The 9 Mks of Power armor

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

 

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.

[lansalt]

This fan made image triggers me, it has too many rivet counting innacuracies (MkIV with round knees, seriously?)

[grailkeeper]

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 I read that pretty shortly after the launch of Primaris so those ideas may be out of date now.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

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

[SvenIronhand]

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. 

[Doghouse]

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.

[calgar101]

@Doghouse that makes much for sense and I hope it's still the case.

That picture is still a good resource.