Do you think there is any possibility that FFG will release a ship that has a zero movement option on the dial?

The HWK would be a prime canidate for this. I imagine as a freighter it won't have a very good movement dial. If this baby is passing out focus tokens or allowing extra dice rolls (per named pilots), it will be target numero uno. Giving it the option not to move in a round will give it a pretty sweet and unexpected advantage. I would think the trade off would be lots of red maneuvers, few greens, and maybe no k-turn options or something to even things out. Maybe the Zero maneuver would even be red so that it can't be abused round after round.

Probably a ridiculous idea but I'm bored and just thought i'd throw it out there and get some feedback.

I actually think the HWK will have a relatively "normal" movement dial. Sure it is a "support" ship but until you start putting points into it there isn't a lot of threat coming from it. I mean one attack isn't something most people fear and two defense die are better than one but still not that great. It may have five hitpoints but that is no more than an X-Wing and only one of them is a shield.

Now I do think we could see a zero move on the dial. I've even suggested adding some kind of "fixed" weapon battery which would have no movement as its only green maneuver plus the speed one moves which it may even be allowed to take in reverse as red maneuvers.

"Retro thrusters" would be pretty cool: move speed 1 backwards, possibly it would be a red maneuver, if not at least a white one. It could even be an "action" like boost or barrel roll so you could move 1 forward and then "fire retros" and move 1 back.

I like the idea of a "Retro Thrusters" action kinda upgrade". You would still have to clear the 1 forward (and have it on your ship) and get an action to effectively not move. So it wouldn't stop you from hitting something dead ahead with AP Lasers or something. That could be a fun Modification or Astromech or something. Maybe a Crew: "Engine Tinkerer".

Actually there is one Fightercraft in the X-Wing universe that specifically calls out the Retro-Thrusters or Reverse Thrust. The Clutch (Tie/CL?) Tie/LN Ball cockpit with 3 Triangular wings set at 120 from each other (top with Ion cannon) and standard 2 Laser cannons. Oh and Reverse used to dramatically shorten a turn.

Probably should have a Pilot Skill of;

"During movement phase, instead of moving based on what your Maneuver dial states you may instead Barrel Roll. You may not perform a Barrel Roll or Boost after doing so."

So... I can move my my fighters and then stop after colliding with a big ship to ensure it never gets to resolve any moves without colliding, and no actions?

I can start the game parked behind asteroids and enjoy a +1 agility bonus until I'm ready to pounce?

Yeah not liking this idea. X-Wing is about wheeling and banking dog-fighting, and stopped in space as a movement seems contrary to that spirit. I wish we did have stopped in space though, for ion effects, because that could make them interesting and reflective of at least one of their popular portrayals.

I agree with morse hound.

If you did do zero movement your agility for that round should drop to zero. That would be some deterence from camping and would make sense in-universe and as a gaming balance.

If I were to create a ship whose default state is sitting in one place it is not going to have more than 1 agility die. I also wouldn't give it too many hull and shield points.

Using a retro thruster action to move backwards is different from a zero move and therefore should not need an agility penalty, if your first forward move hits an object or ship then you lose your action as normal so could not perform the retro move. "Hiding" behind a asteroid is a valid tactic with no major benefits and seems pretty bad in terms of predictability. The retro thruster "crazy idea" would be suitable as a named ship card modification so you would only use it on slow ships, possibly like the Hawk.

The ion cannon effect is fine as it is, it does the job at limiting a ships future movement, possibly leaving them "stressed" for an extra turn is the best time to ion someone.

Thrusters seem like they could be fun, but i would see them as a movement, not an action, cause it would be weird as hell for a ship to go (say) 4 forward and then slam on reverse thrusters and get thrown around to reverse 1. It just doesn't make sense physics-wise. I would pleased to see it as a specific movement on a special ship, but not a modification...it would truly be too easy to abuse.

To the HWK though...I frankly expect it to have a excellent maneuver dial. About on par with the basic tie fighter, with a couple more greens. It was as fast courier ship, not really much of a shuttle. It's gunna be fast, and quite maneuverable i have no doubt.

Thrusters seem like they could be fun, but i would see them as a movement, not an action, cause it would be weird as hell for a ship to go (say) 4 forward and then slam on reverse thrusters and get thrown around to reverse 1. It just doesn't make sense physics-wise. I would pleased to see it as a specific movement on a special ship, but not a modification...it would truly be too easy to abuse.

To the HWK though...I frankly expect it to have a excellent maneuver dial. About on par with the basic tie fighter, with a couple more greens. It was as fast courier ship, not really much of a shuttle. It's gunna be fast, and quite maneuverable i have no doubt.

That would be fun, but I guarantee that isn't happening. The HWK dial is not going to be very good. Hothie got some preview ships to write an upcoming article for FFG, and though he couldn't give specifics, he did say, there's a reason the abilities on the ships are all range 1-3. It's not going to be a good dial.

This is the third time I've seen this debate for going backwards. A dogfight is SUPPOSED to be a fluid action. You won't get turkey's sitting in the corner on "0" movement or going backwards. The concept of moving forwards and then "actioning" a sudden reverse not only defies physics, but common sense.

FFG have not put a "0" (or reverse) on any maneuver dials for a reason. Starfighters are designed to go FORWARDS!

Have you noticed that nearly all of them have virtually no rear view from the cockpit? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GO FORWARDS!!

This is the third time I've seen this debate for going backwards. A dogfight is SUPPOSED to be a fluid action. You won't get turkey's sitting in the corner on "0" movement or going backwards. The concept of moving forwards and then "actioning" a sudden reverse not only defies physics, but common sense.

FFG have not put a "0" (or reverse) on any maneuver dials for a reason. Starfighters are designed to go FORWARDS!

Have you noticed that nearly all of them have virtually no rear view from the cockpit? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GO FORWARDS!!

Firstly - Holy necro thread Batman! it's only over 6 months old!

Secondly, there is now a ship that has zero movement being the Lambda.

This is the third time I've seen this debate for going backwards. A dogfight is SUPPOSED to be a fluid action. You won't get turkey's sitting in the corner on "0" movement or going backwards. The concept of moving forwards and then "actioning" a sudden reverse not only defies physics, but common sense.

FFG have not put a "0" (or reverse) on any maneuver dials for a reason. Starfighters are designed to go FORWARDS!

Have you noticed that nearly all of them have virtually no rear view from the cockpit? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GO FORWARDS!!

Firstly - Holy necro thread Batman! it's only over 6 months old!

Secondly, there is now a ship that has zero movement being the Lambda.

Beat me to it. Was wondering why no one had pointed out the shuttle, and then saw just how old this thread was. Why, exactly, was this brought up, and why was someone THAT far back in the threads? lol

Nowt wrong with resurrecting old threads, he obviously wasn't around at the time. I missed this too, and now it looks like we might get a good argument out of it!

How does stopping and going backwards "defy physics"? Sounds like the sort of thing the Viper pilots in Battelstar Galactica do. My only problem with that would be it's not very star Warsy. Mind you, it's still totally something you could see someone doing - you're being chased so you come to a stop (or at least slow down, coming to a stop's the obvious natural conclusion if you have the technology) so your persuer overtakes you so you can shoot them in the bum. I do it in GTA.

OK, I stand corrected on the Lambda, but that's the only one, and this thread came through on my email today. Weird. Self-resurrecting posts. Who'd have thought?

Now, defying physics - I've probably flown too many hours in AIR, and that's just the way I think. It doesn't exactly translate to space. But what was being suggested was making a forward "move" then a backward "action". This would assume you've got just as much thrust in reverse as you do forwards in order to make this happen. I'm thinking logically that in the brief time frame of a game turn, I don't see it as being a viable option.

Some jets have a devise known as a clam shell that closes the thrust exhaust like a clam but opens up towards the front to redirect the thrust from aft to forward. Thus the jet can slow down very fast. Then you have vectored thrust which is a totally deferent beast all together.

This would assume you've got just as much thrust in reverse as you do forwards in order to make this happen. I'm thinking logically that in the brief time frame of a game turn, I don't see it as being a viable option.

Not necessarily - your forward engine can do a five forward on some ships (presumably this is a vmeo for fast, agile ships), being able to come to a stop and do a one backwards might be doable.

An alternative approach would be a skill that lets you adjust the length of your straight forward when you reveal your dial, like some skills with banks do.

Also, what about doing a turn and then a backwards turn, as though flicking your ship around? If this was two 2 Turns then the effect would be similar to a Koiagran (sp?) turn, but if you did a 3 turn followed by a 1 backwards turn, that could be interesting...

How does stopping and going backwards "defy physics"? Sounds like the sort of thing the Viper pilots in Battelstar Galactica do. My only problem with that would be it's not very star Warsy.

That's one thing I liked about the fighters B5, they actually worked to a point like real spaceships do.

My only issue with going backwards in X-Wing is the whole not very star warsy thing... Lucas wanted SW space fights to look and feel like WW2 stuff, and then we sort of came up with reasons why a ship in 0g does what it does...

I could see Vulture Droids doing it. And possibly some very advanced fighters like Xisors starfighter. There is no reason why a really fast ship couldn't move 4 of it's top speed of 5 or 6, pull to a stop and reverse thrusters all in one turn.

This is the third time I've seen this debate for going backwards. A dogfight is SUPPOSED to be a fluid action. You won't get turkey's sitting in the corner on "0" movement or going backwards. The concept of moving forwards and then "actioning" a sudden reverse not only defies physics, but common sense.

FFG have not put a "0" (or reverse) on any maneuver dials for a reason. Starfighters are designed to go FORWARDS!

Have you noticed that nearly all of them have virtually no rear view from the cockpit? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GO FORWARDS!!

Firstly - Holy necro thread Batman! it's only over 6 months old!

Secondly, there is now a ship that has zero movement being the Lambda.

Beat me to it. Was wondering why no one had pointed out the shuttle, and then saw just how old this thread was. Why, exactly, was this brought up, and why was someone THAT far back in the threads? lol

I think the resurrection of the thread was my fault. I linked it in another topic i recently made about ideas for the huge ships that were unexpected or outside the box. I linked it to point out that I had suggested the 0 movement idea before the Lambda dial was revealed to illustrate the type of conversation i was hoping to start. A few in this thread thought the idea of a 0 movement was stupid. So the point is that no idea is stupid, although criticism of why an idea wouldn't work is welcome. My idea for the huge ships was a reverse movement option. So I think the resurrector of the thread thought he was posting in the more recent thread about the huge ships and didn't realize that he was still in the linked thread.

Got the link to t' other thread?

Got the link to t' other thread?

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/98387-speculation-for-the-huge-ships/

This is the third time I've seen this debate for going backwards. A dogfight is SUPPOSED to be a fluid action. You won't get turkey's sitting in the corner on "0" movement or going backwards. The concept of moving forwards and then "actioning" a sudden reverse not only defies physics, but common sense.

FFG have not put a "0" (or reverse) on any maneuver dials for a reason. Starfighters are designed to go FORWARDS!

Have you noticed that nearly all of them have virtually no rear view from the cockpit? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GO FORWARDS!!

Firstly - Holy necro thread Batman! it's only over 6 months old!

Secondly, there is now a ship that has zero movement being the Lambda.

Beat me to it. Was wondering why no one had pointed out the shuttle, and then saw just how old this thread was. Why, exactly, was this brought up, and why was someone THAT far back in the threads? lol

I think the resurrection of the thread was my fault. I linked it in another topic i recently made about ideas for the huge ships that were unexpected or outside the box. I linked it to point out that I had suggested the 0 movement idea before the Lambda dial was revealed to illustrate the type of conversation i was hoping to start. A few in this thread thought the idea of a 0 movement was stupid. So the point is that no idea is stupid, although criticism of why an idea wouldn't work is welcome. My idea for the huge ships was a reverse movement option. So I think the resurrector of the thread thought he was posting in the more recent thread about the huge ships and didn't realize that he was still in the linked thread.

Well, technically the fact that FFG came out with a Zero move maneuver doesn't prove that it's not a stupid idea... Unless you couple it with FFG is incapable of stupid ideas. Note - I'm not saying that it is/isn't a stupid idea, just pointing out that it could still be debated. I know from a gameplay perspective, it's a good addition. I'm not sure I'm sold on it as far as a real world application. But at the same time, it's silly that an A wing can do a 5 straight, and then turn on a dime the next turn, or an X wing doing 4 forward, and then 1 forward. But I put all of that aside (along with the stop maneuver) when playing the game because it's still loads of fun, and wouldn't work as well if there was a hysteresis to your maneuvers.