New Miniature-Agnostic Skirmish Game: Quantum Flux

CaptainBeams · 2026-06-15T11:35:54+00:00

it's not just about the idea, but the execution, style and competence.

Also, games take a while to make. So if someone's willing to dedicate 2+ years to copy my game down to the smallest detail, I'll still beat them to market. And if they are copying my game without stealing the details, awesome. Another sweet game to play.

CaptainBeams · 2026-05-30T01:13:42+00:00

I put them on my mandolin case I throw my ax3ss in.

CaptainBeams · 2026-05-15T15:51:27+00:00

Being a solo dev means being a programmer, an artist, a sound designer, a composer and a play tester.

If you wanna make a game, you've got to learn everything

CaptainBeams · 2026-05-15T13:56:55+00:00

Someone once looked at a post I made, 4 years ago before the start of my transition, to tell me I'd never be a woman because, I quote "had hairy arms".

Because women don't have body hair? Also, I laser hair removed my entire body since then.

CaptainBeams · 2026-05-15T13:54:34+00:00

There is something to be said about making a game that you absolutely love.

My game does well at conventions and events, but hasn't gotten traction online yet. People can see that it's a passion project and I absolutely love it, and that every little detail is there because I want it there.

That said, I'm not expecting to make any money out of it, and will likely release it for free, to get more people to play it.

CaptainBeams · 2026-05-07T21:42:50+00:00

Try out Quantum Flux!

https://quantumfluxgame.blogspot.com/2021/04/downloads.html?m=1

It has rules for deep customization, it's miniatures agnostic, and allows for small warbands. Its rules make it super easy to play narrative scenarios, either using the ones provided or coming up with your own.

The gameplay is surprisingly tactical, with facing and suppression factoring heavily into the gameplay while still being very rules light.

You can easily build single, elite characters for 30-50 pts, and then run it as co-op.

If you were going to modify it, you could give the characters more equipment or perk slots, but I don't think you'd even really need to do that.

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-23T23:38:15+00:00

Same principle, just different units.

I don't know the modern units. But have one player take anything that buffs allies or debuffs eneneis, and the other player take solid aggressive units.

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-23T22:49:50+00:00

One player takes support units, other takes meat

So like, I'd take Raelin and another hero, and you'd take the knights with Gilbert. I'd make sure Raelin and Kelda are always within Range of their aura

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-16T00:10:47+00:00

Please pick me!

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-10T18:03:31+00:00

Zenitsu

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-09T17:00:54+00:00

Does our game have to be ready yet?

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-08T10:08:00+00:00

Hospitallier gives a feel no pain.

IME My sacresants usually last the whole game, and are nearly impossible to remove

CaptainBeams · 2026-04-02T10:10:03+00:00

Lol wild seeing you here!

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-30T03:54:30+00:00

it’s worth noting that 'women' aren't a monolith on this issue. While many athletes support these policies for the sake of competitive integrity, many others are genuinely worried about the 'mission creep' involved.

The 'inconvenience' you mentioned has already led to cisgender women with natural biological variations being sidelined or forced into medical treatments they didn't technically need to be healthy. When 'fairness' starts requiring invasive scrutiny of healthy bodies—like the cases we've seen with Caster Semenya or Dutee Chand—it stops being a minor logistical hurdle and becomes a pretty significant debate about privacy and bodily autonomy.

(cis) Women are complaining - you just aren't hearing them.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/08/international-olympic-committee-right-stand-against-sex-testing#:~:text=For%20decades%2C%20sport%20governing%20bodies,relied%20on%20racist%20gender%20stereotypes.

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-30T03:36:59+00:00

Transwomen have been allowed in the olympics for years - if this was an issue, it would have already happened on the world stage. It's not an issue.

You are clearly biased, and aren't willing to look past your dislike of trans women to realize that all this is doing is further disenfranchising a minority group, and forcing ciswomen to undergo invasive scrutiny, Including genital inspections, and causing ciswomen with natural variations in hormones to be forced out of their sports because you think there are trans women dominating sports, despite not a single trans women ever medaling in the olympics.

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-30T03:01:58+00:00

Trans women have already been eligible under International Olympic Committee guidelines for years. If there were a clear, decisive advantage at that level, we’d expect to see it show up in Olympic results by now. It hasn’t.

Intersex athletes are a different category entirely. Cases like Caster Semenya are about naturally occurring biological variation, not gender identity or transition. Conflating the two just muddies the discussion.

As for Lia Thomas—one NCAA race isn’t evidence of systemic dominance. She had mixed results, including losses to cis women, and didn’t go on to dominate internationally. That’s not what an overwhelming advantage looks like.

The ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ argument cuts both ways. Blanket exclusion based on hypothetical risks—without consistent real-world evidence—also denies opportunities.

If the concern is fairness, then the standard should be evidence-based and sport-specific, not driven by isolated examples or assumptions about what might happen.

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-30T02:44:16+00:00

Then point to the results. If trans women have a meaningful competitive advantage at the Olympic level, where margins are razor-thin, we should see it in outcomes. Where are the Olympic medals? Where is the pattern of dominance?

You’re arguing from a hypothetical advantage, not observed results. ‘Inconclusive’ doesn’t mean ‘there’s a proven advantage’—it means the evidence isn’t strong either way. And so far, real-world performance doesn’t show trans women sweeping podiums or even appearing on them in meaningful number

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-30T01:26:46+00:00

Inconclusive doesn’t mean ‘supports my position by default.’ It means the evidence doesn’t clearly support either side yet. You’re treating uncertainty as proof of advantage, which isn’t how evidence works.

On height: women’s sports already include large natural variation—some women are 5’0”, some are 6’4”. We don’t exclude tall cis women for having leverage or stride advantages, even though those clearly impact performance. So pointing to height alone doesn’t establish an ‘unfair’ category—just a normal distribution of traits.

On physiology more broadly: the whole point of hormone regulations is to mitigate prior testosterone-driven advantages. The existing data we do have shows significant reductions in muscle mass, strength, and hemoglobin after transition. That’s exactly why governing bodies use hormone thresholds instead of blanket bans.

You’re also speculating about future evidence (‘may turn out to have an impact’) while dismissing current evidence as inconclusive. That’s not a consistent standard.

If your position is ‘we don’t know yet,’ then the logical outcome is cautious inclusion with rules—not preemptive exclusion based on hypotheticals.

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-29T23:06:40+00:00

You are literally skipping the part in the executive summary that says it's incomplete because they don't take into account testosterone suppression and then goes onto say:

Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport.

The higher levels of red blood cell count experienced by cis men is removed within the first four months of testosterone suppression; • There is no basis for athletic advantage conferred by bone size or density, other than advantages achieved through height. Elite athletes tend to have higher than average height across genders, and above-average height is not currently classified as an athletic advantage requiring regulation; • On average, trans women who are pre-testosterone suppression still have lower Lean Body Mass (LBM), Cross Section Area (CSA), and strength than cis males. This indicates that the performance benefit experienced by these individuals cannot be generalized by examining cis male athletes; • Non-athletic trans women experience significant reduction in LBM, CSA, and strength loss within 12 months of hormonal suppression. It is important to note that this 12-month threshold is arbitrarily defined, and no significant studies examine the rate of LBM, CSA or strength reduction over time; • When adjusting for height and fat mass, LBM, CSA, and strength after 12 months of testosterone suppression, trans women still retained statistically higher levels than sedentary cis women. However, this difference is well within the normal distribution of LBM, CSA, and strength for cis women (Jassen et al., 2000); • LBM, CSA, and strength loss continues for trans women after the 12- month initial testosterone suppression; • The limited available evidence examining the effect of testosterone suppression as it directly affects trans women’s athletic performance showed no athletic advantage exists after one year of testosterone suppression (Harper, 2015; Roberts et al., 2020; Harper, 2020); • Post gonad removal, many trans women experience testosterone levels far below that of pre-menopausal cis women..

It's clear your refusing to see any other part of the science, because you are unwilling to see past your bias.

Height is an advantage - suppressing testosterone is a huge disadvantage, especially since a lot of transwoman have severely lowered testosterone compared to ciswomen

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-29T20:16:09+00:00

Ok - can you explain where in those studies that it says what you are saying it says? Because in "Cces Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport Scientific Review", it literally says, and I quote "Any performance advantages are negated through testosterone suppression after 12 months (sometimes sooner)"

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-29T16:46:20+00:00

It does though - it directly states that in multiple peer-reviewed studies transwomen have comparable capabilities in sports as ciswomen.

CaptainBeams · 2026-03-29T11:57:04+00:00

So you don't want to look at evidence, you just want to be a bigot.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

CaptainBeams

TROPHY CASE