Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Found here. An interesting picture of the nine* different general marks of power armor. The Mk 10 "Tacticus", used by the W40K's Primaris,is also included, but not the different subtypes(Phobos, Gravis,...). It's the first and only one, for now, who has several subtypes. *Some said that, the Mk 1 or "Thunder" is not a real power armor, because only the upper half part of its servo-motorised, making it more a "proto-power armor" than a real one. WAR 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lansalt Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 This fan made image triggers me, it has too many rivet counting innacuracies (MkIV with round knees, seriously?) SvenIronhand, AutumnEffect and Cenobite Terminator 2 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grailkeeper Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 I remember reading somewhere (I think an ADB post) that Mark 9 was initially meant to be a mystery it now means mixes between Mark 10 and all the other Marks. Some chapters either use a mix of older parts to honour relics, or for logistical reasons. I read that pretty shortly after the launch of Primaris so those ideas may be out of date now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, lansalt said: This fan made image triggers me, it has too many rivet counting innacuracies (MkIV with round knees, seriously?) Well, as you said,it's fan made. In the other hand,the model can be a local production or an ad hoc battlefield replacement or,...just a "lazy"/distracted/ starting/whatever artist. Any option can be correct. Anyway, if GW don't respect it's own games canon and background, it's a bit useless try to be "loyal" to it being just a fan, right? I mean, it's not healthy being "be more papist than the Pope". It's a personal opinion, of course,but after so many years in this hobby and after see too many things, I believe that my opinion is well founded. I think... Edited October 9 by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf Arikel, Cenobite Terminator and grailkeeper 1 2 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SvenIronhand Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 22 hours ago, lansalt said: This fan made image triggers me, it has too many rivet counting innacuracies (MkIV with round knees, seriously?) Variance is the name of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doghouse Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 I am probably in the minority but I personally think mark ten is a misunderstanding. During the initial interview with Jes Goodwin on the Vox Cast podcast he explained it as the letter X and not the numeral ten with it effectively being a collection of armours. The idea was X was a starting armature point then extra plates were added or taken away to create variants such as Gravis or Phobos. Whether this has been retconned since I have no idea but the idea of it being a project x breaking tradition with the numbering made it fairly interesting and maybe a secret title for GW staff during development. I think the only truely acknowledged missing armour mark is probably the theoretical Imperial pattern mentioned in the WD article covering armour through the Heresy. Felix Antipodes, Marshal Reinhard and calgar101 2 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calgar101 Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 @Doghouse that makes much for sense and I hope it's still the case. That picture is still a good resource. Doghouse and Felix Antipodes 2 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now