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.

Are these engines, or do they actually hold anything? Ammo, supplies, Eldar hentai, what?

I can't find anything in Lexicanum that talks about their back packs. It's weird, they look integral to the suit, or to the weapons, like Scions.

I'm 90% sure I saw that they were miniature powerplants that were able to provide the power requirements for long-term Power Armour usage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Power_Armour?file=Power_Armour_Schematic.jpg

Just below that there is a cut away list that states it's a backpack....

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/4/4c/Power_Armour_Components2.png/revision/latest?cb=20160831184026

Like Yarium, I always believed that they were the power for the power armor. Seemsed reasonab;e to me so I never really looked further into it. I never could find out if the vents were just vents or were also used as thrusters even if they only good in low/no gravity environments.

In fact, I figured the reason crew of destroyed marine vehicles didn't join the fight was because they didn't have ready access to their power packs as they don't wear them and plug in directly to the vehicle power supply. Even the Primaris on the Repulsor pintle gun doesn't wear a backpack but does have extra cables at his hips.

It's a nuclear reactor.

The armour's backpack contains the suit's main power source -- a sub-atomic microfusion generator and a back-up solar power converter and 100 solar cell batteries to store the absorbed solar energy. The backpack also contains the armour's environmental and life support systems and additional movement stabiliser thrusters for low and zero-gravity combat.

From https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Power_Armour

So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

Not really, space marines should never be showing their backs to the enemy. Such an act is cowardly and beneath the Emperor's Angels of Death.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

Not really, space marines should never be showing their backs to the enemy. Such an act is cowardly and beneath the Emperor's Angels of Death.

^I like this guy.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

Not really, space marines should never be showing their backs to the enemy. Such an act is cowardly and beneath the Emperor's Angels of Death.

And being so careless as to be ambushed is heresy.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

As opposed to what... a big tub of flammable liquid? Same level of stupid as tanks having liquid fuel engines.

Dispite what Micheal A Stackpole thinks, fusion reactors don't explode if you poke em too hard

 Bookwrack wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

As opposed to what... a big tub of flammable liquid? Same level of stupid as tanks having liquid fuel engines.

So it's a self-sealing nuclear reactor?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

As opposed to what... a big tub of flammable liquid? Same level of stupid as tanks having liquid fuel engines.

So it's a self-sealing nuclear reactor?

could be, it's tech 38,000 years in the future who knows what kinda safety features there could be.

Pretty sure they are fusion reactors and thus cannot explode like nukes.

I mean not even a fission reactor could ever explode like a nuke and that's talking about a fullsize power plant one, and not a reactor shrunk down to backpack size.

It's one of those stupid Hollywood tropes that people just don't think to question, because all they know is 'atomic = boom?'

While the destruction of the backpack would be lethal to the wearer due to the sudden release of a lot of very compressed, very high energy matter, so would be getting shot in the back by whatever blew a hole right through the heavily armored back of your power armor.

There's a reason why comparing it to the vulnerability of the fuel on a tank is so apt.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So it's a self-sealing nuclear reactor?

Probably? I'm neither a tech marine nor a Black Library writer so I couldn't really say how it's supposed to work. But just like a tank's fuel supply, since you know the equipment is going into active combat zones, you want to try and make a logical vulnerability point as strong as possible.

BrianDavion wrote:
Dispite what Micheal A Stackpole thinks, fusion reactors don't explode if you poke em too hard

In defense of Stackpole, we don't know how those reactors are made and there were rules for such explosions in the game it was based on.

To another point, if something is already under high pressure, and you allow such pressure to escape, a type of explosion does occur. So a lot depends on the design. And it would explain why basic marines only have 1 Wound...

 Charistoph wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Dispite what Micheal A Stackpole thinks, fusion reactors don't explode if you poke em too hard

In defense of Stackpole, we don't know how those reactors are made and there were rules for such explosions in the game it was based on.
.

actually the in universe science in Battletech is explained pretty well these days and they admit fusion reactors blowing up wouldn't work that way but rule of cool. my comment was entirely meant as a tongue in cheek joke. that said one of the Battletech sourcebooks actually notes power armor in THAT franchise is powered by a battery due to the inherant dangers of mounting a fusion generator in a backpack

BrianDavion wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Dispite what Micheal A Stackpole thinks, fusion reactors don't explode if you poke em too hard

In defense of Stackpole, we don't know how those reactors are made and there were rules for such explosions in the game it was based on.
.

actually the in universe science in Battletech is explained pretty well these days and they admit fusion reactors blowing up wouldn't work that way but rule of cool. my comment was entirely meant as a tongue in cheek joke. that said one of the Battletech sourcebooks actually notes power armor in THAT franchise is powered by a battery due to the inherant dangers of mounting a fusion generator in a backpack

Not well enough to reproduce the tech.

As it is, it was always easier to make a Vehicle blow up in 40K than it was in Battletech (before 8th Edition, anyway). In Battletech, you either had to completely eliminate the central structure of a 'Mech or perform 3 critical hits to the engine (depending on version) in a single turn in order to cause the destruction. 40K just needed to roll the right number on the Vehicle Damage Chart, and they weren't all fusion-powered.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, anyone else think outside of the Ghostbusters, it's a dumb idea to put a nuke on the back of something designed to get shot at?

As long as the model looks good I don't care what the authors logic behind something is

And if I don't like the model? Then I really don't care about the fluff details as I'm not using it.

As said power plant for the powered part of the armor.

In one of the books in the Night Lords omnibus there's a part where the main character takes several bolter rounds to the backpack, which causes it to explode. He definitely notices the loss of power and having to struggle against the weight of the armor.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm fairly certain that even melt down conditions would be catastrophic for the marine, let alone any marines not wearing helmets within a 2-5 mile radius, depending on weather conditions.

On the plus side, it seems possible that a single marine can power an entire city. Which seems silly.

Fusion reactors dont meltdown or explode. You lose containment, the reaction fizzles and goes out. Thats it.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm fairly certain that even melt down conditions would be catastrophic for the marine, let alone any marines not wearing helmets within a 2-5 mile radius, depending on weather conditions.

On the plus side, it seems possible that a single marine can power an entire city. Which seems silly.

I think you are confusing fusion and fission. Fusion can't meltdown, it doesn't work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:
Fusion reactors don't meltdown or explode. You lose containment, the reaction fizzles and goes out. That's it.

Well they also can release a bunch of tritium and contaminate the water table for radioactive water, but that's not going to bother a group of marines in the short term. Not really disagreeing, just thought I should point out that a large scale fusion reactor is not 100% risk-free (but lower risk than... just about anything else we have that can produce that kind of power).

They are miniature fusion reactors, and backpacks with limited storage for sealants, ammo etc.

Drager wrote:
Well they also can release a bunch of tritium and contaminate the water table for radioactive water, but that's not going to bother a group of marines in the short term. Not really disagreeing, just thought I should point out that a large scale fusion reactor is not 100% risk-free (but lower risk than... just about anything else we have that can produce that kind of power).

Fair point, which I would mostly respond with the scale of an Astartes reactor. That thing's tiny. Even if there is contamination, its gonna be extremely localized. And its not like 40k has a shortage of ways to deal with worlds that are trying to kill the population.

It contains a pop up banner pole with appropriate heraldry.

The backpack is part of the power source and nutrient recycling center. Because yes, space marines eat their own (heavily recycled) poop.

Don't forget, the suit is self contained, so they also sniff their own farts.

Which, contrary to Saturnmorn Catrilli, is totes in keeping with the Big E's vision.

Not just their own farts, but ten thousand years of farts belonging to every Space Marine that ever used that armor

The real secret behind astartes pattern combat stims.