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.

In Rogue Trader/1st Edition (I Think) that there was just Top Armour and Under Armour. I think now there should be Front, Side, Back, Top and Under. Would be much more realistic and as said, would help Ordnance/Barrage or even Blast/ Large Blast Template Weapons. Also, if a Vehicle was Immobilised showing its under armour, it should be easier to destroy in my opinion.

Kanluwen wrote:Rear armor value=both top and bottom armor.

They'd all be roughly the same thickness in regards to the actual construction.

Wrong.

Side armor = top armor
Rear armor = bottom armor

In 40k.

In real life; it depends on the tank, model, modifications..etc. etc.

The undersides of tanks are very thick now-a-days...

Too much experience with mines in WW2 really...

Che-Vito wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Rear armor value=both top and bottom armor.

They'd all be roughly the same thickness in regards to the actual construction.

Wrong.

Side armor = top armor
Rear armor = bottom armor

In 40k.

In real life; it depends on the tank, model, modifications..etc. etc.

Remember Hunter-Killer Missiles and Tau Seeker Missiles being stated in fluff as striking "top armor"?

What was the armor value you were supposed to use for that again?

Oh right. Rear armor value.

No they don't?...

Last time I checked they didn't and that's why they're useless.

They're just fired as a missile with BS 5 and don't require line of sight from the vehicle to the target.

Try reading the Tau and Imperial Guard/Space Marine codices prior to the latest ones.

That's the point... those aren't current...

The missiles were OP like that, so it was changed...

The missiles had exactly the same effect "like that".
They just simplified the rules, and kept the fluff in place.

Kanluwen wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Rear armor value=both top and bottom armor.

They'd all be roughly the same thickness in regards to the actual construction.

Wrong.

Side armor = top armor
Rear armor = bottom armor

In 40k.

In real life; it depends on the tank, model, modifications..etc. etc.

Remember Hunter-Killer Missiles and Tau Seeker Missiles being stated in fluff as striking "top armor"?

What was the armor value you were supposed to use for that again?

Oh right. Rear armor value.

Fluff doesn't matter. Rules matter.

Cityfight, Cities of Death, etc. etc.

Top Armor = Side Armor.

You need to use rules instead of fluff to construct valid arguments.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:...And the sherman, the Pershing, the Cromwell, Souma, KV-1, IS-2 ....

All the tanks you listed are 60-70 years old... I would hardly say you're using up-to-date data.... Even the T-72 has effectively thicker top armor (due to ERA and the such), much less "current" generation vehicles such as the Abrams, Cheiftain (UK), Leopard 1 and 2 (German), etc... Even with the tanks you mentioned, it would depend on what iteration. The Sherman alone went through six Alpha versions and dozens of varients, which changed armor thickness and contour. And that tank was designed in the 1930's up to the 1970's! Heck, it is still in production today!

Homework.

Thats because WWII tanks are much more compareable to 40k tanks than modern tanks. And in fact the 40k tanks are mostly inspired by WW tanks.

The serial runs of the shermans had weaker top armour. I think thats what counts not alphas or rare variants.

,,Homework" is a very silly comment btw.

Che-Vito wrote:
Fluff doesn't matter. Rules matter.

Cityfight, Cities of Death, etc. etc.

Cityfight stated that attacks from above were made using the vehicle's rear armor value, unless it had Reinforced or Siege Armor upgrades(ex: Leman Russ Demolishers, Stormblades, or Vindicators), in which case it used the vehicle's side armor value.

Couldn't find anything whatsoever in Cities of Death saying that top armor=side armor. The closest I could find was the Plunging Fire stratagem, where if the target is a non-skimmer vehicle and is an obscured target, it will only count as such on a D6 roll of 6, rather than the normal 4+.
Which tells us absolutely nothing about the armor values.

Top Armor = Side Armor.
You need to use rules instead of fluff to construct valid arguments.

Pft. Rules schmules. If GW can't keep their own crap straight, why should I use their examples to construct valid arguments?
But there's two examples for you.

Plus: Top armor is a useless value, because very rarely do you actually see anything approximating tanks being struck from above, and it adds another punishment factor to armies that can't field Grav Tanks.

it's too complex to use Top Armour in games, as there's only really a few weapons that can be said to hit it. It is also hard to define top armour on some vehicles.

Hits on the side armour use the top armour value unless it's a Tuesday, in which case the bottom armour value is replaced with a Demolisher Cannon and the firer takes a S10 Ordnance hit (large blast, scatters normally) unless his name is Ezekiel.

Oh wait, that's the Arizona tournament FAQ...

Cityfight rules make it just fine.

Top armor is side armor.

If a weapon were to flavorfully hit "top armor", then its description would state that it always hits side armor.


Like in Cityfight, the individual codecies would then take countermeasures with specific units such as Demolishers stating that their "top armor" is actually equivalent to their front armor.


It would add a great amount of tactics to the game so long as the complexity is minimalized by keeping all the special rules in the weapon's description. Flavorfully we know that the mortar/HK/Mawloc/mine is hitting top/bottom armor. However, for the sake of less Core Rules, the weapon is hitting side/rear armor.

Apocalypse also states that attacks from above(flyers) hit side armour, so that's another point for that arguement.

I'm on the camp of Top = Side.

And what basis are you determining that 40k tanks are more akin to WW2 tanks? Sponsons? Turret design? This doesn't really hold water.

I'd haven't seen a single piece of fiction, fluff or information in existance of 40k that says something along the lines of 'vulnerable top armour', as they do often for rear.

Added to the fact that most heavy engagements involving tank formations also include heavy artillery components, common sense leans toward top being reinforced a bit as well(which is supported by the Barrage rules).

Kanluwen wrote:Pft. Rules schmules. If GW can't keep their own crap straight, why should I use their examples to construct valid arguments?

Here we are, in the forum named "Proposed Rules." Discussing a proposed rule. Comments like, "Rules schmules" and trying to define rules based on outdated (by two editions!) fluff are not good ways to lend credence to your arguments.

SaintHazard wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pft. Rules schmules. If GW can't keep their own crap straight, why should I use their examples to construct valid arguments?

Here we are, in the forum named "Proposed Rules." Discussing a proposed rule. Comments like, "Rules schmules" and trying to define rules based on outdated (by two editions!) fluff are not good ways to lend credence to your arguments.

Actually...the fluff's not outdated. You'll also note that I didn't just make a fluff argument, given that Codex: Cityfight did specify that strikes against "Top Armor" were made using Rear Armor Values, unless the vehicle had the Siege Armor upgrade in which case you used the Side Armor Value.

But I digress.

The rules, however, are outdated. And that should be fixed. Hunter-Killer Missiles for the Guard are completely overcosted and absolutely useless with the current setup.

Plus, this is a ridiculous Proposed Rule. They've tried it before. It didn't work. They dropped it.

Sure, as long as the top armor = the front armor .... If i were designing tanks id armor the top just as heavily, its the undercarriage that you skimp on the armor ... any fool can have an rpg up on the second story ... would be a poorly designed vehicle.

an rpg might as well be a bb gun against a MBT. (slight exaggeration) Tanks still have to worry about terrain, and armoring the top of a tank that heavily will raise it's center of gravity, making it more prone to rollover or getting stuck, plus I'm pretty sure putting more strain on it's engine/ drive train. And that's just on modern tanks, which are much wider and longer than 40k tanks. If a LR was that heavily armored up top, with it's already ridiculously high profile, it'd roll like a bastard every time you hit a slope. As has already been brought up, mines are a far greater concern than artillery anyway, since any jerk with enough explosives can make a mine that will at least disable if not outright destroy a tank, whereas getting that explosion localized on top of a tank is going to be somewhat more difficult.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070803-armor-weakness.htm

Except for the fact we know the imperium makes extensive use of gyrostabilizers, in titans, space marine armor etc, so why they wouldnt add them to tanks to prevent rollover ....

If there is a fluff mention of tanks with gyro stabilizers, let me know. Otherwise that is just bald supposition. Assuming someone uses unmentioned technology to support your theorizing is just... uncouth. None of which addresses the fact that under armor on a tank Must be thick enough to resist mines. So unless the engines of tanks in 40k run on Unobtanium and are constructed from adamantium, weight is still a concern, and bottom line is that the top and rear are the areas that will be the least armored, for logical reasons. The logic that you used...

"Sure, as long as the top armor = the front armor .... If i were designing tanks id armor the top just as heavily, its the undercarriage that you skimp on the armor ... any fool can have an rpg up on the second story ... would be a poorly designed vehicle. "

...is farcical at best, as it would be at least as easy if not easier to engage the rear armor of an AFV during urban warfare, whilst being significantly easier to engage in any circumstances the under armor, as mines can be used in any situation in which the tank is one the ground...ie, pretty much all of them. Rollover was but one concern I listed, and until I hear of gyro stabilizers or anti grav thingamjiggers or magictonium generators installed in the LRBT, I will have to assume that it is a valid one.

Bromsy wrote:If there is a fluff mention of tanks with gyro stabilizers, let me know. Otherwise that is just bald supposition. Assuming someone uses unmentioned technology to support your theorizing is just... uncouth. None of which addresses the fact that under armor on a tank Must be thick enough to resist mines. So unless the engines of tanks in 40k run on Unobtanium and are constructed from adamantium, weight is still a concern, and bottom line is that the top and rear are the areas that will be the least armored, for logical reasons. The logic that you used...

Mebbe you're a little mistaken here. I seem to remember a part in the Gaunt's Ghosts books where they were talking about how a tank commander was having to aim manually because the stabalizers were out on the tank, and was doing so well until he died. So don't call others uncouth just because they don't support your side of the disagreement.

The armour underneath for the mines isn't needed, that's what the dozer blades and minesweeper units are for. AT Mines blow up tanks, that's what they do. If you read the novels, you'd see how when tanks hit mines...they go boom. Armour to repel the mine is...where...in this instance?

So for 'logical reasons' as you noted...you were wrong.

AT mines are specifically designed to punch through tank armor.

Under-armor on a tank is virtually useless.

Hence, most militaries don't bother with it more than is necessary.

"Mebbe you're a little mistaken here. I seem to remember a part in the Gaunt's Ghosts books where they were talking about how a tank commander was having to aim manually because the stabalizers were out on the tank, and was doing so well until he died. So don't call others uncouth just because they don't support your side of the disagreement."

Firstly, I would like to reiterate that I said the armor must be thick enough to [Resist] the mine, not stop it stone cold so the crew can have a laff about it later. That means giving the crew a chance at survival by limiting spalling, preventing the ammunition and fuel from immediately cooking off, surviving partial and indirect hits, and all sorts of fun things like that. I am also not a fan of being misquoted. I said applying a technology that the Imperium of man has to a vehicle in which it is not mentioned in being is uncouth, not the poster. He mentioned that Titans and Astartes armor - note, both bipedal constructs requiring some sort of stabilization, have gyrostabilizers. AFVs do not need such. As to your first point, I have to imagine that was a gyrostabilizer on a gun mount, not some sort of balast system designed to compensate for the super thick top armor of a tank, that is never mentioned and makes no sense, like the previous poster was talking about. As a matter of fact, here is a link all about gyro stabilized cannons, enjoy. Notice that it is not a way to balance a top heavy vehicle.

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/36137/1/OS_ENG_v28_i04_010.pdf

And please, feel free to actually provide a link, book, page, etc to support your point next time, so I can rebut with even greater precision. Something like that. As for dozer blades, most tanks aren't rolling around with them deployed constantly in the first place, and anyways a command detonated mine can be buried reasonably deep, not be set off by countermeasures, and still be effective. Mine sweeper units always preceeding an armor charge has been something noticeably lacking in most of the books I've read as well. I do not know how to argue this point with any greater logic than I have, and if you want to believe that the LRBT for some reason has reaaaallly thick top armor and paper thin bottom armor, I will leave you with that, since you obviously want to believe it. In the future though, please, please refrain from declaring I am "wrong" without providing something other than your opinion to back that up; I don't want to start ranting about people making unsupported declarative statements like the following.

"AT mines are specifically designed to punch through tank armor.

Under-armor on a tank is virtually useless.

Hence, most militaries don't bother with it more than is necessary. "

Okay, upon rereading that, It comes off somewhat harsh. I try to use very precise language so that I am not misunderstood, and mean no offense to anyone, even if it comes off that way. Looong day.

Bromsy wrote:"Mebbe you're a little mistaken here. I seem to remember a part in the Gaunt's Ghosts books where they were talking about how a tank commander was having to aim manually because the stabalizers were out on the tank, and was doing so well until he died. So don't call others uncouth just because they don't support your side of the disagreement."

Firstly, I would like to reiterate that I said the armor must be thick enough to [Resist] the mine, not stop it stone cold so the crew can have a laff about it later. That means giving the crew a chance at survival by limiting spalling, preventing the ammunition and fuel from immediately cooking off, surviving partial and indirect hits, and all sorts of fun things like that. I am also not a fan of being misquoted. I said applying a technology that the Imperium of man has to a vehicle in which it is not mentioned in being is uncouth, not the poster. He mentioned that Titans and Astartes armor - note, both bipedal constructs requiring some sort of stabilization, have gyrostabilizers. AFVs do not need such. As to your first point, I have to imagine that was a gyrostabilizer on a gun mount, not some sort of balast system designed to compensate for the super thick top armor of a tank, that is never mentioned and makes no sense, like the previous poster was talking about. As a matter of fact, here is a link all about gyro stabilized cannons, enjoy. Notice that it is not a way to balance a top heavy vehicle.

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/36137/1/OS_ENG_v28_i04_010.pdf

And please, feel free to actually provide a link, book, page, etc to support your point next time, so I can rebut with even greater precision. Something like that. As for dozer blades, most tanks aren't rolling around with them deployed constantly in the first place, and anyways a command detonated mine can be buried reasonably deep, not be set off by countermeasures, and still be effective. Mine sweeper units always preceeding an armor charge has been something noticeably lacking in most of the books I've read as well. I do not know how to argue this point with any greater logic than I have, and if you want to believe that the LRBT for some reason has reaaaallly thick top armor and paper thin bottom armor, I will leave you with that, since you obviously want to believe it. In the future though, please, please refrain from declaring I am "wrong" without providing something other than your opinion to back that up; I don't want to start ranting about people making unsupported declarative statements like the following.

"AT mines are specifically designed to punch through tank armor.

Under-armor on a tank is virtually useless.

Hence, most militaries don't bother with it more than is necessary. "

Okay, upon rereading that, It comes off somewhat harsh. I try to use very precise language so that I am not misunderstood, and mean no offense to anyone, even if it comes off that way. Looong day.

Okay sorry, resist a mine. Still false. Next topic. You are right on the gyrostabalisation comment, I mistook it for gun mounted gyrostabalisation. My appologies on that one, I wasn't paying enough attention. Though you wouldn't always need to compensate with gyros for the top armor anyways, that would depend on the overall weight distrubution within the tank's dimensions. If they have offsetting weight in some areas to make it so the top armor wasn't as much of a liability, that'd do it. I know the rear engine being centered and rear would make it tip quickly while going backwards, but it lends to stability in relation to it's other 3 facings. Perhaps that is part of it, along with the very heavy front armor that we know is there. That would distribute the weight better and nuetralize the 'side armor weight' of the top armor. Along with it's huge 'base' that is provided by it's tracking system that keeps almost all of the vehicles weight inside it.

As for putting up infromation for you to refute. Get over yourself. Read the fiction. How can I state page numbers for things that don't exist in there(like your arguements)? Maybe read them before you say something so you can be knowledgable with your debate. Linking something that isn't 40k isn't going to win a this debate. Welcome to the 41's Millenium. The idea here is that they specifically state that tanks have certain weaknesses at MANY points in the books, do you not agree? I'm sure you can there. Now when did they say top armor? Ouch, never. That's the support for the top=side arguement. If it's weak on the top, wouldn't it have been mentioned along with the other weaknesses? One would imagine so, common sense rules on this one.

And I didn't say they always have the dozers in the front, nor the sweeper team. But those are what's in place for the Guard regiments to deal with mine fields, not 'resistant fictional under armor'. So I don't even see why you are bothering to defend that arguement, is it just pride? Sorry, you're wrong there.

As for 'leaving me to believe' in what a LRBT armor types would be...it's because that's how they depict it in the books. Yet again...read them and show me where I'm wrong. I think you are 'leaving yourself believe' it's weak because you want it to be so.

In memory of your 'OMG show me links and books and stuff' comment, show me fluff(I better specify....40k fluff) that supports weak top armor in 40k. Hmm?