[Phoebus]

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]

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.