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 know the rules.

But why are they as they are. It feels kinda strange that cutting the roof of a vehicle would make it that much more likely to explode. Sure a Grenade would do more damage to it. But why would it ever explode as a result of heavybolter holes when a closed topped version could never explode from them.

less protection...

Reasons. Seriously, don't try to apply real life rules to 40k games.

But if I had to try, Open-topped vehicles just refer to having less protection and being rapid assault vehicles (DE Raiders, Trukks). Rhinos and other tanks have more protection, but are less likely to blow up.

Imagine it this way. Your standard dune buggy is open-topped. Throw a couple grenades or bolter shots into it and it would probably explode, considering it's made of flimsy metal and little protection. A Humvee is closer to not open-topped, and so would take a little more to explode.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I know the rules.

But why are they as they are. It feels kinda strange that cutting the roof of a vehicle would make it that much more likely to explode. Sure a Grenade would do more damage to it. But why would it ever explode as a result of heavybolter holes when a closed topped version could never explode from them.

TL;DR it's an artifact of GW's rather clumsy handling of vehicles and awkward nerfing of the damage table (without getting rid of it) and moving vehicles to having "wounds" (but no saves...).

No particularly reason behind it other than it's an awkward expression of old mechanics being clumsily mucked about with.

This is the only reason that I could come up with.

Rhino to open topped looted wagon transformation by the mek way.
-Replace the weapons with good dakka
-Saw off the roof we don't need that.
-Then and this is the important part, cramp as much fuel tanks in it as possible. You can never have enough fuel. You don't want to tank in the middle of the battle. Replace the isolation with fuel, you see an empty pipe fill it with fuel if the enemy is not smelling your fuel you are doing it wrong.

The other option would be to fill the transports with crates of assault grenades. But that would be silly.

I dunno. I play Dark Eldar, and a catastrophic explosion seems like the most likely result of a destroyed vehicle for us. If Wrecked results were more common, I'd think it was weird.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I know the rules.

But why are they as they are. It feels kinda strange that cutting the roof of a vehicle would make it that much more likely to explode. Sure a Grenade would do more damage to it. But why would it ever explode as a result of heavybolter holes when a closed topped version could never explode from them.

Damn good point, actually.

Seems like Open Topped should add 1 to the roll to penetrate the vehicle, rather than adding to the damage table.

Not sure if that would be an improvement, but it would probably make more sense.

really the whole system is just skew to make it more cinematic. The odds of vic actually exploding are really slim. Yeah, fuel (or really the fumes) will explode, but only under the right conditions. In all likelyhood it would proly just start a fire. In hollywood 4 bullets will make a car explode (unless the hero is in it), but i have pumped full magazines into cars and all it did was smoke a little and then stop, never saw one blow up.

As for open topped, it actually would increase the likelyhood of an explosion, but only because the fumes from the fuel would have air to propogate an explosion. IRL though, it would be a negligable increase, just a way to make the game more like a movie.

my .02

My guess it would be because the ammo used by the vehicle is more likely to be hit so it could cause an explosion. Same thing for the interior of the vehicle not being as well armored so it could damage the engine or weapon resulting in those results. How exactly the crew doesn't die from this is beyond me but nothing in 40k makes any sense.

Basically it represents the crews getting killed by stray shots....

If the system was more realistic you would have Crew toughness which would be used on say a 4+ if the weapon had LOS on the crew memebers. Also any shot that could enter the vehicle would auto hit rear armour. Suffice to say it's a tad complicated.

IRL you have a very famous example of a M10 (An open topped, turreted tank destroyer)during ww2 in the 86th Anti-Tank Regiment (XII Corps). Basically the driver drove back out of action three separate times with the entire turret crew dead. Two turret crews had been killed by 88mm air bursts or mortars exploding in treetops, one crew were killed by a direct hit through the turret. The same driver survived each time. When this driver was placed with a new crew, his fourth, he was declared to be a 'Jonah' (bad luck) and they refused to drive with him. He was transferred to another unit and told to keep quiet about his history.