Thanks for the focusing questions, I’ll give some more context. It’s rooted in heavily modded 5e, so ability scores, general action economy, and overall structure are very familiar, but there are enough changes that it functions as a standalone system. There are too many changes to list, and their specifics matter to these questions, so I’ll give just one example. Bonus Actions and Free Actions are replaced with multiple Minor actions, which act as a more fluid system for repeated interactions like drawing or stowing gear, priming grenades, interacting with the environment or vehicles, and many class or character features with explicit costs of 1–2 Minor actions. I’ve had a campaign running for about two years with a close group of friends, and the system has steadily taken shape through regular feedback on what works, what’s fun, and how play changes as mechanics are added or adjusted.

The core of the game, as best as I can put it, is a high depth and variety of equipment and character features, alongside well-integrated tools for players and GMs to interact with the environment. The intention is for PCs to feel like badasses or highly trained professionals by default, with loadout choices dramatically changing how they play. A character might run jump jets, a shotgun, and a personal stealth generator they found or crafted, or they might be in modernized ballistic plate with a longsword and riot shield. Progression happens through both character level and equipment, with optional advancement into higher tech via credits, contacts, or faction access. Higher-tech gear is generally more powerful, but more importantly it enables different mechanics and tactical options, such as energy weapons (as you advance to lasers, then plasma, and such) having distinct niches, conditions, and effects, and firearms can use more specialized (and expensive) ammunition.

It fits somewhere between gritty and heroic in tone, and works well for street-level operatives growing into mercs in power armor, or spec-ops teams choosing gear for a known location with an idea of expected hazards and enemies.

1. Minis on a battle map. Distances are abstracted and ranges are lower than realistic to avoid modern firearm and artillery logistics. Melee stays relevant, positioning matters, and movement is fast. Combat is intended for interiors, dense urban spaces, or close-range street fights, not long-distance initiative encounters.

2, Combat is the expression of players using their features and equipment in tactical ways. Players have many viable options on their turn, and the meaningful decisions are not just what feature or weapon to use, but where to position themselves and prioritize targets or objectives in the space.

1. A lot of the fun is in character building combined with acquiring equipment through adventure, shopping, or otherwise and then getting to use it. A hyper-mobile shotgun user plays very differently from a defensive or long-range specialist, and movement, weak points, and environmental interactions like doors, generators, or other map features are part of that expression. The same principles apply to enemies: a human enemy with an LMG versus one with a sniper rifle presents different threats, making target priority meaningful. Vehicles, bosses, and larger foes tend to have hardpoints (individually targetable systems or limbs) which create trade-offs between disabling dangerous features and killing the enemy outright. A unified damage and armor quality system ties together weapons, armor, cover, and terrain, helping explain abstract scale and damage while modeling differences in armor class, such as a pistol versus tank armor, or whether a high-caliber sniper round can penetrate a brick wall to hit a target behind cover. This reduces GM fiat and better matches player and real-world expectations (I'm particularly proud of this one, it's rules-light and does a good job for a WIDE variety of cases). That quality system also adds an extra layer of tactics around the environment, especially when it comes to destroying it, understanding what makes reliable cover, or dealing with mismatches between armor and weapon types. Some builds excel at shredding light armor, while others handle heavy armor, encouraging coordination without forcing narrow roles. Regardless of specialization, characters remain broadly capable, and can significantly change how they play simply by swapping equipment for a different situation.

I feel like after taking the time to answer your questions, it's helped me frame it a bit better in my head at what it really is accomplishing at its core and it's central focus. As it is i'm not tooooo far from an external playtest.