Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Uncle Atom an Vince have made another game!

This time Sci-Fi (still skirmish) with solo, co-op and adversarial play options.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnbusXpGUx0&list=PLr_Hjio0StcgwyabX0qIhzLCitmlVT15-&index=2

Using d12 when you rolls are all 50-50 (even/odd) is a fairly odd decision.

The setting sounds like Frostgrave in Space with the "lost city" theme and straight away I'm thinking of the Sevastopol station from Alien Isolation. Which is awesome!

Its nice to have another option for solo & coop play.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Using d12 when you rolls are all 50-50 (even/odd) is a fairly odd decision.

Also rolling double 1’s is a critical failure.
Doesn’t having a higher stat (more dice) actually increase chances of critical failure?

I wasn't impressed by their first project (to be fair I didn't look past the daemon thing since I don't care about daemons) and this doesn't impress me either. That one stat check where it was just evens and odds on a number of dice equal to your stat was really. . . idk it just looks terribly unsatisfying.

Maybe I'm missing something, though.

This is definitely in my wheelhouse.
Sci Fi exploration yes!
Co-op yes!

Will give the videos a watch soon.

Like the concept.

Haven't watched the battle report yet, but agree that the dice mechanics choices seem a little odd.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Using d12 when you rolls are all 50-50 (even/odd) is a fairly odd decision.

Also rolling double 1’s is a critical failure.
Doesn’t having a higher stat (more dice) actually increase chances of critical failure?

This, does anyone have the rules and can confirm that this is how it works because thats also how I understood it from the video.

While the concept and general idea of the game is exactly what I'm looking for this is kind of a dealbreaker imo. How can I trust stats for weapons and mini's if they can't even grasp this basic sort of statistical analysis? The more dice you roll the higher the chance of 1s. I think the nWoD rpg had a comparable problem but then with D10s, also a dicepool system but instead of evens or odds you want 6 or higher.

The dice mechanic strikes me as trying to be different for the sake of being different.

Reign in Hell was fine, but only fine. It felt bizarrely limited in how you could build your demons and just assumed they were all melee bods who were going to try to knock lumps out of each other.

Dirk wrote:
This, does anyone have the rules and can confirm that this is how it works because thats also how I understood it from the video.

While the concept and general idea of the game is exactly what I'm looking for this is kind of a dealbreaker imo. How can I trust stats for weapons and mini's if they can't even grasp this basic sort of statistical analysis? The more dice you roll the higher the chance of 1s. I think the nWoD rpg had a comparable problem but then with D10s, also a dicepool system but instead of evens or odds you want 6 or higher.

Double 12s are also critical successes (auto pass tests and double hits in combat) and take priority over critical failures.

I’m a bit unsure about the odds/evens thing. 6+ successes seems like it might be easier* to spot at a glance, though there might be some things being done with special rules that makes more of a virtue of the odds/evens rule. Haven’t read it all yet.

I like the rules though. Looking forward to giving it a try.


*Edit: I think I mean more immediate rather than easier.

Ok if critical hits cancel out critical failures and they both work in the same way I guess a higher stat isn't that bad regarding critical failures. Makes things quite random with high stats though I can imagine. After a while the odds of having two 1s or two 12s in your pool has to get quite high.

The D12's don't bother me that much since I used to play d&d and have quite the collection of dice.

Soo yeah probably going to get it eventually. Could probably play it coop with the kids since it doesn't sound too complicated.

Crits are also '2 or more' rather than just double 1s or double 12, so for rolls of 4 or more dice you’re always more likely to get a critical success than a critical failure since two or more 12s will override any number of ones.

I think. Right?

Any die rolled has the same chance of rolling a 1 as it does a 12. So you are just as likely to roll X 12’s or 3’s or 1’s.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Any die rolled has the same chance of rolling a 1 as it does a 12. So you are just as likely to roll X 12’s or 3’s or 1’s.

Were you replying to me? I was specifically talking about the chance of applying the result of a critical success vs a critical failure, not the chance of rolling either.

I was agreeing that critical success would trump but that both were just as likely to occur.

Yeah but his point is that since 2 twelves cancel out 3 ones for example, higher dice pools will tend to get you even more critical successes on top of the fact that critical successes already cancel out the critical failures anyway.

For the people who wonder why such a convoluted system with weird dice this thread immediately shows why. If this was just a roll a dice pool of 6'es or roll one d10 or one d20 and then pile on the modifiers we wouldn't be discussing this and a lot less people would notice this thread.

Ah. I was (mis)understanding that you had to have more 12’s than 1’s in order to cancel.

You’re right that we wouldn’t be discussing it if it was roll plus some modifiers

Normally I do more research before ordering a ruleset, but I bought it yesterday. The size and price for pdf/paper combo is a great deal and rules agnostic sci Fi is very much my jam.

Plus Adam is a cool guy Im happy to support. He gave my son and I a great table space at TMX.

 Eilif wrote:
Normally I do more research before ordering a ruleset, but I bought it yesterday. The size and price for pdf/paper combo is a great deal and rules agnostic sci Fi is very much my jam.

Would it be possible to get a review after you've had a chance to digest things?

I just got the book and flipped through it. I like what I see but I guess most of the meat of the game is in the Solo/coop scenario's. There's 24 of them which is a LOT. Skirmishes between warbands is possible and also has 6 scenarios that look decent but the overall combat system is fairly light, the main thing is the campaign and its progression.

Also the D12's aren't just for rolling evens or odds although thats true for the main combat check that you'll be doing often). Sometimes theres also a target number, for example you need 4 successes of 5+ on your pool of D12's.
Edit: not target numbers but target 'even' numbers. So my above example is wrong, when trying to beat a 4+ target even number a 5 would still fail because its uneven.

There's lots of crew and ship options. The AI system is also easy which I like a lot because cumbersome AI systems turn me of. It's not like gloomhaven or blackstone fortress. You simply check wether they have melee or ranged. Melee goes towards closest enemy and ranged away from closest enemy and if they have actions left they attack. Thats the gist of it.

Like with other coop/solo heavy games, a deep selection of mini's and terrain is kind of a must have.

That's good to hear Dirk!

To be honest, there's been a bit of a glut in this area if the hobby recently, and a lot of them are either deliberately light or quite weighty. Both are fine choices, but there's definitely room for a solid set of campaign scenarios.

This one sounds like it may be worth a few beer tokens.

I'm probably going to pick this up and try it out, it sounds interesting. And before getting too angry about the dice system before fully understanding it, I'll assume that if Vince says the math makes sense, then the math makes sense.

I liked the sound of the co-op thing and even more so the solo.
Being able to do that is always great for those with limited time to get to clubs etc.

I’d never get to a game like this at the club as we have too much on and too little time.
But a bit of solo at home. Maybe.

The Paper copy arrived today and I started flipping through it. Still no real opinion on the game mechanics specifics, but I really like the balance they seem to have achieved with a rather light ruleset that still seems to have alot of flavor. I also love the art style. The missions are the real jem though I think. Some real interesting stuff there that will be fun to explore especially if I can get my son or friends to play co-op with me.

Also, there seems to be a need for some robots for various scenarios and that should give me an excuse to paint up (and maybe convert a few of) the plastic Terminator Genysis starter box figures I've got on the shelf.

Two complaints I do have about the presentation and promotion though.

1) For a game in a spaceship, they don't seem to do much to picture or suggest spaceship-like terrain. Even though you roll and add your own terrain to the table, all the scenario layouts look rather open, more like an outdoor game and this has been reflected in videos as well. I definitely think I'll be working in more interesting terrain options if I end up playing this.

2) For a game with such cool art and theme, why are both the battle reports I've seen done with Adam and/or Vince with mostly GW figures and terrain? I know those guys know about (and probably own) great stuff that actually looks more like their game.
UGH.
Especially ironic since last week's TM video was titled "Your game better have GOOD art". I agre but I would suggest that also "Your game videos better have figures and terrain that reflect that art!"

Anyway, rant over. I'm pleased with this so far and am happy that supporting Adam and Vince has landed me with a cool game I'm actually rather interested in playing.

I'll be honest - the battle report they put up looked super boring. A crew vs two groups of 3 Necrons that couldn't shoot on a playmat with like, three pieces of AdMech terrain. The only thing different from "open field shooting at the mooks" was they need to make rolls to resist poison gas.

Reviews are sparse and mostly hot-takes like the one above, and also like the one above boil down to, "I'm not really gonna talk about the system, I think the meat is the 24 scenarios."

I'm not sold on this one yet, given that there's so many good solo/coop games out there now. (I never thought selection would grow so robust that I could be picky, back when I got interested in solo wargaming as recent as 2018!)

Okay, so I just watched the first scenario battle report and I kinda dig it. I need to see more on how crews are created to decide if I want to give it a go.

I need to scratch that model-agnostic sci fi skirmish itch and I'm weighing all my options still.