Silk Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Hello guys, I have a little question for a friend of mine. What do you think is the most common armour for pre Heresy Iron Hands? I think MK3 but I don't know Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Definitely Mk III Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4361739 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olis Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Pretty much MkIII. The Iron Hands specific stuff at FW is mostly, if not completely, based on MkIII armour. If I'm not mistaken, of course. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4361740 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iduddy Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Most of the Loyalist had Mk 2 and 3, since the Warmaster deliberately slated the more advanced Mk4 armors to what would become the Traitor legions. This changed in during the Heresy as more Mk4 became available to the Loyalists, along with Mk5 suits. Eventually by the time of the Siege of Terra Mk7 started to appear, much in the same way Mk8 does in 40k. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4361744 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silk Posted April 11, 2016 Author Share Posted April 11, 2016 I thought maybe mk4 for the standard tacticals and then the specific units for the iron hands. I just asked google and found mk4 upgrade kits, now I am confused -.- Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4361748 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Actually, only Mk IV shoulder pads. This is pretty much Mk III: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4361750 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 I've always been a bit perplexed by the IH upgrade set coming with mkiii and mkiv elements. But who needs upgrade kits when you've got some of the best legion specific unit sculpts ever! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4361762 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silk Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 Damn guys u are right, so we have to look for what we do ^^ maybe an alliance with my raven guard... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362346 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROBOcaster Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I've always been a bit perplexed by the IH upgrade set coming with mkiii and mkiv elements. But who needs upgrade kits when you've got some of the best legion specific unit sculpts ever! They didn't always you may remember back before B@C they kit had MKIII shoulder pads not MKIV and the only reason they have the MKIV shoulders is to be compatible with B@C, hope that clears things up. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362441 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyner Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Iron Hands and Iron Warriors look best in MK3 Iron Armour to me. The heavy duty legions get the heavy armour! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362456 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Iron Hands and Iron Warriors look best in MK3 Iron Armour to me. The heavy duty legions get the heavy armour! MkIII epitomises Inviolate Armour perfectly imo. Add Death Guard to that list as well. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362462 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I'm old school, Saint Rick of Priestley wrote that no Space Marine force was ever solely equipped with MkIII as it's drawbacks outweighed its advantages in any situation outside it's specialised niche. I find it most baffling therefor that almost everyone besides me (in general, not just this thread) feels that Iron Hands and Iron Warriors - two of the most cold and calculating legions - should choose to clad their warriors in detrimental armour.. #GrumpOldFart Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362632 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus1138 Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I'm old school, Saint Rick of Priestley wrote that no Space Marine force was ever solely equipped with MkIII as it's drawbacks outweighed its advantages in any situation outside it's specialised niche. I find it most baffling therefor that almost everyone besides me (in general, not just this thread) feels that Iron Hands and Iron Warriors - two of the most cold and calculating legions - should choose to clad their warriors in detrimental armour.. #GrumpOldFart As best I can tell, MkIII was a modified version of MkII designed for the kinds of missions that Terminator armor is often used for (MkIII pre-dates Tactical Dreadnought Armor). In most legions it would never be standard issue, it was given to boarding marines, siege units and the like for high intensity battles where its relative lack of speed and higher maintenance requirements wouldn't be as much of a concern. So in that respect it's "detrimental" in the sense that it has drawbacks that MkII and the later MkIV don't have. The Iron Hands as a legion specialize in the types of battles that MkIII is ideal for; direct, brutal conflicts where staying power is more important than maneuverability. They also have the technical expertise to overcome any maintenance issues. It makes sense for them to issue MkIII to standard squads in a way most other legions wouldn't consider. This goes for the Iron Warriors as well with their focus on siege warfare, and it's likely much more common in legions like the Death Guard and Imperial Fists. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362672 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 In Rick Priestley's writing MkIII was stated to be a *heavily* modified variant of MkII, having *reduced* rear armour to (somewhat) compensate for the weight of the frontal plates. Great if you're fighting in narrow corridors or tunnels where (with your brothers at your back) you know the enemy can only come from the front. Not so great in open battle where you could be outflanked by an enemy thrust at any time or surprised by fire from an enemy company hidden in one of a half dozen buildings half a mile behind you. Also a really bad idea in any environment where the enemy is firing artillery at you, ie: siege. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362730 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 In Rick Priestley's writing MkIII was stated to be a *heavily* modified variant of MkII, having *reduced* rear armour to (somewhat) compensate for the weight of the frontal plates. Great if you're fighting in narrow corridors or tunnels where (with your brothers at your back) you know the enemy can only come from the front. Not so great in open battle where you could be outflanked by an enemy thrust at any time or surprised by fire from an enemy company hidden in one of a half dozen buildings half a mile behind you. Also a really bad idea in any environment where the enemy is firing artillery at you, ie: siege.What does forge worlds latest write up say? Because that will be the version of mark 3 in their canon. Also, I totally agree with you. Mark 3 is for shock infantry. High intensity kinetic strikes. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362788 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRatfink Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 You could also argue that they would have definitely had a decent amount of MkIV as Ferrus turning traitor was all part of Horus' plan. The MkIV supplies would have been issued over months/years, so the Tenth would have definitely got their hands on some of this new tech armour that the Warmaster is throwing around. Although, I'm not denying that they do look great in MkIII because they definitely do. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4362858 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomMarine Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 You could also argue that they would have definitely had a decent amount of MkIV as Ferrus turning traitor was all part of Horus' plan. The MkIV supplies would have been issued over months/years, so the Tenth would have definitely got their hands on some of this new tech armour that the Warmaster is throwing around. Although, I'm not denying that they do look great in MkIII because they definitely do. This is pretty much how I justify the bac marines in my IH army when someone mention it And I'm pretty sure the the IH are one of the few chapters that can still produce mk4 not what fw book mentions it Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4363201 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 There is an art piece in book 6 of a Mk III with spliced in Mk IV replacement parts; notably half his chestplate. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4363211 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olis Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 There is an art piece in book 6 of a Mk III with spliced in Mk IV replacement parts; notably half his chestplate. This guy. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4363222 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Forge World seem to be -footing about on the armour fluff, you'd have expected them to put a basic primer in the first book, even if it covered just MkI-IV. Imperial Armour 10 mentions Iron Hands alongside the Red Scorpions as being notable for their ability to produce and maintain it in the 41st millennium. Iron Hands did have MkIV, this pic is buried away somewhere obscure in one of the books (Conquest I think): http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/a/a2/IH_Legion_Devastator.png/revision/latest?cb=20131105155901 The old fluff stated rather specifically that MkIV's adoption was 'half' complete, assuming that was literal then even with the traitors getting the lion's share (explains the DA chapter upgrade being MkII.. *cough*) there would have still been a lot floating around the loyalists ranks ~ the issue with MkIV was not having enough spare parts stockpiled to keep it functioning in the face of intense Astartes vs Astartes conflict, rather than actually having it to begin with. Addendum: The censored word was a common name for cat.. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4363354 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Hands Fanatic Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Forge World have stated that MkIII exchanges increased armour with overstrained servos, which reduce mobility & require increasing repairs. For the Xth Legion neither of these factors are an issue - they're so heavily mechanized that pretty much all their infantry would have transports, and their mastery of technology would mean frequent maintenance wouldn't be problematic. That said, they did still have decent stocks of MkIV for the reasons mentioned above - I'd imagine these would have prioritized distribution among specialists - those formations which would require better maneuverability and sensors (e.g recon squads, assault squads, seekers etc.) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4363372 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 If anyone is open to a little M2C-verse: Basically, upon becoming a space marine prior to the advent of Maximus Armor every legionary is issued a suit of Mark 2 Crusade Armor. Mark 3 Is essentially 'up-armored' Crusade Armor, in the same way the US up-armors it's vehicles. This has multiple fluff and fanon trade off. FW mentioned the wearing on the servos, but that is simply fixed with replacement servos after every battle. Personally, it appears like the IoM has functionally unlimited resources and replacement parts for power armor, so I don't see it becoming an issue to have large numbers of mark 3 legionaries prior to the heresy. The supply train is just a little larger for mark 3 heavy units, but even then legions like the IH circumvent that small limitation through bionics. When Maximus armor rolls out, crusade armor would have a wear out date. This could be years or decades later where forge world simply stop reducing replacement parts as mark 4 saturates the requirements. Because the heresy hit right in the middle of a force transition this all went out the window. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/321357-fluff-question-armour-iron-hands/#findComment-4363391 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.