Retry
03/21/14 08:17 PM
108.214.144.84
|
The story would have to be canonized for it to be relevant.
So, seeing as ATM infantry are not injured in the slightest by reactive armor, I will have to say no.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 08:28 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Given that by the rules you would lose all of the armor thus killing the section of the vehicle you would say this worth the risk?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/21/14 08:42 PM
108.214.144.84
|
It's far from a guaranteed armor blowout. So it's a "could" and not a "would"
By the time enough crits take place that such a blowout occurs it is probable the vee is already dead several times over anyways, even with the advanced armor.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 08:43 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So a variant could be made with the LFF or HFF?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/21/14 08:46 PM
108.214.144.84
|
Theoretically, a variant could be made to utilize all sorts if armor, from reflective to heavy ferro-fibrous. I'd just stick with reactive when arty or missiles are very common anyways.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 08:47 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Missiles aren't affected by Reactive armor...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/21/14 08:49 PM
108.214.144.84
|
Most missile munitions are explosive type in damage and so would be affected by reactive armor.
|
ghostrider
03/21/14 08:59 PM
66.27.181.1
|
if a fusion reactor blows up on a mech, it damages everything in the hex, but if a fusion reactor on a tank blows up, it does nothing?
Why? Because the rules say so.
A nuke isn't a weapon because the rule say so.
I can reroll something to avoid dieing because mechwarrior character has edge or a quirk that allows him to avoid the damage. Why? Because the rules say so.
Now because the rules are interfering with their plans, the game designers change them.
Now infantry is almost invulnerable. Ams does not destroy actual missles, just reduces the volley. Battle armor can now use weapons that require no power and produce no heat, but you can't mount them to another unit to get that same bonus. Units don't need to have any speed, but can move into the hex before it.
WHY? Because the rules say so.
The innersphere has not figured out how to make clan endosteel, ferrous fiber armor compact xl engines or anything else like that, but they can come up with armor that are more advanced. Or weapons that are more advance.
And the best part is they can make a small nuclear fusion engine and lighten it by half the weight as well as get s super charger on it, but can't lighten the weight of an ice engine.
WHY? BECAUSE THE RULES SAY SO.
the rules do not run in reality that much.
|
Cray
03/22/14 02:43 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Was not a rules question Cray.
Well, since the rules answered the question, it was. BT's reactive armor doesn't hurt nearby infantry. Bringing your home game rules for reactive armor into another player's design isn't cool.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (03/22/14 02:45 PM)
|
Retry
03/22/14 03:15 PM
76.7.236.208
|
The defense rests.
If we continue to bicker over this petty issue of armor, Cray, feel free to lock the thread...
|
Karagin
03/22/14 03:16 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Where did it answer the question? We were talking about morale not anything the rule covered Cray. No home rules Cray, and I must ask are you trying to bait me here? I was talking about morale of the other infantry squads when they see their buddies turned to pulp when the reactive armor goes off with them out side of the APC, it was more of the point why it is not normally used on something like an APC. I think you are reaching here Cray, but I guess if that's what you want to do, you will do so and I will continue this via PM with you.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/22/14 03:18 PM
76.7.236.208
|
As the rules say (or rather, don't say), the reactive armor going off will not kill infantry outside the vee, so the point of their "buddies being turned to pulp" is moot since it doesn't happen.
Sheesh, ye may as well just lock it now. :/
|
Karagin
03/22/14 03:20 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Did I ever say the rules said Infantry died? No I said said it was a morale question and again as I said it's a reason no one puts reactive armor on their APCs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/22/14 03:22 PM
76.7.236.208
|
There is no morale question because no one will see their buddies turn to pulp(due to reactive armor) because as the rules are written this doesn't happen.
|
Cray
03/23/14 12:08 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Where did it answer the question? We were talking about morale not anything the rule covered Cray.
Actually, the rules cover the entirety of the situation. The morale rules (p. 211 TacOps for conventional infantry) indicate that you need to wipe out 1/4 or more of an infantry force's troops in one phase to cause a morale check.
This leads to the question, "Well, can reactive armor wipe out 1/4 or more of an infantry force?" Checking reactive armor rules (p. 2828) indicates the answer is most often, "No."
So, infantry morale isn't impacted by reactive armor, and the answer's entirely in the rules.
But there is this one rare case...
Per p. 282 TacOps, reactive armor may, in certain circumstances, "cook off," resulting in all reactive armor in the targeted location being ruined. This by itself doesn't hurt anyone. No infantry are harmed when the armor blows up. Not normally.
However, such location-wide cook offs are accompanied by, "...internal structure in that location takes 1 additional point of damage (with critical hit effects checked as normal.)"
Alright, so now you've got a chance to cause a critical hit on an APC due to reactive armor explosions. Per p. 193-194 Total Warfare, critical hit outcomes can include, "Cargo / Infantry Bay."
Now we're getting somewhere. What are the effects of having the infantry bay hit? Can we induce a morale check (p. 211 TacOps) on infantry in the APC?
It turns out that a critical hit to an infantry bay "inflicts the full damage of the weapon" to the infantry force inside the bay. So if you got an infantry bay crit with an AC/20 after it did 19 points of damage to armor and 1 point to the internal structure, then the infantry force in the infantry bay would still take 20 points of damage.
The damage from reactive armor is 1 point (see p. 282 TacOps).
This means that, yes, Karagin's correct. Reactive armor can harm infantry morale if the following conditions are met:
1) The APC is hit by a weapon (which happens in fewer than 50% of most attack attempts).
2) "...the unit suffers a critical hit of any kind to a location still protected by Reactive Armor," leading to the armor cooking off. The chance of that happening in a location that can lead to an infantry bay crit (only from the sides or rear, not turret or front) is 1-in-36 (2.78%) from the rear, or 6-in-36 (16.7%) from the sides.
3) The 1 point of damage to internal structure triggers an automatic crit roll (p. 193 TW). From the sides, there's a 5-in-36 chance of hitting the infantry bay (13.9%). From the rear, it's 6-in-36 (16.7%). The crit then imposes 1 point of damage to the infantry force in the infantry bay.
4) The infantry bay has 4 or fewer infantry in it to achieve the required 25% losses of the Morale rules.
So, if the infantry bay only has 4 or fewer infantry in it, then there's a fluke 2.3% chance (or less) of a shot causing infantry morale checks due to the reactive armor.
The straight result is less common than shooting a 'Mech in the head, and you also need that unusually small infantry force in the infantry bay, but it can happen.
I stand corrected. Reactive armor can hurt infantry (if they're inside the vehicle) and it can cause morale problems. I was incorrect to say that reactive armor was harmless to infantry.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Retry
03/23/14 12:31 AM
72.214.204.166
|
I thought it only took that 1 point IS damage if the armor blowout occurs.
|
Cray
03/23/14 12:35 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
I thought it only took that 1 point IS damage if the armor blowout occurs.
Right. That's what I meant to say. Did I garble my explanation or drop a word? I do that a lot.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Retry
03/23/14 12:38 AM
72.214.204.166
|
In between 2 and 3, you forgot the 1 in 36 chance of an armor blowout actually occurring after a TAC.
|
Cray
03/23/14 12:47 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
In between 2 and 3, you forgot the 1 in 36 chance of an armor blowout actually occurring after a TAC.
D'oh! You're correct, that's in the sentence following the conditions that trigger the confirmation 2d6 roll in vehicles. So that takes the chance of a morale check on infantry in a reactive armored APC down to about 0.05% per hit. Still possible, you have to admit.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Retry
03/23/14 12:51 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Well, yes. But I believe Karagin was referring to infantry outside the trench runner taking damage from reactive armor that got hit, not infantry that have yet to disembark, which is different
|
ghostrider
03/23/14 02:19 AM
66.27.181.1
|
now now. There are alot of peoples home rules in the designs put up. Most have not mixed techs together.
And the rules have changed to remove certain problems.
I would believe the rules do not cover all the angles on things, but they are to help prevent these questions, (supposedly).
I can see an issue of weither or not the armor resists the artillery damage since it is considered explosive.
What is the definition of artillery damage?
Can the armor really resist a blast that strong?
If so, why don't dropships and fighters use it?
And the last step, why do warships not use it?
|
Retry
03/23/14 02:25 AM
72.214.204.166
|
What do you mean "definition"? Damage type?
Depends on the amount of armor. 1 point of reactive armor won't do much to an arty hit, but 50 points can make a LT who just achieved a direct hit butthurt.
Actually, fighters can use it. Most prefer ferro aluminum or reflective.
I assume warship lamellar ferro carbide armor is superior to any normal armor
|
ghostrider
03/23/14 02:31 AM
66.27.181.1
|
The impression I got about the carbide is it was just another name for large peices of the normal armor. Or is that the ferrous fiber upgrade? Been a long while since I seen warship specs.
|
Cray
03/23/14 09:00 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I can see an issue of weither or not the armor resists the artillery damage since it is considered explosive.
Artillery is specifically called out on p. 282 TacOps. "Reactive Armor reduces all damage from explosive-type weapons such as missiles, mortars and artillery weapons by half (rounded down, to a minimum of 1 point per hit). Physical attacks, as well as attacks using energy weapons, autocannons, Gauss weapons or other weapons deliver their normal damage and effects to the target..."
Quote:
What is the definition of artillery damage?
Explosive. After all, it affects everything over a 45-meter radius.
Quote:
Can the armor really resist a blast that strong?
If so, why don't dropships and fighters use it?
Unless I'm misreading TacOps, p. 405, fighters can use it.
Quote:
And the last step, why do warships not use it?
WarShip armor like the lamellor ferrocarbide option can deliver over twice as many armor points per ton as standard armor without the explosive issue.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|