Has /tg/ played or even heard about No Limits? Its a sci fi wargame mean to be played with almost ani minis.
/vmg/ - Viral Marketing General
>>47783009
>viraling an old, free game that markets itself on using any minis you happen to have
Nice kneejerk, you fucking retard. Carry on, OP.
>>47783009
viral marketers dont give away the product you doofus
>>47782875
Looking at it now I can definitely say i am not interested. A model has 8 different stats+special rules, and weapons have 7+special rules on top of that.
Its depressing to see so many of these games come out designed to be used with whatever as people search for alternatives for 40k or whatever, and end up falling in the same game design traps of 40k.
I'll pass.
>>47783115
what do you say are 40K design traps? The crunch?
>>47783154
the unnecessary crunch. the bloat. modern games are simplifying and slimming. for good reasons. I am still skimming through this book and see the same bullshit as the 40k rulebook
Its even worse than i thought. look at this, it's the strength-vs-toughness chart, but adjusted for the d10. Nobody ever said this chart needed to live on in other games. I know for 40k players it becomes easy to remember and figure out, but still its old outdated game design that can be done better, and is being done better.
its like the creators just got fed up with GW (understandably) and decided to make their own game you could use anything with, but couldnt imagine playing anything other than 40k. "its totally different guys, we use d10's!"
>>47783207
I knew the book wascrunchy but I didn't imagine it was too similar to 40k
>>47783207
Dumb question because I've only played 40k, what other systems to "to damage" mechanic better? I don't really like it in 40k, just curious how else it can be.
Not the other anon, but I've seen this around for a while without actually having a copy, so thanks to OP for that.
However, I have to agree with the other anon, this is just WH40K with d10s. Look at the model starts - RA = BS, CC = WS, ST = S, T = T, W = W, CO = Leadership.
The Weapon strength works like early edition WH40k and its Save modifiers.
I do like the vehicle damage tracker, that's a nice touch (borrowed from Starfire?).
But armour saves, ST/Toughness tables and others just means that as I already have Wh40K, I'll just reskin that (and have).
I have no problems with complex games, so the amount of tables and stats don't bother me, but this is like the OSR games (which I also don't understand the point of), it's basically a clone, so why bother?
>>47783752
There are plenty of systems which handle this. The point of a table is that it gets very limiting. For example, lets reskin this to modern day warfare. If an assault rifle is WS3, then where does a 20mm auto-cannon, 40mm auto-cannon, 105mm cannon, 120mm cannon and more come into it. It's all gets to Strength 10 very quickly. Which means you lose flavour especially as tanks of varying quality will soon all have Armour Toughness 10.
You could use combat odds (very 70's I know), roll above, damage points, or other systems. Check out Dirtside, Stargrunt, Laserburn amongst others.
Also ditch armour saves. It's stupid, especially with toughness.
You should just roll to hit and then roll to wound. Any armour should be in that wound roll. I mean, why would I roll to wound and then roll to save when actually it should be the other way round anyway, the armour should have a chance to protect you before you're potentially wounded. And then you save some rolls.
Sorry this is negative feedback and if your market is disgruntled Wh40K players who like the rules but not the cost, then they'll feel right at home. But if your market is for anyone else, then they'll be disappointed with this.
>>47784648
This. What the fuck even IS Toughness if Armor is a separate roll?
>>47784927
It's meant to represent that some things are superhumanly tough but desu you could make that less granular and just have mortal toughness, exceptional toughness, daemonic toughness/whatever.
