MtST! / Dodge

[Sulfurdown]

I can't seem to find it but I recall a ruling that ships using MtST! lose their dodge trait. Can anyone point me to the ruling note?

 

[Burger]

I think it was deleted in the great forum purge.
It's pretty obvious though. The whole point of shileding is getting in the way... so if you dodge, it defeats the point.

 

[Sulfurdown]

By and large that was my original thought and what I could piece together out of fragments in the forum still extant, but in review of the language of the SA and the interpretation that the SA is not necessarily taking the Hit for another so much as interfering with a ship's ability to fire on the original target I figured I'd ask again.

Can I assume correctly that the language for 2E will clarify this in the SA definition?

 

[Locutus9956]

Same applies to Stealth. I think it was rules something like you roll stealth for the original target to see if you can lock on and fire but the intervening ship doesnt get any defences that 'avoid' the fire (shields, geg, adaptive armour and interceptors are fine)

 

[Sulfurdown]

I wonder, wouldn't a stealth ship mess with the ability to lock onto a ship directly behind it? You're trying to fire through the electronic distortions to effectively target blindly.

EDIT: Let me guess, I missed the big debate over what works and what doesn't?

 

[Burger]

Stealth is negated by MtST. You roll against the shielding ship, ignoring stealth and dodge. He gets interceptors, GEG and adaptive armour as normal.

 

[CZuschlag]

You SO don't want Drakh Light Raiders getting Dodge when using Maneouver to Shield Them. It'd be just busted. Incredibly manouverable, hardy (when you still have Dodge), GEG, and with little damage dealing capacity. They'd be perfect, and it'd be just wrong.

 

[Burger]

Or even worse, Blue Stars!

 

[Sulfurdown]

Why an opposed CQC versus a standard CQC?

 

[Burger]

Because the person shooting is trying to shoot around the shielding ship.

 

[Sulfurdown]

Because the person shooting is trying to shoot around the shielding ship.

So bulk ship movement rather than crew intimidation like a Stand Down... In theory wouldn't that mean that those Dodge capable ships are better suited to intercept fire? (It's all on the fly people! I'm not pushing an agenda, just thinking 'out loud' and looking for a sounding board.)

 

[Chernobyl]

I think you'd lose the dodge trait because you're trying to stay in one place and get between the incoming fire and your 'buddy'. so you're restricted from maneauvering the ship.

 

[Burger]

If you're trying to gt between an enemy and your vulnerable friend, you're hardly going to dodge out the way of incoming fire now are you???

 

[Sulfurdown]

True, the point is to run into the firing zone instead of out. I was thinking that the Dodge would work in the opposite way it's originally intended. Instead of making a final violent movement to avoid fire, the ship is making an attempt to intercept fire with it's hull. I'd assume it wouldn't be as instantly effective as a dodge out of the way since in that case the ship doesn't care where it ends up as long as it's not where the fire is. Something more like a bonus to the CQC as the ship itself can make faster final adjustments. A White Star would probably find it easier to put itself into the fire than a Warbird would.

 

[Burger]

A White Star would probably find it easier to put itself into the fire than a Warbird would.

Well, probably a bad example. The ISA have the +1 CQ bonus, and White Star has 2/90 turns. So the WS already does have a much better chance of succeeding in MtST than a Warbird.

But yeah your point sounds reasonable... a +1 bonus to the CQ check for MtST if the ship has the dodge trait. Sounds good to me...

 

[CZuschlag]

If I remember correctly, isn't there a ruling about the Maneouver to Shield Them SA and Stealth/Dodge in the FAQ section of Armageddon? Just asking.

 

[Greg Smith]

There is indeed. Well remembered.