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.

So I think it's dumb that the armor facing the shooter is always the armor considered if a blast template scatters to a different part of the vehicle. If a shot strikes directly on the back armor, then shouldn't one use the back armor rating? And if it's a lobbed shot (as using as blast template suggests) then shouldn't the side armor always be considered since it it striking the top of the vehicle, and not the front/sides/back?

Shenra wrote:if it's a lobbed shot (as using as blast template suggests)

That is not what the blast template suggests. Barrage weapons hit the top armour. Something like a frag missile is a direct fire weapon.

I don't think a direct-fire explosive rocket is realistically going to make a direct hit on the back of a vehicle. The chances or just too low. Thus, you hit whatever you're facing.

Only Barrage weapons are assumed to travel on ballistic arcs, straight lines for everything else.

That said I thought that a non-barrage blast which scattered its center circle off counted as half strength but hitting the facing based on the center of the blast marker...maybe I'm mis-wiring editions though (AFB at the moment).

Jack

The assumption is that the shell travelled in a straight line, and if it scatters to the back, it's assumed it did some kind of epic ricochet and exploded behind the vehicle. If it scatters while still on the vehicle, then the shell has scored a direct hit (where it was originally aimed).

But yeah...I also don't think it makes sense that my lascannon team can miss the small building sized Necron monolith an inch away from their face, but some rules in 40k just don't make perfect sense, and are there to balance the game instead of making it a perfect simulation. I applaud GW for trying to justify most of their rules with fluff, but sometimes you just have to live with it.

Don't forget a "Miss" isn't necessarily an actual miss, the same way as a fail to wound doesn't mean it didn't hurt them. Your "miss" may have hit, but it was such a crappy glancing blow it doesn't warrant a roll to pen, or perhaps they were about to shoot before some random blast made them have to take cover, or maybe it could represent them running out of ammo temporarily and/or being forced to reload/reconfigure.