I thought it was really original, and I like the design of the rules. They were laid outright, I thought the terminology was solid, so was the coloring.

So far, it met all the rubric standards pretty dang well!

I understand it's part of the theme, but the protagonist/antagonist thing just makes the rules that much more cumbersome to read. Looking at the combat, the reason so many games use an armor save, is it gives the player being attacked something to do. It would take a bit of rejiggering, but changing the damage roll to be a defense roll would offer the same benefits. The injury table being 2/3rds beneficial is as nice way of keeping campaigns from spiraling, too many games reward winning with the ability to win harder. The skill point/stat point spread involves too much math, most of which doesn't matter. It would be better to divide all the costs by 10, and give players the option of gaining an ability *or* stat point per point of reputation gained. This presents an interesting choice, keeps roughly the same advancement speed, and makes the math much easier. Also I understand the intent of 'talks too much', but adding a "Does this character get to act this turn" roll that only fails on a one just serves to slow the game down.

First off, for my review this entry is starting at a disadvantage, because to be honest I'm burnt out on superheros. We had a little over a decade of them dominating movies, and that well's gone dry. That said this game does a few things that are fairly original and fit the theme. I like the notion of damage as a check or save, rather than a binary, and it does redefine failure, particularly when paired with the negative feedback loop on the injury table. That said, I'm not sure I'd want to spend a lot of time with this game, the rules are a bit fiddly, and the actual turn to turn combat doesn't do a ton that's interesting.