Well now we know:

http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=1122

Frankly it appears BL future is not all that bright I read this that no major expansions are coming & with a few minor offerings BL is dead in the water (well more so than it is already).

OD

That is about how I read it as well.

Oh,

Well hmmm how else can it be taken other than We got the name got Mr Borg's name on the front of the box and Battlelore brand so all's good.

Shame that it looks like BL was doomed from before the first box was sold, I wish they had come out with that snippet a while ago - Oh well shame that the new game does nothing for me at all - ok its 3.30 in the morning and I've not had a full nights sleep for over two weeks due to ill ankle biter so probably less whatever than I'd normally be but meh to em.

I wonder if Mr Borg can sell his ideas on the internet (pdfs of cards and what not) as I don't think the rest of the world will see his full vision any other way, I'd be happy to sort out my own minis

Chris

Elberon said:

That's what I've been waiting 3 years for. I would've gladly paid for a production version, but grabbing minis to put to rules sets is fine by me.

Yes, this is what I got from the interview with Christian Peterson:

• We bought Battlelore for the name.
• Your not getting a reprint.
• The creator's vision doesn't match with FFG's vision.
• The C&C system is to bourgeois for FFG.
• If you already have the game and expansion, you got a deal. Don't expect that from us.

But, Battle of Westeros sounds like a great game. Unfortunately, it doesn't fall in line with my vision of Battlelore. So, I will probably pass on it.

I can't wait for Battle Cry to be rereleased.

I am kind of surprised that Christian Petersen was that forthcoming with information in the interview. So it looks like FFG bought Battlelore so they could all in one fell swoop torpedo the competition's medieval combat game and hijack the name for thier own totally unrelated medieval combat game.

Sorry guys, but I have never read a Westeros book. I will never read a Westeros book. I have no interest whatsoever in the disagreements between Duke Farty McPoo Pants and Earl Snooty Britches or whatever the names of the characters in the book are.....though good books they may well be.

IMO the setting of Richard Borg's Battlelore is far richer and open to interesting expansion in game terms than Westeros. It is precisely the lack of extensive background story and pre-existing cannon that allows the total freedom of game design to put in any type of fantasy creature, race or magic spell that makes for a good game. Trying to shoe horn Westeros into a board game only comes with limitations for game design. What exciting expansions do we have to look foreward to? The prince's fourth cousin twice removed Floppy along with three units of drunken friars special ability: flatulate loudly distract the enemy with dull anecdotes.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

Nematode said:

I realy like your humour !

You managed to say ( with some kind of panache) exactely what I think about all this so called "Battlelore-Westeros" mess .

Ok, while not the Battlelore news I was hoping for ( army boxes). I love these books and am happy with the direction of the new game. I have bought everything related to Battlelore and am a huge fan.

While i respect your views on Mr Peters interview, I walked away with a different opinion:

• BoW will free Battlelore to be based more in traditional Fantasy ( I never play it without Lore)
• They are working on more expansions and are about to announce one
• Richard Borg is still on board with FFG with this project.
• My copy of Battlore was a bargain ! and they are looking at ways of repackaging some of the components to make a new starter kit. ( only solution i can think of, but not the only one out there i am sure)
• They are still supporting the game I love

I guess my Lore cup is half full

Dec

Well, that certainly came as a curve ball, but, even if things seem problematic at the best and grim at the worst in regard of the brand future, perhaps it deserve some clearer analysis - BL fans were considered a zaelot lot by many in the past. Let's try not to confirm stereotypes.

For one, I'd like finally this kind of TRUE transparency showing up. In the past, BL news were kinda dodgy. It's only unfortunate that one must wait always so long, 'till the last, to know things, but, seeing how a rough beast Battelore is, this isn't a surprise.

Worst bits:

"When we took over BattleLore, the key value to FFG was the BattleLore brand. Which, as you can see, we’re carrying forward with Battles of Westeros."
"Reprinting the core game “as is,” would essentially result in a near $150 retail price point, which is obviously unacceptable."

Ouch! That's harsh! Seeing that preserving an already existent customer base was not the first priority is not that good. Not at all. Bad sounding.

The bit regarding manufacturing difficulties give finally the reasons for BL flopping. It never occurred to me that boardgames' industry was the moste stable in the universe, but certainly here it shows up how things can go horribly wrong for marketing policies. Start innocent, than bad girls go wild.

Non-relevant bits:

"Last year, Richard posted some ideas for “future releases” for BattleLore. Unfortunately, some fans took this post as canon, and are now expecting these specific releases. I think it important to note that while they were well-intended ideas of Richard’s, they did not fall in line with FFG’s vision."

This isn't a surprise. The races' list in that old Borg's post was clearly a rough draft, a series of playtest army really really rag-tag. Troll - ork hybrid certainly are not the most marketable solution in the world.

Interesting bit

"The classic BattleLore game (which we purchased from Days of Wonder in ’08) had an eclectic mix of a Fantasy and historic medieval theme that FFG has never been comfortable with. We solve this problem with Battles of Westeros, which will take on the role of our gritty, no-magic, medieval warfare game, while the classic “ BattleLore” game’s trajectory will be of more traditional fantasy."
"...we’re working on a solution to this problem, and we have some short-term solutions that I think will work very well for players looking to get into BattleLore."

If not underlying a bright Future, this bit show how at least that executives think of classic Battlelore as a fillable niche. Probably this means that, if Battelore will survive, you'll see the medieval part of the game abandoned (bad news for many), but more suppor for the high fantasy one. If they are trying a solution to overcome the manufacturing embarass, that could be even an all new core set with exclusively fantasy races (we probabilly never see something completely original, but with staltwart of classic sword and sorcery like Elves and Undead they could play safe), perhaps even with less mini than the previous release, starting from scratch the components production.

Somewhat this could seem really optimistic, but they already have the property, and some releseas, especially the new ones (even if the first wave of buying was passed) are fresh enough to not to be trashed: you can stee, after an announcement of this king, sells plummeting. You can expect something showing up after opening the Pandora's box... Well, I hope so!

affro said:

I like your analysis of this. I like you am still hopeful for a future for Battlelore. But even if it doesn't have a bright future, I am so glad I bought it and have all the DoW expansions. I plan to get Heroes and Dragons and some point. As is Battlelore is still my favorite game. (More so because my wife will play it with me consistently and I have painted the base set.)

Should come as no surprise..we have really no one lurking here in the forums (barring Richard) and basically wanted to torpedo this great line. Thankfully I haven't bought the 2 "new" releases yet and hopefully others will not as well. Hard to support a company that won't support a very great line - even sadder they won't even support or have a volunteer program to demo the games!! (unless it is a CCG game - no surprise there considering like every week, there is a new news item on those CCG games!!)

Cab

I don't think that Petersen's words meant clearly that they will stop supporting BattleLore neither that they will continue to produce stuff. It just wasn't clear.

He mentioned something "new and completely different" is in the works instead of R. Borg's post about BL from last year. This can mean a lot of different things from the worse to the best.

One thing is certain though. I won't be supporting this "wAsteros" ugly mutated BattleLore "thing". I need my Lore, i want my fantasy elements and I want to cast my spells. I don't care about Klanister's and Poustark's houses or whatever and I certainly won't start buying Core Sets and 142 expansions all over again to play with "FFG's vision" of BattleLore.

Don't believe even for a second that this thing has anything to do with BattleLore.

I have hopes that they will try to support BL for its Fantasy elements and this seems true from Petersen's interview.

Finally, if anyone from FFG is actually reading this. I'm a long time BL fan from the very beginning. It was and still is a rough history. I feel betrayed but I must mention that I sincerely appreciate Mr Petersen's direct responses to fan's questions. I believe that new info about this subject will be released very soon. At least produce a real new BattleLore. I will buy that. I will buy R.Borg's BattleLore not some other guy's borrowed mechanics game with the words BattleLore on the box for marketing purposes.

Or make new, bigger and better expansions for BL as all fans have been waiting for. You can even put "wound" markers instead of figures to cut costs. Consult R.Borg and produce compatibiliy sets for old BL owners if you must change the game to fit FFG's vision. And I mean BattleLore not some other "BattleLore-but-not-BattleLore" game as Battles of Westeros is.

I'm hoping all the best for the original BattleLore and R.Borg's vision. I cannot say the same for Battles of Westeros, sorry. I'll wait for the next BattleLore release. This will probably be the first true 100% FFG BattleLore release and it will show where they are headed with this. If I like what I see I'll continue following the BL game. If it's a crappy expansion like Dragons or Creatures then I'm out. And it will also mean this is the second time FFG has let me down.{the other one is when they completely abandoned DOOM to promote DESCENT}. FFG is my favorite company but if dissapointments from abandoning with no warning the games that I love continue, this is about to change. And ofcourse the money I'll be sending FFG's way will change with me...

It sounds to me that he wants to strip down the base set. Take out the dwarves, goblins, and spider. Maybe find something else you can reduce. Perhaps remove the war council and lore cards? Anything to bring the Battlelore core set down to a manageable price point. Then take everything they stripped out and make it an expansion. All together, it may reach that $150 price tag, but at least it won't all be in one bite. Surely, we all agree that ANY base set released from FFG is a good sign?

I could see them retheming it all to their Runebound universe. They DO like to get as much mileage as they can out of that artwork, eh? I don't really mind which way they go with theming.

All I really care about is that changes aren't made to the extent where all of my currently owned BL material is incompatible.

Perhaps now I see why my keen sense of foresight kept me from purchasing any of the expansions for BL. I liked Mr. Peterson's interview; I know I won't dump my BL game yet, as I am interested in seeing what direction FFG goes with it. And I have more time to paint the minis, of which currently I've only completed 16 or so of them...

Torbal said:

I have dozens of game with expansion that are no longer being supported. Does that mean I should get rid of them? No. All that matters is that I still enjoy the games. If you don't enjoy the game, future expansions are not going to change that. Sometimes, dead games make the best games. I still have and enjoy Twilight Imperium 2nd edition. Should I stop playing because there is another edition? I don't understand your reasoning.

biomage said:

The reasoning can be summarized liked this : Battlelore was presented since the beginning like a credible and cheaper alternative to warhammer battle. People (me included) started to buy Battlelore products driven by this vision i.e after some time and several expansions, we were supposed to have a rich battle system game with all the features of a classic Fantasy battle game like warhammer battle.

So, for Battlelore, far more than for other games (like Twilight imperium), the expansions are much more important (that's why it's considered as a "system"). What happens now is that we have an uncomplete system game. It's like if Gamesworkshop announced after having launched sales for their last Warhammer battle version that there will only be the Empire and Orc armies supported and all other stuff will be given up... Of course you may stil play warhammer with only these 2 armies but what a frustration for fans !

Personally I guess that they will remove all dwarves and goblins AND reduce the human troops to half. Then produce one "human base game" and any other base game yet to be announced. You will need any two base games to play a game of Battlelore.

brol2 said:

A mistake in my opinion.

To support this game like GW do for WH ask a lot of ressources. Too much for DoW.

BL core box is really a great deal. An extension, always producted at a smaller scale than a core set is more expensive.

You can use BL for a cheaper WHFB but with other models. And, Yes, in this case, it's still a good solution (only 4 models for infantery unit, 3 for cavalry... )

brol2 said:

I still find fault in the reasoning. Battlelore was never meant to be an alternative for Warhammer. They are completely different games. Battlelore was a C&C game, which have always been described as a lite wargame. The only similarities between Battlelore to Warhammer is that both games involve miniatures and have a fantasy setting. That could be used to describe hundreds of games. Apples to oranges.

brol2 said:

I think brol2 brings up a good observation about the game. What initially attracted me to BattleLore was the melding of several gaming niches/types/whatnot elements into one playing experience. I think the distinct reactions one sees to developments within the game often have to do with that particular reactant's expectations of the game due to their playing preferences (man, I wrote this much more succinctly the first time, but my post blew up somehow...apologies for having to trudge through that sentence - and those that follow ). Though I feel that many find the game of BattleLore to be an unwieldy mess, I find it a successful blend of miniatures, cards, role playing, and traditional board games. Along those lines, I very much enjoy the hybrid of historical and fantastical elements. My most singular expectation of BattleLore when I first purchased it was to have a game that offered a wide variety of playing experiences and flexible rules sets in order to do so. Again, I view BattleLore a success in that light. While may gaming experience is not all that deep, I do not speak lightly when I say that BattleLore has given me more enjoyment than any other game.

It is valid to draw comparison to games such as Warhammer. There is a strong miniatures component to BattleLore and whether one views the promise as implicit or explicit, there was a promise made with BattleLore that the races/armies would be expanded in the game's future, both in a straight variety of armies feature of miniatures gaming and in order to deepen the background for campaign and role playing elements of the game. In this sense, the game is incomplete as it stands, and one of the reasons why I find the suggestion that those who "took the designers post as cannon" to be over-zealous and/or unrealistic to be insulting.

toddrew said:

A comparison to Warhammer cannot be based on miniatures alone. If that were the case, you could compare Memoir '44 to Warhammer. Warmachine can be compared to Warhammer. They are both miniature games. They share many of the same qualities: individuals have statistics and act independently, play is without a board and armies are customizable based on a point system, and neither rely on card driven mechanics. Battlelore doesn't fit match any of those qualities. Groups, not individuals, are the are the unit of action. Battlelore requires a board. Armies are not customizable based on points. Cards drive the action of the game.

I know that a lot of BL fans have gotten the rub, first by Days of Wonder, now by FFG. It sounds to me like FFG is trying to fulfill many of the expectations put in place by DoW. I don't think DoW ever promised other races, only more creatures. If you read through all of the material on Uchronia, there isn't any mention of races other than those already presented. Therefore, FFG has essentially said, "Here, this is what you've been promised, Heroes and more creatures. Now, this is our game and we are going to set some new expectations." I know Mr. Borg made mention of several possible races. But, we shouldn't make assumptions based on playtesting and ideas. I appreciate that he is active in the BL community. If people continually say, "But Richard Borg said...", he may not be as forthcoming with his ideas. If it were up to him, I am sure we would have dozens of new expansions.

I am not sure that I like the direction that FFG is taking BL. However, I can't blame them for what they are doing. They bought the game and didn't think it fit well with their "vision". So, they are making changes to make it their own. I reserve judgement of FFG until I see those changes. I won't fault them if they make changes that allow players to use their current products. However, if any changes make the older versions obsolete, I can't support their decisions.

biomage said:

For the first point :

OK let's put it like this : when you are thirsty you may drink water, milk, beer, soda, orange juice etc... All these drinks are different but meet one need in the case you basically are thirsty. That's also the case with battlelore, warhammer or warmaster, demonworld (a miniature fantasy battle game that used hex maps and 15mm miniatures) : they have different rules, different scales, maps (or no maps), dices, army building and deployment systems, ... but they met one unique basic need : play a 2 player (or 2 sides) fantasy battle tactical game with features like : large variety of armies, heroes, creatures, spells, magic items, covering classic fantasy themes (undead, orcs, wizards, mighty warriors, necromancers, etc etc ...). In my point of view, I found Battlelore was better in several key points : price, simplicity, flexibility AND A LOT of potential which leads us to the second point :

I don't have DoW early announcements at hand but I remember that the vision was to develop more armies, more members of Council, etc... The fact that Mr R. Borg was still working in this direction not so long ago shows that it was not an illusion born in the heads of Battlelore fans. But OK, DoW and Mr Borg aren't FFG.

Finally, FFG decides what he wants, no doubt about that. BoW is there. Customer choice is only buy or not buy it. The only concern for me is the one you mention : will "classic" Battlelore become obsolete ? If not, will "classic" Battlelore benefit of a substancial developpment ? The official statement about that isn't so clear : there seems that support will go on with more releases but not the way we think... or expected... Let's hope it will be better than expected.

brol2 said:

I agree. The idea that there is something new in development that has never been mentioned worries me a little.

I'm expecting the following:

1. Continued BL support
2. Revamped BL tone and atmosphere. The #1 complaint from my friends has always been "cows and ostriches!?", which really boils down to tone and atmosphere. I liked the unique, whimsical tone that DoW brought; it was a new take, and it fit w/ their family friendly ideals. FFG takes a different approach entirely, and I expect to begin seeing that in future expansions.
3. Campaign system
4. Call to arms will become obsolete and we'll see a points-based system. CtA has it's advantages, but it doesn't fit the FFG game ethic. At least IMO. I see them wanting to do army construction vs creating random scenarios.
5. BL "starter set" as a way for new players to enter the game at a decent price point
6. Continued BL expansions for a long time.
7. Increased complexity level; BL is a fairly simple game, but FFG tends to make heavier, more complex games.

I don't know all the details of the deal to buy BL, but FFG clearly wants to recoup their investment. They want BL to continue generating sales at least for a few years. They got the name brand, and they eliminated a competitor, but clearly they'd like to have a long-term product as well. That's why I expect to see continued product development.

tkostek said:

1. We can all be happy with that.

2. I've never heard a peep on this. I LIKE the humorous tone, but I agree that FFG isn't likely to want to keep going in that direction. If they want to retheme it for their Runebound universe, I'm fine with that. Just don't tell me my ostriches are illegal!

3. I could not care less about this but if anyone else wants it, it's no skin off my nose.

4. I like CtA but I'd like to see it done better. Right now, there's very little to differentiate the three decks. I'd rather not have a point-based system. As soon as that shows up, you get people min-maxing the system until everybody wants to field the exact same 150 pt army because everyone knows it's best. Blech. I'm only wanting something to make it easy to set up random scenarios. I don't want to spend most of my time setting the game up rather than playing it. That said, I really like Specialist cards. Without those, I might be harder pressed to get a lot of my special units into battle.

5. I have no problem with this. We can't keep going with just the veterans. New blood is needed to keep things rolling.

6. My only fear is the frequency. FFG has been pretty good about this though, so I'm not too concerned.

7. That's a tricky one. The C&C system's simplicity is a lot of its charm. I'd rather FFG focus the complexity on BoW and leave BL alone. That said, if they want to offer an expansion called Advanced Battlelore for those who'd like to take an extra step, then fine. Just don't make me take that step if I don't want to.