Not so long ago, I was discussing the armour situation with a friend who has recently got into 40k, and was in the enviable position of learning all of the background and reading about it for the first time, and was specifically really getting into the history of marines.

He wondered why the suits of armour were not uniform throughout a squad - I told him that it was due to different styles being produced at different times, with each armour mark generally acting to improve on a perceived shortcoming of a previous mark. "Ah I get you", he said, "so the officers can get the best and newest armour?"

I think I laughed, as he had managed to get the situation entirely the wrong way around in this case. But, later, sitting down to think about it, I realised that he had actually made a very good point. Why is that, generally, there are members of a squad (both in 'fluff' articles and actual model representations), wearing the older and in some ways more inferior armour?

Now when describing the '40k' universe this question is very easily answered. First of all, the Astartes are incredibly obsessive in their sense of history and prior accomplishments. Wearing a suit of armour worn by a previous hero would be deemed a great honour. Secondly, we have been lead to believe that the production and maintenance of armoured suits nothing like as prolific or as accomplished as it had been previously, with the science of the imperium reduced to little more than a religious dogma. In this situation it would make sense to 'rig' suits of armour from various original components, and to make the best of what they have at hand.

However, I considered how this situation might have been much different for the events during the great crusade and leading up to the Horus Heresy.

Much is spoken of how that time was very much a 'golden age' in terms of technology for arming the marines - ever since the Mk1 thunder suit used in the unification wars on Terra, power armour had been developing to enable marines to fight in more and more extreme environments, each suit adding new features which overcame the previous ones shortcomings. For example, the mk4 Maximus offered an improved power system, armament and manouverability when compared to the mk3 Iron armour.

Due to these constant innovations, and the relative abundance of industry, I can imagine new armours being supplied to marines on a constant basis. In such a situation, why would it make sense to have officers and specilists equipped in outmoded armour? You can imagine the marine captain, going down and slowly asphixiating, "damn, wish i'd got the latest model with the cable protection!" with his dying breath! Furthermore many of the psychological reasons for the marines to wear older and more revered armour during the great crusade would not be present - after all none of it was that old to begin with, and so little sentimental value could have developed - furthermore the entire ethos of the Great Crusade being towards scientific objectivity!

It is possible to draw real world parrallels to support this. During WW2, the most skilled and experienced German tank commanders were given control of tanks that befit their station. For example, Michael Wittman (one of the top tank aces), progressed from a self-propelled gun, through to a Panzer III and then finally the Konigstiger, in which he destroyed dozens of enemy tanks. Placing the best possible equipment into the best hands makes perfect sense in any combat situation, real or otherwise!

So, as a conclusion to this, I would like to suggest the possiblity of officers and other veterans/specialists to be wearing perhaps mk6 corvus armour towards the end of the great crusade, and at the very least mk4 or mk5, where the expedition fleet could reasonably be expected to receive supplies from forge worlds. It would seem to be supported by events in Battle for the Abyss, where the Ultramarine officers are wearing the latest mk6 Corvus armour.

As this was more of an 'essay' (I've been writing so many recently, I think I've lost the ability to communicate in any other fashion!), rather than a question per se, i thought it better suited to the 'articles' section, but mods feel free to move it if you think it should be.

In any case, I would be interested to hear what other peoples opinions are on the subject. :)

Totally agree. The use of older equipment is a result of a mindset that became prominient only after the Heresy.

Certain Legions also liked older marks out of aesthetics. The Death Guard and Iron Warriors are staunch Mk3 enthusiasts (and dare I say the World Eaters probably liked it too) due to it's brutal appearance.

Is it possible that senior marines could have the new Mark of armour they've just received artificed to resemble their favorite suit, for example?

[EDIT]: Wait a second, if they have Mk6, then what was the point in making Mk5?

Surely this is answered by...

Terminator Armour.

:huh: Concise, but completely uninformative. Please elaborate.

Actually, going by the old Space Marine Armour article, it is not necessarily true that later marks are better. For example, the article states Mk II was seen by many as the best of all the Space Marine armours, although its overlapping plates make it hard to repair (I can dig out a quote later if neccessary). Mk III offers better frontal protection, so is in one way an improvement (also many Legions prized its brutal appearace) but was much heavier and less mobile, so less useful in open battlefields. Mk IV included many new technological developments (although arguably was not an improvement on Mk II, see above) but again proved hard to repair and was not favoured by many legions who prefered the Mk III due to their tactical preferences and its appearance). Mk V was a stopgap measure, and proved durable, easy to repair and maintain, but suffered several problems due to overheating, exposed cables and poor quality materials. Mk VI and Mk VII proved both effective and easy to maintain, and so became standard, but were not necessarily any better in combat than Mk IV or even Mk II.

So while I agree that in many Legions officers would indeed have been equipped with the latest marks of armour, in others they may well have preferred to keep their older suit, either because they were farmiliar with its operation and performance, or because they genuinely saw it as superior. Depends on the Legion really.

@Weiss: I think the current background seems to be moving towards having Mk VI introduced very soon after Mk V... i.e. Mk V being introduced almost as soon as the first news of Heresy reaches Terra/Mars (i.e. between Istvaan III and Istvaan V) and Mk VI being introduced soon afterwards. What point exactly are the events in Battle for the Abyss taking place? In addition, Mk V seems to be something that could be created by Marine artificiers even without a full resupply of armour from Mars, as they had many of the components available already.

Placing first company Veterans in Terminator Armour and fallen heroes into Dreadnoughts, IMO, seems to adhere to this attitude.

Pacific: What a fascinating thread! A truly excellent idea; so thankyou for posting!

Before I add my thoughts on the matter, I would like to mention a couple of points. Firstly an apology for the vagueness of my sources (the following is all written from memory, as I don't have my Librarium with me); secondly I will not be using information from Battle for the Abyss as the current ban is still in place.

At the time of The Kaban Project (Collected Visions exclusive story) the general issue of Mark IV armour is only half complete (for those who require a chronological reference for this story, Horus's Terminator armour is about to be sent to Horus in the Isstvan System). So there are some Legions at this point who do not have any Mark IV Maximus armour (or at least extremely limited supplies of the armour).

This situation is further exacebated by the refusal by some Legions, to part with their Mark III Iron Armour. Despite its comparative limitations, many Legions want to keep the armour because it was the most visually terrifying and brutal of all the armours. These Legions (which are not specifically named) continue to use the armour for assault squads and ceremonial guards.

This excerpt gives a very clear indication that the brutal aspect is considered to far outweigh any practical inconveniences caused by any perceived 'inferiority' of the armour. More importantly however the excerpt gives us a clear insight into the mindset of the Space Marines themselves; that the value of an armour was not merely measured by functionality.

We are told in Flight of the Eisenstein that the two major armour production facilities on Mars (which is also implied in The Kaban Project), have been captured for Horus's cause by the Mechanicum loyal to Horus. I believe that Regulus also informs Horus that those loyal to the Emperor have been crushed. More importantly however he informs Horus that he is now able to supply Horus with required supplies. This will have a vast impact on which Legions receive which armour supplies from Mars.

I disagree.

There are many clear indications that even 'comparatively recent' events and armours are highly valued by the Marines. An obvious example would be Battle Captain Garro, with his antique eagle cuirass (which is envied by others). He places great value on this piece of armour which is worn not only in ceremony but also battle: furthermore it is somthing which is handed down to all Captains of the 7th Company along with the honorific title of Battle-Captain. We can consider; Lucius's antique TerraWatt Clan forged sword, the dent on Loken's bolter handle (created by Ork axe at Ullanor) which he refuses to have removed, the oaths of moment and litanies on armour which list battle honours that the individual marine has fought in: and finally the attachment of many marines to their Mark III armour.

These examples demonstrate that the Marines in the Pre-Heresy period have already placed a great deal of importance on their Legion history thus far; that ancient armours, weapons, battle honours and traditions (and many other aspects) all have an intrinsic value and are highly prized rather than seen as impractical and outdated items.

The Space Marine Legions are perhaps better compared to the Legions of Ancient Rome; than to the great Panzer Ace.

The Roman Legions used various armours dependent upon supply, the enemy they were fighting and the enviroment in which they were operating. For example, against taller Celtic Warriors armed with downwards slashing weapons;the laminated metal armour-with its shoulder defences (lorica segmentata) were employed. However in the deserts of Parthia, and against the Parthians themselves such metal armour was impractical. Furthermore value was placed on armour, so mixtures of armour within individual units would not have been uncommon. Armour also could be adapted for the needs of a specific campaign: on Trajan's Campaigns in Dacia the armour of the legionary had to be reinforced to counter the deadly falx weapons of the Dacians.

In a similar way the Space Marines would make use of certain armours, dependent on their needs. Mark III armour of course was favoured for its brutal aspect and protection it offered in assaults. But there is also mention of 'stealth armour' used by the Alpha Legion (Legion). So there is some focus on specialism, but individual preference would also be important. Like the Romans the Space Marines also place great value on the armour and on their Legion traditions; it is these very aspects which forge and positively contribute towards the Legions identity.

Officers, veterans and specialists would not have used the latest armour,just because it was 'new.'

Personal preference, the intrinsic value placed on older armours, legion tradition, the specialised role and needs of individual squads and finally the logistics of availabilty and supply would all have a much larger impact on what was worn.

Ok well thanks for your replies guys!

Looking back at what I originally wrote, and taking on some of these comments, I think perhaps a revision of the idea is in order.

First of all, I think the individuals marines choice of armour very much depended upon their legion. As Weiss and Vespasian have mentioned, those wanting a 'brutal' appearance to their armour, such as the World Eaters and Death Guard I can imagine favouring the mk3.

However, the original jist of my argument was that many of the reasons marines use older armour marks within the 40k universe, do not necessarily hold true during the period of the great crusade.

So! *cracks knuckles in fingers and places some tabac in his pipe*

I agree in the sense that certain armour types are more suited to particular environs. For example, the mk3 is ideal for boarding actions because of its thick frontal armour, and for the psycholigical impact already noted by Vespasian. However, there are many legions who I would class as being more pragmatic in their choice of armour, and so when choosing the best 'all round' option would define mk4 as an improvement - its use of plasteel gives better protection against plasma/energy weapons for example. The 40k lexicanum states that, "Incorporating recycling systems, unlimited power generation, a powerful machine spirit and basic medicae functions the Mk.IV enhances a Marine's fighting and survival capabilities manyfold"

Similarly mk6 is an even further improvement over this, with greater manouerability, durability and best of all 'boot spikes' :)

So yes, I think there will be certain suits of armour more suitable to particluar roles, be it mk3, terminator or a 'stealth' type armour, but for general marines in a tactical roll, there have been relative improvements between each armour type.

OK I agree with this. However, what I should have made more clear in my original post is that I don't think of it in terms of black or white - that they either have reverence for past deeds, or they do not. However, in terms of shades of grey, there is far less room for sentimentality within the great crusade than there is in the 40th millenium. Those marines have had over 10,000 years of history and background to thier accomplishments, and it dictates almost every aspect of their being. The examples you have quoted Vespasian should be completely expected - but, I can imagine this reverance of the past being far less important to a marine in the great crusade than those in the 41st millenium.

Also, in purely practical terms, older pieces of armour which had been damaged either beyond repair, or so that their efficiency was reduced, would almost certainly be replaced by a better mark if possible, something made possible by the greater amount of supplies/armour and industry available. There would not be the situation of the 41st millenium, where the impression is given that armours do not function as well as they might, and with suits cobbled together from various other pieces.

Finally, by this post I wasn't trying to say that "all marine officers and veterans should wear new armour marks lol", but merely that the situation is not quite as cut and dry as the situation 10,000 years later.

Apologies for mentioning Battle for the Abyss, I deliberately made no effort to state anything that could give away the plot information or anything that might hint at the course of the story and events. Certainly anyone looking at the front cover would know there are ultramarines in the book! In any case, it was the fact that the ultramarine is wearing mk6 corvus armour that provides much support for this argument!


I'm sure there may be some other arguments, but right now the opening ceremony of the Olypics is on and making it impossible to concentrate, I may add more when its finished ^_^

The book indicates that the events are happening at the same general time that Horus has called the assorted Legions to the Istvaan system, i.e. before the Heresy is open. (I don't think this is too much of a spoiler!)

Even the most pragmatic Legion, as with all the others, would be subject to the limitations enforced on them (caused by various circumstances) which impacted severely on the logistical supply of certain armours.

It is clear from the sources that some Legions lacked this 'Maximus' armour. With the subsequent capture of the armour manufactorums of Mars by those loyal to Horus, which interupted and stoped the distribution of this armour, it is logical to believe that those Legions who had not received their supply (particularly those loyal to the Emperor), never received it.

Furthermore as Red Sorceror points out the Mark II armour was considered to be one of the best produced; so many pragmatic Legions would have fallen back on these older Marks as circumstances permitted. If Legions did not have supplies of certain armours then they would not have been able to repair them with more recent Marks of armour.

I personally believe that the Legions reverence for their individual identity, accomplishments, traditions and history is every bit as strong and important in the 31st Millenium as it is in the 41st. This aspect I perceive as being integral and fundamental to the very nature of Space Marines themselves; whether they are fighting in the Wars of Unification, The Great Crusade, the Horus Heresy or any other period. I had hoped that the examples I used previously would have illustrated and supported this point.

OK I agree with most of your points there Vespasian (bar the alleged quality of Mk2 - the only thing I have read concerning its value was comparing it to Mk1 thunder armour, which was in many ways was the equivalent of Ned Kelly's armour - ok, slight exageration, but it cannot be compared to later marks!)

It might be possible to ascertain from your arguments that pre-heresy marines both behaved and were armoured in exactly the same way as their 41st millenium counterparts. Personally, I agree that the examples you cited were evidence of an attachment to arms and armour - after all, the Astartes are not drones, and it would be relatively 'unhuman' of them not to do so, especially after many hundreds of years of combat.

However, being unable to convince you of the differences I percieve in the psychology of marines pre and post heresy, and their attitudes towards their equipment (as well as question marks surrounding the availability and supply of it), this does point to one of the beauties of pre-heresy collecting and modelling - that by its very nature, not all of the information is written as doctrine within 40k rulebooks and codex's, and that coming up with possiblities such as this is made possible by the vast grey areas left inbetween events described in the great crusade.

Yes, a description is given here and there, and there is some quite detailed knowledge in some regards, but it is impossible to unoquivically say whether something may or not be the case in the vast majority of instances. To do so is to attempt to cast a copyright over something that essentially only exists in the imagination of those who created the universe and those who have enjoyed conceptualising about it.

This is one of the reasons I and I'm sure many others enjoy the great crusade and pre-heresy period, theres just that little bit more room for 'yes, but'

The answers to most of Pacific's questions can be found here: in the Formative Armour article, which is posted in the Adeptus Astartes section.

This makes me wonder why Pacific hadn't read the article, or why those who had didn't point him towards it?

I don't know I started typing and the words kind of happened ^_^

Really my comments were just to challenge the assumptions made about armour usage in great-crusade/pre-heresy legions, rather than a discussion concerning the actual armours themselves

Just a quick point on your percieved inferiority of MkII Pacific... Segmented armour has been a valued addition to many armed forces over the ages. Segmented plates often offer higher individual strength than a large armoured panel, segments can be replaced with more ease than a large plate and the additional protection offered by "banded" armour is most apparent when struck by a blow... The plates themselves are angled to divert the main energies of the blow away from the centre line of the body.

I dont have sources to quote this from but i have made extensive studies into armour variants.

However i almost fully agree with your reasoning in your original post. It would make sense for the best of the best to be equipped with the best of the best. (Im not discounting the other points about reverence towards previous events and achievements or the personal taste of a marine wanting to look big and bad... Just saying that the sensible option would be for the higher ranking elements of the legions to be equipped in the newest gear... But as we all know... Marines are far from "sensible")

There are several reasons Gagoc.

The Space Marine Armour article which it is based upon; was originally printed in White Dwarf 129 all the way back in 1990. It was later (I believe in 1991) included in the yellow Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader Compilation. So the information itself is very old.

This information (whilst some points are still useful) is gradually being eclipsed and superceeded by more current information. Furthermore alot of the actual pertinent information for this discussion is not to be found in the article itself, but is scattered throughout other more modern Horus Heresy sources.

In addition as Pacific points out, the debate was not about the specific marks of armour themselves; so there was little point in directing Pacific to a source that (because of the above reasons) would not address the questions and interesting points that he has raised.

Pacific:

I agree with you. The books only represent specific chronological pinpoints, through which we are afforded small and minute glimpses into a much wider world. There is a vast amount of things that we do not see, or are made aware of: an aspect that I really like as it allows for an individual's freedom of creativity.

This is somthing that makes the hobby so enjoyable and allows for such a wealth of ideas to be discussed and debated on this forum.

Vespasian, I wasn't just commenting on the Armour Marks discussion.
I was also talking about the parts of the original article, and my version, that informed you about the mix of armours and why high-ranking officers tended to wear the older armours. Well, at least in 40K.

The sections entitled 'Marine Artificers' and 'Individualised Armour'.

I'm surprised that with your own familiarity with the article you weren't mentioning it as a source!

And I do know the original article can be found in the 'White Dwarf Warhammer 40,000 Compilation', as that is where I drew mine from. I'm sure I've told you that before?

You should quote the relevant bit on this thread then Gagoc!

I don't have an omnipotent recollection of all warhammer articles ever written you know (although there is the possiblity that Vespasian does you know)..

Is there the possiblity... that the person posting as Vespasian is ..... AN IMPOSTER?? :o

;)

I think that your ending comment: 'Well, at least in 40k', along with the answers given in my previous post, illustrate clearly why the information wasn't used in a discussion which was primarily concerned with the 31st Millenium.

It was precisely because of my familiarity with the article, and a wide range of other sources, that the article wasn't used. Because of this knowledge I knew that the pertinent and much more relevant information for the discussion was actually to be found elsewhere.

I am well aware that you drew your augmented and embellished formative armour article, in part from the aforementioned original article; and furthermore that you know where to find the original article.

However my comment was not actually mentioned for your benefit but rather for the benefit of all our members.

There are actually some members who will not be aware of where this particular source comes from. I believe that it is fundamentally important when using old sources to provide members with not only a precise chronological context for the source; but also the exact origin of the source itself. This empowers and permits individual members to make an informed choice in assesing the validity of the information provided. This good practice also ensures that the member is able to check and access this information in its original format for themselves,should they wish to. This is particularly important when an online source (for example your Formative Armour Article), differs fairly extensively from an original source.

I'm sure that you Gagoc appreciate that this practice serves to benefit all of our members, rather than just those that are 'in the know'.

Pacific:

Mmmm....you know you could be right there! :D

Another very interesting point! :P

If this is the case then I'm very interested to know what/who do you think is the real Vespasian; and what/who do you think is the impostor Vespasian?