So back on X-wing Epic and the talk of huge ships one might think we are coming to the beginning of the end of new releases specifically for Epic, and that is the Huge Ships. Once Scum gets their corvette class huge ship all the factions will be in equilibrium in number of huge ships and on the dial will be the same 8 maneuvers. Straight 1-4 and left and right banks for speed 1 and speed 2. The only thing to separate the movement pattern was the energy but it was a common thing. High speeds and banks come with less energy than low speed and straights. So with 6 ships (2 fore each faction) there is no need for any further huge ships, or is there? Lets say the factions start to get their 3rd or even 4th huge ship, something will have to be done about the dials as all huge ships having the exact same maneuvers would be stagnation. Much like standard X-wing was facing in Wave 5 what is left how do you vary the rather same movements of ships. Soon ships will literally be copying others movement patterns. X-wing took a look at reversal maneuvers and started there first with the S-loop and then with the T-roll. But huge ships don't have maneuvers or do they? Here are a couple of ideas for new maneuvers for huge ships.

Stop (white square)

Well first lets start with the very first new maneuver which was introduced in Wave 3 and that is the stop. Yup put a stop on the huge ship (they can do it in armada). Now naturally huge ships with long range weapons would want to stay still as their range 3 to 5 puts them at a good range where they can snipe at the smaller ships or ships without any range 4-5 weapons. So would this have a potential of being broken? Maybe not, The smaller fighters will still be able to close the gap to range 2 and have free unhindered range there and we all know the reinforce token and recover actions won't save it. Now for the stop there should be some modest energy gain. Something similar to a 1 bank or a 2 straight. After all the natural momentum of 1 straight should be the highest energy gain. But maybe a stop should be less energy because after all you are using the engines to stay put, and with that you don't have the energy to do much thrust so setting up stop to an energy gain of only 1 or 2 could be the use.

Double Bank (2 bank arrows)

The maneuver tool is rather limited and restricted by design. The banks change the declination only 30 degrees in contrast of a standard bank which is 45 degrees. Where a small or large ship can bank twice to do a 90 degree turn a huge ship has to bank three times. So a new maneuver a double bank is something that could be added in. The double bank is simple, lets say a speed 1 double bank is revealed, you do one bank, then you immediately do another bank. You might have to make some rules like the first bank maneuver doesn't count for overlapping but the 2nd one does. Also you want to keep it down to a speed 1 and the energy gain low even 0 maybe since it literally is all power to engines. The huge ship makes a 60 degree turn which is still less than a hard turn of a small/large ship of 90 degrees, and the ship's forward movement is equal to that of a speed 2 straight, which is a 1 straight for small based ships. As for the energy gain it should be less than or equal to the energy gain for a 4 straight. 0 is a perfectly fine energy gain for such a maneuver.

Reverse (Reverse White block with T, same as straight reverse for the quadjumper)

So right now only scum has the helos (though I think the Imperials might have one in the background of one of the pilot cards from G4H). But why not large ship also have reverse. Much like Scum with having a revers it will have no stop. Also it just to keep the feeling of inertia a ship with reverse would not have a 4 straight since it has optimized engine placement for more static movement. Heck it would be interesting to see a huge ship with no 4 straight no 2 banks but 1 bank double banks 1-3 straight stop and 1 reverse. And I dare say it will still feel like a huge lumbering ship moving through space. Naturally for energy gain you want to 1 straight to be the most energy gain.

Obliques/Lateral Thrusters (slanted arrow)

So many replies have been talking about some sort of side movement such as an oblique. Now while the majority consensus is that momentum should remain in the forward direction, thus making an argument against all stop and revers movements a straight up side to side movement will likely receive the same criticism. Since moving 1 straight to the side is actually a big turn in relation to huge ship movement (might even be considered larger than a double bank). Looking at a different approach to this would be better. So why not just use the width of the maneuver tool to keep the movement small. SO the idea is to line up the tool with the blue line as if you were doing a straight, but instead of a straight put it on the other side as if it were a turn depending on the speed. Thing is for the movement is somewhat dependent on the size of the ship base as flotilla sized ships have smaller bases than corvette sized ships. For a Corvette sized ship the 1 Oblique would be a perfectly lateral movement where for flotilla sized the 1 oblique would have a small amount of forward movement. Unlike the double bank (which I cannot see any reason to go speed 2) obliques can go speed 2 but I can see them at a fairly slow energy gain. The 1 speed being at a lower energy gain than the 2 speed since the 2 speed is closer to a 1 straight. Now for turns obviously you want to restrict the movement so taking away 2 banks is likely the best course of action, and much like you won't put stop and revers maneuver on the same ship you wont put obliques and double banks on the same ship.

So talking about energy gain from highest to lowest you have for the standard 8 speed and maneuvers this model.

1. 1 straight
2. 2 straight
3. 1 banks
4. 2 banks
5. 3 straight
6. 4 straight

So putting in the new maneuvers this is how I would rate the speed and maneuvers from highest energy gain to lowest.

1. 1 straight
2. 2 straight
3. 1 banks
4. 2 obliques
5. 0 stop
6. 2 banks
7. 3 straight
8. 1 obliques
9. 1 reverse
10. 4 straight
11. 1 double bank

So with these new maneuvers one it is obvious that when constructing a new dial some maneuvers should cancel each others (such as taking a stop removes the 4 straight from the dial) but there should be a set of core maneuvers that all huge ships should have (such as 2 straight and 1 banks). So first next thing I will try to make some sort of dial set up such as a select one to make a new dial with these new maneuvers (i.e. Chose One: { 4 straight, 0 Stop, 1 Reverse})

So how do you think this will open up the huge ship dial and want flotilla to corvette sized ships (or even larger) do you think will have any of these new maneuvers? Place ideas below.

47 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

they can do it in armada

At the cost of not being able to use defense tokens. Really you don’t want to be going at speed 0 in Armada. You need a drawback so a zero energy gain or even loss or make it an action might balance it out.

20 minutes ago, Sasajak said:

At the cost of not being able to use defense tokens. Really you don’t want to be going at speed 0 in Armada. You need a drawback so a zero energy gain or even loss or make it an action might balance it out.

Well a 0 maneuver would be less energy than a 1 straight. The idea is that the most energy gain will always be from a 1 straight.

But I see what you are saying, it might be better to move it from greater than or equal to 1 bank to less than or equal to 1 bank. An perhaps move reverse down further. So let me make adjustments to the energy gain list. Keep in mind that there will be a lot of overlap as the most energy gain right now is only 3 and the lowest is 0. So out of 9 different moves there is only 4 steps available. Now of course As I mention the next step is to simply remove the maneuver. After all no ship is able to use all 8 maneuver templates (not counting boosts and barrel rolls). So why should a ship that can go backwards or stop have the 4 straight maneuver.

I think 0 energy gain for a Stop manoeuvre is justifiable - with the ship expending considerable energy to completely arrest all forward momentum and keep any lateral drift in check.

Thinking of reverse manoeuvres - these are quite a dilemma for small and large ships which are destroyed by being run over. It’s hard enough to predict where a huge ship will go without reverse moves! Although it could be fun for the player with the huge ship . It could help prevent stupid collisions with two huge ships though. I hate those rules.

14 hours ago, ABXY said:

I think 0 energy gain for a Stop manoeuvre is justifiable - with the ship expending considerable energy to completely arrest all forward momentum and keep any lateral drift in check.

Thing is what about the revers maneuver. But yeah it a ship has one it really shouldn't have the other, unless you take away the 4 straight and the 2 banks.

14 hours ago, Sasajak said:

Thinking of reverse manoeuvres - these are quite a dilemma for small and large ships which are destroyed by being run over. It’s hard enough to predict where a huge ship will go without reverse moves! Although it could be fun for the player with the huge ship . It could help prevent stupid collisions with two huge ships though. I hate those rules.

Yeah but the whole point is in adding maneuvers you can actually take some away such as the 4 straight. So if you have a ship that is slow you won't have to worry to much about engine booster 4 because it won't be able to go as far. As for stops well again a stop ship runs over no starfighters. Of course I have thought of a saving 1 green die roll to determine if the ship crashes or not but that is a different topic. After all the rear of the ship has traditionally been the most vulnerable.

So stop and reverse, I am surprised folks find those maneuvers more controversial than the double bank. So what about the double bank maneuver, is everyone okay with that?

14 hours ago, ABXY said:

I think 0 energy gain for a Stop manoeuvre is justifiable - with the ship expending considerable energy to completely arrest all forward momentum and keep any lateral drift in check.

Eh, I kinda look at it exactly opposite. All of the faster maneuvers give less energy because that energy is being poured into the engines. So a 0 maneuver gives even more energy than a 1 straight.

14 hours ago, Sasajak said:

Thinking of reverse manoeuvres - these are quite a dilemma for small and large ships which are destroyed by being run over. It’s hard enough to predict where a huge ship will go without reverse moves! Although it could be fun for the player with the huge ship . It could help prevent stupid collisions with two huge ships though. I hate those rules.

Again, I'm kinda the opposite. You always know the huge ship is going forward, so it is pretty predictable. OTOH, I would think a 1 straight reverse should be the only choice. It would be nice the make it so that Huge ships have an option other than cruising forward. . .if only to make them more unpredictable to stern chasers.

And I really hope they aren't done with Huge ships after the next scum. I really would like to see the Hammerhead corvette at the least.

Or an all-faction ship, so that one release buffs all the faction's options.

I could see a case for a stop maneuver at 0 energy gain. A reverse maneuver would make less sense unless it's through a cargo upgrade, and even then it would also have to be accompanied by a stop maneuver. Huge ships are supposed to have substantial mass. They'd need a substantial amount of energy to stop their momentum, reverse it to go backwards, and then shift that momentum back to going forward as they resume normal movement.

5 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

I could see a case for a stop maneuver at 0 energy gain. A reverse maneuver would make less sense unless it's through a cargo upgrade, and even then it would also have to be accompanied by a stop maneuver. Huge ships are supposed to have substantial mass. They'd need a substantial amount of energy to stop their momentum, reverse it to go backwards, and then shift that momentum back to going forward as they resume normal movement.

So a ship can go from a 4 to a 1 in a turn without a discussion of inertia, but if it were going to go 0, we now need to invoke physics??

On 11/13/2017 at 3:46 PM, PhantomFO said:

I could see a case for a stop maneuver at 0 energy gain. A reverse maneuver would make less sense unless it's through a cargo upgrade, and even then it would also have to be accompanied by a stop maneuver. Huge ships are supposed to have substantial mass. They'd need a substantial amount of energy to stop their momentum, reverse it to go backwards, and then shift that momentum back to going forward as they resume normal movement.

On 11/13/2017 at 3:57 PM, Darth Meanie said:

So a ship can go from a 4 to a 1 in a turn without a discussion of inertia, but if it were going to go 0, we now need to invoke physics??

Well again if there was a reverse maneuver or even a 0 maneuver the natural adjustment is to remove the higher speed straights and maybe even the 2 banks from the dial.

As for the inertia I get it, which is why I place the 1 straight as the one maneuver that gives you the most energy. But yes we all know this is just a mere abstraction and not a simulation. And to be more blunt it isn't a simulation of actual space combat but of combat as depicted on the silver screen.

So how about this for a maneuver dial and this is jsut some crazy lets make it a 1 section transport similar to the gozanti, here is a dial example.

• 1 Reverse 0 energy
• 0 Stop 1 energy
• 1 straight 3 energy
• 1 bank 2 energy
• 2 straight 2 energy
• 3 straight 1 energy
• 1 Double Bank 0 energy

So here a huge ship with not much energy gain and not much speed but rather maneuverable. As one may notice it is missing the 4 straight and the 2 banks. Now I know that this is also breaking some of my rules such as not having both stop and revers maneuvers on the same ship and dropping both stop an revers maneuvers in the energy gain ladder to compensate. But how would this compare to say the dial of a Gozanti or even the Raider?

1 hour ago, Marinealver said:

Thing is what about the revers maneuver...

I'm not so keen on Reverse being an option for Huge ships...

... I like the sense of them being lumbering hulks in comparison to smaller ships.

I'd be happy to see a Stop - provided it generated 0 energy, since that would limit how long a ship could afford to do it.

The Stop could even be granted via a single-use Limited Cargo upgrade (Emergency Retro-thrusters) that can be used when you reveal a 1-straight and negates all energy gain from your manoeuvre for the turn. That way, existing ships could access it.

3 minutes ago, ABXY said:

I'm not so keen on Reverse being an option for Huge ships...

... I like the sense of them being lumbering hulks in comparison to smaller ships.

I'd be happy to see a Stop - provided it generated 0 energy, since that would limit how long a ship could afford to do it.

The Stop could even be granted via a single-use Limited Cargo upgrade (Emergency Retro-thrusters) that can be used when you reveal a 1-straight and negates all energy gain from your manoeuvre for the turn. That way, existing ships could access it.

^this

20 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

So a ship can go from a 4 to a 1 in a turn without a discussion of inertia, but if it were going to go 0, we now need to invoke physics??

20 hours ago, PhantomFO said:

I could see a case for a stop maneuver at 0 energy gain. A reverse maneuver would make less sense unless it's through a cargo upgrade, and even then it would also have to be accompanied by a stop maneuver. Huge ships are supposed to have substantial mass. They'd need a substantial amount of energy to stop their momentum, reverse it to go backwards, and then shift that momentum back to going forward as they resume normal movement.

I said I could see a discussion for 0. Where I have a harder time is the idea of a CR-90 throwing itself into reverse from a speed of 4 to a speed of -1 in the span of a single turn, and then being able to jump back to full speed again.

5 hours ago, PhantomFO said:

I said I could see a discussion for 0. Where I have a harder time is the idea of a CR-90 throwing itself into reverse from a speed of 4 to a speed of -1 in the span of a single turn, and then being able to jump back to full speed again.

I think for the ships that are already out such as the CR-90 and the Raider and the C-roc their dials are locked in so no stop or reverse maneuvers for them.

A ship that could have the stop (or reverse) maneuver would be like the Wild Kard. But as it has been said if a ship has either maneuvers it should not have the 4 straight.

First, Mr. Marinealver, thanks for putting up another cool Epic post ! Way to keep Epic alive with interest my friend .

I have been thinking that I would really like the Corellian Corvette being able to do a speed 1 maneuver (as it presently can't... ...) so maybe some kind of upgrade that can do that would be nice. I do like your idea for some different kinds of maneuver's though - especially if it's tacked on as a modification or a cargo upgrade. It would add some nice flavour.

I'm certainly not against more Epic ships - keep em comin! But if I did have a preference, I think I would like an additional support ship for each faction first, before another capital ship (not to say no to another capital ship mind you ). With the Epic Squad points being 5, I like the idea of having two support ships fielded that are different - maybe even really different would be even better. I'm afraid that I don't know as much about huge ships in Star Wars to suggest any, but...FFG already designed one amazing ship - the Raider, so we're not tied down to what already exists.

I didn't realize the CR90 can't go 1. IT is the only huge ship that is missing a maneuver. I know the GR-75 gains 0 energy at 4 straight.

So the question is which ship can use those new maneuvers. It won't be any of the ships that have already been released of course.

So for the hammerhead I can see it with a double bank but loses either its 1 or 2 speed banks.

For the stop (or reverse) maneuver I could see maybe the Defender, although as I said if a ship has either stop or reverse it loses the 4 straight.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Defender-class_light_corvette

For the Revers and a transport class we could have the heavy lifter. No stop and straights only 1 through 3.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Heavy_Lifter

12 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

So for the hammerhead I can see it with a double bank but loses either its 1 or 2 speed banks.

The only speed the Hammerhead needs is RAMMING SPEED!

1 hour ago, Marinealver said:

For the stop (or reverse) maneuver I could see maybe the Defender, although as I said if a ship has either stop or reverse it loses the 4 straight.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Defender-class_light_corvette

Oooooohhhhhh !!!! What a coooooolll ship!!!! I would sooo love to have this ship!!!

On 11/15/2017 at 9:35 PM, SlaveofChrist said:

Oooooohhhhhh !!!! What a coooooolll ship!!!! I would sooo love to have this ship!!!

More of a clone wars ship but there is mentioning of Luke using it in Legends (aka old EU).

But yeah the question is what other huge ships could make it to X-wing Epic or are we all going to stop at 6 (I hope not).

I hope they don't stop at six. Would like them to do at least another epic ship for each faction with some multi-faction titles.

Wouldn't mind if they added some sort of sideways movement. Like a 1 left or right. Maybe even 1 per energy spent, up to a max of 3.

Barrel. Roll.

18 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

Barrel. Roll.

Honestly, if you fluffed it right (like an energy expenditure like acesanddelights suggests) I don't think there's necessarily a huge detriment to a Huge ship being able to move laterally. There's certainly no fluff reason why a ship with the right thrust configuration cannot drift to either side for attitude adjustment. It's just not going to be easy shifting that mass on a non-thrust axis.

On 16/11/2017 at 5:35 AM, SlaveofChrist said:

Yup, I knew of this beauty, but there are several other huge ships which imo could be made.. So I would hate to see them stop after 6.

I like the idea of less ships, but bigger ones, imo it's a shame some things in this game cant be ported over to 40K, lol, I would love to be able to use ships/ aircraft with loads of freehand equipment/ weapons options available, and some better rules for aireal combat in that game.

I could see a stop and reverse maneuvers being viable, but I'd put the restriction of having to be stopped before being allowed to go into reverse. My idea would be to combine them into a single symbol on the maneuver dial representing 'full reverse', where the first time it's used brings a ship to a halt, and if used twice in a row, allows the ship to travel backwards.

A neat mechanic for determining power generation during a 'full reverse' could be a simple calculation where you start with three energy and subtract one for each speed you were going the previous turn, down to a minimum of zero. If a player was going speed 1, they get two energy, speed 2 gets one energy, speed 3 gets none. While stopped, enemy ships add an attack die to their shots. When the 'full reverse' maneuver is repeated, the ship would get three energy. This feels thematic and functional, as ships are supposed to be sitting ducks when floating still in Star Wars.

Side note, I'm reading Lords of the Sith, which has been an utter blast so far in the first half, and a Star Destroyer pulls a full reverse maneuver, and all I could think about was how it could be applied to Armada, but it absolutely could work here, too.

I would really dig some love for Huge Ships and Epic. And yes, the dial is extremely limited.

As in Armada, stopping should come at a high cost. Zero energy gain should be the least; given that Huge Ships can't defend anyway, maybe disallow taking actions?

I fear the double bank will make ramming other ships way too efficient.