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.

well guys I got this weird idea....No! Not beacuse I was high. But I think when the new warhammer 40k rule book comes out they should have F S R armour for vechils and T (Top)
Beacuse there are alot of strong artially that can destroy vechils but when they fire they roll for front armour usually. Which really sucks. There would be alot more uses for vechils if they had a Top armour (I am not talking about open top I am talking about top armour). What do you guys think?

It would be cool, to help ordnance barrage actually be useful in some extent.
Cityfight had top armor be the same as side armor. I think that would be reasonable.

They use side armour for the top, which is why barrage weapons hit side armour (not front as you seem to think, check the last sentence under the section headed "the centre of the blast marker ends over the vehicle's hull" pg 60 of the rulebook).

Jack

Agreed with Jackmojo.

But he does mention an interesting point, that there is no change if a mortar lands INSIDE of an open topped vehicle. I think this should be a little more devistating then just and automatic side armor hit.

@computergeek.

when I suggested this idea, I was turned away [by CG01] due to it's being 'too dificult'

In Rouge Trader there were optional rules for top armor hits, due to indirect fire but it was dropped due to speeding up the game and they choose to take the other weakest target the side armor as a default. Me being a test player back then I am good for something.

Jackmojo wrote:They use side armour for the top, which is why barrage weapons hit side armour (not front as you seem to think, check the last sentence under the section headed "the centre of the blast marker ends over the vehicle's hull" pg 60 of the rulebook).

Jack

THANKS for telling me this. But does this rule apply to all blast weapons or only barrage? I mean as all blast weapons could get in there own special rule.

The rule I pointed you towards only applies to barrages, which is as expected since other blasts travel in a straight line from the firer and impact the normal armour facing.

Jack

The rule says barrage weapons.

Barrage weapons fall from the sky, taking an arcing route to their target, blast weapons take a line between firer and target.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:Agreed with Jackmojo.

But he does mention an interesting point, that there is no change if a mortar lands INSIDE of an open topped vehicle. I think this should be a little more devistating then just and automatic side armor hit.

Barrage weapons should get +2S against oppen topped vehicles or somehting like that.

Dark Scipio wrote:

ComputerGeek01 wrote:Agreed with Jackmojo.

But he does mention an interesting point, that there is no change if a mortar lands INSIDE of an open topped vehicle. I think this should be a little more devistating then just and automatic side armor hit.

Barrage weapons should get +2S against oppen topped vehicles or somehting like that.

Yea, we should make the weapons strength better or make the armour lower.
Or maybe roll for the crew members cover save if you fire with barrage at an open top vechil.

If a barrage weapon hits a open topped vehicle it should get stunned automaticaly as well as any other effect.

One reason "top armor" isn't viable: it destandardizes vehicles.

I'll explain.

When you look at a Rhino, it's pretty straightfoward. It's basically a bit metal rhomboid, nothing fancy. It has clearly defined (on the model) front, rear, and side armor, and even top armor, so it's easy to say, "This is front armor. This is side armor. This is top armor." and so on. Now take, for example, the Tau Hammerhead. Go ahead and try to distinguish side armor from top armor, or front armor from top armor, I dare you. What about a Fire Prism? A Battlewagon? Any vehicle at all that isn't a simple geometric shape?

It's much more difficult. This leads to the problem I mentioned in the beginning of this post: each individual vehicle would have to have its own little armor diagram with clearly defined "top" armor, and defining how and when something hits the top armor on a Hammerhead will have to have its own ruleset.

Because of this, I am against top armor.

I'm perfectly happy with top armor being side armor.

Regarding the rules for mortars and the like, that's not a bad idea, though.

SaintHazard wrote:One reason "top armor" isn't viable: it destandardizes vehicles.

I'll explain.

When you look at a Rhino, it's pretty straightfoward. It's basically a bit metal rhomboid, nothing fancy. It has clearly defined (on the model) front, rear, and side armor, and even top armor, so it's easy to say, "This is front armor. This is side armor. This is top armor." and so on. Now take, for example, the Tau Hammerhead. Go ahead and try to distinguish side armor from top armor, or front armor from top armor, I dare you. What about a Fire Prism? A Battlewagon? Any vehicle at all that isn't a simple geometric shape?

It's much more difficult. This leads to the problem I mentioned in the beginning of this post: each individual vehicle would have to have its own little armor diagram with clearly defined "top" armor, and defining how and when something hits the top armor on a Hammerhead will have to have its own ruleset.

Because of this, I am against top armor.

I'm perfectly happy with top armor being side armor.

Regarding the rules for mortars and the like, that's not a bad idea, though.

Good point. That wpuld be in the pain in the ass to make the rule for the desighners and rule makers.

I don't get why they do side armor and not rear, since top armor is usually the thinnest on a vehicle. Maybe they fixed that in the next 38 thousand years...

The top armor is thin on very few tank models.

Namely the Panther, and Tiger tanks.

The M1A2 Abrams has even had its top armor strengthened from the original M1A1 and M1 models due to terrorists dropping bombs and attacking from higher levels of buildings.

The side-armor is usually a bit thicker than the top.

Would it be ok to correct it? *vehicles


On topic: Only barrage weapons should get the exclusive 'top' value, because the rocket actually hits it on the front and not on the top. You're marker might be placed above the armour, but it still goes straight, and not up.

Open-topped vehicles already get a +1 to damage, and are affected normally by Venom Cannons...

Nurglitch wrote:Open-topped vehicles already get a +1 to damage, and are affected normally by Venom Cannons...

Yes, but form all hits. Top hits should be devastating to them.

SaintHazard wrote:One reason "top armor" isn't viable: it destandardizes vehicles.

Easy solution to that would be that Top armour is only hit by attacks form thrid floor or more, flyers or barrage weapons.

grayspark wrote:The top armor is thin on very few tank models.

Namely the Panther, and Tiger tanks.

The M1A2 Abrams has even had its top armor strengthened from the original M1A1 and M1 models due to terrorists dropping bombs and attacking from higher levels of buildings.

The side-armor is usually a bit thicker than the top.

And the sherman, the Pershing, the Cromwell, Souma, KV-1, IS-2 ....

Most tanks had weaker top armour than heck or side armour (many tanks had thicker rear armour than side armour).

Are there any open-topped vehicles that don't have laughable side armour?

Make all barrage weapons ordanance, problem solved.

Ordanance grants an extra d6 to see if the shot penetrates (makeing it LOVELY for battle cannons and demolisher cannons, especially if your getting halfstrength all the time)

giving this to ALL barrage weapons will simulate the round coming down onto the thinner top armor.

Captain Solon wrote:@computergeek.

when I suggested this idea, I was turned away [by CG01] due to it's being 'too dificult'

Well, one person rejected your idea.
Clearly a lot more people are open to it.

Scratch that, it's not "your idea", just one that is plausable. So take pride in the fact that others have similar thoughts to you.

Nurglitch wrote:Are there any open-topped vehicles that don't have laughable side armour?

Battlewagon.

Anyone? Bueller?

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.

It's like I said before.

Tanks now a days are built to survive attacks from above, mainly because in close terrain (cities) shots will be coming from above, and not from ground level.

....they may have reinforced top armor, but are you suggesting it is not still the thinnest armor on the tank? That's why modern armies design stuff like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg3UXzseLTI&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_attack

what about under armour? wouldn't same apply likewise? Though TA is a cool idea most tanks only have weakness at the swivel or top hatch.

Sabatine wrote:what about under armour? wouldn't same apply likewise? Though TA is a cool idea most tanks only have weakness at the swivel or top hatch.

Rear armor = bottom armor

In the world of 40k at least.

Rear armor value=both top and bottom armor.

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