itch.io

Thanks! I'm very happy to hear they are getting some use. 

I don't have any plans for what my next set will be at the moment, as I've been busy with other things. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see, let me know. No guarantees, but I'm always open to ideas.

I like the look of this mission, and the rules seem pretty clear to me. Good work!

I think there is a potential sticking point regarding new spore blooms and how they are placed. They need to be a set distance away (3D6+3"), sure, but who decides where they go? Is it the player with initiative? Both players? What if I think it should go "here"  but my opponent wants to place it "over there?" What if there isn't an empty space that distance away and at least 6" from any other marker or model? 

The mission looks clearly written and pretty easy to follow. Nice work! I only have one minor quibble with the theming: that the side with less objectives (and thus less supplies to bargain with for additional forces) receives more supply points and bonuses. I understand it's meant to be a balancing mechanic, and that's probably a great idea; it just seems to go slightly counter to the narrative you've set out.

Thanks! I'm very happy to hear it will see some play. If you have any feedback afterwards, let me know.

I'm a big fan of the theme of the mission; I do love an asymmetrical attacker/defender mission, especially one where the objective is running away from an overwhelming force.

I do have a concern regarding the mechanics: if the game only last 4 rounds, 30" is a long way to go and (barring some coherency schenanigans), would mean that if a unit carrying an objective is delayed for even a single round doing anything other than running for the endzone, they won't be able to evacuate, as it would take 1 round to pick up the marker, then 3 rounds to cover the 30" distance.

Also, the battlefield map shows Zone B on the West edge of the board, rather than the East. Pretty minor, just had me confused for a bit.

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback.

Deep-Sea Elves were more-or-less my inspiration for the mission. Including a special exception for them would require putting faction-specific rules in the mission, which I wanted to avoid; it would dramatically unbalance the game in their favor and pretty much make it a faction-specific mission, rather than a universally playable one.

I decided the fact Deep-Sea Elves already have the Strider ability army-wide (and thus can move freely through Flooded zones) was sufficient to represent their "home ground advantage" mechanically and thematically without resorting to a faction-specific ruling/exception for Submerged Zones.

Thank you!

Thanks for the feedback, glad you liked it!

The intent is that it's a story about an Alchemist gathering resources to create. On its face, the "creative resource" is the vial, and previous items Vex has been hired to acquire for him. In a figurative way, Vex in the sense that she's a resource being used to acquire the items. The twist is that the the final, key resource is Vex herself in a very literal way. Evidently I didn't communicate that very well, or missed the mark.

Thanks for the feedback; I'm glad you enjoyed it! My intent was for the "creative resource" to be primarily Vex herself, being used (both figuratively and literally), for the Alchemist's work. Though, I may have not communicated that clearly enough through the story.

Sure! Fair warning, I'm no expert, so I may be mistaken in some instances or miss something.

Random apparent typos/mistakes: 

• "Ni'lak blinked clicked his heads-up display..." (blink-clicked?)
• "Don't miss, tin man." (In this case, I believe Tin Man should be capitalized, as it's taking the place of a proper noun)

There are a few instances when "it's" (it is) is used instead of "its" (possessive form):

• "...Atun Station's orbital comms relay from it's tiny DAO security detail..."
• "...until the broadcast window of it's local comm array opened..."

A comma should be used with "and" when it is joining two independent clauses, not an independent to a dependent. It is used with "and" when linking an independent to a dependent clause in several sentences:

• "...they had fallen on hard times, and were looking for any way to rebuild prestige."
• "The dynasty would pin them down, and maul them with heavy weaponry."
• "...down the riverbed, and the large metal pipeline that ran down it's length." (also "it's" vs "its")
• "Ni'lak grinned and his mech's hand tapped it's chest mockingly." (Missing a comma here. Also it's/its)
• "...from Ni'lak's stealth field, and slammed into the pipeline."

I hope this is helpful.

Concepts & Originality 4/5

I really like the premise, the setup of the story, and the imagery. Very cool.

Flow & Clarity 4/5

The story is very well written and structured, using evocative descriptions without becoming boring or dense, or making the narrative feel rushed in the limited word count. There are a couple of minor typos/mistakes, but overall I'm quite impressed.

Adherence to Theme 5/5

The resolution was a very creative solution/use of resources that had sufficient buildup to make it feel satisfying, rather than lucky or convenient.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 3/5

The story is interesting and very evocative. There just doesn't seem to be anything tying it to the OPR setting as opposed to any other 18th or 19th century/gothic horror story.

Flow & Clarity 4/5

The story is well written, with a fairly clear narrative and distinct narrator voice that fits the story well. I didn't notice any mistakes or typos that interrupted the flow of the prose.

Adherence to Theme 5/5

The story seems to adhere to the theme well. Well done.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 3/5

The premise is good and characterization is excellent. My only complaint is how much it feels like I'm just reading a 40k story set in the Taros campaign. Not really much of a complaint, I like 40k (and I'm a guard player at that), but it does ding the "originality" a bit.

Flow & Clarity 5/5

The story is well written and I didn't notice any errors or have any hangups on my read-through. A very pleasant read that I enjoyed quite a bit.

Adherence to Theme 5/5

I think you nailed the theme pretty well, focusing entirely on an "unusual" resource in warfare. Nicely done. On that note, I retire and take my leave.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 4/5

The story is interesting and dramatic. Dwarves mining too deep and unleashing a horrible monster isn't exactly breaking new ground (pun intended :P), but it's handled well.

Flow & Clarity 4/5

This is very well written and enjoyable to read. Though, I have mixed feelings about the second half of the story. It seems like an immediate reversal that undercuts the drama and desperation of the first half and calls into question why they needed to release the creature at all. Leaving it off would also allow for the first half to breathe a little more, though it feels pretty complete as is.

Adherence to Theme 4/5

Not sure I have much to say here. The theme is present and utilized effectively. Nice work.

If you want to discuss and of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 5/5

This certainly seems like an original and wacky take on the faction. 

Flow & Clarity 1/5

The story has a lot of formatting, spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors that make it difficult to read. The narrative itself is also a bit hard to follow, with a lot of exposition that interrupts the action. There are some neat ideas here, it just needs some cleaning up to make them shine.

Adherence to Theme 3/5

The concept of using the planet's gravity as a weapon is creative and interesting. I just wish it played more of a role in the story than only as a pretense/background motive.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 4/5

I like it. A dark elf lord leading a band of warriors to steal a magic amulet from rift daemons is neat and creative.

Flow & Clarity 3/5

The story is clear and the action is easy to follow. There are a handful of minor grammar/punctuation mistakes and slightly awkward wording that detract from the flow of the text, but could be fixed with another a quick editing pass. I think the pacing of the narrative could use some adjustment. The first third is largely exposition so the real meat of the story seems a bit glossed over to fit the word limit, and the inclusion of a rivalry side-plot stretches it even thinner. With such a short story, it helps to jump into the action right away and have a focused narrative.

Adherence to Theme 4/5

I think you incorporated the theme well, with a creative setting and solution to the problem. Nice work.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 5/5

Cool concept executed well. Mad scientist experimenting on tech he doesn't understand with unfortunate results isn't a new story, but you put a neat spin on it. No complaints here.

Flow & Clarity 5/5

I like the journal format; it used quite effectively to tell the story. I only noticed a single minor typo that didn't seem intentional. ("this bots" instead of "this bot" or "these bots" at the beginning). Well done.

Adherence to Theme 5/5

I think you handled the theme well, with the story centered around it rather than just including it. The alien grubs as a power source for advanced tech is a neat idea.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings further, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 4/5

The premise is neat. I like the choice of faction/perspective; I like the lead character; I like the lizard temple robots. Very neat and fun idea. There were just points where I wasn't sure what exactly was going on or why it was happening (such as the final imprisonment and the gemstone wife?)

Flow & Clarity 1/5

I'd like to echo The Last Omnitect, who broke it down far better than I could. Apologies if a 1/5 seems overly harsh, I've just been grading this category pretty strictly overall. The bones of the story are good;  at its core the prose itself isn't bad and the ideas are great. Some quick editing to correct run-on sentences and clean up grammatical mistakes would do wonders to help the story flow and improve clarity.

Adherence to Theme 4/5

The use of old temple ruins to make bio-mechanical mechs is cool and creative. Love that.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings further, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 4/5

The story premise is neat and interesting (a follow up from the last 2 jams I believe?). I like a story about different, even opposing, groups working together to survive and growing in respect as a result. I feel like the motivations of the human captain are a bit under-explored, but that is probably due in part to the short word limit.

Flow & Clarity 2/5

The story gets a bit difficult to follow in the switching between past tense and present tense, and the changes in perspective between characters. Some exposition is repeated (we hear about the Captain's condition from the messenger, the pack leader, then again from the Captain himself) which muddles the pacing as well. Another editing pass to tighten up the pacing and clean up the grammatical errors could do wonders.

Adherence to Theme 3/5

I appreciate that the resources in question are the "rival" crew/captains, and I think you've done fine with that theme. I just think there is some opportunity to lean into it more or do something a bit more "outside-the-box" with it.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord 

Concepts & Originality 5/5

The premise is interesting and the story was quite engaging. It kept me hooked to see what would happen. Well done!

Flow & Clarity 4/5

The story is well written, with evocative descriptions and good pacing. There are some slight grammatical mistakes and some dialogue that was a bit dense and made me stumble a bit. The former is a simple fix, the latter may just be a "me problem", rather than a story one.

Adherence to Theme 4/5

The story handles the theme in a pretty direct and interesting way. My only (minor) critique is that it's perhaps too direct and outright tells the reader what the "Creative Resources" are.

If you want to discuss any of my feedback/ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it and really appreciate the feedback!  It was fun to write.

I think this area of the official Dark Elf Raider lore (alchemists copying protectorate gene-mods to create powerful but irreversibly damaged dark elf warriors) is pretty under-explored and itself doesn't stray too far from 40k, so I was pretty conscious of the potential comparison when writing. Evidently, I played it a bit too "safe" to truly differentiate it. I think the story strays most into 40k in the disturbing physical appearance/demeanor of the alchemist himself, but I worried the story might not work/hit the same without the added unsettling detail/creepy factor.

Thanks!

Concepts & Originality 5/5

I'm pretty blown away by this. The story jumps right into the action, is gripping, and the premise is great. 

Flow & Clarity 5/5

I'm very impressed how clearly the narrative flows despite its backwards progression and frequent scene breaks. Also, the blow-by-blow combat is done very well, fast-paced and evocative. You done very good. There's some pretty minor grammatical/punctuation errors that need to be cleaned up, but I'm going to give a 5/5 anyways. 

Adherence to Theme 5/5

The story is focused around the theme and handles it in a very interesting way. Great.

If you want to discuss these comments/ratings, feel free to @ me in the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originality 5/5

This is an interesting look into a character's method of warfare. Very cool way to explore a faction and some creative storytelling going on.

Flow & Clarity 2/5

I like the use of first person present tense, but I think the story gets a little muddled in the transition to third person narrative in the latter half. Is the character narrating the action on 3rd person, or is it a different scene? There are a handful of grammatical errors that can be cleaned up in an editing pass, the most jarring are a few sentences that switch to past tense. I'm on the fence between 2 and 3 stars for this category, so I may revise my rating to 3 upon further reflection.

Adherence to Theme 5/5

Interesting to use mental conditioning/control/silence as the "resource" of the story. Very creative, and I appreciate the focus on it throughout. 

If you want to discuss these comments/ratings further, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

Concepts & Originally 5/5

From a creativity and originality perspective, 10/10, phenomenal! Wonderful use of poetry and interesting symbolism, a nice twist on a classic tale. I'm a big fan.

Flow & Clarity 2/5

The story seems to "tell" rather than "show" quite a bit, which I assume is partially due to trying to fit a relatively complex narrative in a 1000 word limit. Having the background details take the form of subtext rather than paragraphs of exposition probably would have helped a bit; with such a short format, you need to get into the story as quickly as possible. There are also a number of grammatical errors throughout, but those could be easily corrected with an additional editing pass. Apologies if this score seems a bit harsh, I'm still working out exactly how I'm scoring this category, so I may reevaluate this and bump it up to 3/5 later.

Adherence to Theme 5/5

I think the theme is handled very well, both within the story itself, and in the creative use of poetry and symbolism to write the story. Very well done.

If you want to discuss any of these comments/ratings, feel free to @ me in the OPR discord.

Glad you enjoyed it; it was fun to write.

Thanks!

Glad you liked it! I was worried it might be a little too dark.

Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback! It's something I noticed upon rereading afterward and you're 100% correct.

Concepts & Originality 4/5

The story does an excellent amount of world-building in the short length. It's interesting and the detail is good! I haven't given it 5-stars only because the general premise and details don't seem to have strayed too far from 40k.

Flow and Clarity 3/5

I like that you went for something a little different and used present-tense, rather than past; I personally love the usage of present tense. There are a few places where some grammatical errors occur and past tense slips in where it shouldn't, but overall good. I think the use of different fonts/formatting for the dialogue is a bit excessive and distracts, rather than aids the story, but that is perhaps just personal preference and I may reevaluate it and kick this score up to 4/5 as a result.

Adherence to Theme 4/5

I think the story adheres to the theme well, with the characters creatively using the resources available to them to solve the conflict/problem. Absolutely nothing wrong here, I'm just reserving 5/5 for stories that absolutely ooze the theme.

If you want to discuss this feedback/these ratings, feel free to @ me on the OPR discord.

5/5 for Concepts & Originality

I really enjoyed this! It is well written and I found it quite interesting. I also love the word play with the title, very clever. 

4/5 for Flow & Clarity 

Overall, I think the story structure works and the prose flows well. There were no grammatical errors that caught my eye while reading. I think the scene break before Grace disassembles the device interrupts the flow of the narrative slightly and confused me a bit, as it wasn't clear to me she was telling the story (and not just remembering it) until it transitioned back to the framing narrative aboard the Charybdis. The later reveal that something was left out of the story is probably sufficient, without the need for an out-of-place seeming scene break.

4/5 Adherence to Theme

Creative use of an improvised weapon to solve the "problem". I just deducted one star because it felt more like an added detail than really leaning into the theme with the story.

If you want to discuss any of this feedback further, feel free to @ me on discord!

Glad you like them! I was planning on doing so. In fact, I started recoloring them in a second scheme not that long ago, just need to get around to posting it. 

Is there a color scheme you want to see, or just looking for variety?

Thanks! 

I'm not a fan of how 2d flats for tanks look, so I've have been playing around a bit with designs for relatively simple papercraft vehicles. I just haven't settled on a design yet and mostly have been focusing on infantry (they're a blast to sketch and I've been more focused on skirmish gaming personally, where vehicles are less prevalent).

That being said, is there something in particular you'd like to see in a future paper mini set?

Looks very cool! Can't wait to see the first faction/unit rules to see how it all comes together on the tabletop.

I've seen both "mission critical" and "mission-critical" used, and either is correct. It is in common usage in American English, so it is perfectly reasonable to use. Searching "non-mission-critical" on Google brings up results and definitions with both that usage and "non-mission critical", so I believe either can be used. "Not mission critical" would also be correct but sounds slightly more formal. As I said, "Non-mission critical" means the same thing but sounds more informal and soldier-like.

"No mission critical" would be grammatically incorrect, as "mission critical" is functioning as an adjective in the sentence, and "No" is used to negate nouns, not adjectives. For example: "There are no cats," vs "The cats are not present."

I am by no means an expert on the subject, so please take my answers with a pinch of salt (that is to say, take my answers with some amount of skepticism, as I may be mistaken). For reference, I speak American English. Also, if I am explaining things which you already know, I apologize. I am not trying to imply you are stupid or do not know something simple; I want to make sure I am being as thorough and complete as possible.

The phrase "mission critical" is used in military jargon as shorthand to mean "critical to the mission." If I said "The safety of the general is mission critical," what I mean is "The safety of the general is critical to the mission." 

"Non-" is a prefix which means "not" or the negation of the word that follows it. For example, the word "Non-negotiable" means "Not negotiable".

So, the author is applying the prefix "Non-" to the phrase "Mission Critical" to create the phrase "Non-mission critical" (which means "not mission critical") This may not be strictly correct (you will not find the phrase "Non-mission critical" in an English dictionary). But, the use of this phrase works in the story because the story is written in first person, using the character's voice to narrate the story, so some intentional grammar mistakes can be made to convey the character's voice, as most people do not speak with perfect grammar. But, the writer needs to be careful that they are not making the text confusing or difficult to read.

In this story, the main character/narrator is a soldier, so the use of jargon like "mission critical" or "non-mission critical" works in the story because it makes the narrator sound like a soldier and it is still understandable as long as the reader is familiar with the jargon being used or is able to intuit the meaning. In this case, it sounds like you were able to intuit the phrase as meaning "not critical for the mission," so it seems to have worked.

Regarding the use of "as", I am afraid I do not have much information to give. In common usage of English (and, I think, most other languages), some words are removed or "dropped" to save time and space when writing or speaking. For example, I started this paragraph with "I am afraid I do not have much information to give" instead of "I am afraid that I do not have much information to give." Including "that" in the sentence does not change the meaning, add any information, or make the sentence easier to read, so I did not bother including it. 

When a word can be "dropped" depends on the sentence, so I cannot give a complete list of examples or circumstances. But, in American English, "as" often is not included after "considered". For example: "Dogs are considered man's best friend," or "This sentence is considered grammatically correct English."

I apologize for the long reply and I hope this is helpful to you!

Thanks! Yeah, I'm not particularly satisfied with the ending (or lack thereof) either. I was a bit overambitious with the scene concept and didn't have the time or motivation to completely restructure it after I realized I wouldn't have the space I needed, so it was reworked into a cliffhanger. The team didn't have enough time to complete their mission, and I didn't have enough words :P

Just wanted to chime in to say "no thanks to me," "to my feet," "mission critical," and "considered food," are all commonly used phrases and/or grammatically correct. If they fit the voice/style you're going for, I wouldn't change them.

Really neat concept, I like the characters and the premise. I think it would've worked better if the story began in the midst of the heist and the details of the plan were hinted at or inferred during the action; such a short format doesn't really leave space for a leisurely introduction.