It should just be -1 forward. If they decide to play poker next instead of doing something important, that decision has just as many consequences as if they go off and do the important thing they would have otherwise done next. Moreover, it doesn't seem to make much sense fictionally that the ill-effects would be arbitrarily delayed, if they are the direct result of the jump.
Fair point, I feel. The issue I have with the first is that it will take a day or two on average to get from where you jump in to where you're going. Plenty of time to do laundry, clean guns, take care of regular maintenance and get bored.
I'm a bit mystified by the Supplies/Barter distinction. Is there a mechanical effect to this? Is there an in-fiction effect? Are you going to just arbitrarily decide on the spot, when the rules reference 'barter', whether they mean barter or supplies? (Like, when somebody gets paid for a gig, what do they get paid in?) What is the advantage of making this distinction?
Ok, so: Supplies are things of direct use, Barter represents things of intangible value. Supplies could be thought of as having the tech tag, while Barter would likely have valuable. Generally speaking planetary settlements can provide for themselves and would prefer you bring them shiny things in trade, but space-based settlements are often in need of something or other so either would do. Similarly when you look at getting paid, we look at where you are and who you're dealing with. If you've just shipped parts for an atmo plant to a planet that's terraforming is in the process of breaking down, they're much more likely to give you crates of food than tech parts.
Yeah, and now I'm having a hard time distinguishing the difference myself. I had a vision of a scavenger crew raiding a hulk and coming out with precious art and music, like 10 barter worth, but having to breathe foul air and nurse the engines to make it back somewhere to sell it off because they have no supplies to change the filters or make repairs. You may have a good point there.
As far as the general concept, I guess my question would be: is this the apocalypse, still, or just some people in space? I know some people have run AW-in-space before but those were explicitly apocalyptic; i.e. the PCs were survivors on a space station orbiting the earth when the apocalypse occurred. Etc. It's unclear from these moves if you're going for a setting that is still apocalyptic, and I guess my suggestion would be that if you are going to develop custom moves, I'd be most interested (as a hypothetical player, or whatever) in seeing moves that address the intersection of 'apocalypse' and 'space', rather than one or the other.
I want to keep it pretty open, but the setting that's sitting in my brain goes like this: humanity discovers hyperdrive in the near-ish future, spends a while mapping and sending out robotic terraforming plants to likely-looking exoplanets, and colonises the hell out of the stars. Some decades later interstellar relations have broken down to the point where over the course of a year or so every gets their own apocalypse - virus bombs, regular bombs, orbital strikes, planet-crackers, grey goo, autonomous warmachines (like Terminators), anti-terraforming, what have you. And hyperspace goes from simple mappable routes to a twisting snarl that you need to be half crazy to figure out.
Anyone lucky enough to be on a planet at the time of play is likely the descendant of a hopeful colonist now living on a death world, at the mercy of passing raiders and bandits who perform protection at the cost of a regular tithe. Those on stations are living in fragile metal islands turned feudal kingdoms where if your father was an air vent scraper, chances are you're going to be an air vent scraper too.
The reference to Andromeda may just be colouring my point of view, since that's pretty much not very apocalyptic at all. But I think another thing to consider is whether you are expanding the scope -- is a fleet of space fighters really the equivalent of a biker gang? How much hyperspace travel is regularly occurring? I think AW works best when operating at a personal-interaction level, so I'm always wary of things that start to feel like PCs directing fleets or managing large-scale logistics or the like.
I consider Andromeda to have some post-apocalyptic elements to it, more so in the early episodes. It is set 300 years after the fall of civilisation, after all. Other thematic influences I have in mind are Firefly, Stephen Donaldson's Gap series and Alastair Reynold's Revelation Space. Chopper has a fleet of fighters, this tells us spaceflight is cheap (ish) and easy enough that you don't need a degree to do it. Hypertravel is uncommon but happens. You'd have to imagine that NPCs would likely suffer most or all the negatives, so they would treat it as a big deal, try and lay in extra supplies first, get a good navigator, that kind of thing. Travelling in-system is like driving around in your local neighbourhood, jumping to another star is like travelling to another territory altogether.
You can be a trader, scavenger, itinerant gun for hire or own your own space station, but your world is inherently fragile. You're going to have to depend on other people, which means forming relationships and extending your trust. If all you want is an orbital shuttle, a home, and the clear blue of an alien sea at your doorstep (
ref) you could probably get it, but what are you going to have to do to get there? If you've got a grander goal, like you want to restore civilisation, you'll have to forge some strong relationships. However it ends up, it has to start personal.