A situation occurred in which the party needed to defend a 'sitting duck' in the form of a small robot against ranged enemy attacks. There was the consideration for party members to take the bullets for the little fellow. Through luck, such a drastic measure turned out not to be necessary (a PC managed to take control of the little drone), but I'd like to have a better grasp on how to game-mechanically handle such an action.
I have already read the answers for the more general case of the question, and still feel that the interpretations that flow out of them don't quite feel right, so I'm asking to help me understand how to handle it in my specific case, or elaborate why one of the general-case interpretations works well here.
Important Note: This question relates specifically to reflexively defending another, 'sitting duck', character, against a Shoot attack, by blocking it. Create and Advantage, using a light sabre to deflect the bullet, picking up the drone and the like are outside the scope of the question.
You could also put yourself directly between the attack and the intended target, such that the bad guy has to get through you to get to your buddy. then you’re just defending as normal and taking the stress and consequences yourself.
The above part of the rules is probably the single most relevant one (in addition to others, as per the general question). Can a PC get in the way? Most definitely. But I'm having doubts about the logic behind what happens next.
Ensuring the bullet doesn't hit the NPC implies the PC taking the bullet. But the PC succeeding on a defence against a Shoot attack (usually with Athletics) implies not being shot (dodging successfully), and that probably shouldn't happen when defending another by blocking the line of fire.
Here's another alternative:
If, for whatever reason, you want to forego your defense and take a hit (like, say, to interpose yourself in the path of an arrow that’s about to skewer your friend), you can. Because you’re not defending, the attacker’s rolling against mediocre (+0) opposition, which means you’re probably going to take a bad hit.
But conversely, declaring that such a defence of another must be done using the not-resisting-an-attack rules, thus having a flat zero defence instead, seems to lead to getting too much damage.
From a mathematical point of view, the best outcome is to use the first of the options and get a tie or a failure by 1 shift (depending on whether a boost or a minor hit is more acceptable), but that seems like a perverse incentive in the context of the way the system is written. And treating a success as allowing to choose either of the two failure modes also looks rather weird in the context of how the system works.
So what's the best way to resolve this dilemma? Is there another, better way of handling that, or is one of the above options not as inappropriate as it seems?