After my first estimated 10 games, I see a balance problem between Uthuk and Daqan. I think Daqan are way more flexible and have synergies in theyr units. Uthuk may have some dice-advantage for attacs, but in all other questions, Daqan feels to be in advantage:

- Movement (overall the Riverwatch Riders are able to cross the half battlefield, but also with Citadel Lancers and last but not least, the Roc Warrior). The movement of many of Daqan troops allows the D-Player to have a massive battlefield control. The Roc Warrior regularly is activated in every single turn, flying from one hotspot to the next one. Sometimes he gets killed, but so what...

- abilities: After several games now I am on the point that the Daqan abilities are way more generally usefull. In contrast almost all of the Uthuk abilities seem to be very situatives. Compared to poisoning or bleeding, the stun-effect of the Golems is just a powerhouse for example. Some exemples in the next point:

- There is no weak unit in the lines of Daqan... really all units are worth theyr points. Daqan Archers are the really shaming worst unit in the game with a ridiculous ability (poisoning on 6+ with two dices attac without any instant effect and after you have to pay 1 lore for each extra dammage? Seriously, what did the playtesters consider to this unit? Also Grotesques are just weak compared to other units and it's ability (ranged attac) is very situative. Less weak but the same problem with a situative ability have blood sisters (to heal both units have to be wounded yet) compared to the ability of greyhaven battlemages. If you look for effectivity you play 3 fleshripper brutes every single game, what's Kind of boring..

- Lore: Same thing, playing Daqan I feel like I can use the lore cards usefull in almost every single game. On the Uthuk side I feel very limited because the spells are to situative.

- Defensive abilities: You win this game by capturing the VP-Hexes. The defensiv abilities of Daqan units makes it extremly hard for Uthuk to gain this Hexes back. So is a Golem unit in a building hard to remove. Ironbounds are supported almost unbeatable. On the other side, there are only Obscenes with a (relativ) defensiv ability... an so to Keep your VP.

Not as imortant but to mention: diamond terrain is very usefull but the bloody terrain of Uthuk... sounds quite good but I NEVER used a such one: Uthuk has to move foreward... there is no sence to retreat a wounded unit back to my starting fields just to recover health...

Sure you can win with the Uthuk and strike hard. But I feel like the Daqan player has the advantage on his side...

Thank you for your point of view. I definitely can see where you are coming from and although I will almost always play Uthuk, I can't really argue with your points.

However, I do want to caution you against blaming playtesters when there are imbalances in the game. Playtesters cannot make choices about the game. All they do is provide data to the developers and the developers make the final calls. It may be that this was brought up during playtesting or it may have been missed. We really can't be sure. But since we don't know, it is best not to blame the playtesters.

In our mileage, Daqan was the weakest faction, and got stomped all the time (either by Uthuk or Waiqar).

While I agree that the expansion of Uthuk is more controversial than Daqan/Undead, I think the OOB balance is close to perfect.

I don't have Daqan's expansion, but OOB, I like Uthuk's lore quite more. The really powerful all-around card for Daqan is Runesword, while others are very situational. For Uthuk, Power of Yllan and Bone Spurs can easily become a game winner.

I think Daqan and Uthuk play very differently, and there are many ways to read each scenario in the core set (and in the expansion packs). I've seen games changing drastically over time because one of the two opponents (same forces fielded) made a different gambit. And there's no army universally good at all scenarios, players need to think carefully at the forces to muster and at where to deploy them

Balancing BattleLore is not the easiest of things because there are a lot of effects to keep into consideration; but if you spend some time on Excel studying the different units, there are some clear patterns the designer overimposed on the game. This said, I second Garrett's point about players criticizing the testers: the testers provide feedback, and the game designers / developers make the decisions. Clearly, good testers provide good feedback, and good designers / developers use wisely the feedback provided; but in BT's case, we have valid men on both fronts The game's good. In my (not so) limited experience (almost 100 games played) I've seen some scenarios being harder for U and some being harder for D, but I'm ok with this, it's part of the war. I've never felt the game to be unbalanced in favour of this or that unit

Thanks for your response. I think it's an interesting discussion. I'm sorry if I did offense someone. That was not my idea. I did only want to underline that viper's are the very only unit, that in our round nobody plays for effectivity (sometimes just to have some and use the model )

I like the game... but I wanted to share my first experiences.

Edit: quite interesting in my round: quite often Uthuk makes more kills and eliminates more units, but im the end, Daqan wins for more points. May be coincidence, but I think lots of games would have had Uthuk as winner if we would to run to 20 points...

I totally agree that the Viper Legion is the most underwhelming unit. Poison effects are some of my favorite effects in games and it's unfortunate these guys just don't work too well. I would have rather seen something like rolling a die at the start of your* command phase and if it is a strike, cleave or pierce result, that unit suffers one damage. This means there is a 50% chance of dealing extra damage with poison before the enemy has a chance to remove it. You know, I think I may try that as a house rule.

*And by "your command phase" I means the command phase of the poisoned unit's controller.

No offense taken, don't worry. You post was not offensive, but a good suggestion for a general reflection And beware, I'm not saying the game's perfect. There are a few balance issues here and there (even if my concerns are mostly focused on the balance of the Daqan lore deck rather than the troops), but I think the overall quality of the product is really good.

As per VL: yes, they are probably not au pair with other units. Still, I never tried a strategy focused on VL poisoning everyone and the other units going for lore = damage on poisoned units.

As per VL: yes, they are probably not au pair with other units. Still, I never tried a strategy focused on VL poisoning everyone and the other units going for lore = damage on poisoned units.

I have. It hasn't done well for me. Then again, that was my major focus when the game was new. Now that I have more experience, I should give it another try and see how it goes.

In case, lemme know, I'm curious

Only for basic math, I can't imagine that this can work (with average luck). Because you use ure first turns only to poison units. Lets think you activate 3 Units VL per turn , so you will get a payoff of 1 damage and 1 poison (average) per turn . Afterwards your enemy has even the choice to remove the marker (thats a big problem of all markers, but in my opinion the poisoning effect is so weak that you can easily ignore it). There is an additional leak of lore by the strategy... if it would work. Regarding the damage-potencial I just don't see a way to make the VL usable.

I really hope that FFG will make an official Errata with new rules/stats for VL and Grotesque because it's just a pity that you have 2 units just to use for fun...

Thank you for your point of view. I definitely can see where you are coming from and although I will almost always play Uthuk, I can't really argue with your points.

However, I do want to caution you against blaming playtesters when there are imbalances in the game. Playtesters cannot make choices about the game. All they do is provide data to the developers and the developers make the final calls. It may be that this was brought up during playtesting or it may have been missed. We really can't be sure. But since we don't know, it is best not to blame the playtesters.

Yeah, this is correct. It is so frustrating as a playtester when the designer refuses to change obviously unbalanced cards.

In my experience, both win fairly evenly. I only play with my wife and my brother, but there doesn't really seem to be a faction-based correlation as to who wins our games.

Interesting to see some different points of view. I would consider that the overall-balance will be quite good and the different results that tendend to one side may be coincidence (small amount of games on a game with several luck-factors) or also because some people may prefer the one or other playstile (I think u may guess with which playstyle I feel familiar )

Yeah, this is correct. It is so frustrating as a playtester when the designer refuses to change obviously unbalanced cards.

What are the most unbalanced cards in your opinion? For all of the factions

I think that judging about the balance of this game is not only a matter of evaluating units, or lore cards, but also to see how they, together, interact with the scenario victory conditions. I say this because, on the one hand, I tend to agree with the units analysis advanced by phalgast. In particular, I agree that the Vipers are underpar in basically all scenarios and their general ineffectiveness is seconded only by the Grotesques BUT, on the other hand, I found the two factions balanced and my record of victories is, more or less, evenly distributed between Daqan and Uthuk.

Concerning the expansion packs, the first time we saw them we thought that there was no match and Daqan units were definitely stronger. Then we decided to play the new scenarios cards using the Lore decks and only units from the expansions. You know what? Uthuk won 14 out of the 15 games we played! We switched sides, so the victory were evently distributed between me and my opponent. We were extremely surprised by the result. In retrospect, the explanation we shared was that the Siege Golem resulted very limited in its usability and the Citadels Lancers not so formidable, while the Berserkes tourned out to be an exceptionally good shock troops and the Doombringer often the key to the victory. I would not infer too much from this experiment, we were new to units and cards, so maybe it's just the case of our inability to see potential tactics with the new Daqan units. But nonetheless, it suggest that our initial impression, based exclusively on units analysis, was wrong.

In summary: I think both armies have the units to build competitive warbands in basically any situation and, thus, the game is balanced, This is not to say, however, that UNITS are balanced, that they are, so to speak, created equal, and that they find themselves mustered with the same frequency. In this respect, I think they diverge a lot in general utility, and that the game would benefit from a revision of some units stat to make them more frequently present among the fighting troops.

Just my 2 cents.

Edit: or just create scenarios whose special rules increase the usability of some units. I did it with the Vipers in a campaign I created, along the lines suggested by Budgernaut, and it worked very well. (@Garret: my play testing suggest that your modification of the vipers is possibly excessive :-) but understandable, knowing you love for these units :-) )

The Expansion pack only I imagine that Uthuk has good chances. Main reason is the Siege Golem (imo worst legend in the game). The Doombringer is like Roc Warriors little brother. Weaker but still with a great mobility and nice board impact. Also Daqan suffer when Riverwatch Riders are not included. They are imo the key unit of the non-legendary units. But there is no reason just to play the Expansion... my Daqan armies are generally based on the core-units. Archers may be replaced mages, Golems with Ironbounds or Citadel-Lancers, but the function of the slots are staying the same.

On the Uthuk side, I think theyr strongest slot are the 4 point-melee units. They are overwhelming, both of them. Berzerks in woods are quite exciting. The legends are usefull both of them. In the 6-points Slots... the fleshripper brutes are outstanding. Blood Sisters are (well-discussed) the only playable range unit (Imo Uthuk can also renounce to use ranged Units without any troubles, but they can easily be played), all other units are on a par with the 4 point-melee units. So my Uthuk armies are way less variables (how I told above, I quite like an Obscence to guard a VP-hex).

How is Siege Golem worst legend? I'd rank it only behind the Roc.

In the moment your opponent realises it can't counter on range one, they'll simply storm over it and take it down

In the moment your opponent realises it can't counter on range one, they'll simply storm over it and take it down

So put it behind your forces, duh.

In the moment your opponent realises it can't counter on range one, they'll simply storm over it and take it down

So put it behind your forces, duh.

Indeed, that's the plan So, in the end, again it's a battle between strategists: attack and defend, protect and destroy. One of the good things in BT: the mustering part and the strategy used in the game are everchanging and grant endless replayability

In the moment your opponent realises it can't counter on range one, they'll simply storm over it and take it down

So put it behind your forces, duh.

Indeed, that's the plan So, in the end, again it's a battle between strategists: attack and defend, protect and destroy. One of the good things in BT: the mustering part and the strategy used in the game are everchanging and grant endless replayability

It's funny. In my plays, the Golem has been one of the best units, and Obscenes easily the worst. Why? Obscenes are slow, and they are usually picked off by the Golem or Double Shot before they can reach anything. And their only true ability, Ferocity, is countered by Dark Knights, Wraiths, and Riverwatch Riders. And the Golem has always performed well for some reason. Meanwhile the Roc is usually destroyed halfway through the game.

Obscenes are slow, and they are usually picked off by the Golem or Double Shot before they can reach anything.

It's true, they are slow. Like their big brother, the Chaos Lord. I would not recruit them for Operation Barbarossa BUT if they are deployed three hexes away (two hexes for the CL) a banner, their inferior mobility is no longer a problem and the number of dice they roll in attack makes them effective in taking those banners back. Once they sit on the banner, in fact I hope my opponent will use orders to fire to the fatties from afar, the alternative being that he uses orders to take the banner back. To pay their cost, the Obsecenes should produce just 2 VP, ... they are not supposed to live forever, just one round after the initial engagement and, if deployed in the right place, I would say that they often do it.

Meanwhile the Roc is usually destroyed halfway through the game.

True. The Roc is in fact unique in unexpectedly stealing that relevant last VP you need to close the game... so it is wiser to keep it safe until the very end. BUT it's so useful that sometimes the Daqan player simply does not resist and throws it into the fray earlier. This is not always a mistake, but you should have at least 3 VP from the Roc before it get destroyed.

It's quite interesting to hear in other rounds come to very different conclusions. As Uthuk player I don't fear the Siege Golem, because he does some damage, but he has almost no board impact. Overall his inability to move and shoot makes him very unflexible. Do you have really ever moved him? To use a selection just to move 1 hex is... quite hard. And if he has no target with another unit adjacent, his attack is worse than the doubleshot of archers (2x2 over 1x4 because of different targets and double bonus dices). In the games we made, Daqan player had problems if there was a concentration on range. The simple reason, the dammage-potential is limited. Even if you take out some units before getting attacked, without you need to respond the melee attacks. Me for example, I tend to just ignore a Siege Golem playing Uthuk.

The Roc get's also killed several times in our games, but so what? That only means that he was the center of the attention of the Uthuk Player... and he generally needed a big effort to beat him. Personally I would like if killing a Legend would give an extra VP or some other benefit. I generally use the Roc warrior every single turn possible if there is not a good reason not to do it...

Obscenes generally make only 1 turn with 1 movement. If they occupy a VP hex on turn 1, they will only not getting theyr fight if the enemy does not attack our VP-hex... and that's all what I want... As Daqan Player do not like to attack into Obscenes and a singleton Riverwatch will not kill them. So they have theyr value. And they get not killed faster or slower to ranged attacks as any other unit to. They are not terrific, but as I said I quite like 1 unit of them for diversity and with its special duty...

edit to g1ul10 :

Why I should want to save a hex with my best attacker with the best defensiv ability and the (almost) best movement (Roc)? Never If I don't have to! I want him in the frontline or attacking an enemy VP. If the enemy attacks him with melee, I'm glad because he loses 1 dice with every attack and generally takes more dammage then he deals!

And I disagree to count the utility of a unit with the amount of VP they get. Some units (as the Roc) are just to important an strong for sitting on his ass on a VP. Every unit has his duty, some to guard the VP-hexes, others to attack or control the battlefield... Riverwatch Riders for example are the worst unit to occupy an VP-hex, but I think you agree that they are not the worst Daqan unit...

How do you rate the undead faction when it comes to balance?

And I disagree to count the utility of a unit with the amount of VP they get. Some units (as the Roc) are just to important an strong for sitting on his ass on a VP. Every unit has his duty, some to guard the VP-hexes, others to attack or control the battlefield... Riverwatch Riders for example are the worst unit to occupy an VP-hex, but I think you agree that they are not the worst Daqan unit...

I was unclear. Sorry. I totally agree with you. I said 3 VP in general, not sitting on top of a banner. In particular for the Roc, it is more often by aggressively taking a banner. The "sitting" part referred to the fat boys.