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.

I had a situation where my tank ended up with a trooper directly underneath. the troop had LOS and everything.

it saw the direct underneath of the tank.

Now, I assumed that the like the top it was hit as if side armour.

My opponent assumed it was rear armour.

Opinion:

Tank is hit at REAR or SIDE armour?

i would allow Rear - as usually it is weaker armour on the bottom of tanks

but RAW would it would still be what ever facing you would be firing at if it were level

That's a weird situation, I voted rear as that is how I would play it, or suggest to play it as it has never happened to me. Raw I think it would actually be whatever part of the tank it would be facing as if were level as Catachan_Devil said because I don't believe the BGB says anything about under armor.

also the only time you can hit the top armour (side) is if you score a direct hit with barrage weapons

RAW if you are firing directly from an elevated position you would still be firing at the nearest facing and not the top armour

problem is - it was DIRECTLY underneath, as in square.

I drill holes at the pinnacles where front rear and side meet on the tank, and it turns out he was directly beneath.

We ended up playing it as side, but I know top armour is treated as side, and while in modern tanks it would be pretty much the weakest side, GW doesn't work like that necesarily.

If they manage an underneath shot, to be sporting, I would say rear armor for I too agree that underneath is not as strong armor usually.

Rules as written would be the nearest facing, which quadrant of the tank was he closest to? Unless closest point is dead center, it is treated the same as a top down shot.

Well hang on, they still make the bottom of tanks strong so as to allow them to not worry about anti-infantry land mines, very rough terrain, and whatnot. I think the reason that most vehicles are weakest in the back has more to do with sensitive engine equipment and stuff.

Anyways, I think that since the top is treated as side, the bottom should be as well.

It's not covered by the rules.

I would go with rear.

I vote rear. I'm just imagining the kind of screw-up to let the trooper under a tank or, "Why am I driving this tank to a place my enemy can shoot it all the live long day, but I can't return fire?" Seems like a sound punishment for poor piloting.

Am I a total idiot? I thought top armor counted as rear armor? cause if top armor counts rear that's what I would say the underside is, since even AV10 can withstand some small arms fire, and as the viscious number of Humvee explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan proves, the undersides of "armored transports" clearly aren't armored enough...

Armandloft wrote:I vote rear. I'm just imagining the kind of screw-up to let the trooper under a tank or, "Why am I driving this tank to a place my enemy can shoot it all the live long day, but I can't return fire?" Seems like a sound punishment for poor piloting.

I lol'd. and I'm in an internet cafe. thanks, jerk! =D

Anyway, as for the trooper, we were playing on a beautifully made board, which had a sewer level. the field can actually fall out and can be shot as per game rules.

the guy shot out the road I was on, but not enough for my tank to drop into the sewer (it was still on ground, even when the rest was ripped out).

a little hard to explain!

In general, it isn't exactly covered, there are specific situations, however,where they say bottom attacks are resolved against rear armor (like minefields, etc)

So I would go with side for top, and rear for bottom.

Side. A tank has to be proyected from Mines, IEDs, Rending Claws, etc...

out of curiosity, How did a trooper manage to be directly under the tank?


i vote rear.

during WW2, Shermans had to be careful crossing Hedgerows because while going over the bumps their bellies were exposed allowing AT guns, Panserfausts and shreks to go right through the thin belly plates.

Most Anti-personnel mines arn't designed to punch through plating. the thing is many mines today are made for both tanks or infantry.

For a friendly game, I'd give it as rear, no questions asked. If it were a tournament, I'd question how we ended up in that situation, then argue it was side.

This is exactly what I want to know about the FAQ with Nids and the Mawlock ability... how does it effect vehicles, and what AV do you use? Front, Side, or Rear?

Burntbeard wrote:This is exactly what I want to know about the FAQ with Nids and the Mawlock ability... how does it effect vehicles, and what AV do you use? Front, Side, or Rear?

like i said earlier - RAW it would be to the nearest quadrent.. and in this case the nearest to the center of the marker

but if the center of the marker is under the tank i would use rear AV

dbsamurai wrote:Am I a total idiot? I thought top armor counted as rear armor? cause if top armor counts rear that's what I would say the underside is, since even AV10 can withstand some small arms fire, and as the viscious number of Humvee explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan proves, the undersides of "armored transports" clearly aren't armored enough...

Some army guys I worked with used a "little extra C4" to rig a bomb and set it under a practice target Grizzly tank.
The thing flew into the air, kept together pretty well but everyone agreed that anyone who would have been in it was hamburger.

They do allow that the armor can hold but the massive acceleration to the passengers in the tank don't do so well.

But either way, this is 40k, since when does it have any reflection on reality?

I voted rear based on I *think* the cluster mines rules for scout bikers in C:SM (dont have it with me atm)
Basically states that mines are resolved against the rear armor of a tank to represent the lighter armor at the bottom.
Given that thats the closest thing rules-wise that matches, although strictly RAW, couldnt you argue that you couldnt shoot the tank due to not being able to draw line of sight to a valid part of it? Not that anyone would or should play it like that (and im probably wrong)

Talizvar wrote:
Some army guys I worked with used a "little extra C4" to rig a bomb and set it under a practice target Grizzly tank.
The thing flew into the air, kept together pretty well but everyone agreed that anyone who would have been in it was hamburger.

They do allow that the armor can hold but the massive acceleration to the passengers in the tank don't do so well.

But either way, this is 40k, since when does it have any reflection on reality?

lol i thought that was the whole point...to reflect reality at least a widdle bit? but i said humvee, aren't grizzlys one of the most heavily armored tanks we have in the US armory? and i mean, i know strykers can withstand antitank mines, they're designed to...but humvee/chimera comparison wise, i figured that shots from below would be as durable as shots from the rear...

There are precedents for both side and rear armour values being used for the underneath. (hades and mawloc)

dbsamurai wrote:
lol i thought that was the whole point...to reflect reality at least a widdle bit? but i said humvee, aren't grizzlys one of the most heavily armored tanks we have in the US armory? and i mean, i know strykers can withstand antitank mines, they're designed to...but humvee/chimera comparison wise, i figured that shots from below would be as durable as shots from the rear...

Grizzly is Canadian version of Sherman tank. Canadian military brought "spare" ones out to Afghanistan with a huge horde of ammo about to expire as a "gift" to the Afghan government. The boys were wondering how they would do with the roadside bombs. Giant clay pigeon they were described as (they catch serious air).

Anyway, I still say whatever quadrant of tank shot was closest to is the side armor it is allocated. You cannot say the bottom front is not better armored.

Burntbeard wrote:This is exactly what I want to know about the FAQ with Nids and the Mawlock ability... how does it effect vehicles, and what AV do you use? Front, Side, or Rear?

This is covered in the codex. I would also use the Mawloc's Terror from the Deep as precedence that attacks from underneath a tank use the Rear AV when determining penetration.

No, forget sides, its rear, they make MRAPS nowdays to resist mines, but in the grim dark future, every Imperial tank has a nice flat bottom thats probably made of thatch!

The underneath of a tank is weak as they have a finite amount of weight to play with, thats why the front armour is always the most strong and the rear is generally weaker. Also my mate got blew up in one in Afghanistan, due to a mine being buried an him driving over one, all that armour counted for nothing when the blast came from underneath. Therefore i would say common sense dictates its the rear. :-)

Wow, now I feel like a real jerk, didn't intend to make light of it like that!

Crikey-sorry to hear about your mate matt :(

I voted side Amour.

Mind you, a similar question could then apply to land speeders in certain sitations.

Av the same is nice..Monoliths, LR's etc

Bottom armor = the side with highest AV ... the vehicle's bottom is always the strongest.

so Count as Front i would say.

I still don't understand how you got directly under the tank. If the nose or tail was elevated so the bottom was exposed you would still have the shots coming from one of the four arcs. And since tanks can't go up levels I don't see how anyone could get directly under it.

Edit: Ah, missed the sewer thing. This situation would never come up in a regular game, so I would suggest that a permanent house rule be made for these situations on this board. Also I vote side same as top hits. It makes the simplest sense.

If you want to go by strict RAW you divide the tank into quadrants with imaginary lines between the corners. You see which quadrant your figure is in. That is the side that the shot hits.

Most real life tanks have fairly thin floor armour.