37 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Once you actually understand what the k-turn represents in-universe (essentially a half-loop combined with a aileron roll), that would be the opposite of thematic, and equally fiddly.

Yes k-turn bumps are punishing. But k-turns are extremely powerful maneuvers in a game about lining up firing arcs where most ships can only turn a max of 90 degrees, and if the game is going to be about skill, then punishment for botched (or foiled) maneuvers needs to be equal to the reward.

As has been discussed, the description of the K-turn in the original source material is a rudder reversal akin to a wing-over/original Immelmann, and it's certainly reflected in the mechanics (move forward, reverse direction, and stop). A half-loop/modern Immelmann would more properly look like, "Move forward X spaces, reverse direction, move forward X spaces." You'd basically end up in your original starting position, just facing the opposite direction.

Actually, I suddenly would like to see that as a maneuver option...

11 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:

As has been discussed, the description of the K-turn in the original source material is a rudder reversal akin to a wing-over/original Immelmann, and it's certainly reflected in the mechanics (move forward, reverse direction, and stop). A half-loop/modern Immelmann would more properly look like, "Move forward X spaces, reverse direction, move forward X spaces." You'd basically end up in your original starting position, just facing the opposite direction.

Actually, I suddenly would like to see that as a maneuver option...

Just elongate the first "move forward x spaces" and remove the second "move forward x spaces" and you have the k-turn as-is in game.

As I understand it nobody actually knows what the actual "koiogran turn" from the Legends books looks like because there's no depictions other than artistic technobabble in text, but we've seen exactly what it looks like when a Star Wars ship does a 180 turn in Empire Strikes Back above Bespin, and it looks like an Immelman.

6 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Just elongate the first "move forward x spaces" and remove the second "move forward x spaces" and you have the k-turn as-is in game.

As I understand it nobody actually knows what the actual "koiogran turn" from the Legends books looks like because there's no depictions other than artistic technobabble in text, but we've seen exactly what it looks like when a Star Wars ship does a 180 turn in Empire Strikes Back above Bespin, and it looks like an Immelman.

Yeah. I know. My point is this would be something new. Essentially a way for a craft to do a standing 180 without ACTUALLY turning in place.

What can be discerned from the text we have is that a Koiogran Turn is very much NOT half-loop. The K-Turn is dependent on a sudden loss in forward motion (thus why Luke crashed the Blastboat he was flying when he tried it; he stalled out and struck the treeline). If you stop your forward motion in a half-loop, it's not a half-loop any more (and if your craft requires aerodynamic lift to remain airborne, you've also just stalled and are about to become a lawn dart).

The "Crazy Ivan" from Firefly is a very apt illustration of what's described, (abrupt stop of forward motion followed by a sudden reverse in direction) and we definitely see Poe execute a similar maneuver in the opening battle of TLJ.

Luke crashed because he forgot he was skimming the tree line and the maneuver he did involved a loss of altitude, so he crashed into trees.

16 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Luke crashed because he forgot he was skimming the tree line and the maneuver he did involved a loss of altitude, so he crashed into trees.

Doesn’t really change my point. If you’re losing altitude in a half-loop you’re not doing a half-loop.

6 hours ago, Tvboy said:

Once you actually understand what the k-turn represents in-universe (essentially a half-loop combined with a aileron roll), that would be the opposite of thematic, and equally fiddly.

Yes k-turn bumps are punishing. But k-turns are extremely powerful maneuvers in a game about lining up firing arcs where most ships can only turn a max of 90 degrees, and if the game is going to be about skill, then punishment for botched (or foiled) maneuvers needs to be equal to the reward.

I agree. If a k-turn gets a stress for bumping, then equally, a blue move should NOT get rid of a stress if bumping. There should be consequences to bumps according to the logic presented.

The K-turn is a super favorable maneuver to a jouster, and having the possibility of a bump helps add risk to it. A blue maneuver is not anywhere near as favorable.

6 hours ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

I agree. If a k-turn gets a stress for bumping, then equally, a blue move should NOT get rid of a stress if bumping. There should be consequences to bumps according to the logic presented.

Firstly, that's not at all what @Tvboy said, so I don't know why you "agree".

Secondly, you're again (deliberately, I have to assume) missing the point. The stress on bumping has nothing to do with the k-turn. Those are completely separate mechanics.

The stress happens because the maneuver is red. The basic mechanic of maneuvers is that the stress/colour interaction happens regardless of whether the maneuver is completed. If you dial in a red, you're getting a stress no matter what. If you dial in a blue, you're removing a stress. It's a really important mechanic for balance and ties heavily into the risk/reward system of maneuvers.

You've already been given a very good example of where messing with this would cause problems:

15 hours ago, It’s One Of Ours said:

Case in point, the B-Wing. It’s dial is arguably one of the worst in the game in terms of number of red maneuvers, and it only gets a limited assortment of white and blue. Even in v1 you could have issues where a B-Wing gets blocked by a large ship, and it’s only option is to power past the large base on a 3 or 4 speed maneuver. If bumping while performing a Blue maneuver didn’t remove stress, then the B-Wing’s dial would come with the threat of being stressed and blocked by a large base at a 45-degree angle, and getting stuck permanently so long as the large ship kept purposely bumping the B-Wing (hard turn).

If you did not receive a stress for bumping on a red maneuver, there are so many mechanics in the game that would open that up to abuse.

Furthermore, there are consequences for bumps - you lose your action and you cannot attack the ship you bumped. Those consequences are enough.

You're arguing against a fundamental interaction of the game mechanics, and I can't believe anyone who has ever played more than one or two games of X-Wing would ever want blue maneuvers to not remove stress on a bump.

12 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Furthermore, there are consequences for bumps - you lose your action and you cannot attack the ship you bumped. Those consequences are enough.

I am glad you agree that a bumped k-turn & slope should allow the ship to rotate 180 and a bumped talon role to rotate 90'. Losing the action is apparently enough consequence for a bump.

1 minute ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

I am glad you agree that a bumped k-turn & slope should allow the ship to rotate 180 and a bumped talon role to rotate 90'. Losing the action is apparently enough consequence for a bump.

No. I don't agree with that.

I was talking about red maneuvers in general. That's why I literally said:

17 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

If you did not receive a stress for bumping on a red maneuver ... Furthermore, there are consequences for bumps

Why are you being so obtuse?

Do you think it helps your position to deliberately misinterpret my comment?

8 hours ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

I agree. If a k-turn gets a stress for bumping, then equally, a blue move should NOT get rid of a stress if bumping. There should be consequences to bumps according to the logic presented.

"Red gets its normal effect, so Blue SHOULDN'T get its normal effect."

I'm not sure I see the logic here.

10 hours ago, JJ48 said:

"Red gets its normal effect, so Blue SHOULDN'T get its normal effect."

I'm not sure I see the logic here.

If red gets it normal effect, then the move should also get to rotate 180' or 90'. See how both of those are linked?

• Red gets normal effects; therefore, move should also get 180' or 90'
• If no red normal effects (on a red move); therefore, move should NOT get the 180' or 90'

Its illogical for both a red effect + not being able to get 180' or 90'.

7 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

If red gets it normal effect, then the move should also get to rotate 180' or 90'. See how both of those are linked?

• Red gets normal effects; therefore, move should also get 180' or 90'
• If no red normal effects (on a red move); therefore, move should NOT get the 180' or 90'

Its illogical for both a red effect + not being able to get 180' or 90'.

But not all red maneuvers are k-turns. Look at the HWK dial. It has red 3 banks that do turnaround. Likewise, we have two examples of white turnaround maneuvers in TIE Defenders and Jumpmasters. Heck, even green k-turns in the special case of Countess Ryad. Therefore, the difficulty of the maneuver is separate from the mechanics of the maneuver. One happens regardless while the other is based upon completion.

9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Therefore, the difficulty of the maneuver is separate from the mechanics of the maneuver. One happens regardless while the other is based upon completion.

This is not consistent game design as I have stated before. The red move is tighly coupled to the mechanics. Otherwise, why is the move red to begin with? Its red b/c its a difficult move. And so it goes, if the difficult move cannot be completed, it would stand to reason that the effect of the difficult move would not be applied as the ship couldn't actually perform the difficult move.

18 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

If red gets it normal effect, then the move should also get to rotate 180' or 90'. See how both of those are linked?

• Red gets normal effects; therefore, move should also get 180' or 90'
• If no red normal effects (on a red move); therefore, move should NOT get the 180' or 90'

Its illogical for both a red effect + not being able to get 180' or 90'.

No, it's not illogical at all. There are two independent parts to any maneuver: the movement and the color. The movement occurs regardless of what color the maneuver is, and the color has an effect regardless of what movement you're performing. When movement is blocked (regardless of what movement it is), the color still has effect. However, rotation is part of the movement, and thus gets cancelled along with the rest of the movement.

13 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

No, it's not illogical at all. There are two independent parts to any maneuver: the movement and the color. The movement occurs regardless of what color the maneuver is, and the color has an effect regardless of what movement you're performing. When movement is blocked (regardless of what movement it is), the color still has effect. However, rotation is part of the movement, and thus gets cancelled along with the rest of the movement.

Its illogical. Color and movement are coupled. Otherwise, moves would have arbitrary color. Its not logical for a move to be incomplete but still have the effect applied AS IF the move had been completed. This is the entire point from OP.

To have consistent and logical game design would require for the color of the effect be based on completion of the movement. Just like other effects of the movement like turning 180' and turning 90'.

In fact, the developers had to write an EXCEPTION in the rules to state 180' and 90' is not allowed. When they write an exception it furthers the point that its not logical as they had to state it.

2 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

This is not consistent game design as I have stated before. The red move is tighly coupled to the mechanics. Otherwise, why is the move red to begin with? Its red b/c its a difficult move. And so it goes, if the difficult move cannot be completed, it would stand to reason that the effect of the difficult move would not be applied as the ship couldn't actually perform the difficult move.

So, if the HWK does a red 3 bank, yet is stopped from completing it by a millimeter due to bumping, by your logic, should not get a stress. This is despite actual accomplishing the difficult maneuver of going fast (at least for the HWK.

Again, this shows the difficulty of the maneuver and the mechanics for it are separate. I’be already mentioned several examples of non-red turnaround maneuvers, further displaying it. The difficulty of certain maneuvers is based on chassis and/or pilot, therefore the mechanic and it’s difficulty are separate things.

You have yet to actually demonstrate how this is not consistent with game design, when there is even examples in the game of why it is.

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

So, if the HWK does a red 3 bank, yet is stopped from completing it by a millimeter due to bumping, by your logic, should not get a stress. This is despite actual accomplishing the difficult maneuver of going fast (at least for the HWK.

Again, this shows the difficulty of the maneuver and the mechanics for it are separate. I’be already mentioned several examples of non-red turnaround maneuvers, further displaying it. The difficulty of certain maneuvers is based on chassis and/or pilot, therefore the mechanic and it’s difficulty are separate things.

You have yet to actually demonstrate how this is not consistent with game design, when there is even examples in the game of why it is.

Lets say the hwk was blocked completely and could not move at all with a red 3 bank. It doesn't make sense for the hwk to get a stress as it didn't even MOVE!

5 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

Lets say the hwk was blocked completely and could not move at all with a red 3 bank. It doesn't make sense for the hwk to get a stress as it didn't even MOVE!

It did not move, because it almost ran in another ship when tried to perform a difficult maneuver, and had to make a sudden stop to avoid the crash. Getting a stress totally makes sense, imo.

2 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

Lets say the hwk was blocked completely and could not move at all with a red 3 bank. It doesn't make sense for the hwk to get a stress as it didn't even MOVE!

That’s because you are taking a 2D representation of a 3D battle as literal representation, which it is not. When ships bump, they don’t actually stay still. There is an entire dimension of movement that is missing where a fair amount of “bobing and weaving” happen.

To directly answer your HWK point, the pilot already slammed his foot on the gas and got the jolt of acceleration. That he then had to alter his course to prevent a full on collision doesn’t change that, especially the idea of him not moving is an illusion of an incomplete representation.

3 minutes ago, Ubul said:

It did not move, because it almost ran in another ship when tried to perform a difficult maneuver, and had to make a sudden stop to avoid the crash. Getting a stress totally makes sense, imo.

Having to suddenly stop to avoid a crash should give stress regardless of maneuver. Ex: my daily commute.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

You have yet to actually demonstrate how this is not consistent with game design, when there is even examples in the game of why it is.

Now, now. He repeatedly states that it's illogical, therefore it must be!

13 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

Its not logical for a move to be incomplete but still have the effect applied AS IF the move had been completed. This is the entire point from OP.

Really? Because that's not at all what the OP wrote. The OP was talking about partial turns, not about stress or the relationship between Difficulty and Bearing.

25 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

In fact, the developers had to write an EXCEPTION in the rules to state 180' and 90' is not allowed. When they write an exception it furthers the point that its not logical as they had to state it.

Is it an exception or a clarification? I don't see anything about overlapping that states that some maneuvers allow you to rotate and some don't, so I don't see how this can be considered an exception.

11 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

Having to suddenly stop to avoid a crash should give stress regardless of maneuver. Ex: my daily commute.

Agree. All bumps should result in a stress. That would be consistant gameplay. Blues don't remove stress on bumps. That is the entire point. Its either 1 way or the other. Right now, its inconsistant. Blues get rid of stress while reds give stress. Again, it would be far more consistent to give ALL colored moves a stress if bumping.

13 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Now, now. He repeatedly states that it's illogical, therefore it must be!

This is very rude behaviour. I have clearly stated many facts that support the argument of inconsistency. Reported

23 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

Agree. All bumps should result in a stress. That would be consistant gameplay. Blues don't remove stress on bumps. That is the entire point. Its either 1 way or the other. Right now, its inconsistant. Blues get rid of stress while reds give stress. Again, it would be far more consistent to give ALL colored moves a stress if bumping.

I could see a case made for all unfriendly bumps causing stress. It's not related to my OP, but I could see it. In such a scenario, bumping an enemy with a blue maneuver would then be stress neutral.

But currently no bumps cause natural stress. All red do. All blues remove it. It is consistent in that.

However, The direction of all blue, white, and most red non-straight maneuvers is always altered mid-stride on a bump. The only direction-changing maneuvers that are not directionally affected by a bump are k-turns, s-loops, and t-rolls (am I forgetting any? ...basically the turn-arounds). That much is inconsistent and part of my original point.

Muon did some great programming so people could get the fiddly adjustment for a bump on a turn correct in vassal. The rule books had extended instructions on how to add straight templates to the end of turns to accomplish the fiddly move on the table.

My hope is that someday all turns, regardless of the degree of the turn, get the same treatment that banks and turns currently do.