# What's the most advanced space marine power armor?(regular pattern)



## The Final Frontier (Oct 15, 2011)

What's the most advanced power armor the Adeptus Astartes can wear? MK4 ?


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Probably some sort of artificer mark VIII armor.

Though artificer armor is tricky enough that, theoretically, any mark could be the best.

If you're talking about non-artifcer armor, then the mark VIII will probably pull ahead.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Mk IV is the most advanced. A lot of the tech used in making them has been lost since the Heresy. Mk V and VI were pretty much patch jobs, and mk VII and VIII are just refinements of these inferior versions.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> Mk IV is the most advanced. A lot of the tech used in making them has been lost since the Heresy.


Wait, what? Since when?

In _Deliverance Lost_ the Imperial Fist Captain, Noriz, tells Raven Guard officer Branne about the Mark VI:

"Most of the improvements your Legion suggested were implemented,’ said Noriz, almost wistfully. ‘Protection is no better than the Mark IV, but the internal systems are far more efficient. The external cabling you see is supplemented by back-ups within the armour plate itself without compromising defence or adding excessive weight. Auto-senses have also been improved. In particular, auditory and olfactory pick-ups are much more sensitive. You will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that the stealth capabilities of this suit exceed that of any other variant.’

Could you provide a source where the Mark IV is more advanced?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

> Mark IV armour was envisioned at the time to be the ultimate and final type of Space Marine armour, able to offer the best protection in a variety of conditions. Many of the Space Marine Legions were entirely or partially re-equipped with it, although the order of which Legions recieved the armour would shortly prove to be of significance.[1] As a result of its widespread production and use prior to and during the Horus Heresy, Mark 4 suits are the most common of the pre-Heresy armour Marks still in service during the 41st Millennium, although only a few Chapters - such as the Red Scorpions and Iron Hands - still possess the technology required to produce new suits.[9]


From lexi. This is a common thing that is brought up, one of these urban myths, and is often this quote when taken out of context - especially as is was produced back in the heady days of White Dwarf 129 originally.


----------



## The Final Frontier (Oct 15, 2011)

Couldn't they just take apart a MK IV suit or improve it with new technology? Reverse engineering like when the Russians revered engineered our jets fighter designs during the Cold War?

What about Aegis Armor? Or is just specialized armor for confronting daemons?


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

The Final Frontier said:


> Couldn't they just take apart a MK IV suit or improve it with new technology? Reverse engineering like when the Russians revered engineered our jets fighter designs during the Cold War?
> 
> What about Aegis Armor? Or is just specialized armor for confronting daemons?


We're talking about the ad mech to them Reverse engineering would be the same as shitting on a bible.

I smell brimstone.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

locustgate said:


> We're talking about the ad mech to them Reverse engineering would be the same as shitting on a bible.


Rather the opposite.

Innovation and experimentation is (generally) seen as Heresy.

Replicating items from Humanities Glorious Past? No problem. Hence the hunt for a complete STC machine.


----------



## The Final Frontier (Oct 15, 2011)

I think were getting a bit off topic lol

Are the MK II and MK III more advanced then the MK V- MK VII?


----------



## zerachiel76 (Feb 12, 2010)

Of the 2 I have to agree that the Mark VI would be more advanced since it has all the good points of the Mark IV with improved factors listed above.

I think the thing that settles it for me are the words "at the time". The Mark IV was the most advanced for a time but then the Mark VI came along and improved on it.

Since the Mark VIII is more advanced than the Mark VI I'd say the Mark VIII would be the most advanced.


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

Well from the HH FW books, we have MkII Cited as the most efficient armour at the time. We know the MkIII Was an over-taxed, high maintenance type due to it's up-armouring.

The MkIV is clearly cited in many sources as the most advanced type in general distribution at the time.

Likewise we know the MkV was a patchwork design; the hows whys and exact current chronology, we do not know, but basically, it's the on-hand or easy to make parts from Mk II, III and IV, with a head from the Termie project (split thread anyone?).

Calling Beakie armour MkVI should tell us it follows MkV in development, if not production, but this is not exact and it could easily be that the VI was developed before the MkV and the naming conventioned sorted out later. Likewise the MkV could well have been a contingency protocol which had been on hand since before the MkIV for all we know. We do not see very much of Heresy Armour in print, but likely they're overall of poor fit and finish, with some lucky Astartes finding some MkIII or MkIV Surprises in their rush-job replacement suit.

MkVI, is either a dog-standard suit, or an advancement or at least refinement of the technology of the MkIV.

Personally, I always got the sense that the standard-40K MkVII was a stopgap, de-enriched, moneky-model type intended for easy production in place of more advanced MkIV and VI types. The MkVIII seemed more like an improved MkVII, maybe even a direct, possibly modular upgrade. it seems to offer better protection to the Progenoids in apocryphal sources and it *looks* better protected, but it's really hard to say. My feeling is that it's better than a VII, but not so good as a IV.

So what about the odd marks? If we rule out consideration of Thunder armour, as we should because it is obviously less capable in all references I know of, then we only have some odd modifications and inferred transitionary and hybrid types left to consider.

Aegis and Artifacer armour are clearly modifications of other known patterns, though the Grey Knights seem to have their own kit all the way around and we can assume they get the best gear there is. I'd peg them in as wearing a suit as advanced as a IV, with VIIII refinements, but shy of MkIII Armoured protection overall, but that's just my theory.

We see some clearly transitory and hybrid IV-VI and VI-VIII models, but I haven't heard of any in the fluff. People sure build them though. By 40K, I'd expect the legions favouring the VI suits to be either making basically a MkVII suit with a Beakie head and a few odd refinements or maybe having access to advanced technology. In practice, I'd actually consider hybrid suits as MkVs in spirit, if not practice, but likely with better fit, finish and wear over time.

I think longevity of different types would play a role as well. I Look at the MkII, III and V as certainly mass-produced, short life-cycle (in 40K terms) items. Build as many as we can to support needs NOW! and replace them as we go with the tech we have in abundance. Any left in 40K are true relics, or essentially modded VIIs or earlier marks which have been essentially gutted and rebuilt as VIIs internally.

The IV, VI and possibly the VIII if you're an optimist (why are you playing 40K?) look from the fluff a lot more like long-haul legacy equipment built for the duration. Stuff that is meant to last a long time, with a high quality of fit and finish, which is not to say that other marks are ersatz works by a long shot, but that these are higher-quality suits. You're not going to just scrap a MkIV when it get's banged up; whereas if a Marine's MkII or III takes a pounding, you may as well scrap it for parts and give him a new one because it isn't built to be fixed like that and/or economic repairability is low. But by the time you're in the Heresy and much beyond, any suit is precious and you keep your patchwork MkV running as long as possible.

Post Heresy, i see production along two lines; the Holy crap we're drowning lines turn out MkVIIs like sausages and the Gucci line (Quality is remembered, long after price is forgotten) trickles out MkVIs to the best-connected legions, so long as it makes economic sense for them in the post-technological reality of 35-40K, until the VII is the standard suit because the mechanicus lost the data in their last HDD crash.

As things recover, the tech of the IV and VI may as well be lost, but you can start with the VII and improve it and get the MkVIII Errant armour, again more or less for the best set-up and connected legions, but a limited issue item. Demand will be lower, because by now, every issue item is a cultural relic of personal significance, even your comparitively primitive VII, which in balance, I take as inferior in terms of efficiency to a MkII. But again that's me trying to make everything in a chaotic canon all fit in a way that makes sense to me. Also by now, most MkIII suits have been cannibalized to keep MkII relic suits running, or have worn out themselves. Short of Someone like the Iron Hands or Imperial Fists making them, I'd peg MkIIIs as the rarest type in service in 40K, while new "effective MkVs" and hybrid suits should keep showing up out of necessity and as a result of bespoke modifications, mostly with MkIV, VI and VIII parts.

So what's left? Well the odd stuff.

We have the Space Wolves' "Wolf Helm" which you can look at as either proof that the real deal MkVI is something of a lost art and they want to recreate it, or a further improvement. Personally, I look at it as support for my theory of Sub-Stanard MkVI hybrids which are just VIIs under the skin.

We have the Chaos suits which are by now either warp-twisted relics (1000 Sons, Plauge Marines, ect), Hybrids (many, but especially Night Lords, so it seems from some novels), possibly a few instances of an exclusive pattern (which would seem to fit the HH take on the Alpha Legion's MO and makes sense of the Iron Warriors too) and I think a great deal of mass production from daemonic/eye of terror forge worlds (Which is where I peg in stuff that gets issued to folks like those 30,000 Khorne Berserkers (low-maintaince, replace when broken items).

It follows that the Iron Warriors make their own Armour, likely a hybrid/stabilized take on the MkIII, which deals with wear and tear better. 

How good is any of it? The Warp does what it wants, so forget trying to rate the corrupted suits. The Night Lord and similar hybrids are going to vary individually based on what's been captured. There is some visual evidence of Emperor's children going for looks over substance (Shocker), so I'd rate their protection at least as inferior to even a MkVII or II, possibly in line with Thunder Armour, but efficiency as probably quite high, but again; it's going to be corrupted in many cases: so whatever.

The Alpha Legion's suits will likely be built as top-rate, probably the equal or superior to HH MkVI suits in stealth, sensors and efficiency and maintained in the field on a catch-as-catch can basis for those who are spread out in cells, sot hey come to rely on skill over steel as time goes on. The Iron Warriors will be building for mass numbers, but tempered by maximum protection; I'd expect their suits to sacrifice efficiency and perhaps longevity due to their normal MO keeping them close to base areas and massive stores ships. But I think that in The Long War, they'd come to value longevity over time and might produce suits of varying quality for troops esteemed differently; the crap for the new guys and the better quality, longer-lasting stuff for the guys *NOT* in the front rank of the forlorn hope.

Berserker-type mass produced suits? Cheap mass-produced junk. if it breaks, they make a slave fix it, they MAKE IT WORK, or their RAGE makes it work, at least long enough for them to contribute in some way to the blood whose origin Khorne cares for, not very much.

Anywho, just my opinions from a long time of reading fluff and trying to make it all make sense. Combined with a fair hunk of back ground in military equipment history.


----------



## The Final Frontier (Oct 15, 2011)

That's a whole lot of info there...wow

Still never answered my question. I guess there isn't a simple answer.


MK IV Artificer Armour has to the best of all


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

The Final Frontier said:


> MK IV Artificer Armour has to the best of all


We went over this in the first page. Short answer is that it isn't. 

For the reasons why, just go back and re-read the first page.


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

The Final Frontier said:


> That's a whole lot of info there...wow
> 
> Still never answered my question. I guess there isn't a simple answer.
> 
> ...



Once it's artifacer it doesn't matter the mark; it's better. I'd assume at LEAST as good as the MkIV in every respect with much better protection. But it could be based on any mark and be that good, or it could be a unique design with no reference to any standard type.


If we presume the MkVII is the Monkey-Model, then artifacer armour based on the MkVII is going to be as good, or better in terms of internal workings than any standard mark, but again; superior in protection.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Artificer is a game term. An artificered MkVI is not going to be better than a MkIII, because the MkIII was designed for things such as ship-boarding, and other situations when heavier armour is preferential.

The MkVI was given to the Raven Guard, ostensibly as field testing. Considering that the nature of Raven Guard operations, it's possibly more to their specifications and need than something of iron armour.

Sorry to be pernickity, but stating that something is better is like saying that an iPhone is better than a Samsung, which is complete bollocks because Samsung have got supercomputers. Realise how stupid that argument is, and you'll see why it's "better".

A mark developed later is not necessarily better than one earlier, it's just that they have more specific tasks.

I mean, look at assault rifles. They were designed to combine the best parts of a machine gun, and a rifle. That is what happened with the Mark IV - essentially a one size fits all job. It might have the most advanced systems, and being able to offer the best protection in a variety of conditions, but it's not going to be better than one designed for a particular set of conditions.

"Artificer" armour does not "exist" in 40K. There is no such thing as an "artificered" suit. There is a suit of armour, which is worked on, and improved over time, to the specifications of those who need it for a particular job - similar to how a Raven Guard Mark VI has baffled powerbleeds, and noise filters, etc, while an Imperial fist Mark III has more layered protection. THAT is artificering, or else, in legion times, if it was simply a matter of "producing" artificer equipment, they would do - after all, look at the amount of land raiders and grav tanks and terminator armour they were able to field.


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

Vaz said:


> Artificer is a game term. An artificered MkVI is not going to be better than a MkIII, because the MkIII was designed for things such as ship-boarding, and other situations when heavier armour is preferential.
> 
> The MkVI was given to the Raven Guard, ostensibly as field testing. Considering that the nature of Raven Guard operations, it's possibly more to their specifications and need than something of iron armour.
> 
> ...



Well, I'll admit that I haven't been current on the rules since 4th ed, but is not "artifacer armour" a 2+, vs 3+ save? Like termie armour, without the invincible save, right?

In fluff terms though there is more to consider. As described MkIII armour, sometimes lampshaded as "Void Hardened" has better protection as well, but is stated in many sources as being over-taxed and prone to wear. That's not good over time, especially in a setting of 1-10 thousand year old equipment.

Protection is one aspect, wear in service is another, efficiency a third, stealth, electronics, ect. A MkIV Suit is unquestionably superior to a MkIII even "Void Hardened" in all but protection, but in the life cycle of one suit of MkIV Armour, you could put several MkIIIs through complete "automotive" parts replacement a few times, possible replace it several times even, just for being so far beyond economic repairability. if we take the fluff at face value a real MkVI is a further improvement on the MkIV. Though as I noted, I doubt those refinements last long after the heresy in series production.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

You do understand fluff =/= rules, hence the introduction of movie marines minidex in a 4th edition white dwarf issie to make them nearer the fluff?

You are talking of cars - a car might be more advanced, a bugatti compared to a land rover. A land rover is rugged but also prone to wear. Those its prone to wear are as a result of the greater stresses are often easier to change.

Power Armour loaded with ablative layers anyway.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

There's never been an instance of artificer armour in a 40k novel? That actually surprises me.


----------



## Snokvor (Aug 3, 2014)

After reading this article: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Power_Armour I am under impression that most advanced version is Mk VIII as it is the most improved model so far intended for mass production.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Can't think of one at least. 

Compare mentions of artificer armour (note; seperate from artificed/artificer crafted) as opposed to those differentiations of different marks of power armour (rarely a mention of wearing power armour without noting that they're super special snowflake by wearing mkIII/mkIV/mkVI) or terminator armour.

One of the few mentions of AArmour is 5th edition C;SM, and that was in reference to the appearance of artificer armour - which looks exactly like power armour with a few more crafted bits on it - and from that appearance, it's unclear as to what exactly provides that extra 17% survivability - if it's simply a matter of adding on skulls, then why does not every space marine have that inscribed on?

In typical 1980's sci-fi steampunk fantasy style, everything of an earlier age is more potent, and is a lost art and cannot be recreated, yada yada. With the advent of 30K, that had to be expanded upon - where it's either master crafted by the mechanicum, or embellished with ciphers of strength and durability (if that's all it is, why aren't they all?) or of a wildly differing design from a zenith of humanities forgotten technical might - in which case, why did they not produce enough and how did the Emperor not come up with a way to equip them with this better armour.

Artificer Armour is mostly a "gameism" in Warhammer parlance, and regardless of whether it's artificer crafted or not, it's still just power armour in the eyes of many writers.

Ironically, from the quick shot of the models - Sevatar has among the most notable and OTT crafted armour available, and is only equipped with Power Armour - Kharn, meanwhile, is missing an entire limb of armour, and still has a 2+ Save. Meanwhile, his Primarch is sitting pretty in power armour.

I stand by it's a gamelogic that doesn't translate to the fluff - such as why a Primarch is in a battle containing 30 allied marines with 3 spartan tanks, and is facing up against a battle titan and 20 marines, instead of several thousand strong planetary assaults.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> There's never been an instance of artificer armour in a 40k novel? That actually surprises me.


Ultramarines series, the chapter's due.

Ventris's armor is heavily implied to be artificer armor.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

The Custodes armor in _First Heretic_ sound oddly similar to artificer armor. At least in the sense that it's fancy, individually wrought, and superior to the mass-produced models:

"Each suit of battle armour was individually wrought for the Custodian granted the honour to wear it, and despite their finery, Custodes armour was a step beyond the mass-produced wargear used by the Astartes Legions."

Close enough?


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

hailene said:


> The Custodes armor in _First Heretic_ sound oddly similar to artificer armor. At least in the sense that it's fancy, individually wrought, and superior to the mass-produced models:
> 
> "Each suit of battle armour was individually wrought for the Custodian granted the honour to wear it, and despite their finery, Custodes armour was a step beyond the mass-produced wargear used by the Astartes Legions."
> 
> Close enough?



I think we may as well consider Custodes armour something else again from power armour. It's not even in the same class. Except for certain references to it being powered, I would not otherwise even assume that it *was* powered armour. In the same vien Thunder Armour is a whole other kettle of fish, realistically.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Phoebus said:


> There's never been an instance of artificer armour in a 40k novel? That actually surprises me.


I always imagined Amberley Veil's armour to be Artificier Armour of a Sororita sort of design. Sort of strange that a fan of Ciaphas Cain haven't picked that up. I'm assuming you are a fan since his picture is on your ehm picture-thingy, or you didn't interpret it in that way. As for where it was when he, Jurgen and a vendor-seller were pinned down by Genestealers in Defender of the Imperium and her description in For the Emperor where she says he looked alike a stuffed fish for a few days when he claims he recovered quite fast.

As for the Artificier Armour, they tend to be mentioned when Techmarines comes to town from what I have seen.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> There's never been an instance of artificer armour in a 40k novel? That actually surprises me.


I wouldn't be surprised if there are references to artificer armor all over the damn place, but I can tell you for sure that a Xa'ven's armor is said to be artificer armor, and it used that exact wording. This is in the HH novel "Scars." It exists in the fluff, though, like Vaz said, it's really only modified power armor that's been made to fit the users preferences. Could mean anything from from upgraded sensor arrays to the thing being a giant chunk of adamantium.


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

Well, given what the rules say about it improving the armour save, I'd say the most salient point of artifacer armour is that it provides better protection, so I think that since the shape changes only subtly, than superior materials are the best bet.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Fluff =/= rules.

They made a free movie marines codex with a white dwarf to represent how marines are represented in the fluff, and even that fails. Raven Guard armour is all artificered in the sense that it's "not the normal" version, where it has improved sensors and counter detection technology.

Kharn has a 2+ Save despite missing an entire limb's worth of armour, while Sevatar has the most ornate armour of all the legion champion models in power armour produced to date, and only has a 3+ Save, while Kharn has more protection than his own Primarch.


























In fluff sections, rules can suck balls.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Marauderlegion said:


> Well, given what the rules say about it improving the armour save, I'd say the most salient point of artifacer armour is that it provides better protection, so I think that since the shape changes only subtly, than superior materials are the best bet.


And superior craftmanship since Artificiers tends to run around in them for no good reason other than that they make them.


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

Well frankly; pretty is as pretty does.

AFAIK; sensors, endurance (time in the field), comfort, ect mean nothing in the game. What does in protection. I get that there is some conflict between fluff and rules. I'm trying to draw from both for a good general answer.

Purity seals, scrowlwork, stylization, these things do nothing but make more work for your slaves/servitors to maintain.

Some stuff can be dual use. Some of the frills on Sevatar's suit could provide baffles, deflection or spaced armour (especially effective against bolt shells). Could. Clearly do not.

Going back to the OP; I would never call any kind of custom suit a "regular pattern"

Certainly Mk4 is very advanced. Mk6 *was* as well, whether it still is in 40k...no solid info, you already know what I think. Clearly by now Mk 2,3,5 and arguably 8 are not standard issue and so not "regular". Is Mk8 =/< Mk4 or 6? Inconclusive given current cannon data. As I said; you already know what i think.

Mk8 is likely the best 40K can provide en masse, sorta. But i'd expect GK Mk8ish armour to be superior to that. Is that a "regular pattern"? it is if you are a GK.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

@ Mauraderlegion

Hell I'm agreeing with you. I even added to your point with the superior craftmanship-thingy plus what you added with the sensory-thingy.

Plus I like a guy that strikes the balance between fluff and rules. From where I'm sitting only rather foolish guys dismiss the rules because it doesn't fit into their narrow view. Artificier Armour always was superior to powered armour, just as hardened powered armour was in Fallout 2 superior to powered armour.

And yeah this discussion has spiraled out towards the irregular patterns of Artificier Armour. The most advanced regular powered armour is as you say the mk VIII, and its stated to be the best as the IOM is advancing but at a snail-pace.

And you are right that powered armour for the "poorer" Space Marines chapters can be cobbled up bits and pieces everywhere. You have cover for that in fluff as well.


----------



## Marauderlegion (Nov 27, 2013)

@Beaviz81

Yeah, you make a good point, we really are getting out of control here and straying from the OP.

This isn't Battletech. IA books are the best, most definitive stuff we get on the equipment of the 40K universe and even they vary widely from edition to edition. Anything they give us on stuff like Space marine powered armour is going to be totally in-universe, fluff-heavy, inconclusive and incomplete by design and very biased.

The best we can get is some doddering mechanicum adept raving on at length.

Unless FW or WD wants to put out an article of some munitorium archeological dig doing a canon version of the very discussion we're having, we're just folks having fun, trying to figure out what makes sense given the two transitory sources we have; rules and fluff. Just makes sense to put those together with a little common sense whenever we can.

But I can't see us ever getting a Technical Readout; Astartes giving us a crunchy breakdown of the weights, measures and capabilities of each mark and variant of power armour. We're lucky FW gives us the detail on the tanks it does and even that is rarely consistent. But I'm not trying to thread-jack here into discussions of FW or GW or anything like that, just trying to put stuff in perspective.

Beaviz81, much obliged.


----------



## The Final Frontier (Oct 15, 2011)

Surprised this thread still going. 
My thoughts on armor mks
MK 1-shit
MK II-vastly improved from MK I,advanced as V and up ?
MK III-front line suit of MK II, better protection then MK II and wears out quickly. Artificer MK III-more advanced then all marks other then MK IV?
MK IV-most advanced jack of all trades suit. Possibly the best as artificer Armour 
MK V-shit, patch job, mass produced since of shortages during hersey
MK VI- specialized for special operations
MK VII- vastly improved MK V, standerd model for SM
MK VIII- slightly improved MK VII

When was Artificer Armour actually introduced in the codex?

What about Artificer Aegis Armor?

Could Terminator armor be artificer Terminator armor? Primarches wore them basically.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

@Vaz,

I'm not trying to propose that rules = fluff or what have you. I was expressing surprise at your claim that the concept of Artificer Armour - that is, "lavish" suits of power armour that “afford the wearers protection that rivals even Terminator armour" - did not exist within the setting's fiction.

Either way, I think the Kharn-Sevatar comparison might be a bit off. After all, he is shown wearing full armour during the Great Crusade and the Heresy. Who knows what Khornate warp-influence makes his piecemeal armour that much more powerful in the 41st millennium, or whether that's just _artistic license._


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

The Final Frontier said:


> Surprised this thread still going.
> My thoughts on armor mks
> MK 1-shit
> MK II-vastly improved from MK I,advanced as V and up ?
> ...


You don't seem to be grasping what it means for an armor to be artificer armor. To say that an armor is artificer armor could mean anything from upgraded internal systems, weight reduction systems to improve agility, higher quality plating, or guido armor. Artificer armor is just armor that was cleverly or artfully crafted. That's it. It doesn't necessarily make it more advanced, or better, or anything. As Vaz said, game mechanics do not equate to fluff. 

Aegis could already be considered artificer armor. 

Primarch armor was custom made for the primarchs. I'm not sure they have any real equivalent with the marines.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

gen.ahab,

Saying that Artificer Armour, as defined within the game, doesn't exist within the fiction is one thing. We can compare sources and figure out if this is the case or not.

Saying that Artificer Armour isn't "necessarily ... more advanced, or better, or anything" is simply inaccurate, though. Artificer Armour is, by definition, better. It is "... as far beyond power armour as power armour is beyond the carapace used by Space Marine Scouts ... Indeed, cunningly wrought damage control mechanisms and superdense construction materials ensure that most suits of artificer armour offer a degree of protection rivalling that of Tactical Dreadnought armour."

If an author telling stories in this setting, which is based on a game, uses named concepts from said game, it then becomes very difficult (in my eyes, at least) to claim that this concept suddenly does something different than it does in the game. Using that logic, why not argue that bolt pistols have the same range as bolt guns, or that there is no meaningful difference in the damage dealt by flamers and heavy flamers?


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> gen.ahab,
> 
> Saying that Artificer Armour, as defined within the game, doesn't exist within the fiction is one thing. We can compare sources and figure out if this is the case or not.
> 
> ...


I suppose I oversimplified my answer some, but I still go by what I said. Artificer armor, in the fluff, at it's basic level, is armor that has been modified for a purpose and the variations on said modifications would exist on a compendium, as would their uses. Better is subjective, and it would depend what you want done with it. 

And no, it wouldn't be like saying that. It would be like saying that one modified bolter isn't necessarily better than another, depending on what was done and on what you want to do with that bolter. 

Also, as far as how advanced they are goes, it would depend on how you define that.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> I suppose I oversimplified my answer some, but I still go by what I said. Artificer armor, in the fluff, ...


Cite your sources from the fluff then, please. 



> ... at it's basic level, is armor that has been modified for a purpose and the variations on said modifications would exist on a compendium, as would their uses. Better is subjective, and it would depend what you want done with it.


"Better is subjective" is valid when we're just talking about "better" as an adjective, period. _Where Artificer Armour is concerned, specifically,_ it is a *qualified fact* that it is better than standard power armour. The stated area where it is superior is in the degree of protection it provides.



> And no, it wouldn't be like saying that. It would be like saying that one modified bolter isn't necessarily better than another, depending on what was done and on what you want to do with that bolter.


That's fine; my point stands all the same. It's like someone arguing that a boltgun that is qualified as better (in terms of range, damage, etc.) than a normal boltgun in the game isn't necessarily better when it's in a work of fiction... even though the author uses the terminology that identifies it as being the article from the game.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> Cite your sources from the fluff then, please.


I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but if you expect me to riffle through every novel I have to find a passage that says "this mark of artificer armor is better than this mark of artificer at doing job X because reason 1, 2 and 3, but this artificer armor, which is the same mark as the first mark mentioned, is better than that mark at doing job x because reason 4, 5, and 6" you're out of your damn mind. 



Phoebus said:


> "Better is subjective" is valid when we're just talking about "better" as an adjective, period. _Where Artificer Armour is concerned, specifically,_ it is a *qualified fact* that it is better than standard power armour. The stated area where it is superior is in the degree of protection it provides.


Right, so every suit of artificer armor has all the same upgrades as every other suit of modified power armor and each one does that job equally well, regardless of initial design? Because I'm not arguing that said that improvements aren't made to the basic design. What I'm saying is that there would be no way of knowing what mark of artificer armor is better than any other mark of artificer armor because the modifications done would vary between any given suit. Even then, what if a certain mark of artificer armor was modified before advancements that were put into a later mark were even envisioned. What then? Is it still better because the magical artificer fairly smacked the suit with their golden stick? Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that, in the fluff, all we know about any given suit of artificer armor is that it was improved from the standard. 



Phoebus said:


> That's fine; my point stands all the same. It's like someone arguing that a boltgun that is qualified as better (in terms of range, damage, etc.) than a normal boltgun in the game isn't necessarily better when it's in a work of fiction... even though the author uses the terminology that identifies it as being the article from the game.


Well if we're we're only going to qualify things in the fluff based off of what's in the game why are we even having this conversation? Because if we're doing that then every suit of marine power is exactly as good as every other suit of marine power armor at doing any given thing, so every mark of marine power armor is exactly the same as every other mark of marine power armor, and there's the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the thread: every mark is exactly the same as every other mark, and every suit of artificer armor is exactly the same as every other suit of artificer armor. Seems simple to me.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> if you expect me to riffle through every novel I have to find a passage that says "this mark of artificer armor is better than this mark of artificer at doing job X because reason 1, 2 and 3, but this artificer armor, which is the same mark as the first mark mentioned, is better than that mark at doing job x because reason 4, 5, and 6" you're out of your damn mind.


I'm not going to get in the middle of this conversation specifically, but...

Is asking you to go through every novel you've read too much? Sure.

Is asking for you to cite some sources too much? Maybe just 3 or so? No, that's well within the bounds of reasonable. 

Not pointing at you specifically, Gen, but I've had a few conversations on the forum either stymied or side-stepped because people did not want to or were unable to cite sources to support their opinion. It's a bit of an alarming trend.

I mean, half the fluff contradicts the other half. I'd figure people would be able to back themselves up one way or another.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

hailene said:


> Not pointing at you specifically, Gen, but I've had a few conversations on the forum either stymied or side-stepped because people did not want to or were unable to cite sources to support their opinion. It's a bit of an alarming trend.


Its hard to quote what you have just noticed in a read-by (there just are so much of any fluff). Its odd actually agree with both of you, but I tend to go for: "Quote the page or at least the book if practical."


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but if you expect me to riffle through every novel I have to find a passage that says "this mark of artificer armor is better than this mark of artificer at doing job X because reason 1, 2 and 3, but this artificer armor, which is the same mark as the first mark mentioned, is better than that mark at doing job x because reason 4, 5, and 6" you're out of your damn mind.


That's not what I'm asking for at all. You reiterated Vaz's posing, which is that "game mechanics do not equate to fluff", and that Artificer Armour isn't necessarily "more advanced, or better, or anything." I responded accordingly. With respect, when someone says "this is not better than that," I would think there is _some_ data being sourced. So, if you say "Artificer Armour isn't necessarily ... better than power armour", I'm assuming you've seen something, somewhere, that states that.



> Right, so every suit of artificer armor has all the same upgrades as every other suit of modified power armor and each one does that job equally well, regardless of initial design?


That's not what I said, though. I'm specifically speaking about the prevalence (or lack thereof) of Artificer Armour in the fluff. I'm also refuting the idea that, if said equipment exists within novels, etc., it doesn't correlate with what is described within the game.



> Because I'm not arguing that said that improvements aren't made to the basic design. What I'm saying is that there would be no way of knowing what mark of artificer armor is better than any other mark of artificer armor because the modifications done would vary between any given suit.


Then we are not in disagreement where the above points are concerned. For what it's worth, though, I think your previous posts could have been stated better. But hey, this is coming from a guy who's routinely guilty of run-on sentences. :wink:

Here's what I think one could state with some degree of conviction:

1. _Generally speaking,_ with the exception of Mk V, the preponderance of the marks of power armour are improvements over those that came before.

Mk II, for instance, is better than Mk I, in that you could, well, be a _Space_ Marine with it: it is environmentally sealed, allowing for void operations and protecting its wearer from chemical and biological weapons, radiation, etc. Mk IV was an overall improvement over Mk II: it was more efficient, lighter, more protective, and was easier to produce and maintain. Its manufacture reflected an increase in knowledge and materials newly available to the Imperium. These notes go back to the earlier 40k articles, but we know something just as important, and that is the Imperium's intent: _Mk IV was meant to replace Mk II_ (unlike Mk III, which was just developed for a specific role).

Where Mk VI is concerned, _Deliverance Lost_ at the very least proposes it is an overall improvement over Mk IV:



> “Protection is no better than the Mark IV, but the internal systems are far more efficient. The external cabling you see is supplemented by back-ups within the armour plate itself without compromising defence or adding excessive weight. Auto-senses have also been improved. In particular, auditory and olfactory pick-ups are much more sensitive. You will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that the stealth capabilities of this suit exceed that of any other variant.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Gav Thorpe. “Deliverance Lost.” iBooks.


Again, improvements without tradeoffs.

Mk VII is interchangeable with Mk VI, but has an improved chest plastron, which provides better protection. Mk VIII is modified Mk VII; a gorget protects the neck, and all the torso cabling is now beneath the armor.

2. *Known* benefits of Artificer Armour include better protection (see previous post) and ornamentation. One can plausibly argue that Artificers can enhance power armour with other improvements as well, but the above is _what we know for a fact._

Given this information, we can reasonably assume that Mk II Artificer Armour made during the Great Crusade but not modified in subsequent eras will not be as good as Mk IV Artificer Armour. Why? Because the baseline for Mk IV (which is already superior to Mk II where protection is concerned) is superior to the baseline of of Mk II. Same with Mk VII Artificer Armour versus, say, Mk IV Artificer Armour.

Now, might there be a case where a Great Crusade Artificer was better than any post-Heresy Artificer, resulting in some Mk IV Artificer Armour suits providing better protection than post-Heresy Mk VII Artificer Suits? Sure. Is there a case to be made, however, that even a _significant minority_ of Great Crusade-era Mk IV Artificer Armour suits being superior to post-Heresy Mk VII Artificer Armour suits, across the board? I don't believe so.

Now, here's a question might be of interest to those still monitoring this topic: does the knowledge exist to basically advance past marks of power armour to current capabilities, reducing the differences between (e.g.) Mk II and Mk VIII to just cosmetic ones? That is, can an Artificer who wishes to give a Chapter champion something truly special refurbish a suit of Mk II power armour so that it includes all (or almost all) the benefits of Mk VIII: All the sensory improvements, additional stealth capabilities, redundancies, increased energy efficiency, etc., of Marks IV-VIII?



> Well if we're we're only going to qualify things in the fluff based off of what's in the game why are we even having this conversation?


You're taking my point somewhere that was not intended. The "fluff" are the sidebars, articles, short stories, audio dramas, novellas, novels, and campaign books that are released to provide background to the setting of Warhammer 40k. All of the "fluff" is derived from concepts created around the game. Thus, when an author uses a term used to describe something that exists within the game, and the reader is familiar with the game and the item in question, it is bizarre to argue that said item might not possess the traits attributed to it in the game.

But that's neither here nor there, because if I understand you correctly you're not actually arguing that Artificer Armour isn't superior to non-Artificer power armour.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Essentially, yeah. I had a big thing made up, but then I managed to tap the corner of my screen and closed the browser. But yes, that's basically it.


----------

