I haven't gotten to play BL in many months, to say nothing of the Heroes expansion. I'm really looking forward to heroes, especially for campaign play.

In general I think that battle savvy will also be a good thing for the game on balance, though it will change the tactics. Support is not quite as valuable as it was, and the gobs are not as weak as they were.

One concern I have, however, regards battle savvy and creatures. W/o getting into all the probability, each die has around a 5% chance of a critical hit. In the past, it was easy to find unsupported units for a creature to attack, but no longer. If a creature gets into melee, their chance of death is pretty high, IMO.

Now this is currently all just idle speculation on my part.

Are my fears well founded? What's been the actual experience?

Are creatures suddenly much too fragile?

Any insight is welcome.

I think that is a good question. I, for one, have been boycotting the Battle Savvy rules.

Dale

After a few games with Battle Savvy, you will truly appreciate the experience and a gain a better understanding of what it was like to be in command of a Medieval battle.

No more not being able to strike back and support becomes IMO actually is more important, but what would I know, we have only been playing BattleLore this way for almost 5 years now.

Enjoy!

Richard Borg

After a few games with Battle Savvy, you will truly appreciate the experience and gain a better understanding of what it was like to be in command of a Medieval battle.

No more not being able to strike back and support becomes, IMO more important, but what would I know, we have only been playing BattleLore this way for almost 5 years now.

Enjoy!

Richard Borg

@Richard

How does support become more important with Battle Savvy rules in effect, when Battle Savvy essentially makes it unnecessary to have support?!? Granted, a supported unit is Bold and thus can ignore a flag, but it almost needs to because it will usually have its retreat cut off by having support. The primary reason for maintaining support was so that you gain the ability to battle back. Now BS makes that unnecessary.

I like BS for specific units, but not for the whole side and especially not for both sides.

Respectfully,

Dale

Dale Hurtt said:

We actually have the same opinion as you before we actually sat down and played with battle savvy rules, It was a revelation!

Maybe support is less important but the tactics that are available to the players have actually increased. We were not impressed with battle savvy in theory but in practice they really really work. Just try them.

Flanking. maneuvering, bluffs and Goblins all become much more useful and meaningful. Also Command cards that move 1 or 2 units are A LOT more useful now than before.

Lore is also more useful because there are more dice rolls than before=more Lore=more spells.

Cavalry is not ultrapowerful anymore and is used for flanking and killing stragglers as was its historical role.

Ranged Combat has increased its usefulness because players need to soften up the enemy before attacking.

Rogue skills that affect single units have more meaning {Shadow Walking etc.} because a single unit is not defenseless anymore.

Dwarves lose their battlefield superiority and are on par with the other races.

Some Lore spells lose their overwhelming power, for example Mass Shield which was a very powerful spell becomes just a good spell as it should be.

I can go on all day.

The changes are so subtle that can only be apparent if you try them.

If you ask me, I'll never play with the old rules again. BattleLore before was all about making lines first and having rigid ranks without maneuvering capabilities for fear of losing support.

New BattleLore is more tactical than ever, getting support is one of the priorities but not THE single priority. Players can try different tactics and meneuvers instead of just trying to move in triads. Historical feel and tactics are more apparent with the new rules.

Richard, could you (would you, please ) answer a question I've had since the introduction of Battle Savvy rules - were these the intended rules for the original game, but either got lost in the translation or a conscious decision was made to alter them?

I have been playing Battle Savvy rules - but in Ancients - and always appreciated the differences in tactics brought about by the differing battle back conditions in the two games.

This is great feedback, and from Mr. Borg no less! I'm looking forward to playing this way.

However, it didn't address my main concern which regards the creatures. The hill giant and giant spider just seem way too fragile under these rules. If everyone is full strength, and my unit attacks a blue/green unit, I'm guaranteed not to die (barring lore). A creature, however, has a very real chance of being vaporized if they melee a blue unit.

Used to be that you could find an unsupported unit(s) and have a decent chance of giving as good as you got. Now I'm not so sure.

Am I missing something? Insight is welcome.

tkostek said:

I wouldn't say that the creatures are any more fragile than before, just have to be more selective with targets. When two experienced players would play using the prior medieval tactics, it would be rare to find an unsupported unit within range of a melee attack. With Battle Savvy rules, support is still important (flags will still be rolled on occasion ), just players can get away without rigidly adhering to what morale dictates and won't be punished as severely when support does break down.

When the hill giant or earth elemental attacks an unsupported unit without any dice modifiers and without taking into account removing the defender due to hits it will have around a 70% chance of not being subject to a battle back, by rolling either lore or flag. About 50% for the spider. The troll has around a 66% chance of rolling a flag. Of course those odds increase when factoring in hits and the original figure count of the unit being attacked. Not 100% likelihood as there was before of avoiding a battle back (barring a lore play), but far from certain that a battle back will occur.

toddrew said:

Yes and No

Currently battle back works well in both Commands & Colors: Ancients and BattleLore. You will also find that it plays very well in the Commands & Colors: Napoleonics game.

Hope this helps.

Richard Borg

As I am one of the few owners of Battlelore in my gamer group I find myself teaching the game quite often. Should I consider teaching with Battle Savvy rules from this point forward?

Lothiam said:

Copy-Paste Richard's previous answer from another thread:

"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

IMHO Battle Savvy should be explicitly mentioned as the standard way of playing BattleLore in an article and/or a FAQ entry, so that people don't have to search the forums for an answer to this question {which as you can see is growing in popularity}.

Having Battle Savvy an optional rule will only cause confusion among the players.

Plus they are missing out a whole new level of gameplay if they still play with the old rules!

Just my 2 cents...

Ok, may try out Battle Savvy tonight with my wife and see how it goes then may start teaching the game to others with those rules in effect.

Battle Savvy: Good thing.

Like my friend told me about Battle Savvy rules: Now the game is more like war... not just a ruleset to compete to win. Now 1 and 2 command cards are there to be used.

Its like now you can use all the cards fully and green flanking is a valid option and Red units are a ELITE force to be feared !

PS Have any of us had the same feeling about red units Those got so good that those scout cards are used allways to move the slow unit to battle, nothing like old rules that reds just can make it in time to battle ,)

I don't see how Battle Savvy makes the game less "gamey" and more like war. To me, the biggest impact is that the dice results gain influence and the command cards lose influence. Tactics are adjusted so that pinning units and breaking up support aren't as important. Main reason I have a twinge of disappointment about the Battle Savvy rules is that now the game plays more like C&C:Ancients. Not necessarily a bad thing, and still plenty to differentiate the two, but as I've said before (and long before ) this subtle difference between the two games really did cause them to play differently.

And not just for gamey reasons, was my impression. I felt that it modeled "strength in numbers" and outflanked positions very well.

toddrew said:

I disagree with all of the above.

1} Dice results gain influence, command cards lose it.

-Nope. command cards that move 1 or 2 units were worthless before and if your lines were ready they were almost dead-weight.

Also dice rolls gain more influence only if you play BattleLore as you played before Battle Savvy.

Now you have to actually prepare your assault and push it with Lore spells and/or Tactic command cards in order to have the advantage. No more blind attacks just because there is not a possibility for battleback.

Dice rolls don't gain more influence because you have to change your gameplay to adapt to the new rules. If you continue playing BattleLore as you played before but with Battle Savvy rules in effect then yes dice rolls and luck WILL be more influential to the game's outcome. This of course is a bad thing.

2} Plays more like C&C Ancients. I have played C&C Ancients but I don't own it. I prefer BattleLore because of its setting and NOT because of its ruleset. Now I don't have to buy both games. I should mention that I played Ancients after I played BattleLore and was really impressed with that ruleset. I'm really excited that it works also in BattleLore even more so now that the designer himself mentioned that the game is being playtested with Battle Savvy rules. I hate home rules and that's why I didn't bothered to adapt Ancients' ruleset to BattleLore myself before even though I liked them more.

3}"...really caused them to play differently.."

Who cares? I for one don't. Players shouldn't have to buy both games. I want to play my favorite game with the best ruleset there is and I don't care at all if there is another game out there that looks like it or has rules that differentiate it.

I understand why you wanted to have the game play differently but it's only because you own them both. This is not a reason to not promote the new {and better} ruleset for BattleLore though just because it will be very similar to its cousin-game..

4}Strength in numbers is still being modeled because flags can still be avoided with support. An ignored flag can be the difference between a Pursuit and Bonus Attack from the enemy or a battleback for you.

Many tactics are valid with the new rules that previously were not important or outright wrong.

The old rules promoted one single most important tactic. Fixing your line before everything else.

the new rules allow players to try different things and/or combine Lore spells {especially Rogue spells} to create more flank attacks, more pincer moves, more retreating is possible and shuffling the lines since injured units that retreat are not helpless anymore.

5} Outflanked positions?

I really don't understand how a rule that forces players to creat rigid lines and never break support can promote flanking moves?

How can moving in triads can possibly model historical maneuvers?

6} Another thing that changed greatly is the incentive to attack. Players are not motivated to execute attacks "just because they can" as they did before Battle Savvy. How many times have any of us attacked an unsupported unit not because we had a plan but simply because it was unsupported and thus a sitting duck. With Battle Savvy "just because I can" attacks are not possible.

As I've said I can go on all day about how great Battle Savvy rules are. I'm playing with them for the last 3 weeks and greatly appreciate the changes they bring to the gaming table. For me it's like a new game, even better than Ancients because of the Lore aspect of the game.

P.S. Of course me quoting your post toddrew, has nothing to do with a personal attack or anything like that. Far from it. Just using your post to make a counter-argument about the new rules. Hope you don't mind.

"1} Dice results gain influence, command cards lose it.

-Nope. command cards that move 1 or 2 units were worthless before and if your lines were ready they were almost dead-weight.

Also dice rolls gain more influence only if you play BattleLore as you played before Battle Savvy."

I don't have time at the moment to address all the points you have brought up, much the same as I didn't have time to expound on what I meant by the short (relatively ) post I put up prior to this. But what I mean by the dice results gaining influence is that whether or not a flag is rolled when attacking an non-bold unit now takes on a very large significance. Which cards one has and the order in which one chooses to play them now has less significance, and using cards to force action that leaves units unsupported now does not have hold the advantage it used to with the prior rule set. I see more turtling, not less, a result of battle savvy.

"Now you have to actually prepare your assault and push it with Lore spells and/or Tactic command cards in order to have the advantage. No more blind attacks just because there is not a possibility for battleback."

There is no change here, if before you were not playing with planning and were successful, either luck or an equally unprepared opponent were involved.

"3}"...really caused them to play differently.."

Who cares? I for one don't. Players shouldn't have to buy both games. I want to play my favorite game with the best ruleset there is and I don't care at all if there is another game out there that looks like it or has rules that differentiate it.

I understand why you wanted to have the game play differently but it's only because you own them both. This is not a reason to not promote the new {and better} ruleset for BattleLore though just because it will be very similar to its cousin-game.."

No, it is not because I own them both - it is because I felt the dice mechanics in BattleLore played better with the more intricate battle back rules involved in BattleLore than those of C&C:Ancients. In Ancients the higher number of dice and higher hit rates lead to units being obliterated in two attacks usually, one attack occasionally, whereas in BattleLore three or four attacks are expected when the infantry clash before a unit falls.

...Alright, stopping here for now, getting glares from my better half

Except:

"How can moving in triads can possibly model historical maneuvers? "

Really? How can moving units in a turn based fashion model historical maneuvers, how can having green infantry move as far as red cavalry model historical manuevres, etc., etc. abstractions abound, having two units adjacent to a third is how a supported formation is abstracted in this game. On a game using hexes, it looks like a triangle. Besides, trapezoids are the way to go

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In general, not that big of a deal shifting to Battle Savvy rules. It just impacts several subtleties within the game that I found both fun and thought provoking. Much less attention is to be paid about formations and positioning on the board as a whole, something I enjoyed about the original rules. More scrum and chaos in a game that already has plenty of that, is my opinion. To me the difference is one of viewing the army as a whole across the board, rather than individual units. Battle Savvy tilts the action more towards the latter.

toddrew said:

1# simply: It matters who you hit. Reds even unsuppoerted can fight back. without the Battle Savvy there was no difference at all what unit did you hit.

2# not so simply: All units try to hit you while you kill em. This has something to do with human nature, so that makes me think its more "war" than previously.

Please try the rules and try to use em in full extend. See the chance in commandcards AND in the mounted units. With Red Cavalry you can really see how major is the chance to unsupported weakling to bad-Az elite cavalry.

PS archers are soooooo good no

Alistaja said:

It still matters who one chooses to attack in the Medieval tactics rules - if one wants a red unit to battle back, make sure it is supported. If it is left unsupported, it will not have a battle back available and will have to wait until it receives an order for retribution. To me, waiting until the next turn as opposed to having the battle back occur immediately after the attack roll is no less gamey. It is just how one chooses to reflect the importance of positioning in the game. Choosing to have support be reflected through additional units or terrain effects in place of (or in conjunction with) solitary units having the ability changes the tactics used in the game, but doesn't change the "game factor" in my eyes.

"2# not so simply: All units try to hit you while you kill em. This has something to do with human nature, so that makes me think its more "war" than previously."

Understood, that you like the action to have a chance to occur immediately after the initial attack roll (but what if a flag is rolled? Why didn't the reds battle back then?), but I prefer they way the original Medieval tactics modeled slaughters being precipitated when support broke down, when numbers and position overwhelmed.

"Please try the rules and try to use em in full extend. See the chance in commandcards AND in the mounted units. With Red Cavalry you can really see how major is the chance to unsupported weakling to bad-Az elite cavalry."

I have played several games using Battle Savvy, and, certainly admitting my bias, I prefer the original Medieval Tactics. I prefer the distinct feel offered the Dwarves - love the clash of styles between them and the Goblins, very much looking forward to additional races/factions. I feel that the Battle Savvy rules blunt that distinction in addition to altering out-flanking and surrounding tactics. I have played hundreds of games of C&C:Ancients using essentially Battle Savvy rules, and feel that the rule set is better adapted to that environment of high dice and high hit rates, coupled with the devestating effect that taking retreats can have on many of the units in that game.

Apologies to Tkostek for hijacking this thread

toddrew said:

This is EXACTLY why I don't like the "Battle savvy" rule in Ancients. High hit ratio {because of the dice and the leaders bonus} and high chance of killing a unit outright with a good roll {since almost all units roll 4 or more dice that can exterminate a unit in a single roll} make the game rely a lot more on luck.

Now that I can compare the two, BattleLore with its lowest hit ratio and lower number of rolled dice add a lot more strategy to when and if you attack.

In BattleLore only red units can kill another full unit with one lucky roll. All other units must consider the possibilites of such an attack and the player has to think about the inevitable battleback especially if the enemy unit also ignores flags.

This is even more apparent when we are talking about wounded units. The consideration of launching an attack with 5 dice that hit with 50% chance against a unit with two blocks remaining is easy in Ancients. But in BattleLore launching an attack with 4 dice that hit with 33% chance against the same unit is not.

Battle Savvy works better in BattleLore than Ancients. In Ancients luck is affecting the outcome more.

Another example about bad luck rolls:

Ancients:

You attack with 4 dice {50% chance} and you completely miss. Then your opponent battlebacks with his 4 dice and completely destroys your unit. Great huh?

BattleLore:

You attack with 3 dice {33% chance} and you miss. Then your opponent battlebacks with his 3 dice and wounds your unit down to 1 figure. You now have a chance to actually do something about it. You were unlucky but you actually can do something about it.

Lower hit ratio means that you have to think twice before attacking. Greater hit ratio means that you always want to attack in order to get a lucky shot and/or flags. No real strategy here. Plus you are more depentant on luck/bad luck rolls if more than half of your units can kill a full unit with a single roll.

I don't think that I can change your opinion about Battle Savvy and I'm not trying to. I'm just mentioning a few things that you may have missed when judging the new BattleLore ruleset so that maybe you can look at it from a different angle.

FragMaster said:

And vice versa, by the way I do not enjoy arguing for the sake of argument, but do enjoy having discussions about perception, etc. I completely respect your view point of preferring Battle Savvy to Medieval Tactics and am not looking to sway you towards my way of looking at this.

That said:

"This is EXACTLY why I don't like the "Battle savvy" rule in Ancients. High hit ratio {because of the dice and the leaders bonus} and high chance of killing a unit outright with a good roll {since almost all units roll 4 or more dice that can exterminate a unit in a single roll} make the game rely a lot more on luck.

Now that I can compare the two, BattleLore with its lowest hit ratio and lower number of rolled dice add a lot more strategy to when and if you attack."

I would caution you about making such a statement on any C&C:Ancients forum - you would get some strongly worded replies if you suggested that it is Ancients, not BattleLore, that is more reliant on fortune than foresight (For the record, I am of the opinion that it is equal in both games - different ground rules, different circumstances and probabilities, but equal effect.) The fact that there is a higher probability of an outright kill in Ancients than BattleLore doesn't make one game more reliant on luck than the other, it just changes the expectations and perceptions of what "lucky" is. In BattleLore it is usually rarer to get a kill from a single roll than a whiff on 4d, in Ancients the probabilities are usually equivalent. If one is aware of this going in, one plans and adapts accordingly.

I like how in BattleLore when the fronts collide, it usually results in a sustained skirmish that evolves over a few to several turns where units slide back and forth into supported positions, fighting to maintain the advantage in numbers and ferocity of attack. I like how in Ancients one has to be very cautious about initiating combat, fully aware that a Heavy Infantry with a Leader attached has the potential of wiping two full strength units from the board in a single turn. When positioning for attack in Ancients, one better have plenty of back up to ensure that ones forces end up with the last man standing in what are typically brutal clashes when the fronts collide.

"In BattleLore only red units can kill another full unit with one lucky roll. All other units must consider the possibilites of such an attack and the player has to think about the inevitable battleback especially if the enemy unit also ignores flags."

The same effect is going on in Ancients - just not to the same degree when "red foot" units are involved. When leaders are not present, the games become identical in choices made for specific combinations of units clashing. Ancients has more variety in the types of situations that arise, making the resulting decisions not always as clear as they are in BattleLore, but BattleLore also has Lore influencing decision making as well.

"This is even more apparent when we are talking about wounded units. The consideration of launching an attack with 5 dice that hit with 50% chance against a unit with two blocks remaining is easy in Ancients. But in BattleLore launching an attack with 4 dice that hit with 33% chance against the same unit is not."

Better not let an opponent's Heavy Infantry with Leader near your 2 block units

"Another example about bad luck rolls:

Ancients:

You attack with 4 dice {50% chance} and you completely miss. Then your opponent battlebacks with his 4 dice and completely destroys your unit. Great huh?

BattleLore:

You attack with 3 dice {33% chance} and you miss. Then your opponent battlebacks with his 3 dice and wounds your unit down to 1 figure. You now have a chance to actually do something about it. You were unlucky but you actually can do something about it."

The common link to both of your examples is that by the end of the opponent's immediate turn, it is likely that the same result has occurred. (A little bit cheeky, that response, but equal parts earnest - in both games the end goal is the same, it is interesting to see how the paths taken there differ and are similar within each game and in comparison between the two [three, four, five,... if the other C&C games are included in the conversation ]).

"Lower hit ratio means that you have to think twice before attacking. Greater hit ratio means that you always want to attack in order to get a lucky shot and/or flags. No real strategy here. Plus you are more dependant on luck/bad luck rolls if more than half of your units can kill a full unit with a single roll."

I've already addressed this phenomenon in this post, but want to reiterate that luck/fortune plays the same role in both games, and the different dice numbers and hit rates impact decision making and tactics differently in each game, but do not make one more "cerebral" than the other - better think twice in each game.

And, with all that blather in my last post, I got away from the main point I wanted to make:

One of the strong reasons I find the Battle Savvy rules unnecessary in BattleLore as opposed to Ancients is the relative ease of maintaining supported positions in BattleLore compared to Ancients, where supporting units can regularly be routed from the board in one or two attacks. Having Battle Savvy-like rules in Ancients in some way mitigates this effect.

I for one really liked the feel of the game where support was required for battle back. I just liked the strategic feel of keeping my flanks guarded etc. So, I was reluctant to use battle savvy. I tried it and can appreciate the different feel that it gives the game, but still felt that it took too much away from the importance of support.

My friends and I have come up with a compromise house rule:Units battle back as per battle savvy, but at -1 dice. To battle back at full strength, support is required as per the old rules.

We've enjoyed playing with this variation, and it's put to rest the disagreements about whether or not the game should be played with battle savvy or not.