Game Design #38: Reactions (Medieval and Fantasy)

This will be part of a broader topic about the "in thing" - reactions (and when/where they are best used).  However this post is a lot more specific as it follows a train of thought I've had about fantasy/ancients games.  Reactions seem pretty rare in this genre.  Do reactions even belong in fantasy?

REACTIONS in Fantasy:  Balancing Missile & Melee

Most reaction fire rulesets are based on the WW2/modern/hard sci fi area, where cover based shooting dominates.   Reaction firing makes sense here - i.e. pinning and locking down fire lanes etc. 

Reactions are fun, and allow both sides equal involvement in a turn.  I'd like to see the interaction and decisions of reactions in a fantasy game.  However is the principle of reactions one fundamentally unsuited to melee-oriented warfare?

Lords & Servants allows you to "set aside" some actions in order to react. Kinda like saving "overwatch points".  You sacrifice actions in your own turn in order to interfere in your opponents - which limits total reactions.   Pretty sensible. But what if we like unlimited reactions?  Can we make a cinematic, medieval Infinity, or is this simply too fundamentally different?

Whilst I want models without shields/armour to think twice before crossing open ground in front of an archer, I don't want machine-gun like barrages of arrow scything down models before they can charge into contact.  Neither do I want to give the active player a major advantage in archery duels. In fact, the weighting should favour melee as the "decisive" factor in battles; whilst allowing units and models to be reacting almost constantly to opponents actions.

I'm going to start with the standout "extreme" reaction system - Infinity.   EVERYONE can react to an activated individual or unit who acts in line of sight, if they beat them with an opposed roll.    Missile fire is very lethal and wise use of cover is paramount.  The benefits of being active - the active unit gets two actions, and reactees get only one.  Infinity also favours the active unit by giving it a higher rate of fire. One side is active, then the other - sort of an IGOUGO but with the opponent given unlimited overwatch.  It's a really interesting system and it's also free, so check it out here.

Fantasy Reaction Problems:
* Balancing the rate of fire and lethality of bows so they do not dominate like a modern M16/SAW

*Differentiating between the loading methods bows and crossbows - and to a lesser extent slings, javelins etc. Traditionally bows in IGOUGO do things like "half move to fire"- bow  or "move or fire" -  crossbow but this may not always mesh with our activation system.

*May make the game too passive (i.e. waiting around to react, rather than acting - having the "initiative" actually being a disadvantage)

Possible solutions:

*Bows etc do weaker damage at long ranges, as well as lower hit chance

*Keep the ranges low (the traditional 24" or less)

*Shields and armour are effective, especially at long range (shieldwalls = effective)

*Restrict the rate of fire/reactions (which is the simplest/best way to do this?)

*Change the reaction system itself (which radically changes all aspects)

For a start, let's work with the extreme (unlimited Infinity-style reactions) and see if it can be adapted.

Let's Go Hypothetical

A bow traditionally fires 24".  A normal foot figure could move 8" (4+4")  meaning it could be exposed for 2-3 shots if a reactor can fire every move.  Maybe 3-4 shots if the figure is slow - 6" . 

The first shot would be 50%, -20% at long range (30% to hit); with about 50%, -20% long range (30% to damage) on the first shot.  I.e. about 10% chance of fatality.  At closer range, the chance would be 50% to hit, and 50% to damage.  About 25% chance of a fatality.   So combining both shots, it's basically a 1:3 chance to survive crossing open ground and get into melee.  Far too deadly? It is a peasant in a loincloth, though...

...so what if we gave them some basic armour which reduced the damage chance by -20%?

We'd  have 30% and 10% on the first shot (3%) and then 50% and 30% (17%) on the other. About a 20% (1 in 5) chance to make it into melee.   Still a bit deadly? What else can we do?

The Opposed Roll

If a reacting player loses the opposed roll as the attacker runs towards him he doesn't get to shoot at all. Presuming equally skilled opponents, this naturally cuts shots down a further 50%. 

Skirmisher Special Rule

Archers must test morale to shoot if an enemy activates within charge range (i.e. 8") or their move MUST be to fall back away from melee contact.  This might reduce the amount of deadlier close-range shots.

First Strike

If an archer tries for a point-blank shot at a charging but fails and an enemy moves into contact, the charger gets an unopposed strike.  Again, this would make archers think twice about close range shots and consider drawing a sword instead.

Snap Shot

Maybe penalize reactees a further 10% in "to hit" and also "to damage" - for hasty, half-drawn shot.  This simulates the lower RoF of reactees like in Infinity upon which we are basing many of our concepts.

Counter-charge

It's important that reactions don't solely revolve around shooting.  Meele has to be advantageous. Perhaps you can also react by moving 4" into contact.  This means melee units under fire can react by steadily closing on the missile troops.  Also, perhaps there is a counter-charge bonus which means it might be better for missile troops to charge into melee rather than try for that last shot. 

Weapons - Rate of Fire/Damage

I could play around with this a lot more. If we have loaded/empty we'll need tokens to denote that which I'm not overly fond of.  

Bow

Takes 2 actions - you must draw (load) and fire. This would halve the fire rate to only 1-2 shots.

Active: Shooting takes an entire action

Reactive:  If you fire, you'd skip a reaction reloading*

Crossbow

Takes 2 actions to load.  But one action to fire. This would pretty much limit the crossbow to one reactive shot.

Active: Takes a complete activation to load, but you can move+fire.

Reaction:  Can fire with no penalty, but then skip two reactions to reload.  

So looking at our rules so far...

Hmmm. Not too keen on the weapon rules, but it's a start I guess.

 Again, this isn't so much a serious attempt at rules as a "think aloud" to how concepts which seem so good in WW2-modern could be adapted to a different setting, bringing the cinematic fun and decision making of reactions without compromising the melee-oriented gameplay.

Don't focus on the mechanics I've outlined, so much as the broader concepts.  I.e. how can we make a unlimited-reaction system that is not to missile-heavy or enourages passivity? Or should we restrict reactions to say 1 per turn (or simply reduce active actions, like Lords & Servants?)

I'm sure better ideas will emerge in the comments as usual!

EDIT: An reason the "fantasy Infinity" won't work well is perhaps because of the activation pool system.  Basically a player has as many activation points as it has models, but can spend them as they choose.  A single model in a 8-man warband could spend all 8 APs and activate 8 times in a row while the other 7 did nothing.    This means a model could potentially travel say 8 x 8"  - 64" in a single turn.  If it activates that much and charges all over the map it deserves to attract some reactive missile fire... in an Infinity a model would be restricted by the lethality of weapons and the availability of cover. In fantasy getting the balance wrong could see a model charge the length of the table.    Maybe limiting units to a single move each per turn with perhaps a LOTR-ish "heroic move" might be useful.  

The other issue is the basic Infinity tenet - "one action, many potential reactions" i.e. a single soldier moving could see potentially 10 guys reacting to him.  In a cover based game like modern warfare, this isn't an issue.  But having guys cross an open field 1 by 1 to be greeted with massed archery fire (or even a massed counter charge) means the initiative would be a thing to be dreaded.

Thanks to the Readers!

...or perhaps more specifically, the active commentors.

I was doing my usual trawl through comments looking for spam, and was struck with the quality of the comments (and relatively high quantity, too, for such a small blog).

There's some very interesting ideas, suggestions, mechanics, nuggets of wisdom, heck even embryo game ideas - it combines to make the comments an interesting read (arguably more interesting than the posts that trigger them!)  Perhaps I should do a "best of" compilation sometime!

Anyway, thanks to the "commentors"  - you add a lot to the blog - you're appreciated!

Game Design #37: The Better the Hit, the Better the Damage - Managed Probability & Modifiers

I'm surprised how little this gets used.

STANDARD RULES:
Most often to resolve firing, a "to hit" roll is made.  Let's say 4+ on a d6.
Then a "to damage" roll is made.  Let's say it's also a 4+ on a d6. Or perhaps it's a roll to "save" damage done. It's just terminology - the effect is the same.
A pretty common, 40K-esque mechanic. I think Warlord Games needs to offer me a job!

However there is NO connection between the accuracy of the hit, and the damage done.  

It's the same with "criticals" in space and naval games.  A shot hits, then there is a separate roll for critical hits.  There is seldom any connection between how good or accurate the shot was and the % chance of scoring a critical.

This does not make much sense.  A well aimed shot should do more damage, or have a proportionately higher chance to do damage.

EXAMPLE #1:
I think I first noticed this with DP9's Silhouette system.  It's a little weird, but illustrates my point:

You roll 2d6 and pick the best one. (+/- ranged modifiers)
Your opponent rolls 2d6 and picks the best one too. (+/- defence modifiers)

Now you compare the difference (and this is the key word).  If the defender wins or ties, there is no effect. But if the attacker wins the difference is very important. 
Let's say the attacker rolled a 3, 5 and had a +2 modifier.  The best dice (5) plus the modifer (2) = 7   
The defender rolls a 2, 4 and has a +1 modifier. The best dice (3) plus the modifier (1) = 4

The difference between the rolls (7 - 3) is 3.  This is multiplied by the weapon's damage.  Let's say the damage is 4.  4 x 3 = 12.

As you can see, winning by a wide margin (say 3) does 12 damage.  Whereas hitting with only 1 to spare would do only 4 damage.  A better initial hit does proportionately more (or has a higher chance) to damage. 

EXAMPLE #2:
That may have been a bit confusing.  Here's a simpler example.

We need to roll a 4+ to hit in our "Standard Rules"  example above.  But we rolled a 6 instead.  The difference is 2.   Now, since it was such a great shot - much better than what we needed to hit the target - it probably it more likely to hit something vital.

Let's add the difference (+2) to the "to damage" roll.   We needed 4+ to damage in our "Standard Rules", right?    Sure, but when we roll the dice, we add the +2 difference to the dice roll.  So a d6 roll of '2' would not damage a target normally.  But when we add our +2 bonus for our great initial shot, it would be a hit!

We've just linked the quality of the shot to the amount of damage done. 

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
It's common sense.    A easy, aimed shot at a point blank target is much likelier to inflict a deadly wound than a hopeful shot at long range.  The chance of a "headshot" when standing 1m from a target (with say a 80% hit chance)  would be much higher than a shot from 300 metres away (say a 10% hit chance).    In a space game, a starfighter which is skimming the Death Star's surface is likelier to hit a womp-rat sized hole than one firing from miles away.

It encourages sensible tactics.  If you have balanced your "to hit" roll, that is!  If you want to deliver the coup de grace, you may have to move close and set up a better probability shot to reliably do it.  Wargaming needs dice.  It needs that "uncertainty" - the chance of pulling off that one in a lifetime shot. However the probabilities should not be random.

MODIFIERS & MANAGED PROBABILITY
Paul of Man Cave fame recently asked me once what I have against "exploding d6s" (I was probably ranting about Aeronef/Firestorm Armada at the time).  Those games are the antithesis of managed probability. I'm going to make an extreme example:

Let's say a game needs '6's to hit.  If you roll a 6 you get another roll until you fail to roll one.
Each weapon has the same range.  
Once a shot hits, you need a '6' to destroy the target.
There are no modifiers to either roll.

As you can see, there is no real decisions for the players to make. Simply move their units into the mutual range and roll dice madly, hoping for a d6. A random 17% chance.

As you can see, there is no effective way to "manage" your chances.  Just chug dice and pray for d6s, which are disproportionately valuable.  All you can hope for is to concentrate your forces, and hope your opponent spreads his units out and attacks your forces one at a time, allowing you a better ratio of rolls.   Since all weapon ranges are similar, speed has no effect, you can guarantee this - simply clump your ships together and move at the speed of the slowest ship.

We need uncertainty - otherwise we'd have the boredom of chess - i.e. whoever had the turn automatically kills an opponent within range or something similar - but it needs to have a way to manage this uncertainty.

MOVEMENT & MANAGED PROBABILITY
Okay, here's an example of "dice to move."  This is something I have grudgingly become used to, but as a sport coach I find it jarring.  Kids don't suddenly run 100m in 10sec one day, then only 20m in 10sec the next (barring a broken leg).  It's about as sensible as dicing for the maximum possible range your weapon can shoot.  However time scales are flexible, and it does add "friction" to the game, and removes unrealistic precision.

Unpredictable Random
Every unit must roll a d20. The number it rolls on a d20 is the amount it can move.
(If you wanted to make it worse, the player must move that exact distance.)
Thus the player is at the mercy of a completely unpredictable dice, and can move anywhere from 1-20" per turn.  There is no way of making any plans, because you don't know with any degree of certainty what you or your opponent can do.

Predictable Random
Okay, let's replace that d20 with d6s.   4d6s would result in a move between 4-24" - the same 20 point spread. But due to the bell curve of the multiple dice, you can rely on a move of ~14".  Probably around 10-18" most times.   It's still unpredictable, but you at least have a guesstimate of what you can do, thus allowing him to plan ahead and formulate tactics instead of only reacting to dice results.   If you allowed the player to choose any distance up to the total, it would make it even more reliable. 

UNSEXY MODIFIERS
These have become a bit unfashionable of late. I think this is a reaction to some 90s rules, where there was a modifier for everything.
-1  captain ate baked beans this morning
+1 great Sports Illustrated issue this month
-2  hungover
-1 out of coffee
-1 undergarments too itchy
I agree they can be a problem. Too many modifiers are confusing, and negative modifiers are annoying (I mean, it annoys me if I roll a '6'  and I don't get a hit cos of that -3 modifier.  Buckets of Dice is a common trend (probably worth a post of its own) and it too has modifiers - only you simply add/remove dice rather than modifying the score of the dice.

However modifiers are important for determining tactics.  Infinity does a great job of this.  Let's say a soldier needs to roll a 10+ on a d20 to hit, and a 10+ on a d20 to wound.  Being in cover adds +3 to both rolls, which gives a strong incentive to stay in cover while not making it impossible to hit troops in cover.  Modifiers are important.  They help steer your players to play the game the way you want them - whether historically or otherwise. 

Book Roundup #6: Pulp, Modern

Steelheart (Brandon Sanderson) Score 3
The author who finished the Wheel of Time series (I admit I lost interest around book 6 when I realised the series was just going to be milked forever) has quite a few books of his own.  This isn't his best, but it is an interesting book, where superheroes (or rather supervillains) called "epics" rule cities and territories by right of might.  The hero joins the resistance, aiming to assassinate the apparently invinvible "epic" who killed his father.

Why you'd read it: A superhero story with a twist.  Mr Sanderson is a capable, entertaining writer and his world building is very good. Good beginning, solid ending.

Why you'd leave it: It's a bit cliched, and quite young-adult in how it's orientated.  A little cartoony (though that isn't necessarily a bad thing). Characters were uninspired and rather paint-by-the-numbers.

Ice Station (Matthew Reilly) 4 Stars
Something metallic has been discovered deep under the ice.  And countries will kill to discover what it is.   Basically Ice Station is a blockbuster action movie in book form.  What Michael Bay would write if he was an author.  Whilst not the most polished author, Mr Reilly is the most relentless, piling action set piece atop of action set piece.

Why you'd read it:  First class man fuel.  Goes full throttle from the start and does not let up.  SAS vs French Foreign Legion vs Marines - toss in killer whales, grappling hooks and nuclear subs for the most action sequences ever packed into an airport size novel.  The squad-level gun battles through the multi-level research station would make great wargaming material.

Why you'd leave it:  As improbable as a Michael Bay blockbuster and about as deep in literacy merit.  But a fun ride!

Emergence (John Birmingham) 3.5 Stars
An oil rig in the Gulf drills to deep, and disturbs something best left undiscovered.  The creatures are hungry, and we are their prey.  The author sarcastically thanks the movie "Reign of Fire" for being his inspiration.  "For having a cover that suggested we'd have dragons vs gunships then not delivering" Mr Birmingham, however, delivers in spades.  This has to be my surprise "sleeper" hit of this year - a book that was so much better than I expected. Really looking forward to the sequel.

Why you'd read it:  Demonic orc-apes, dragons, SEALs and gunships, and a magic hammer.  And a very flawed redneck who might just be the superhero to save humanity.  There's bucket loads of wargaming inspiration and very much this book leads with the "rule of cool."

Why you'd leave it:  It's pulpy to the extreme.  The anti-hero is an exaggerated caricature of cliches.  The writing is a bit clunky at times.

PMC 2640 Hard Sci Fi Rules Review

I'm pottering about in the shed again, and have been inspired to dig out my 15mm stuff by a rules book that arrived in the post:

PMC 2640

This is a hard sci fi game by Marcin Gerkowicz, who did Hind Commander – a niche and rather interesting game of modern helo combat.   PMC is more mainstream – I presume aimed at the burgeoning 15mm sci fi market, joining a crowded field with, Tomorrow’s War, Gruntz and more recently No Stars in Sight.  It’s gritty sci fi, aimed at playing PMCs (mercs) as the name suggests.

The Shiny

It’s a softcover 110 page book, with B&W internal illustrations.  It has a thorough table of contents but no quick-play rules or index.  It’s easy to read, and despite being (presumably) translated from Polish, this is not noticeable apart from occasional idiosyncrasies in word choice.  There are about 25 pages of fluff and background information, and snippets about the game universe scattered throughout the book. At $24 and $10 postage it is sensibly priced (disclosure: my copy was a review one). 

PMC 2640 has a colour cover and easy to read B&W interior.

Yes, I'm still stuck using the smartphone camera... :-/   

Mechanics

The units are rated I (rookie) through V (elite).  Most units are 6-men strong (like Gruntz) and cannot be altered.  The units have a sensible stat line:

Firepower (damage and accuracy)

Range (shoot range)

Defence

Assault (melee)

Morale

I like how WYSIWYG is ditched in favour of “RCL”  Recognizable & Cool Looking – as the unit determines the function, the exact gear used by soldiers does not matter. I.e. in a MG squad the exact amount of MGs carried does not matter – it is the role of the squad that matters.  Units stay within 1” coherency.

At the start of a turn, both sides remove suppression markers and any troops broken due to morale.  Then any reinforcements are brought on.  When it is time for action, the activation is alternate move (both sides take turns).  Units can Move,  Fire (aimed), Move+Fire, Move+Melee, or perform a special action (hack a terminal, foe example).

Shooting

A single d10 is rolled for each unit, with modifers for the # of soldiers firing, range, cover etc.  A roll that exceeds the target units’ defence scores hits equal to the amount i.e. a roll of 8 vs Defence 6 scores 2 hits.    Hits are then rolled on d6 to see if it is ignored, scores a suppression point, or kills an enemy (adding two suppression points as well).  Next turn, suppression can be removed by rolling #d6 = to Morale and removing markers on each 4+.  Suppression can be marked using coloured d6s beside a unit.

Whilst soldiers can react and fire at assaulting enemies charging into contact, reactions have been deliberately omitted, to encourage active movement and to speed up the game.  I like how the author explains design decisions in little text boxes.  There is a “crossfire” rule which encourages pinning and flanking units. 

Vehicles, Aircraft & Drones

These use the same rules as infantry – which avoids having “rules within rules”  - with merely some changes to movement and damage resolution that follows similar principles as infantry – shots that hit are ignored, do a damage point, or D3 damage.  When a vehicle accumulates too many damage points, it is abandoned, set on fire or explodes.   The rules are much simpler than Tomorrow’s War (where I commonly exclude vehicles due to the special rules resolutions.)  Aircraft use similar rules to vehicles but obviously differ in movement (and have some extra rules like “strafing.”)  Drones are pretty much standard units with a few changes (they can automatically remove suppression, and can be hacked, etc). 

Terrain

PMC 2640 uses primarily area terrain, i.e. units further than 2” of the edge  of a wood cannot see into/out of it.   I like the rule where units half in/half out of a terrain feature suffer the worse effects of both (i.e. unit half in woods gets no cover AND has move penalty) – it naturally encourages players to be clear on their unit placement. 

A lot of effort has gone into the background fluff and campaign system.

Unit Creation

Battles have a tier and size – a bit like Heavy Gear – which determines how many units and what types (ranks I to V) are allowed.  There are mission and terrain generators you can roll on, and six missions- ranging from demolition to take and hold.   Units are fixed.  There are no “custom” units like in Gruntz, for example.  I suspect this will be the most contentious point of PMC 2640 for most players.  The lack of a unit creator is a deliberate omission (to prevent min-maxing) - playing a campaign and “gaining” skills is the suggested way to get custom units. 

The troop categories are pretty broad – basic troops, rifle infantry, assault troops with CQC carbines and shotguns, recon troops, snipers, engineers,  light and heavy support troops, drones, mortars and command units.  Furthermore, each comes in a 3-5 tiers or types.  I.e. a rifle squad could be rookie. Regular, veteran or ranger.  Support troops might wield LMGs, HMGs or gauss cannon.  Vehicles are similarly restricted – destroyer, transport, support vehicles, and transport and strike aircraft. Again, each comes in 2-7 varieties, offering some choice. 

Campaign

PMC 2460 seems designed with campaigns in mind – your merc  company gains skills, money and can increase in size/rank.  Losses can be replaced, and units upgraded.  Destroyed vehicles may be salvaged.  This is very in-depth – far beyond the usual token campaign page in most rules.   A merc company can have strategic doctrines (like extra $$$, better training, better PR), operational doctrines (like air superiority, flexibility in army lists) and tactical doctorines (like better medics, melee, or resilience to suppression).    There are up to 20 battle honours (special abilities) than can be gained – from stealth, determination, extra move speed etc.   Vehicles can be upgraded too.  Units which suffer losses can accumulate trauma (become alcoholics, suicidal, cowards, or become unpromotable.)   There’s a lot to like for the closet RPGer out there. 

Solo/Co-op

Again, this is a lot more in depth than the usual list of suggestions.  You roll dice to determine the unit behavior.  This includes two new troop types – space bugs, civilians and insurgents – which are not used in regular games., as well as six co-op solitaire missions.  

TL:DR

+ Simple, consistent rules (a bit more streamlined than Tomorrow’s War and Gruntz)

+ Deep campaign system for the closet RPGer

+ Solo-play system

- Rigid units (you cannot “make your own” like Gruntz, for example)

- Limited reactions

Recommended?  Yes.  A simple, consistent ruleset designed for campaign and co-op play.  The people who are offput by the lack of a “unit builder” will likely be appeased by the thorough campaign options.  It’s also more appealing to use with vehicles than Tomorrow’s War and is a true platoon+/company level playset. 

Book Roundup #5: More Fantasy - Some Great Reads

I recently re-read some good 'uns - and here they are - all heartily recommended:

The Name of the Wind - Patrick Rothfuss 4.5 Stars
A coming-of-age story. But it avoids being cliche and is very well written.  Avoiding the grim-dark of Abercrombie and GRR Martin but far from "high fantasy" this strikes a unique balance.  Told in the heroes own voice - he was once the greatest mage and swordsman of the age, but apparently killed a king and started a war and now lives as an anonymous innkeeper.

Why you'd read it: It's simply one of the top 10 fantasy books. Period.  I only deducted a star as I'm sick of waiting for the third in the series and I bet it annoys others as well.

Why you'd leave it: It's quite deliberately (i.e. slow) paced in places.  Rothfuss released the sequel in 2011 but nothing since then bar the unspeakably awful wank off vanity project Slow Regard of Silent Things. 

Prince of Thorns - Mark Lawrence 5 Stars
Another gritty fantasy trilogy but a very very good one.  Once a happy, privileged son of a Prince, tragedy has turned Jorg of Ancrath into a immoral, vicious boy who leads a band of outlaws.  The world is bleak but interesting.  The dead are rising but Jorg fears no one, living or dead - and he will sit on the Imperial Throne if he has to step over the body of every friend and foe to do it. 

Why you'd read it:  Very well written. Gripping story. Interesting world. A driven,yet sympathetic anti-hero. Also, it's a trilogy with a definite ending - something all to rare when authors tend to milk a cash cow series to the point of tedium. All the books are good. 


Why you'd leave it: It's quite bleak, and the vicious anti-hero might not be to everyone's taste.  Also, you may prefer the more likeably, roguelike hero of his new series, Prince of Fools.



The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson 4 Stars
Brandon Sanderson is a prolific and imaginative writer who has excellent world building skills - every series has unique magic, cultures, and legends.  He has many different series and standalone books, but this is his best. It will be an epic in the Wheel of Time mold, but it's simply much much better. The Knights Radiant are gone, but their weapons and armour remain.  There is a fascinating world to explore, where "spren" (small, apparently non-sentient will-of-the-wisp like beings) are attracted by abstract concepts like hate, love, glory and pain. 

Why you'd read it:  Imaginative world, good action, and "wow, cool" moments.  This will be Sanderson's magnum opus and it shows.  It's a big series, but I bet he actually finishes it.  Heck, the dude finished the Wheel of Time and I thought that would never end.

Why you'd leave it: It's frickin huge!  It takes hundreds of pages to get into it.  I think it's totally worth it in the end, but others would disagree.  The first book (singular) is about the size of the complete LOTR trilogy. Which is kind of ridiculous.  Plus, Sanderson has heaps of other books you can use to "dip your toes in" with first.  Apparently 10 books are planned. Yikes! 

The Dragon's Path - Daniel Abraham 3.5 Stars
This isn't Daniel Abraham's best work, but it's pretty darn good. He's one of the most skilled writers out there, and his characterization is absolutely first class. There's much scheming, and it's not often that a banker is a hero.  Economic warfare is not conventional fantasy!  But mix in regicide, truth-seeking cultists with spiders for blood, and lost legends come to life....  The series builds rather slowly (just like Abraham's sci fi series Leviathin Wakes) but really starts to pay off in books 4 and 5 with some cool and startling revelations.  It starts out plodding and gets awesome. The first book was a 3, the last one a 4.5.

Why you'd read it:  You like great books, skilled writing, and don't mind waiting for your payoffs if they're good - which Abraham delivers.  You like scheming as much as blood spattered action.

Why you'd leave it:  You don't want to read two large books before the action heats up.  Which is pretty slow paced, I admit.  I initially was very disappointed with this series, and stopped at book 2, but then thought it might improve like his other series did. I was right, and I'm eagerly anticipating the next book. 

Half a King - Joe Abercrombie 5 Stars
Whilst Abercrombie is pretty much my favourite author (it's like GRR Martin, but more badass - stripped back to the cool bits with less long-winded nattering and less than a zillion viewpoints) I admit he can be a bit "grim" despite having laugh-out-loud passages.  Half A King dials back the grimdark a bit - which strikes a great balance.  The books in the series (two so far) are standalone but subtely linked.  The hero swears to regain a throne he never wanted.  Born a weakling, he must use his wits in a world where viking virtues are paramount.  A few interesting twists.

Why you'd read it: You'd like to try Abercrombie, but want something lighter than his usual.  You want to read a great book. Humor, violence, and interesting plot twists.

Why you'd leave it: Not sure, really.  Maybe because it has a teenage protagonist?  Nah, not a good enough reason.  Just go read it. 

Modern Skirmish Gaming (or "Not Insurgents Again")

This post was prompted by the new Chain of Command spin-off  Fighting Season.  Since CoC is the Lardies best and most polished ruleset ever, with some great innovations, I should be more excited.  But I'm not.  But it isn't the rules that are a problem.

It isn't the minis.  Some of the modern stuff is really great.  Empress, Red Star and Eureka make great 28mms.  The former two have amazing detail and production quality.  S&S have 20mm that tempt me to try a new scale.  And every 15mm manufacturer worth their salt has tipped their toes in at least, though QRF and Peter Pig are the dominant players.  I want a reason to buy more modern soldiers.

I want to buy modern minis.  I want to use them.  But I really don't want to play Afghanistan or Iraq. Again.  Modern skirmish or platoon level gaming is rapidly becoming as crowded as WW2 platoon level or hard sci fi "Vietnam-on-Space."  I'm tired of insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists.  I'm tired of sand and Middle Eastern terrain.

So here's what I'd like to play with my modern soldiers....

Well, besides modern psychic/horror (psychic powers ftw! ...and yes you can have Cthulhu if you insist), X-COM (if only we had decent minis); Alien Invasion (Battle for Los Angeles) and Stargate.  I think gabbed on these topics a bit already.  But besides this? Wait for it.....

Hollow Earth
Yes, why should 1930s pulp heroes get all the fun?  If you want to avoid corny giant gorillas and dinosaurs, maybe make it reptilian aliens or demons for a grittier feel.  You know the things mankind has feared for centuries, that make up the stuff of our darkest legends and myths?   They're real, and they live beneath us.  Dig out your random monster minis, people!  Also, the underground nature would be a good reason to focus on small scale infantry combat, and make for fun terrain.  Maybe unexplored civilizations lie 40,000ft beneath our feet....   Perhaps also renegade Nazis who burrowed too deep from their Antarctica base when fleeing Admiral Baird's expedition....

Hebrew Mythology
Yes, this is a bit of a weird one.  But Hebrew myth (and part of the Catholic Apocrytha) allude to the "Fallen"  - 200-odd angels sent to guide mankind but who got too involved in human affairs. Hence "the"  Flood which was primarily to exterminate them.  This would be a nice change from Vampires/Werewolves but with similar gameplay effects.  It has a basis for a faith/magic system and premade (but not too familiar) fluff.  Fallen could fall into good/evil/neutral camps and would have human followers (or even organisations, like Opus Dei or MJ12). They could be opposed by "Demons" - incorporeal beings who control humans like puppets.  More powerful demons could split themselves to control several humans - or give a single human superhuman abilities.  If a possessed human is killed it proportionately weakens the demonic entity. Demonic gameplay could give an asymetrical feel and involves resource management.  Humans would be weaker, but rare individuals could possess more "Faith" making them meatshields or powerful glasscannon mages.  And perhaps add Nephilim- half human/angel hybrids from Nazi experiments in the war.  Also, golems.

Anyway, back later. I'm off to glue a flaming sword onto the back of my 28mm US Special forces....