Who is a veterian unit?

Are all the units in a battle veterian, or how do I foundout who is a veterian unit?

can you help me here mates

thank you

cheers

Maimed

"Battle Savvy troops are veteran fighters..." (page 14 of Heroes).

I looked through all of the artifacts and skills and saw nothing that confers Battle Savvy experience.

Battle Savvy is indicated by the scenario special rules. In all of the Heroes scenarios, the phrase "Battle Savvy rules are in effect", but no specific units are so designated. It seems to imply that all units on both sides are Battle Savvy.

Maybe Richard Borg will come along and clarify...

Dale

I'm not Richard , but "veteran units" is the background text explanation ("fluff" if you will, but no negative connotation intended on my part) for the change from the base game's morale rules to the "battle savvy" rules. Mechanics-wise the only difference is that all units that maintain their initial hex when defending are eligible to battle back (unless they have retreated earlier in that particular battle, e.g. retreated from a mounted units initial attack and are then the target of that same mounted unit's follow on actions - I believe this is still in effect even when battle savvy rules are being used), not just those that are bold.

Richard may want to address whether or not this is originally how the game was intended to be played (as this is how the game is played for C&C:Ancients, save that any unit subject to a follow on action can battle back even if it had retreated earlier in that particular battle). I have always appreciated and enjoyed the difference that the morale rules in BL provided as opposed to the battle rules in Ancients, but if Battle Savvy is how the game was intended to be played, I would be interested in hearing about that.

Wow! I did not get that - that Battle Savvy was replacing the Morale rules - at all. I see veteran units - Battle Savvy troops - as having the ability to Battle Back regardless of whether they are Bold or not. Being Bold gives the same basic effect, but adds ignoring one Flag.

Put simply, I saw Battle Savvy as a level between, and in addition to, Normal and Bold morale, not as a replacement of it.

I hope you are wrong as that is a horrible reversal of what made BL superior to CC&A. The Support rules allow you to model the effects of penetrating the enemy battle line, flank attacks, etc. while Battle Savvy does not.

Dale

I didn't make myself very clear (not an unusual occurrence ) - I didn't mean to insinuate that battle savvy rules meant that morale was no longer a part of the game. Whether a unit is bold, normal, and/or frightened still has an important part to the game, just not as important. Targeting and creating situations where units would be or become "not bold" (unbold? disembolded?) is central to success in a game of battlelore that does not involve battle savvy rules. A 0% chance of a battle back from an unsupported unit in the base game rules now becomes a roughly 70% chance when a green banner attacks, 60% for blue and 50% for red. Cutting off retreats now is not as clear an advantage as it was before.

In a game I played earlier today, my opponent used Sneak Attack to disband a supporting unit, then move onto the vacated hex to pin one of the previously supported units, and beat on it with a couple of the other ordered blue short swords. If battle savvy were in play, I would've gotten 2 battle backs out of the deal and my opponent's cunning would not have been well rewarded. I'm not saying the change is good or bad, just that it is a rather large change for what some may see as a subtle shift.

The interesting point is the one made by the OP: which units are "veteran". The fluff implies this to be an ability granted by unit and yet every scenario simply indicates the rules are in effect. It never states that every unit is automatically a veteran unit.

I like Battle Savvy with respect to allowing you to anchor the end of your line on a veteran unit, but I think it gets a little boring if every unit then becomes a veteran unit.

Dale

Dale Hurtt said:

Again, me not being very clear lead to my answer being obscured: so far in any official scenario that involves Battle Savvy rules all of the units are "veteran" units and have the ability to battle back as long as they do not move from their defending hex, regardless of support/degree of bold. Richard has stated in other threads that this is the way he and his gaming group play BattleLore. The question I have is, is that how the game was intended to play from the get go - did DoW tinker with the rules?

Richard Borg has answered in another thread and actually confirmed that Battle Savvy IS the rule to use from now on in all BattleLore scenarios new or old. I'm happy with this official answer and I'll always play with Battle Savvy from now on.

FragMaster said:

Not exactly what he said - this is:

"All units for both camps are veteran fighters, when Battle Savvy rules are in effect.

We suggest that players consider returning to previous released adventures, in the core game and Specialist packs, and give them another spin with Battle Savvy rules in effect. As the game has expanded, we have been using Battle Savvy rules for all adventures and would highly recommend from this point on, players consider using the Battle Savvy rules in all of their BattleLore gaming.

Enjoy!"

-Richard Borg

But, yes, essentially what he said.

I'm not as inclined to dump the "old" rules as quickly, as I have rather enjoyed the distinction that the morale rules provided as opposed to C&C:Ancients. In fact, coupled with the lower hit rates and lower numbers of dice generally involved in BattleLore as compared to Ancients, Battle Savvy is more powerful in BL than C&C:A in many regards. Lore cards such as Fearless and Mass Shield are also devalued, not the essential saving graces or trap cards they were prior to Battle Savvy rules.

I preferred the idea of some units having this ability while others do not, but understand how that would lead to some undesired bookkeeping.

Well, that answers the OP's questions about which units are considered Veteran units in the Heroes scenarios.

I do not agree that using Battle Savvy throws out the rules for Support and Bold and Frightened morale. There does not seem to be any evidence that one negates the other.

Personally, I think this makes Dwarves weaker in relation to other races and Goblins more powerful.

Dale

Again, I am leaving my responses open to misinterpretation: When using Battle Savvy rules, all of the prior rules involving medieval tactics (morale, battle back, follow on actions, etc) are still in play. Battle Savvy affects the relative impact of some of those rules.

Dale Hurtt said:

Which is exactly why I like those rules. It seems that the races are more "balanced" that way.

The only thing that concerns me is that, as Toddrew mentioned above, some Lore cards lose their value. For example Mass Shield was an awesome spell for the Warrior but with Battle Savvy rules it seems just too expensive for its effect. I haven't played many games using Battle Savvy yet but this is my first impression. Maybe FFG and Richard Borg should print corrected Lore cards with proper values and declare Battle Savvy as standard and official game rules instead of just adding it as an optional rule.

P.S. Imagine that the first time I saw these new rules in action was when I played C&C: Ancients. I really liked the rules regarding battleback. It works like a Defense roll which BattleLore lacked. I understand that some people {including me} will be upset about changing their tactics and missing the awesome feeling of attacking helpless unsupported units without consequences. IMHO this should happen only with Ranged weapons though...

FragMaster said:

I know I am in the minority with the following opinion, but I felt that the dwarves and goblins were already nicely balanced. Not in particular scenarios, such as Castille and Deeper in Castille (which is where the goblins get their perception of being "weak" as no red goblins are in either of those, and in Deeper in Castille the dwarves outnumber the goblins), but in general, with the goblins controlling the action through speed and numbers, while the dwarves counter with steadfastness. In my view, the addition of battle savvy tilts this balance in favor of the goblins. A goblin unit that loses support is not in as great of danger as it will now if attacked multiple times it will either get to battle back or flee, instead of having those outcomes changed to take another unrequited blow or flee. For the dwarf foot units Battle Savvy does nothing (except strengthen their targets' chances of battling back ).

"P.S. Imagine that the first time I saw these new rules in action was when I played C&C: Ancients. I really liked the rules regarding battleback. It works like a Defense roll which BattleLore lacked. I understand that some people {including me} will be upset about changing their tactics and missing the awesome feeling of attacking helpless unsupported units without consequences. IMHO this should happen only with Ranged weapons though..."

There is a big difference between melee combat in Ancients compared to that of BattleLore - it is much more lethal in ancients. In Ancients the equivalent to the blue units in BattleLore battle with 4 dice instead of 3, and generally are hitting on 3 faces of the die as opposed to 2. On average it only takes two attacks in Ancients to remove a unit, whereas in BL it takes four...sorry, I was going somewhere with this, but ironically my son is having trouble with his math. If anyone is interested about continuing this line of discussion, I'll come back and complete my thoughts

The balancing act, in my opinion, was done with the specialist cards. You received more Goblin units than with humans or dwarves. That was okay because they were weaker. Now, BS raises everyone up, but not equally. Goblins were raised the most (they could not battle back without support) and Dwarves the least (they could battleback, support or not).

For my scenarios and campaigns, I will definitely specify units to be granted BS. It is what the fluff intended. Of course, if I am playing a veteran army, it makes sense that the whole side has the rule.

Different strokes for different folks.

Dale

toddrew said:

Exactly! The Battle Savvy rules fit IMHO better in BattleLore because the combat is less lethal and random "overkill" rolls will not happen so often as in C&C: Ancients. The more lethal combat was what actually bothered me in C&C and not the Battle Savvy rules.

Now that BattleLore with its less lethal combat is combined with Battle Savvy it's like the best of both worlds. For me it fits perfectly.

As for the Goblins vs Dwarves I believe that all depends in the scenario BUT if you strictly compare the two races then Dwarves have the advantage. Now with Battle Savvy not anymore. In Call to Arms scenarios the numerical superiority of the Goblins didn't seem that much of an advantage after all. I blame the Victory conditions for this though.

Actually the only thing that I really don't like in this game is the Victory conditions. I HATE home rules but I'm willing to make an exception here. I'm thinking of using the UpFront victory conditions= when an army loses more than 50% of its troops, it loses the battle. I really hate it when an army of 15 units loses the battle in combat whith an army of 9-10 units with the same losses. Where is the numerical superiority here? Only in retreating and supporting more units? Don't like it.

But this is another subject for a different thread...

FragMaster said:

The point I gave up on making was that "Battle Savvy-like" rules are needed in Ancients because supporting units get whacked with relative ease compared to BattleLore. In BattleLore, it is difficult to break a well-entrcenched diamond or even triangle formation, even when a unit has already suffered a hit. And then, even if it does break (and kudos to the opponent for doing so), the now unsupported unit will not suffer greatly from a single blue or red attack. Unlike ancients where it is not uncommon for a single red unit to bring down a full strength unit in a single combat. If the BattleLore player is able to position such that it is devestating, well that is either from a very good play on their part or very poor play on the opponent's part. I see Battle Savvy as very forgiving to un-coordinated play, rewarding indiscriminate play.

"As for the Goblins vs Dwarves I believe that all depends in the scenario BUT if you strictly compare the two races then Dwarves have the advantage. Now with Battle Savvy not anymore. In Call to Arms scenarios the numerical superiority of the Goblins didn't seem that much of an advantage after all. I blame the Victory conditions for this though."

Fortunately for the goblins BattleLore is not about single unit combat, and all about coordinated attacks. In this regard I much prefer the goblins to the dwarves - and even in a single unit comparison would value the red goblins over the red dwarves. Certainly would value the goblin cavalry over the dwarf cavalry, even considering Bull Rush. Being able to move two and battle with the foot units of the goblins is very powerful and important in the pre-Battle Savvy rule games, as cutting off the retreat of unsupported units is the surest way to grab a banner. While Battle Savvy gives the goblins a bit of leg up in the possibility of extra battle backs, it downgrades the surrounding and swarming ability they have.

"Actually the only thing that I really don't like in this game is the Victory conditions. I HATE home rules but I'm willing to make an exception here. I'm thinking of using the UpFront victory conditions= when an army loses more than 50% of its troops, it loses the battle. I really hate it when an army of 15 units loses the battle in combat whith an army of 9-10 units with the same losses. Where is the numerical superiority here? Only in retreating and supporting more units? Don't like it.

But this is another subject for a different thread... "

Start it, I'll yammer on about this game on most any topic

As for Goblins ask a ex-Coloradoian who now lives in New York what happened TWICE to his keen dwarfs and spider!

Goblins definitely have some nice aspects to them..they are no slouches. Just have to be very tacticful in how to use them. A Green goblin unit going uphill vs a bold2 red dwarf unit will get the goblin unit slaughtered in no time at all!!

Todd - I have tried to email you. I move next week up to that lovely G town to the East of you..

Cab

Cab -

I haven't seen an email from you - t_rewoldt at hotmail.com is the address. SpaceMonkeyMafia and I had started going to Longmont (Stonebridge Games) every other thursday to play Arcane Legions and BattleLore, but I haven't been in a month. Maybe we could start something back up?

wierd...well let me try again from my yahoo account to see if that worked.

Otherwise see if cofunguy AT yahoo.com works for you as well!

Cab