6

This has to do with Controls Ionized effects and Ion Cannon damage.

Controls ionized means the ship loses -1D from maneuverability, shields and weapon fire control and damage for the rest of that round and the next round. If the ship has as many controls ionized as maneuverability dice, its controls are frozen for two rounds.

But does the controls frozen take into account -1D from maneuverability from controls being ionized? For instance, a ship has 3D maneuverability. It gets a control ionized from being hit, meaning its manevuerability is now 2D for this and next round. So now if the ship is hit again, either this round or next round, and the ship goes up to 2 controls ionized, will the ship's control be frozen since the maneuverability is technically 2D?

mxyzplk
  • 175,309
  • 30
  • 437
  • 660
kreldin
  • 61
  • 1
  • 1
    Which edition do you use? 1e, 2e, or 2e R&E? The official Rules Upgrade – a pamphlet that contains the changes from 2e to 2e R&E – has updated rules for Starship Damage. You might want to take a look at it, if you haven't done so yet, and not just for Starship Damage. :) – OpaCitiZen Jan 09 '14 at 10:00

1 Answers1

4

A ships manauverability is fixed. It's given with the ships stats. This is what you take to compare ion damage against. If you suffer more negative modifiers to your manauverability than the ship has before any modifications, than the ship is frozen. Modifiers to the ships maneuverability are not take into account, neither negative nor positive.

That means a ship with 3D maneuverability can take two ionized controls hits. The pilot then only gets the remaining 1D to maneuvers. Suffering the third hit in 2 rounds will freeze it, because 3 hits are more than the ship itself (before any cool pilots modifications) can suffer.

Edit:

I just had a look into the book and I agree that if you get a good lawyer and a willing judge, taking only the rules-as-written it may as well be twisted the other way round. But that neither makes sense nor has any parallels in other games. It's a very common theme to have "more negative modifiers than your unmodified value will let you auto-fail the check", while I have never met a scenario that you were asking about, where you had to compare a dynamic value to a fixed value modified by the same dynamic value. You either compare fixed values, dynamic values or both, but never put the same dynamic value on both sides of the equation.

nvoigt
  • 22,976
  • 7
  • 66
  • 116