Victor Jarmusz, the author, has written a post on his blog which outlines the mechanisms it has in common with Battlesworn, as well as the fairly major differences. It should give you an idea if the game will be to your tastes. You can read it here:
Challengers of the Great Beyond
If you like your sci-fi hard, crunchy and 'realistic' then this is not the set for you. It's pitched firmly at the pulp sci-fi audience, so get out your Star Wars figures and brush up on your Dan Dare and Flash Gordon, because that's the mindset you'll need. It does use more figures than Battlesworn, because it now has squads as a type as well as individual characters. Since a proportion of a force must be squads you'll need to allow for that; squads have four or six figures depending on their type, and a force could have three or four squads.
Disclaimer: I not only playtested the rules, but did some of the development, so I may be slightly biased about how good they are. They're worth a look, though. Really.
Really exciting to hear this is out. I'm a big fan of Battlesworn - blew my mind that movement could be handled that way.
ReplyDeleteI tested out the rules for Battlesworn/Knights and Knaves (for solo play) and I just couldn't get into it. One game is by no means a fair chance so I'll have to revisit them and see.
ReplyDeleteI know you have had extensive play time with Battlesworn over the years and with that knowledge do you recommend a smaller force for a newbie or just play it as written? Thanks!
I'd play as written.
DeleteWith regard to the K&K solo rules, I use them for the bidding, but make sensible decisions for the remote player rather than use the priority system. The card-based initiative from CotGB is even better for solo play.
Battlesworn is an unusual name, though, and I can fully understand people not getting into it.
'game', not 'name'. The name is fine
DeleteI'll take your sage advice, thank you!
Delete