkIV exclusively* - even their auxilias were stated to have helms fashioned in it's likeness.

The sculptor got very lazy and portrayed Breacher armour as being standard MkIII with a helmet swap, but from it's description and rules it really should be a proto-Cataphractii armour.

* no other armour mark was ever mentioned, in all instances but the reference to the auxilia helmets MkIV was merely substituted for power armour in the same way an author might say "The GI aimed his M16" instead of "The soldier aimed his rifle".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/22 15:29:14


 
   
Made in gb
Speedy Swiftclaw Biker





Glasgow, Scotland

 Gashrog wrote:

Depends on who's writing it. The Legions at War booklet in Burning of Prospero reiterates the original fluff about MkIII having reduced rear armour to compensate for the frontal plates - something that's not a major problem for boarding actions and tunnel fighting (it's intended purpose according to both the original fluff and relevant Deathwatch RPG rule entry) but would be a *literal* pain in the ass whenever artillery comes into play such as in.. siege work (which was mentioned in neither source). The author of Angel Exterminatus was apparently aware of this as the Iron Warriors are portrayed as wearing MkIV exclusively* - even their auxilias were stated to have helms fashioned in it's likeness.


Dang, this makes me feel a lot better about pulling the trigger on the Calth box then. I'd swithering over going full nutso and buying a ton of Mk II marines instead - but the savings, plastic rather than resin and consistency with my Quad Mortars crew was too much to sway me. That, and I'd already ordered some Mk IV vox packs..

Anyway, thanks. I appreciate this info! I'll also definitely need to pick up Angel Exterminatus - have been reading the Heresy books in chronological release order (on The First Heretic ATM), but I have made exceptions for the legions I play in the past.

10,000 30K/40K Space Wolves, 6000pts 30K Iron Warriors, 3200pts Daemons of the Ruinstorm
3500pts AoS Maggotkin of Nurgle, 3000pts AoS Stormcast Eternals, 2000pts AoS Skaven
1800pts Middle-earth Rivendell, 1000pts Grey Company, 600pts Iron Hills
1800pts Middle-earth Angmar, 1100pts Moria, 1000pts Dol Guldur
Blood Bowl Skaven, Blood Bowl Orcs

Blog | Twitter | Instagram | Middle-earth SBG Hero Tracker - now on the Play Store
   
 
Forum Index » The Horus Heresy
Go to: