Retry
03/19/14 11:26 PM
76.7.236.208
|
The Trenchrunner is designed to work in conditions where artillery is common, and is designed to have the least chance of breaking down at inopportune moments. To this effect the Trenchrunner uses an Armored Motive System, so it is more likely to be able to run even after taking an arty hit. It can survive more arty hits as well due to it's reactive armor proving to be especially effective against such hits.
----
Trenchrunner APC
Clan advanced
50 tons
BV: 948
Cost: 2,266,250 C-bills
Movement: 5/8 (Tracked)
Engine: 250 Fuel Cell
Internal: 20
Armor: 176 (Reactive)
Internal Armor
Front 5 50
Right 5 45
Left 5 45
Rear 5 36
Weapons Loc Heat
Micro Pulse Laser FR 1
Equipment Loc
Armored Motive System BD
Armored Chassis BD
Carrying Capacity:
Troops - 10.0 tons
|
Karagin
03/19/14 11:36 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Can you explain how reactive armor works against artillery hits in Battletech? Which rule books covers this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/19/14 11:39 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Like reflective armor, it halves damage of it's respective damage type, rounded down. In this case, it's respective damage type is explosives, which includes many mines, missiles, and artillery weaponry.
Plus additional side-effects, but you could probably find them on the wiki easily... I can't explain them too well.
|
Karagin
03/19/14 11:46 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I know what reactive armor does in real life, not what I asked. I asked where are the rules for reactive armor working to stop or reduce the damage from an artillery hit, which page in the Core Rule books is this found on. Maybe Cray can point me to the page possibly.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/20/14 12:04 AM
172.56.14.94
|
The down side is that with a lucky hit you can have a chain reaction and all armor at one location is destroyed entirely leaving that location with out any armor protection.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Retry
03/20/14 12:19 AM
76.7.236.208
|
Reactive armor halves damage from explosions rounded down IRL?
And yeah, that is a downside, but IIRC the lucky hit must be a critical hit on a tank, and after that crit there is only a 1 in 36 chance of a complete armor blowout.
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 12:35 AM
66.27.181.1
|
wait? this is coming from someone that had an inferno launcher kill 3 vehicles out of his unit about a week ago?
Someone that loves hardened armor to avoid getting crits?
did I log into the right forums?
Honestly, unless its preplotted spot, I don't think artillery is the main concern of the vehicle. It can run to its drop off point, and move out before artillery should be able to target it. Now if you try to load up the entire load, then maybe.
|
Retry
03/20/14 12:37 AM
76.7.236.208
|
Getting hit by many infernos is not quite a mere 1/36 chance of catastrophic failure.
|
Cray
03/20/14 06:14 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I know what reactive armor does in real life, not what I asked. I asked where are the rules for reactive armor working to stop or reduce the damage from an artillery hit, which page in the Core Rule books is this found on. Maybe Cray can point me to the page possibly.
Reactive Armor has appeared in both Max Tech and Tactical Operations.
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.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 09:23 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Yes I know about it in Max Tech, didn't see the part that it can an effect on artillery though.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/20/14 09:27 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Anyways, APC.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 09:52 PM
70.118.139.48
|
See just not seeing Artillery strikes being affected by the reactive armor, it doesn't makes since. And given that reactive armor is nothing more then blocks of armor reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened long rod penetrators. Not seeing how artillery even falls into this kind of hit unless used in a direct fire mode similar to normal ACs, Gauss rifles etc...
And using said armor on an APC might be very deadly to the infantry or BA using said vehicle for their ride into the fight. Not so good for morale when you see your buddies get killed by the armor on their own vehicles.
Now my question also is how is Battletech portraying Reactive Armor? It explosive reactive armor (ERA) or self-limiting explosive reactive armor (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armor (NERA), non-explosive reactive armor (NxRA), and electric reactive armor? Or something totally different?
Does it come in blocks or composite pre-formed shapes to go around the turret(s) on vehicles or is the entire armor just that reactive armor with nothing but the frame of the vehicle holding it there?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (03/20/14 09:55 PM)
|
Retry
03/20/14 09:59 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Chances are you're not seeing because you're not looking at page 282 of Tactical Operations.
Along with TC warheads an AP autocannons not causing crits, all explosive type damage is reduced by half.
I hardly believe the reactive armor is going to hurt the infantry at all, except if some crap goes seriously wrong like a lucky TAC also achieving it's 1 of 36 chance of ripping off the armor, which is more than low enough to work out well.
You know what's gotta be bad on morale? Being in an immobile transport while artillery keeps falling on the now defenseless transport. Or getting directly hit by a long tom on open grounds. Though, that may not be too bad on morale; no one will be alive to be shellshocked by the occassion.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 10:06 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Just not seeing how the armor is going to react to the artillery hit given that it's very hard to hit a tank or APC with artillery when you are firing at a hex to start with and by the time the round hits the vehicle is more then likely gone.
So the bad morale moment will be to the guys in the other squads there Retry when they see their buddies killed by the reactive armor going off. And if the number is so low then why aren't ALL vehicles using reactive armor more often?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/20/14 10:21 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Doesn't matter what you are having trouble seeing it. It reduces explosive damage. Artillery is explosive damage. Please, I have already given the page number, please just look at the rules for reactive armor yourself...
There are no rules that taking *any* hit of a reactive armor vehicle will result in damaged cargo. Only *critical* hits, and even then there's only a 1 in 36 chance per crit hit.
A TAC that happens to hit it's cargo could and would happen to anyone regardless of armor types. In fact, the reactive armor in this case only helps further by negating AP AC ammo and TC SRM ammo critical hitting abilities that could otherwise disable the transport or hurt the infantry inside.
Why don't canon designs use it more, or why don't customs use it more? Not sure about the canon designs. By my account, the original Small Laser equipped Charger shouldn't exist other than as an awfully failed prototype myself. Reasoning can only be taken so far with those.
Availability could be a concern. I'd imagine reactive armor would be less common than standard ferro-fibrous armor, as that's been around longer in BT. Otherwise I have no idea, it's really a nice type of armor.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 10:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I did look it up Retry.
You are missing what I am talking about, the infantry squad dismounts the vehicle, the vehicle takes a hit, the reactive armor blows up, going with the idea it's explosive reactive armor (ERA) style the blast can still kill the dismount infantry. Not taking about the bay inside the vehicle. Now apply that to the part were I said the other dismounted infantry sees this happen, how do you think morale is going to be?
Again given how artillery works in this game, it's chances of getting to hit a vehicle that is going to be moving is not a forgone conclusion.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/20/14 10:47 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Irrelevant. There is nowhere in the rules that state that infantry dismounting or in the same hex as a vehicle which just lost it's armor due to a reactive armor blowout take damage of any sort. Thus it can be assumed that the situation that you are talking about just doesn't happen.
This is beginning to resemble your arguement of resentment of the Void Signature System...
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 11:19 PM
66.27.181.1
|
Isn't that like saying a naval laser is the same as a large laser so it isn't effective against reflective armor?
And that a ppc is an energy weapon so the same armor designed to stop lasers would work against the ppc as well?
I would think after the first shot deflective the armor would lose it's ability to deflect incoming damage, but like the power supply of ba, the game doesn't take that into account.
Hadn't thought about the armors exlosive content killing their own infantry when hit. Good point for an apc.
There is a question. Is this armor experimental?
If it is, there is your reason canon units don't use it yet.
|
Retry
03/20/14 11:29 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I don't see why it would lose it's ability, seeing as hits won't always hit the same spot.
Reflective armor halves energy weapons, as it's designed. Seeing as the PPC is an energy weapon, you are out of luck.
Though I wonder if naval lasers can be halved by the armor as well... Probably, since it is an energy weapon, but people may just assume that if you get hit by a capital scale weapon you're not making it alive anyways.
The "exploding armor" is a small, internal, controlled explosion which redirects some of the force of weapons, in this case the applicable types would be explosions. It's not like the armor all the sudden explodes like it's been hiding an AC/20 under it's skin.
And the armor explosive content does NOT kill infantry, unless said armor is lost by a lucky roll after a lucky crit which removes the armor and later results in the APC's death.
I think the armor is advanced, not standard yet not experimental.
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 11:48 PM
66.27.181.1
|
The reactive armor is probably based on the choam armor used on tanks a few years back.
Where as you are correct in assuming that shots would hit the same spot on the armor, you are talking about a wide area explosive.
A good way to deal with armor is used in the game Terrain overlord government. Each weapon has a different pattern of damage and it is possible to blow up a unit without taking out all the armor in a location. Granted, it is copyrighted so its beyond useless here.
This crap of 'look I've get a single half a foot patch of armor on my 10 foot wide area. I'm safe from the next mg hit' is crap. A high explosive hitting it should mean the blast expands as it enters the area that is no longer protected. But that is the game issues, not you.
The explosion from the armor should be more then enough force to hurt any infantry around the armor, including ba, if for no other reason then to knock them off their feet.
But since elementals don't have consciouness rolls like mech pilots do, it is useless to even think about it.
|
Retry
03/20/14 11:50 PM
76.7.236.208
|
The way you say reactive armor should work would make it beyond useless compared to standard armor.
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 11:54 PM
66.27.181.1
|
I may be missing something. I'm not sure. The sounds of how it works, makes me think it explodes outward from what it is protecting, meaning a great deal of force. It doesn't have nanolathing to remake the explosives once used.
The choam armor was similar to a shaped charge. It was used once, and tended to use the adjacent ones as well as the one hit.
I would need an explanation of how it works before I would say it's useless. It could be nothing more then shaped charges on normal armor giving it a 'second' chance.
|
ghostrider
03/21/14 12:12 AM
66.27.181.1
|
Ok. The name of the armor does not appear to be called choam. It was the armor on the tanks used to invade Iraq after they had taken kuwait. I don't remember the name anymore, but it was supposed to be explosive reactive armor.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 12:18 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Retry use Google, look up the videos of tanks with ERA on, and look what happens when they are hit.
The US uses Chobham armor which is a composite armor since the draw backs of ERA weren't what the US military wanted to deal with.
It is not useless to think about Retry, the stuff explodes, the blast has to go some place and the infantry in the same hex is going to take the blast, that is common sense. Using your logic then the mech that blows up for what ever reason should not cause the mech one hex away to take any damage since the blast would not hit it, yet there are rules for that to happen.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/21/14 12:34 AM
172.56.14.54
|
Karagin you are getting real world reactive armor mixed up with make believe armor of BT where a 30 foot tall thing has a chance of surviving being hit by a Gauss rifle salvo that is moving so fast that it can brake planetary orbit but cant fly farther than 2,000 feet.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Reiter
03/21/14 11:14 AM
142.11.67.185
|
Lasers are not exactly energy weapon...directed energy weapons, but not energy....they just focus light like a magnifying glass and heat the armor to the boiling point. Only point I am trying to make which has no relevance what so ever to the topic at hand would be something like "energy bolt" vs "energy beam" so a PPC would be a directed energy weapon (heat a mass to critical point, then accelerate it it) while the energy beam is more like getting a really bad sun burn.
As for it being useful against naval weapons...I think they are like 10x more powerful but when using naval rules and game boards...its just faster to tick off a circle = 10 points vs wasting an extra 30 minutes per game sheet as you roll dice and calculate critical hits. Target is toast anyway, most mechs won't survice even the lowly NL/35 (assuming it hits the intended target) unless your in the assault class but then again its talking about 30 foot robots and spaceships. I just see mechs being toasted no matter what level of tech rule you want to use to protect your ground forces, Naval weapons are just fricking huge! to begin with unless you are putting some ground/mountain between you.
|
Cray
03/21/14 07:23 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
You are missing what I am talking about, the infantry squad dismounts the vehicle, the vehicle takes a hit, the reactive armor blows up, going with the idea it's explosive reactive armor (ERA) style the blast can still kill the dismount infantry. Not taking about the bay inside the vehicle. Now apply that to the part were I said the other dismounted infantry sees this happen, how do you think morale is going to be?
Would you please quote the lines in TacOps that shows BattleTech's reactive armor injures nearby 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.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 07:44 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Was not a rules question Cray.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/21/14 08:00 PM
108.214.144.84
|
It doesn't happen in the rules, it doesn't work that way in the game or in-universe. So the point is irrelevant. Is armor really your sole issue of the vee?
|
Karagin
03/21/14 08:03 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Actually Retry it can happen if the author of a story wants it to happen, just like the jump jets being the thing that killed Natasha Kerensky, up until that was written I doubt any even though of using Jump Jets as a weapon.
The idea of Reactive armor on an APC doesn't make sense given that it's role of infantry transport, not infantry killer. I would suggest dropping the Reactive and going with HFF or LFF.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
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.
|