biomage said:

The comparison is not made on the basis of miniatures alone, rather with the army building facets of the game brought by Call to Arms. I am not saying that BattleLore is a miniatures game of the same scale as Warhammer - clearly it is not. It is a meld of several gaming niches and does incorporate characteristics found in miniatures gaming, namely miniatures and army building (however unique the way BattleLore chose to implement this may be considered, it is an available facet of the game). Early on in the game, many discussions centered on BattleLore as an attractive game for Warhammer-type players, with the distinguishing features of BattleLore (non-collectable, no points system) being touted as pluses as often as minuses. Different tastes will have different reactions to the implementations chosen throughout the game.

Biomage posted:

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.

Future races certainly were promised. Among several other places (discussion boards mainly, and yes, even occasionally from the game's producers as well as designer), but it is right there in my rule book on Page 37, 2nd paragraph: "Additional mercenary commands and new races will be introduced in future expansions." Now, I am fully aware that this was a DoW produced material, and if FFG has decided to abandon the original intent of BattleLore ("...a comprehensive [emphasis mine] new game system that promises to enchant hobby gamers worldwide for many years to come...") and narrow its focus, that is certainly their prerogative, but it will not be the game I got into.

toddrew said:

Agreed, and it will be a game with which I am much less likely to continue. But, I am very curious as to what FFG has up their sleeve. I believe the next expansion will either re-energize the fan base or completely destroy it. Let's hope it is the former.

biomage said:

Yes, I think this is exactly what is going to happen. If the new product is low quality and so simple that shows no promise for the future like Dragons/Creatures or if the new direction FFG wants BL to go is very different from the original then I can see the fan base getting decimated.

If the new direction promotes changes that don't change the overall BL feeling AND show that FFG is planning the continuation of the game then the fan base will be re-energized completely as you mentioned.

Trump said:

I agree on all points with Trump.

I don't have a problem with Ostriches but I don't mind a more darker setting either. Just as long as I can use all my units darker-new or lighter-old together and they don't look like they come from a different game.

I don't really care much for Campaign.

I NEVER want to see a points-based system. It will destroy the game and there isn't a more counter-constructive discussion for a game than min-maxing the armies. No, never a point-based system. The damage it will cause is too much.

Better and different CtA decks is the best way.

As for the rules, I'd prefer a little bit more complexity but not so much that the game's duration gets from 40min to 2 hours!!!

Some rules from Battles of Westeros are good, most of them are bad. The good ones can be used in BL too though. Especially the Disengagement rules and the Morale rules victory condition. I always had a problem with BattleLore's victory condition. It doesn't promote numbers superiority. Goblins often have 15-16 units on the board and Dwarves have 10-12 but they need 6 kills to win. Where is the Goblin's numbers superority in that?

FragMaster said:

I suppose victory conditions are the one area that I'm kind of dissatisfied with Battlelore myself. If you get a scenario where you have numeric superiority, you get the inevitable situation of oh crap, now I have to defend all of these greens to prevent them from giving flags to the enemy. Where IMO it should be more like.... cool I have a bunch of peasants to throw at the enemy until a situation develops where I can send in the elites to change the course of the battle. In any case, I have played many a battle where the reaction on both sides when the final banner was captures was along the lines of "this is the end?" It just tends to feel like the battle was stopped mid-stream with no decisive resolution. Nobody feels like an important objective was completed to finish the battle.

Unfortunately the nature of the C&C system doesn't really lend itself to a lot of traditional objective based victory conditions. If the winning hill top lies in the center section, the battle being fought on the flanks has no real relevance to the outcome of the battle.

Not really sure what the solution could be to this sort of problem, but I have confidence that an inovative solution does exist. Guess I'm just greedy. I love the elegant simplicity of the C&C system to abstract the complexity of commanding a medieval army but at the same time want a little more depth when it comes to the overall strategey.

This topic became meaty!

I throw again some unrelated and unsollicited opinions here and there! Ippikihay!

Warhammer Battlelore comparison:

That is legitimate: not so much from a logical, but from a marketing and nostalgic point of view: they call it "experience marketing". From the start (to the point of saying so in the booklet too), DOW stated clearly the concept that Battlelore wanted to revive the kind of good feelings one of those old gaming afternoon at the club used to elicit: great armies with fantasy gigantic creatures (and something vanilla-historical) clashing in a Heroic environment. Even the comical-goofy nature was not so far from WH spirit (remember the lovable "Drunken Dwarfs?").

But we are adults now (this is the segment BL aim): we have less time. We know a market (the bordgaming on) that, if not so stable, has grown to great heights, and competition. A C&C fantasy game, someone thought, could serve as well: it's more elegant than clunky Warhammer, it's something fans are already expecting, it's relatively fast and you can have many plays in a row, but you can customize it adding a little bit of Magic the Gathering, too. Oh, and a board is less encumbrant (even if less spectacular) than a full gaming table. Wives could live well with that.

....There is a paragraph in Heroes booklet titled Hero Quests. I read in it a nod to the classic MB-Parker boardgame Heroquest, with its setting licensed by GW. I cannot avoid to smile whan I first saw it.

Taking all this in account, BL chrome isn't superflous, but a vital part of product identity. You can't play with blocks and tokens (those are for more "serious" Ancient players) you must feel the exotic creatures angles, the plastic in your hands...

New Races:

I think that going for an all human starter kit would be suicidal for FFG' BL. Battle of Westeros will have an all human core set: that will work well per se, so BL must be different in every possible way to avoid cannibalizing the other product'market (without empting FFG wallet). I cannot think a possible way where new races are not in the plans of FFG.

The reason why I didn't feel offended by the "canonical" part of the announcement was that I didn't intend that Races will be removed from the line; only, not as Torks and Man'chines.

The point where FFG vision collided with DOW's previous, I think, it's the plan to please two really different niches, with different desiderata, with one game: the fantasy and the historical lot. That was a mixed view which weakened the coherency of the universe and the property (uchronia or europe with fantasy pasted on?); made things difficult, again, from a marketing point of view: how do you explain a Chimaera to your perspective buyers?

"Cheaper" Starter Kit

...And then, I don't know if my reasoning is correct, but while the first core set included more than 210 minis, limiting a simpler Starter Kit to 2 opposing fantasy armies you can set 12 + 12 units in a box set, for a total, more or less, of 90-96 minis: half the previous edition, but still functional. Beside that, the shamefully few scenario published with Racial Clashes are amongst fans' favourite, and you could forget the "absolutely family friendly learning curve" DOW adopted for the game; the first rulebook of BL was lavish, but a bit redundant, and you can go for a cheaper alternative both in format and number of pages. There were even not-so-useful plastic holders and lore goblets you can forgot totally, and I can live without Lore Councils sheets.

I'd like to see an alternative set of Council's members with new lore cards, and voilat, you have a core set you can sell even to die hard fan, marketed a la Wings of War.

There are alternatives: without manufacturing problems you could repackage 2 full Dwarfs VS Goblin armies and put there, perhaps, Call to Arms cards to field them... but the more you pull the "Old" + "New" strings, the higher the risk to displease early adopters (like, for me, with Creatures)...

Obviously, given that we will not see a reprint of the original core set, support to the game will depend on a new starter. To mantain the line you'll need fresh blood, otherwise to publish new expansions will be futile.

PS: on a side note, I feel a bit uneasy when I think about all reprinted Call to Arms cards and replacement dice DOW send to correct manufacturing mistakes. That was surely money-leeching.

Last concern

It's called Magestorm. I discovered its existence from a post in the other topic. It fills a niche similar to Battlelore (combo: fantasy armies + High Magic) and it will be published by Nexus, that has a strong partnership with FFG. I'm, for example, really interested by it....

FragMaster said:

I am with you there. I think that Call to Arms is under-appreciated and/or misunderstood by many. It is wonderful with the base game and couple of figure expansions, but does need to be updated, at the least, for the three existing races, and possibly an updated "mercenary" version of the existing deck.

"Some rules from Battles of Westeros are good, most of them are bad. The good ones can be used in BL too though. Especially the Disengagement rules and the Morale rules victory condition. I always had a problem with BattleLore's victory condition. It doesn't promote numbers superiority. Goblins often have 15-16 units on the board and Dwarves have 10-12 but they need 6 kills to win. Where is the Goblin's numbers superority in that?"

This is also something in C&C games that I feel is often under-appreciated and/or misunderstood. The victory conditions in C&C games are certainly simple, but full of subtlety that negates the need for overcomplicating with specific objectives or additional qualifiers to the victory track. The numbers superiority that the Goblins enjoy is seen by their ability to engage units then cycle them back and replace them with full strength units in order to outlast the opponent through attrition. They also are often able to orchestrate more attacks per turn in order to wear down an opponent on a turn by turn basis as well. Quick example: four goblins attack two dwarves. First turn the four goblins inflict four hits, three on one dwarf, one on the other, and on the battle backs one goblin recieves two hits and two others one. On the next dwarf turn, they are fortunate and take out the two figure goblin without a battle back, and then the single figure dwarf attacks a three figured goblin, is also fortunate to get two hits, but suffers a hit on the battle back. 1-1 after two turns. On the next turn, the three remaining goblins gang up on the remaining dwarf and though the dwarf stoutly stands and battles back twice, neither of those battle backs take a banner, but the third attack of the goblins does - 2-1 favoring the Goblins after that. Now, encumbent upon the goblins' commander to get them the hell out of there, but, that is the ebb and flow of the game. Numbers do matter in terms of the ability to finish charges, sustain battle fronts, etc.

I think the C&C system does a fine job of modeling as is. There are not needs for flanking bonuses and disengagement rules, nor the need to alter the victory banner mechanics. However, I completely understand why players and game designers do want to tinker

FragMaster said:

Yeah, if you made BL a lot longer to play, it ain't BL any more.

The superiority is in opportunity. The dwarves might be more sensitive to getting the right section cards with fewer units. And now that Battle Savvy is the way to play, that definitely shifts the dwarf/goblin scale.

Nematode said:

Epic BL made a small attempt at fixing the victory conditions with there being a mandatory spread to win.

What if every scenario had an objective in each section? Or what if you the stated victory conditions and an alternate victory condition? Something like you can also win if you can tag the enemy's back row of all three sections at the same time.

affro said:

Hmmmmm. What if the new core set featured Elves vs the Undead (or something similar)? New buyers see an obvious fantasy battle game. And FFG offers humans, dwarves, and goblins as expansions to them. Old customers simply pick up a new core set and pass on those expansions as they probably already own them. Everyone's happy?

Affro, much better put than I - exactly the intent I had with some of my posts, in terms of expectations for the game from DoW's production of it, and what I hope will be carried on, to whatever degree, by FFG.

I could have come up with a better word than "insulting" to describe the dismissal of Richard Borg's post on these forums and those that found it a reason to get excited about the game, but it fits in a variety of ways. If FFG's plan/vision is to increase the variety of armies in the BattleLore world, shouldn't be too hard to say so. "Something new and different" does not say so.

toddrew said:

That is what concerned me as well. A new smaller starter set with the different races as frag mentioned...I could go for that.

p.s. has anyone else noticed coltsfan has been absent since this announcement?

toddrew said:

Oh, no, I don't think I put it better - quite the opposite, I often feel a little clunky when I write or speak in English.

I must add that "something new and different" didn't make my endorphines flow, too. In a situation where uncertainity reigns, and while the rest of the announcement was often bluntly, but honestly clear, it's a bit too vague.

affro said:

English is a clunky language, feeling clunky means you are doing fine But that's not what I meant, I meant you are addressing the expectations that DoW was marketing better than I - nostalgia being a big element, and that nostalgia being provided by having elements of a variety of games (Heroquest and Warhammer certainly among them ) working through a relatively compact gaming experience.

Stalkingwolf said:

I have to admit the idea of FF putting "too much thought" into BattleLore is a bit concerning. I've played a fair amount of games from any number of companies. And in general FF's "ideas" about game mechanics is in my mind typically a bit clunky. In some cases I would argue they don't appear to even work together (Ahhh hummm..... Android lets say). Then there are some releases such as the Runebound expansion that are good ideas but don't appeared to have been play tested that much. Rules. Don't get me started. Various game rules I have read are not entirely logically ordered and suffer from organizational issues.

In short I am fairly new(er) to FF games myself. And am not overly impressed. (Ok they have nice artwork). So PLEASE ... FF don't "think" too much when coming up with something new and different!!

netaaron said:

What bothered me most about the Q&A with Christian Petersen was the over-arching view of BattleLore as a problem. Myself, I find zero problems with the game and its mechanics as currently constituted. I know that others feel differently and I understand the views of the game as problematic to market and roll out product, but I would hope that a company addressing those issues doesn't see altering the game-play as a solution to those problems.

With every C&C game I have played, the initial reaction for many new players is something akin to: "this is okay, but it would be better if..." and then after playing it and growing accustomed to, and finally appreciating the elegance of the mechanics - how they resolve many "reality ported to game" issues without the need for excessive modifiers - those same players come to enjoy the game's foundational rules that they once doubted.

Granted, I have not played Battle of Westeros, but my initial feeling on the game is that it is the realization of that first blush player reaction. Maybe the revised and additional mechanics BoW bring "improvements" on the game, but I doubt it. I expect that they sacrifice as much as they add, take away simplicity and elegance with complexity and clunkiness in order to arrive at a very similar conclusion.

While the division of a C&C game into sections and having a shared command deck is almost always seen as a literal component of the game (commands for the left section are coming from a commander of that section, etc), that does not have to be, and many times is not, the correct interpretation for a particular game. The main effect that the sections and single command deck have on the game is spreading the action out and creating fog of war imbalances which are continually shifting throughout the game. In BattleLore, the addition of the War Council and its corresponding Lore Deck (or Medieval Lore rules and its corresponding Lore Deck) add a layer of control and affect on top of that sound gaming engine. This is the foundation of the BattleLore game.

Adding additional armies and combat units with interesting characteristics that play out among that framework is where I had hoped the game had arrived after the addition of Heroes. If a gaming company chose to propagate the BattleLore line, providing new Creatures and Heroes, setting Campaigns that take advantage of the existing material while building up and developing the world being created - that was what I was expecting when I first heard about BattleLore, and continue to hope for to this day.

How's that for putting too much thought into BattleLore

toddrew said:

I think a lot of people have a problem with the group as the unit of action and not the individual. I can understand the confusion. As the group takes damage, it has no affect on their ability to attack. Logically, if there are fewer individuals, you could expect them to be less effective when attacking. However, in C&C, that isn't what happens. I think people would have less of a problem if a single individual occupied a space and lost some sort of life points instead of individual units. Then again, I am sure some people would question why infantry/foot units have four life points and mounted/cavalry units only have three.

It makes a lot more sense if you take the figure loose as the ability to fight in a cohesive manner, you would have fewer cavalry on the field and because they are more mobile (and noble) they tend to have an eye for the baggage train so the cavalry are easier to disrupt to the point they are no longer effective but not neccessarily wiped out to the last man.....

Bu then again I will be nicki... incorporating the moral swing-ometer in addition to the damage track (you get 7 clear clicks ahead of the opponnent or wipe out 5- 7 units first you win, it'll add a lot for very little

Chris

toddrew said:

Actually I think those are some pretty good thoughts toddrew. And I completely agree with a lot of your thoughts.

To expound on one of them. Of particular interest to me in recent posts are the various ideas running around that are quite bunk. All of these seam to suffer from the assumption, as you say, that "Battlelore is broke".

1) The idea that if there are no more expansions than the world has ended.

I think others have suggested the obvious that many games don't have expansions and are still great games. Don't buy to much into sales marketing guys. I consider additional releases as bonuses to the game. That does not stop me from continuing to play the game as it is. Or make up my own rules / scenarios / minis,etc.

2) The idea that the new expansions are too much money.

Come on. Look on the Internet people. You can easily spend $14 for plastic junkey dragons at Target. That totals $44 without a rule based system just minis. The obvious problem here is that the original game was undersold on purpose. The dollar is not what it was 3 years ago. And things cost money. So we either have to be willing to pay for things or not. Games are as it is a luxury item after all.

3) The new rule / release changes the game from its original intent. Oh no!

We'll just don't use the rule then. Or if a newer rule replaces an older one then just choose to play the older rule. On thing nice about things, such as Heroes, being added to the game does is allow for added variation. Which I feel makes the game richer. Now as long as they don't get too carried away moving forward I think the richness of Battlelore will continue.

4) This is a game running in parallel with WarHammer

I think someone else recently brought up that this is basically a "light" war game. So I guess I am confused on why so many comparisons or expectations out there. If you really like Warhammer go play it. I like to play Battletech. I don't play BattleLore and expect the same amount of complexity out of it.

-

Ok I guess I had more thoughts than I origionaly thought running around in my head too!! LOL

Cheers All

biomage said:

I think I follow what you are saying (if I don't, then what follows in this post won't make a lot of sense ). For those that need to reconcile what is happening in a C&C game with reality, the step losses in C&C games do not necessarily equate to casualties. The number of blocks/figures/chits/poker chips/counters/etc in a unit on the board represent that unit's ability to perform as a cohesive unit. Once that ability is gone (figure/block/etc count down to zero), due to casualties, fatigue, loss of communication, desertion, etc, that unit's impact is no longer felt on the board and it is removed. This loss also effects the ability of the army as a whole to perform, and that is modeled by the addition of a banner on the opponent's victory track, as they are now one step closer towards causing the other army's entire force to fail to perform as a cohesive unit (or stop battling to save their butts for another day, cause a strategic retreat, win the remaining forces over to their side, etc., etc). To me, this works great both gameplaywise and storytellingwise.

Somehow the visual a 1 fig Unit rolling the same number of die as a 4 fig Unit (inspite of the excellent rational given above)just never sit well with me.We use "Hit Markers"to show losses rather than removing a fig.I know it's not as simple as just removing a fig but it works for us.

OD

yup, there's always that that gets in the way: Hard to look at that single figure in the hex and see anything other than a scared and lonely dude looking very out of place in the middle of a battle

I always see a very brave and desperate fellow.

or a rat against the corner of the wall.

both are fragile, but fight fiercely. :]

Pretty much we have been strung along for quite some time...more so by FFG and they know it. Battlelore sure has a few quirks (as Todd mentioned above) but no where NEAR what that news article says there are. Guess this is FFG way of "bigger and better things to come for Battlelore"...yeah, we are REMAKING the game but it won't be anywhere NEAR what Battlelore is now. Excuse me, that isn't "bigger and better"...

And notice how quiet Richard has been too? (and yes I have communicated with him during this time via private messaging).

Cab

I guess I'm dumb along with a handfull of other folks associated with battlelore, but isn't it relativeley cheap to squirt plastic into pre-existing molds for figs? And isn't it kind of trivial to make new boards and tokens off of pre-existing templates. Oh, and by the way, hasn't all the play testing already been done for this game?

I'm not saying the new printing of a base game needs to be any cheaper than what's available, but come on.... all the hard work has already been done and paid for. Now, I'll admit that the packaging for the original battlelore was very nice and extravagant by any standard, nobody is demanding that. Just reprint a base game in some way such that the devoted can have some feeling that the game isn't dead.

I would love to hear Borg's side (or the Colts fan) of the story over all this. I check the boardgamegeek regularly and don't recall seeing any posts from either of them. I know the Colts fan posts there regularly.