Ramming and Critical thoughts

[pwrserge]

Rember, just because your main drive is out does not mean you can't manuver at all. It takes very little delta V to generate a miss. (Hell, opening all the airlocks on one side of the ship might do it.) In addition, for a ram to be effective you need to hit just right. If the target ship is rotating along its center axis and you don't hit dead center, most of the energy is going to be wasted. (Don't believe me, check out car accident reports.)

So no, always an opposed crew quality check. A properly motivated crew will always come up with something, and there is no better motivation than an Omega getting rammed down your throat.

SERGE

 

[Burger]

Well I still think there should be a CQ check to ram a stationary ship, maybe not an oppossed one, but definitely a CQ check.

Nobody is questioning the initial CQ 10 check, "crew bravery/stupidity/Klingon factor". The only question is should the opposed one be removed for stationary targets.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

A properly motivated crew will always come up with something, and there is no better motivation than an Omega getting rammed down your throat.

SERGE

Quoted for truth, and sheer comedy value...

 

[Ripple]

have to agree with pwrserge

So much of this game is abstract that unless you have the Immobile trait I can't imagine there is no movement. When they took dodge away from ships at speed 0 I wondered if we were heading in the wrong direction, forgetting the discussion of exactly how that giant mass of metal howling through space at All Power to Engines just seconds ago somehow went to all stop cause i hit it with my itty bitty little fighter pop gun and knocked out its engines.

Remember that the names represent an game mechanic more often than actual, fictional, reality of what is happening on the ship.

Speed 0 is already one of the worst possible effects to hit you in the game. You will be boarded, you lose dodge, you lose boresights (in most groups), you more often than not have also lost SAs...lets try not go too crazy here, or at least lets change the name of the Speed 0 crits to something we shall not say on the boards.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

Ivanova had no manouvering when she hit a chunk of Shadow Omega.
I think that was motivation enough to dodge a little, no? Yet even she couldn't pull it off.

 

[Silvereye]

To be fair that was more like 10 AD of plot powerd explosion debris than a serious attempt at ramming.

 

[emperorpenguin]

To be fair that was more like 10 AD of plot powerd explosion debris than a serious attempt at ramming.

True, and it was a case of "hey look" BANG! :twisted:

 

[Burger]

Well many ACTA rules and systems are put in place, because of a single on-screen occurance. For example JP bombs, e-mines, etc. So how can we just dismiss this one as "plot point" when all the others clearly are too?

 

[Johnny D]

The immobile trait is interesting idea as it would mean things like satellites and stations would get automatically rammed by a ship passing the QC test, which makes sense.
I still think that it should be allowed on ships reduced to 0 speed as they lose the ability to move to avoid even if they are continuing to move forwards they’re doing it in a straight line. As ships can target and predict the trajectory of fully mobile fast enemy craft the size of a fighter they should be able to target and fly into a capital ship going in a fixed straight line. I think it’s important that they have to take the first QC test, but the opposed one against a helpless ship seems silly and just makes this dramatic action even more unlikely.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Well many ACTA rules and systems are put in place, because of a single on-screen occurance. For example JP bombs, e-mines, etc. So how can we just dismiss this one as "plot point" when all the others clearly are too?

well Matt would say "maybe she failed her dodge roll" from the 10AD explosion, but it wasn't a ramming

I do agree with you on stationary ships just that wasn't a good example