Gruntz: Special Ops (Sci Fi Skirmish) - Rules Review

Gruntz are a solid set of platoon level rules with a good unit builder.  They mostly copy+paste Warmachine mechanics, combined with a random card activation.

Special Ops is their Necromunda-style campaign skirmish, using 3-10 specops troopers per side.  A $4 "supplement" to the original Gruntz rules, I was interested to see where they would go with it, especially since they had added "blips" (detection/stealth) and reactive fire (always good!).  The 2x2'map size is a bonus to the spatially-challenged. 

The Shiny
A 20-page PDF with decent production values.  Solid enough, but my first impression was "a bit light on"- I feel I need to be careful not to give away all the rules when reviewing it!

It always amazes me when I realise these models are 15mm not 28s...  Khurasan Miniatures has re-opened for business, so I hear - I'd rate them the #1 purveyors of 15mm goodness...  however their postage is rather steep unless you live in USA

Mechanics
I'm not going to repeat myself here, but think Warmachine's 2d6+stat approach, minus the magic and replacing warjacks with vehicles. IGOUGO is replaced (improved) with random card activation.  There isn't any mechanics here anyway - you need to already own the Gruntz rules use this supplement.

Stealth & Blips
Your models remain as 'blips' (and you get a dummy blip to better sow confusion) which move around, acting like models, until revealed by opponents passing a SKILL test.

Reactive Fire
Any enemy moving in LoS triggers a skill test (with better modifiers if you were on overwatch) of any models which are not suppressed.  Overwatch units can also react more than once.  I like how active models, when they trigger reactive fire, can opt to instantly duck back (and automatically avoid being shot) which stops the reactive fire from being Infinity-lethal but allows troops to cover/pin down areas. 

Shooting
Most weapons are effectively unlimited-range and range bands (and their modifiers) are handled easily and sensibly.The weapons are a reasonably comprehensive generic selection.

Hacking
Hackers can buff/debuff shooting, defence and movement and either reveal or conceal units.  This is done as an opposed roll with enemy units and adds a nice layer without being complicated. Hacking devices come in 3 levels of power and can be customised to work better at buffing, debuffing, anti-vehicle or counter-hacking.  Good. Solid depth without getting confusing.

Army Builder
This was the main reason I'd recommend Gruntz, and "Spec Ops" also has a unit builder.  There are 12 special rules (most of which are recycled from Gruntz) and the usual stats (Shoot, Guard, Skill, Assault, Soak, Mental). Most models have 4 wounds. (I'm not a fan of tracking wounds aka hitpoints, but I guess it's OK if you're only using a handful of models).  

There are 8 team archetypes who have 1-2 shared special rules which is quite restrained but adds flavour. I.e. the space ninjas might get "stealth" and a religious group "fanatics." There are also a range of weapons from SMG, to SAW to shotgun - each comes in improvised, projectile, laser and plasma versions.  Equipment is likewise kept minimalist (compared to say Infinity or Necromunda) with half a dozen basic things like suppressors and medkits.  It's more at the complexity level of LOTR's Battle Companies campaign rules.   I like how there is an example of how to build a team.

The army builder, if I am to be honest, while good and straightforward, was a little less comprehensive than I was hoping for.  

Missions & Advancement
You roll 2d6 against a list of  missions (recon, hack, assassinate, sabotage, hostage rescue). There's also a branching campaign if you want more of a narrative feel.

Units gain XP which they can use to improve equipment, heal injury effects, or roll on an advancement table (and potentially boost stats). Injured troops roll on the recovery table to see if they miss games, or perhaps take permanent damage.

TL:DR
A pretty light, generic system which isn't going to swamp you with lots of rules and upgrades. I'll repeat it reminds me of the complexity of LOTR's Battle Companies skirmish campaign rules - quite a ways simpler than Necromunda.  It allows you to build your own warbands, and I predict the 15mm sci fi crowd will 'dig' it.

Recommended: Sure. While it's not amazing, it's familiar, solid and capable and allows for a simple campaign with advancement, injuries etc. As a bonus, it scales with the platoon-level Gruntz. 

Game Design #27: True Line of Sight - The Messiah or Just a Messy Boy?

Something that passes almost without notice, "True Line of Sight" has become one of the most common trend in rules.  But is it an elegant simplification or a false economy - an idea that creates more problems than it solves?

What is "True Line of Sight?"
Basically, you put your eye down at model height and if your model can see it, you can shoot it.  Usually, if you can see it to shoot it, it can shoot back as well. Allegedly eliminates all spotting/observation rules and arguments (ha) while being more realistic and cinematic. It assumes models are frozen in place at the moment of measurement.  It also assumes all players possess decent, easy to use, LoS-blocking terrain (ha again).  It also means a rules designer can ignore "vision" or "observation"rules in favour of a single sentence:  "This is true line of sight, guys - if your model can see it, he can shoot it."

Abstract Line of Sight
This often has "size categories" where units are perhaps classed by base size or unit type rather than the actual height or pose of the model. Terrain features like woods are abstracted - you might only see 6" into the wood from the edge (or not at all) regardless if your 'wood' is only three trees on a base (which may have been done to make placing models easier.)  It's more accessible than true LoS - heck you can use felt cutouts for forests if you want. Usually, models fully within a terrain piece have a cover bonus, regardless if bits of them are showing or not. The exact pose of the model does not matter, as models tend to be rated by base size and occupy a cylinder or cube of a set size extending up from the base of the model.    Abstract rules are becoming increasingly unfashionable. Perhaps this is due to the perceived 'simplicity' 'accuracy' and 'elegance' of TLoS. Perhaps it is also due to the fact having a section on observation/visibility/spotting can remind one unpleasantly of some of the horrifically convoluted spotting charts/rules from games in the 80s/90s (WRG anyone?)  Perhaps it is simply because were Games Workshop goes, 90% of rules designers follow.

Using true line of sight, the British soldier is not in cover at all.  It kinda makes the 'woods' largely worthless, unless I fill them with so much underbrush it makes placing models impracticable. Using a more abstract system, he could be within the wood if he is on the brown base - which is actually more clear cut than checking if he is partially behind a tree or something.

The issues with True Line of Sight (TLoS)
I'd suggest True Line of Sight can create more issues than it solves.  Apparently it makes things simple and solves all arguments - if you can see the target by putting your eye down at the "model's eye view" of your mini, then your mini can see the target. So simple, so elegant! ...in theory.  In practice this is less clearcut.  I'd say every game I play has at least 1-2 'iffy' TLoS occurances which have to be amicably agreed between players. In abstract systems it's easier to say a force is hidden in a building without checking if the top of someone's head is poking above a window, or deciding what part/fraction of a model counts as in cover. In fact, TLoS isn't strictly TLoS most times - often things are ignored like weapon barrels and flags - sometimes even arms. So why not go further and abstract the whole model?   Even hardcore TLoS games like Infinity are now moving to abstract 'base templates' to combat the confusion created by TLoS when models have different poses.  

You see, with TLoS, the sculpts of the models themselves make a difference.  Kneeling or prone models are harder to see and may have a distinct gameplay advantage, just ftom the way they are sculpted. A cool leaping pose or a model on a jetpack might be easier to spot than a MBT. Even if the jetpck model is walking on foot, with TLoS he's still treated as being 6' off the ground because he's posed up off his base on a wire.   True LoS tends to dictate bland, uniform model poses.

With TLoS the sculpt's pose matters. A prone model can take advantage of more low cover (and conversely have trouble seeing over it) than a standing model - an issue that Infinity has recently addressed by abstracting matters so all units possess the same vertical space, regardless of pose.  It's also a bit insulting to assume wargamers can't imagine that the prone sniper can't get up or take other poses and has to always end his turn prone, just cos that's the way his sculpt looks.

True LoS also assumes wargame players don't have imagination. Which, given the slavish adherence to studio paint schemes I see, is probably the case.   But it's a bit insulting nonetheless. I don't know about you, but I CAN picture those 3 trees as part of a forest (or at least, a small copse).  Heck, I can imagine that painted metal statuettes are actual soldiers and units, which is why I'm playing the game in the first place.  In fact, frequently stooping down to see if a model can see between a few trees or through a window breaks immersion somewhat. 

TLoS can create a barrier starting the wargame due to terrain requirements. Infinity is notorious for needing a high requirement of LoS-blocking terrain for the game to even be playable. Not all players have the ability to make (or store) tablefulls of terrain.

No cover or hard cover?  Under many TLoS rules, the British soldier probably still isn't in cover, as the stone wall is too low (only base height). He's no better off than the German who is out in the middle of nowhere!  However it is ludicrous to assume a real soldier wouldn't go prone behind the excellent hard cover and enjoy a massive advantage.  This highlights another issue - TLoS rules are often riddled with exceptions to the rule (i.e. half the model obscured counts as in cover, or 1/3rd the model, or 'only torsos - arms and weapons/flags don't count,' etc)


I'd also argue True Line of Sight is LESS realistic.  In fact, our game tables are by nature an abstract representation of a real battlefield.  Most countryside I know has lots of dips and undulations in the ground - it's not perfectly flat like a bowling green or salt flats. Even 'open ground' has places for concealment. Yet 99% of tables are dead flat with the rare neatly sculpted hill.  Battlefields are also usually notable for their noise, dust, smoke and confusion.  Yet our battlefields are usually perfectly lit - and we have an unrealistic 'god's eye view' at all times.  It's weird we abstract so much, yet insist on "true" "accurate" LoS when it is often detrimental to do so. (And not even very realistic, true or accurate.)

Using TLoS, woods are seldom a barrier (unless we cram them with so much undergrowth that placing models in and around the woods is well-nigh impossible.)  What's the point of making terrain that has little effect on the game and is (for many) a nuisance to build and a nuisance to use?  A TLoS model placed standing on top of a pile of rubble or a burnt out vehicle is easier to see - where in reality he might be crouching amongst the ruins/wreckage and is in fact in concealment/heavy cover despite his elevated position.

TLoS, I believe, is a reason for our unrealistically short weapon ranges in many wargames. Remember the Bolt Action WW2 rifles that shoot only 24" (50 yards in-scale, and not even the length of Warlord's own Arnhem bridge model!) Short weapon ranges are a (lazy) way of balancing the power of weapons boosted by true LoS.

TLoS also assumes models are static - obligingly "snap frozen" or in stasis at the time of combat. In a era when IGOUGO is on the way out, and fluid reactions, movement and initiative sequences are in, it's not unreasonable to assume that a model is not obligingly standing in that precise location while every enemy empties their magazine at him. Heck - he might move a short distance to seek cover if fired upon, or (gasp!) even go prone without having to be specifically 'ordered' to by his general.  This is especially true of "platoon" level games where the basic unit is a fire team or squad that may be occupying a general area rather than a specific location.

There are a few games that do this; where models are assumed to have a modicum of common sense, and are treated as being in some cover as long as they are within a few inches of cover. In fact this could even be made the 'normal' to-hit roll.  Only if a unit is stranded way out in the open does it suffer a penalty to be hit (or if it is on a road or similar hard flat surface). Units totally within or behind a terrain feature are fully in cover and get extra defensive modifiers.

 This might blow the mind of TLoS die hards, but you could argue the British solider is actually in cover despite being on the 'wrong' side of the ruin.  Wait, what?  Well, we could assume the soldier has common sense and will automatically fall back an inch or so into the ruin when the German advances, without needing the explicit instructions of his platoon leader.  The German, however, is obviously outta luck as he is stranded far from any cover.   

True line of sight is an attempt to simplify things, but like removing stats and replacing them with special rules, I'd argue it creates more grey areas that it solves. TLoS is not the Messiah, and it's not a particularly neat boy either.

This is not to say true line of sight does not have its place in some games - but I'd like to question the slavish, near-universal adherence to it (or what I call "Games Workshop sneezes, and everyone else catches a cold").

Book Roundup #3: Science Fiction

I've noticed a tendency for authors to have "fanboys" just as much as videogames or wargames.  I feel these over-exaggerate their review scores.  Admittedly this is from someone who views Harry Potter as solid but hugely overrated, and thinks Tolkien merely average (great world building but non-existent plotting) so perhaps I have my grumpy hat on.  Anyway, time for the next selection:

Leviathan Wakes (James A Corey) Score 3.5
This is the pen name of Daniel Abraham, a very talented fantasy writer known for his excellent prose and rather slow-burning style, in collaboration with GRR Martin's assistant Ty Franck.  A Firefly-esque bunch of miners lead by an idealistic captain and smart-mouthed crew discover a derelict ship - and a deadly secret.  A world-weary detective is tracking a missing girl. Galactic conflict ensues, and a terrible threat to humanity is revealed.

Why you'd read it: Good writing, a well-thought-out plot, setting and characters. Space opera meets noir detective thriller.  Characters have tough choices - and sometimes make wrong ones.

Why you'd leave it: It's 600 pages long, and the pace only picks up in the last 50 or so. Though it was well-written, I found it hard to get invested in the book.  I feel this series only really kicks off with the sequel Caliban's War - and that's a huge time investment.

Eisenhorn (Daniel Abnett) Score 3.5
Most Warhammer 40,000 books read like a bad internet fanfic written by a teen.  Dan Abnett bucks the trend and is actually a reasonably competent writer. The Eisenhorn trilogy (Xenos, Malleus, Hereticus) is arguably his best work for the Black Library (and has the distinction of being the only Black Library book I've read twice). A detective story of sorts, about a Inquisitor (basically a morally ambiguous Jack Bauer meets Sherlock Holmes meets Judge Dredd with an energy sword) and his team who hunts down chaos cults throughout the galaxy. Gothic space opera fantasy.

Why you'd read it:  You don't even need to know anything about Warhammer to enjoy this book. It's a decent sci fi novel on its own, and makes me feel a bit sorry for the other 40K hacks tie-in writers.  The individual books are shortish (250 pages) and good pulpy fun. First class man fuel.

You'd leave it: Because you'd be embarrassed to be caught reading a book based on a miniatures game.  Whilst initially impressed, by the third book it feels a bit same-y. It also ends a bit abruptly.  Whilst Abnett isn't your usual Black Library hack, his language and writing is a bit ropey in places. Abnett also overuses. Short sentences. For dramatic. Action scenes.

Risen Empire (Scott Westerfeld) Score 3.5
An Imperial frigate captain must rescue the Child Empress, sister of the immortal undead God-Emperor who has been worshipped for milennia.  The enemy: cyborgs who worship AI hiveminds. It sounds corny, but here's the surprising bit - it's hard, hard sci fi.  Time dilation impacts politics and space combat - which is among the most "realistic"and "relatavistic" I have come across.  Most technology is extrapolated from stuff we have today. 

Why you'd read it: This will be a pleasant surprise.  A great deal of thought has gone into the combat and technologies and it's an interesting variation on the undead Emperor trope.  Huge imagination and scope.  I'd compare it to Dune and Lord of the Rings. It's unique.

Why you'd leave it: It cuts off abruptly - it needs its sequel and I'd strongly recommend you get the omnibus version. It's a bit too focussed on technologies, and moral concepts and left me feeling a bit - disengaged?  A bit too much tech, too little character building.  There were also a lot of different 'points of view.' It's hard-sci focus probably won't appeal to the Star Wars/Star Trek crowd.  Also, the big secret isn't that big.

Dauntless (Jack Campbell) Score 3.5
Epic space warfare, between two great space empires.  An officer, rescued from a lifepod after a century-long hibernation finds he must lead a trapped fleet to victory.  Huge fleet battles? Reluctant hero?  Interesting battle scenes?  Check.  The teacher in me cringes at the writing style but my inner wargamer rejoices.  A guilty pleasure.

Why you'd read it:  Great fleet battles that seem epic in scope but make you care for each ship.  Entertaining, kick-ass space opera.  I enjoy the factor relativity/lightspeed has on tactics - it would make a very interesting wargame. Easy reading with a bit of a 50s style to it.  Probably my favourite space battles.

Why you'd leave it: Wooden, cliche characters.  The writing has a lot of telling, and not enough showing.  The book spends a lot of time talking about concepts of honour and morality, and how the war has become less "honourable" in the century since the hero was in cyro-sleep - interesting, but repeated so as to be tiresome and artificial.  The hero broods and overthinks things a bit much.  You can tell it's going to be spun out into a series.

"Dollhouse"-style Vertical Terrain?

I tend to make terrain by the quick and nasty method, so my problem is not making it, but storing it - even my small 4x4' tables of terrain take up significant amounts of space.  This is especially so of 28mm, and is a good argument in favour of 15mm, which takes a fraction (maybe 1/5th?) of the space.

Anyway, as an apartment dweller in my bachelor years, I know the solution to "not enough room" is often to go vertical.    I was looking at one of my daughter's dollhouses today and wondered "why don't we have more vertical wargames terrain?"

Usually multi-storey buildings work on a layer-cake principle (i..e lift off the roof to reveal minis on ground floor etc) but what if the building WAS the entire table?

This waist-high book cupboard (which I told my wife I was removing to "make more space in the bedroom") might make a solid framework. 28mm minis added for scale.

Obviously, it applies to more to skirmish games, but if you had removable interior "pieces" rather like a dollhouse, and a neutral interior paint scheme (grey?) it might be able to do service for a few genres - as a Resident Evil-style undergound bunker, a space station, a sealab, a Bavarian  mountain retreat.  At a pinch, it might be able to serve two scales (28mm and 15mm).

Anyway, I "liberated" small bookshelf which might make an easy start to a project.  I might remove the back wall to improve accessibility, and I'm thinking adding a few more "levels" with generous ceiling heights to allow me to reach in.  I could make the levels removable to increase configuration options.

 The cupboard is small and light enough to be easily lifted on a table so everything is eye height.

Moving between levels?  Movable elevator pieces whose location can be changed easily.  Maybe a few "portholes" or airlock doors (circular, so I can simply use a circular drill bit instead of having to faff about getting square cuts for doors)? 

The best thing is as long as the interior is relatively unmodified - it is still a cupboard. So I can actually store terrain in my terrain, yo.

Anyway, this is likely to be one of my whirlwind weekend projects (i.e. done in an afternoon, and damn the fine details) but I thought I'd air this scheme to my regulars for input before I start cutting and nailing.  I'm sure its been done before but my google-fu is too weak to find any similar projects. 

Terrible idea?  Good idea? Try it, fail, and let us learn from your bitter experience?

Any ideas or suggestions welcome (proviso: they do not require a lot of fiddly work: I am a famously lazy terrain maker).

Game Design #26: Wargaming - The Out-of-Game Experience

I was looking into Magic the Gathering as a easily-transported game to play with my wife, and while researching it a bit, it triggered a few random thoughts, relating wargames to CCGs:

*Warmachine has, for me, a real card-game mentality. With its emphasis on special attacks and combos is certainly not my favourite wargame, but if I view it as a card game with minis it is pretty cool. 

*MtG has a "collectibility" that Games Workshop would envy - players seem to obsessively spend hundreds if not thousands on pieces of cardboard* (*an even better return than finecast!), and talk casually of "budgeting" x amount of $/week to stay "competitive."

*Skylanders has mixed miniatures and videogames; admittedly only in a shallow, gimmicky way (you scan your miniature and 'import' it into the videogame as a playable character.) Could this be expanded on in a more meaningful way?

*Most CCGs have a resource management aspect, which seems to be filtering through into wargames (I'm certainly seeing an increase in the number of wargames that have it).

*The fun of "deck building" can occur even when you are by yourself, and it is an outlet for creativity and competitiveness - a game-within-the-game, of sorts. Players hunt down bargains of special cards on eBay and trade amongst themselves. You can discuss and share deck ideas online - it even has a social aspect.

It's the latter point I'd like to focus upon - the concept of having fun outside of the actual 'sit down' gameplay of a wargame. 

Painting & Modelling
Obviously most wargames share the painting/preparing of miniatures. I'd point to this as a key differentiation from boardgames where everything tends to come "preprepared" in box ready-to-go; which is why I find it mystifying when players field completely unpainted metal armies week after week.   The modelling aspect is quite important - nearly every "big" rules set has heavy reliance on selling shiny toys, and the shiny toys themselves help "sell" the game system.  Though the increase in prepaints and the presence of "clix" style games blurs the line a bit, and you perhaps rename this category "cool toys".  Assembling them, painting them, or simply "having" them. (Remember the wargamer's litany: he who dies with the most toys, wins)

....Army Building - aka "List Warriors." Made popular by Warhammer but arguably perfected by Warmachine (where finding broken combinations of units/abilities is actively encouraged).  This occurs where players have an army builder. An example might be each army can have x points (say 2000).  Each unit is worth a set amount of points - for example, a squad of 10 grunts might be worth 10, and a uberwtfbbqpqwn mech-of-doom might be worth 200.  This army building usually further refined by "capping" certain types of units. For example, this might restrict an army to 1 HQ unit, 1-3 "core"(standard), units, 0-2 support (heavy/vehicle) units, and 0-1 "special/elite" units.

Players are then free to exercise their creativity within these strictures to "maximize" their army to create the optimum combinations, and "build" their armies toward a specific strategy.  In more extreme examples, this can create a situation where games are won and lost in this "list building"stage; there is an obvious winner before a dice has even been rolled.

Unit Building aka "Stat up your random models".  This tends to be a points system allowing you to create stats for a specific model or group of models. Ironically, although the potential for min-maxing is even greater, this tends to be less likely to be abused.  The reason is that as the models created are not "official" it's harder to claim players are taking a legitimate strategic advantage rather than simply being a powergaming douche. This is far more common in indie games (Song of Blades and Heroes comes to mind as a prime example) where they are not trying to "sell" a specific miniature line.

Historical Interest.  Obviously this is particular to historical games, but learning about a particular historical period can be very enjoyable.  Wargaming can inspire historical reading, and historical researching can inspire wargaming.  For example, I bought some 1:600 PT boat models, and while reading a rulebook came across reference to "The Battle of the Narrow Seas" (Peter Scott) - which is now one of my favourite books.  In the reverse, reading the historical novel The Religion (Tim Willocks) inspired an interest in wargaming the Ottoman empire.  You could perhaps lump this whole category together with....

....Fluff.  In the more extreme cases, this can spawn a publishing house (The Black Library) with hundreds of titles, or perhaps consist of few novels alongside RPGs (The Iron Kingdoms). Sometimes it is simply included as a section of the rule book - or even as an "art book" (Infinity).  In some cases, the 'fluff' is historical - WW2 games like Bolt Action/FoW can draw on a colorful selection of factions and units.

Anyway, I was thinking that most successful "games systems" tap into most of the above points. (The usual suspects - Warhammer, Warmahordes, FoW, Bolt Action, Infinity, etc). Even the most rabid 40K fan seldom holds up scintillating gameplay as the main attraction of the game - rather they praise fluff, army building and cool models.  Even indie hits tend to follow aspects of this formula.  For example "Tomorrow's War" and "Gruntz" are tapping into the increasing growth in 15mm sci fi to source their  'cool models.'  Gruntz does 'unit building' well and kind of relies on the different models lines and the players themselves to generate "fluff." Tomorrow's War is more directly developing fluff in concert with independent 15mm mini manufacturers like GZG.

Looking at the "most popular wargames" I'm wondering - is deep, interesting gameplay even necessary for success, as long as you have a good "out of game" experience?

Anyway, I was thinking - are there other ways to create a better "out of game experience?" - since this seems a key factor behind popular wargames.  I can see "e-rulebooks" with inbuilt video being useful, but wonder what place mobile devices (like smartphones) might play in  the out-of-game experience.  I've seen a few games with "apps" but so far, mobile devices seem an untapped resource.  It's almost like they are a solution in search of a problem.  

Anyway, are there any other "out of game" aspects that are enjoyable? 

And more broadly - What else could wargames  learn from CCGs?  Are mobile devices a way forward?

Book Roundup #2: Fantasy with a Twist

 These are books who put a twist on the usual fantasy genre.  They often "crossover"with other genres like westerns, detective noir or pulp. If you are tired of noble heroes, impossibly beautiful princesses and mighty dragons you might try:



Red Country/The Heroes/Best Served Cold (Joe Abercrombie) Score 5 Stars
Whilst his initial trilogy is probably the best entry into his work, his standalone books are his best; each one a mimicry of a genre: war movie, a western and a revenge thriller respectively.  He takes sly digs at fantasy tropes and his characters are interesting shades of grey.  His crippled torturer antihero Sand dan Glotka is more interesting than Game of  Thrones' Tyrion.

You'd take it: The best writer of grimdark realistic fantasy going; with interesting plots, great characterization and dialogue.  A much tighter writing style than the somewhat bloated prose of GRR Martin.

You'd leave it: His somewhat dry grim tone can get wearing if you binge-read 3-4 books in a row, which you'll probably end up doing. 

Nights of Villamanjur (Mark Charon Newton) Score 3 Stars
A rumel (nonhuman, reptilian?) investigator will discover a web of corruption leading into the heart of a dying empire. 

You'd take it: Interesting ideas, themes and concepts.  Banshees, birdlike garuda and rumel share a world with humans.  Human hybrids and monsters stalk the streets. An otherworldly enemy approaches.

You'd leave it: A little on the weird side (China Melville-style).  I only read 3 of the 5 books so I wasn't that enthused.

The Black Company (Glen Cook) Score 3 Stars
A bit of a cult classic, one of the original "gritty" fantasy novels about an elite mercenary company.  Very down to earth, it is more a war documentary as told through the eyes of soldiers than a epic fantasy. Reading it is a bit like a box of chocolates - there is some dodgy flavours of chocolate but some good stuff too. Personally, I thought it was OK but not as amazing as I'd expected.

You'd read it: A weird modern classic that arguably launched the gritty fantasy genre.  It has a realistic feel as the author was a Vietnam vet. There are many shades of grey - and no true heroes or villains. 

You'd leave it:  The writing is sloppy, choppy and has inane dialogue. It adds to the "realism" I guess, but can grate at times.

The Last Wish (Andre Sapkowski) Score 3.5 Stars
Tolkien who?  This is the first collection of Witcher short stories, and in Eastern Europe Sapkowski stands above Tolkien and GRR Martin.  Based on slavic mythology, some of his stories echo traditional fairy tales - I particularly liked the alternate version of Beauty & the Beast. 

You'd take it: A unique style. The short stories are standalone, but if you enjoy the series 3 others are translated into English. A master of gritty fantasy, with a unique "voice."

You'd Leave it:  The translation work missed the mark a bit at times.The other full-length books are even worse.

The Straight Razor Cure (Daniel Polansky) Score 3.5
The 'hero' is a disgraced intelligence agent, a sort of a 40K Inquisitor/secret policeman who has quit and become a drug dealer and local criminal boss.  However when local children are found murdered, he plays a double game against his former intelligence bosses and the local underworld to find the murderer.

You'd take it: Hustlers, pimps, turf wars, corruption. Hard-boiled noir thriller, with a "twist" ending.  Reasonable length book that works as a standalone and as the first in a trilogy.

You'd leave it:  The drug-dealing antihero pushes the gritty boundaries. The book is a bit of a mishmash of ideas and is occasionally a bit sloppy.

The Lies of Locke Lamora (Scott Lynch) Score 4
Basically a medieval-fantasy heist movie set in not-Venice. Oceans 11 with swords.  Gentleman con-artists fight to take over the local underworld. 

You'd take it: The book is clever and witty and the world is well done. You like Oceans 11 and The Godfather, and you think mixing them with sorcery and Renaissance Venice would make them even cooler. You like good dialogue and plotting.

You'd leave it:  You don't like the use of the f-word.  The book has a bit of a "soft patch"early on.

Retribution Falls (Chris Wooding) Score 4.5
A glorious mish mash of tropes. Awesome airship battles, fighter planes, golems, undead, dune buggies. Six guns, sword fights and demonologists.  It has the rag-tag pirate crew lead by a captain with a heart of gold. The author had fun writing this book, and strings cliches together in a polished way. Firefly meets Pirates of the Caribbean meets Stardust meets Indiana Jones meets The Last Exile meets Crimson Skies. A solidly written fantasy in an engaging world.  Will not win a Pulitzer Prize but neither did Star Wars. Good old fashioned fun, which raises the bar in the pulp genre.

You'd take it: A swashbuckling romp full of pulpy goodness. No deep concepts - pure escapism. Easy to read, and if you enjoy it you can follow more adventures in the 4-book series.

You'd leave it: If you have no sense of fun. If you hate pulp/steampunk.  If you only like serious highbrow arty books (like the stuff in high school everyone else thought was boring.)

Reading Roundup #1 - Recent Fantasy Books

I love reading. I love wargaming. I love rulebooks.  However, my collection of hundreds of rulebooks are dwarfed by my thousands of normal novels. A lot of the readers on this blog share similar opinions in wargames, so I thought I might expand into short book reviews in hopes something might "catch the eye." I'm going to keep the summaries short, so these will be compendiums of "suggested reading you might enjoy" rather than full-length  reviews. 

For future reference:
5 star = amazing, must have
4 star = a very good read - get this for your collection
3 star = generally sound, with some provisos
2 stars = significant flaws - only if you really like the topic
1 star = useful for toilet paper or starting fires

Here's the last month's round-up:

The Abhorsen Trilogy (Garth Nix)  Score 3.5 Stars
At a glance:  a medieval fantasy kingdom and a WW1-era industrial nation are separated by a sort of Hadrians Wall.  North of the wall, controlled "Charter" magic is opposed by chaotic wild magic and the restless undead.  A hereditary line of necromancers called Abhorsen are at the forefront of this fight.  It's a coming-of-age story, aimed at teens, but totally free of teeny-stuff and romance.  It's no more kiddie than the Hobbit.

Why you'd read it: Easy reading, unpredictable, and interesting world. Although focussed on the traditional fantasy kingdom north of the wall, I like it those times the undead head into the south.  Lewis guns vs undead for the win!

Why you'd leave it: It largely has female protagonists.  It also has a simpler layout than most adult fiction.

Gardens of the Moon (Steven Eriksen) Score 3 Stars
At a glance: A sprawling and complex epic fantasy, with the grit of Black Company and plenty of gods and terrifying magic. I think it was based on a RPG world and although the author claims he "does not baby his readers" sometimes I think it's just poor exposition. It mixes the grit of Saving Private Ryan with floating castles and dragon-elves with soul-taking weapons.

Why you'd take it:  Complex, realistic worlds. Involved plots.  Solid writing.  If you like your epic fantasy with a dash of the mundane, you'll enjoy it.

Why you'd leave it: Hard to "get into." Lots of stuff unexplained.  Can be frustrating.  Quite wordy - there's a 9-book series that follows it.  Definitely not for the casual reader.

The Free (Brian Ruckley) Score 3.5 Stars
At a glance:  This would be fun to wargame - follows a mercenary company called "The Free"- about 60 guys with their own sorcerers, archers and cavalry. Has a bit of a Hundred-Years-War feel.  Interesting magic system where magicians ("clevers") have to give of their own life to power their magic - so magic can be powerful but is sparingly used.  His best book to date, with good action. (His other books had an interesting dark age vikings-v-indians vibe but could drag on a bit).

Why you'd take it:  You could totally wargame this, and you'll want to.  A good blend of interesting magic and bloody war movie.  It's a standalone book, a good quick read in a genre dominated by trilogies and long series. A bit of a spaghetti western vibe.

Why you'd leave it: Mr Ruckley is not as polished as some of the top-tier fantasy authors and not all passages of the book are as strong as others.  I didn't feel the ending delivered as well as I hoped.

The Thousand Names (Django Wexler) Score 3 Stars
At a glance: Napoleon-in-Egypt-with-magic.  I initially struggled to get into this book but it improved as it went.  If you like the idea of black-powder Napoleonics clashing with rebels lead by powerful cult leaders.  Has a bit of a Sharpe-with-magic meets Foreign Legion feel.  The story hints at a wider plot in which this story is just the tip of the iceberg. I also think I read on the dust jacket that Mr Wexler is a fellow wargamer.

Why you'd take it: Sharpe with magic anyone?  Seems "researched" despite fantasy setting. The not-Egyptian background is well done. Improved as it went.

Why you'd leave it: I think this is a debut novel and it shows at times. A bit slow to start. Tends to follow predictable tropes/cliches.

The Slow Regard of Silent Things (Patrick Rothfuss) Score 1 Star
At a glance:  The author (who did the brilliant Name of the Wind 4.5 stars) warns readers this isn't for everyone, as it "doesn't do the normal things a book does." I wish I'd listened. Nothing happens.  It's kinda a literacy wank-off vanity project. I'm sure arty folk will love it, but they also call it art when people spew on a canvas. Basically, a weird girl wanders around, and does a bunch of feng shui in the sewers all day. I'm not kidding. He claims his publisher told him to do it, but I prefer this quote: "....Patrick Rothfuss may be getting lost in the echo chamber of his fanboys' squeeing adulation..."

Why you'd take it: If you'd like to encourage an otherwise excellent author to do more pointless vanity projects, when he is 5 years overdue for the next book in his trilogy - which he said was ready for editing in 2010...

Why you'd leave it: Because you prefer to read actual stories, where there's a plot.

City of Stairs (Robert Jackson Bennett) Score 4 Stars
At a glance:  A city that once used the powers of god to enslave the world, is now occupied by an Eastern power.  The gods are dead, but their miraculous works and architecture remain.  A spy (and her very lethal norse secretary) are dispatched to investigate. But things are not as they seem.  I found this book original and interesting - part fantasy, part spy story. An interesting crossover genre.

Why you'd take it: Dead gods, a mysterious city, and hidden histories and agendas. A great sidekick.  A spy story and a fantasy in one. A really interesting and original book, by a talented author I'm sure will grow in prominence. Again, a standalone book which doesn't require you to read a 10-book series.

Why you'd leave it:  It kinda crosses genres so much it might be a bit jarring. Unusual in style. An "indie" hit that might not appeal to everyone. 

That's the last fortnight or so - I get through quite a few books (I like to practice what I preach - library is my other subject area).  If there's interest, I can do more (perhaps a "top 10"), and while gaming time can be limited (i.e. shed renovations) overall reading time seldom is.