Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, I'm kind of interested in what people might think of this.

Instead of wasting time thinking "which armour facing is it gonna hit on" blast weapons should hit against a seperate 'top armour.'

now, on something like a LR, that would be 14 anyway, but what about a leman russ?

So my suggestion is Top armour.

as in:
Rhino:
BS4 F-av 11 S-av 11 R-av 10 T-av 11

thoughts?

No. Just No.

We dont need to make it any more complex then what it already is.

Whats next, bottom AV??

whats wrong with it?
I think it would make things easier and faster.

maybe all blast templates should just hit against fron armour.

I really don't like arguments over which side it's on. because when you fire from the side and it scatters, really it should still hit against the side, but it doesn't!

I think the top armour idea is just cool!And the bottom thing is even cooler!
Oh,and we could do edge armour,in case its a no AP weapon

jp400 wrote:
Whats next, bottom AV??

Why not, with the Moloch and all

Captain Solon wrote:
I really don't like arguments over which side it's on. because when you fire from the side and it scatters, really it should still hit against the side, but it doesn't!

The rule book explains it by saying the the missile or projectile has missed, but the shrapnel still hits the vehicle, and hits the side of the vehicle the hole of the template is facing w/ half strength. This makes a good amount of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tony the guardsman wrote:I think the top armour idea is just cool!And the bottom thing is even cooler!
Oh,and we could do edge armour,in case its a no AP weapon

I agree, it is a cool idea...

The shrapnel idea doesn't really apply to all weapons anyways, such as the Hammerhead's Submunition

It would be nice if that rule were changed...


Maybe you could just substitute the side armor value for top and bottom. I actually played like that for a while, and its simple.

How about this then:
all blast weapons hit against side armour, regardless of landing. however if the hole of the template isn't over the tank, then it halves it's strength.

Captain Solon wrote:How about this then:
all blast weapons hit against side armour, regardless of landing. however if the hole of the template isn't over the tank, then it halves it's strength.

Sounds good. Looks like a very easy-applicable home rule.

How about this alternative:

Solon stops posting proposed rules until he's actually thought about them?

Valkyrie wrote:How about this alternative:

Solon stops posting proposed rules until he's actually thought about them?

Dude, dakka rule numero uno: be polite.

Really, this is the proposed rules section. He saw something that was causing some problems and he proposed a rule to what would not only make more sense but also make some things easier...

It was an interesting idea, and not that bad.

C'mon valk, thats not fair. I did think about this, guess what, I even playtested!

Stop attacking me.

There's a top armor value already.

It's called "rear".

really? I would have used side, but sure.

Kanluwen wrote:There's a top armor value already.

It's called "rear".

Please explain, I was just reading through the book about template weapons briefly and I didn't see that...

The top armor of a vehicle is generally going to be the same thickness as its weakest point, unless they explicitly design it expecting top down attacks.

It's why Javelins were designed to hit the top armor of enemy armored vehicles.

Interesting idea...

That would make sense...

I would have imagined the top to be the same as the side, and maybe the bottom to be the rear. (Or maybe rear -1)

kan, problem:

Speeehsmarheens must bee sespecting shots from the top, so they'd be prepared, but I see what you mean. it's the same reason the russians used bomb dogs to run under tanks.

Yah, in the grim dark future... there is ordnance... and lots of template weapons

how about front armout minus one (to a minimum of 10.)
because then it's deviable.

Captain Solon wrote:kan, problem:

Space Marines must be suspecting shots from the top, so they'd be prepared, but I see what you mean. it's the same reason the Russians used bomb dogs to run under tanks.

No, they don't. 'Standard' vehicles aren't designed to expect top-down antitank fire.

Take a look at the difference between 'vanilla' Leman Russ rear armor and the close-support versions(Demolisher, Punisher, Executioner). There's a minute difference, but there's a difference no less. The Demolisher last edition was described as having 'reinforced rear and top armor due to their usage in cityfighting' to explain it off. The Vindicator and a Shadowsword variant both had the same characteristic.

In short: Is not needed.

jp400 wrote:No. Just No.

We dont need to make it any more complex then what it already is.

Whats next, bottom AV??

I have actually had troops facing the bottom of an enemy vehicle, don't even ask how.

Dedrith wrote:

jp400 wrote:No. Just No.

We dont need to make it any more complex then what it already is.

Whats next, bottom AV??

I have actually had troops facing the bottom of an enemy vehicle, don't even ask how.

Probably not what happened to you...but on possibility.

Vehicle going over a bridge that has holes in it. A unit fires at it through one of the holes, from under the bridge.

I'm pretty sure you'd just use side armor, as in the rulebook it states the that the side armor represents the top armor, though I'd need to find the specific quote and page number.

IIRC vehicles have a top AV in COD. Otherwise I'd say no. You'll run into people who model guns higher up on (Wraith lord / Dread / Defiler ect) and claim they get Top AV. Just seems too complicated.

This is already in the game. Read barrage weapons hitting vehicles. top armour = side armour


Automatically Appended Next Post:
pg. 60 right side "Template and Blast Weapons against vehicles" Second bullet last sentence.

thankyou iggy.

Yeah, Top=Side

(and, in my group when it came up, Underside=Rear)

Aye. Space Marine Scout booby traps have rules that state that, if triggered by a vehicle, they always hit rear armour, to represent the mines going off and hitting the soft underbelly of the tank.

So, while I think your idea is generally a sound one, it is already covered in the rules.

Black Antelope wrote:Yeah, Top=Side

(and, in my group when it came up, Underside=Rear)

Yeah, this is how I would do it... but I might make underside rear -1 still because it is a much less likely spot to get hit than the rear.

It was for simplisty.

Although, it may be pretty accurate, as certainly now in RL the newer APC's have much thicker underside armour, to survive IEDs.

I woudl say use the side armour as the top armour.

i woudl argue against using it for all blast weapons though. The way i see it, all blast weapons are direct fire. They are fire at ground level and will therefore, even if they scatter, hit the side/front/rear armour depending on where the shot lands.

i woudl definately say use the top armour for weapons like ordnance and barrage, where the shells are lobbed up to land on top of the tergat anyway.