By pure chance, I came across a comment today where I found out that Battle Savvy was "the way to play" now. Huh? Did I miss a memo? I skipped the Heroes expansion because it has no appeal to me. Is that why I know nothing of this?

I've looked up a thread or two and can see this issue is highly polarizing. I'm not looking to get a fight started. I'm just interested in distilling the pros and cons of Battle Savvy, especially from those of you who've been using it for a while. Having not actually used it, I can only guess at how it affects the game.

1) Formation becomes far less important. I'm usually petrified to lose my Bold status. Now I wouldn't stress about that so much.

2) Probably more lore available in a battle. Eh, not a big deal to me either way.

3) Attacking is more promoted now? I'm not sure I follow this one. Can someone explain? The last time I played, one played complained that he felt the game wasn't pro-attack enough so this change would apparently please him.

4) Dwarves are far less fearsome. And I suppose that might lead one to assume Goblins are a bit MORE fearsome, but I'm not sure how.

Surely there are more issues than what I've listed, but I just haven't had to use the rules yet so I'm not thinking of the other changes. Please jump in and inform an occasional Battlelore player!

Disclosure Statement: I do not like the broad impact of Battle Savvy rules on the game of BattleLore.

Trump said:

I am still a little unsure myself about whether this is a rule that was always meant for the game and got altered intentionally or misinterpreted by DoW, or whether the introduction of Battle Savvy at this juncture is a response to criticism that the game has received for being"unrelastic" as in some peoples' minds units not battling back are just standing there and taking it without response (I do not see it this way at all) . I gather that "Battle Savvy" is the way Richard Borg plays the game with his gaming group, but I much prefer the impact Medieval Tactics per the base game have on the way battles play out. But yes, with Heroes, Battle Savvy became the suggested way to play the game.

"I've looked up a thread or two and can see this issue is highly polarizing. I'm not looking to get a fight started. I'm just interested in distilling the pros and cons of Battle Savvy, especially from those of you who've been using it for a while. Having not actually used it, I can only guess at how it affects the game."

I don't engage in discussion about Battle Savvy or not Battle Savvy to get into arguments either. I do not enjoy arguing for its own sake and typically leave online discussions after I am satisfied that they have become "yes it is/no it isn't" situations. I fully respect anyone who feels strongly that Battle Savvy is an improvement, or simply a fun, different way to play the game.

"1) Formation becomes far less important. I'm usually petrified to lose my Bold status. Now I wouldn't stress about that so much."

Early on, much of the criticism of BattleLore was that it was to chaotic when compared to C&C:Ancients, but I always found that it modeled my (granted, relatively ignorant) expectations of Medieval battles - clusters of men fighting for one cause attempting to overwhelm clusters of men fighting for another cause (or the same, misunderstood cause ). The condition of support to become bold, and the condition of bold morale to battle back seemed to me to encourage this type of movement across the board. Yes, if Battle Savvy is in place, it becomes less important where ones units are in relation to other units. Tactics across the game become more like the tactics of the Dwarven units.

"2) Probably more lore available in a battle. Eh, not a big deal to me either way. "

Probably, and likewise, not a big deal to me.

"3) Attacking is more promoted now? I'm not sure I follow this one. Can someone explain? The last time I played, one played complained that he felt the game wasn't pro-attack enough so this change would apparently please him."

I am not so sure about this one. Probably initially it would be true, but as players grew accustomed to the rules and their implications, I think players would become more cautious. With Medieval Tactics, one is always looking to attack units that cannot battle back, and if those situations do not exist on the board, battle in such a way to create them. With Battle Savvy, the reward for breaking the formations of the opponent is far less certain, and more often than not, it will be to the advantage of the player who is attacked first, then is able to battle back, and then attack with the following turn. This is what creates the temporary stalemates.

"4) Dwarves are far less fearsome. And I suppose that might lead one to assume Goblins are a bit MORE fearsome, but I'm not sure how."

It isn't that Dwarves are far less fearsome, it is that all unsupported units are now to be feared more. As players get used to this, this is where I think they will be overall less aggressive.

"Surely there are more issues than what I've listed, but I just haven't had to use the rules yet so I'm not thinking of the other changes. Please jump in and inform an occasional Battlelore player!"

My main issue with Battle Savvy rules as opposed to the straight Medieval Tactics, is that one is less concerned with ones forces as a whole, and is not penalized as greatly for leaving some units in what would be untenable positions in the Medieval Tactics only game. But, maybe that is what people want.

When I first bought Heroes and read the rules for Battle Savvy I calculated they would really dumb down the game and make formation keeping less important. The first impressions of many when Heroes first came out speculated all sorts of impacts: red cavalry would dominate, formations were less important, the game was turning into a dice fest, etc. etc..

Now after a few months and many games with Battle Savvy rules I found my first impressions couldn't be more wrong. Formation keeping is still very important, esp. with actual Heroes in the game since so many combat dice equal more flags and preventing retreats is more key than ever. Cavalry with only 3 figs are now more vulnerable to the attrition battle than ever before. I could go on but for me I'll doubt I'll ever play Battlelore again without the Battle Savvy rules in place. The game is far better with them, with or without actual Heroes in the scenario.

Captain Uncontrol said:

The objectives of breaking formations and the penalties for not accounting for all units on the board position wise are greatly tempered by Battle Savvy. The tactics of surrounding units to cut off their retreats is now far less rewarding to the player manufacturing such movements and positions, and in many cases now a poor move. Well planned mounted charges of the past, which took into account the breaking of bold positions and cornering units are now not as devestating with Battle Savvy.

Now, if one is of the opinion that those are good changes, I respect that one would find Battle Savvy an improvement. I do not see those as good things, I see those as mechanics that take control away from the attacking player and place more of the outcome determination with the dice rolls.

I haven't (yet?) bought into Heroes, mayhap if/when FFG bring out a Campaign Book they will makes more sense, but I have downloaded the rules to check out Battle Savvy:

Quote:
Battle Savvy troops are veteran fighters that understand the strike and counter strike of combat.
Battle Savvy units have the following rules:...

I take it from this that ALL my troops are now presumed to be veterans , since there is no distinction in any of the troops listed in the scenarios (and it wouldn't make sense for previously published scenarios)
I think I would have prefered units to earn this distinction before being allowed off without support and the rules, as written, imply that there is a difference between Battle Savvy Troops and the peasant conscripts. Otherwise why do the rules not simply say;
Quote:
that All Troops engaged in melee, that hold their ground can battle-back???????

Am I missing summat or are the rules written to allow for future adjustments?

Guidence and/or comment would be appreciated

er do you think if you are useing heros on senerio which dosent say use battle savvy you have use battle savvy when playing with heros?

Hey Roo,

I'm a little puzzled in the way the rules are written, but from other posts, particularly on BGG, I understand that Battle Savvy is the way to play ALL games. I just don't think all my troops should automatically be veterans. I'm considering a house rule; That units that are victorious in a battle get Battle Savvy (or units that are led by heroes), but until then they fight as with Medieval Tactics.

El Mikel said:

Nice house rule.

Just wondering, how you keep track which is veteran and which is not?
I personally wouldn't like any additional tokens placed to the board, there can be too many already =)

But I quess somekind of token to represent veteranity (or non-veteranity) is the only way to avoid arguments like "no, that one wasn't the veteran, you got it mixed up with that other one!".

Fronx said:

Put a second flag bearer into the unit? Both get removed when there would normally be a 'last hit' and once you get lots of veteran units you have non veteran units without a flag bearer (but still with max figures)

Chris

Elberon said:

If number of available banners is an issue, to the left for the fresh recruits, to the right for the veterans could be another solution.

The house rule works for me, but I still don't have a rationale for the way the original rule is written

You won't get one from me

Captain Uncontrol said:

Quoted for emphasis. Never will I play with the old rules. I was completely blown away by how much better the game was when using Battle Savvy. When I first read it I was dissapointed but when I actually played it, I found little details that make all the difference {for the better}.

For me, Battle Savvy is not an optional rule, not an advanced rule, not a proposed rule, it's the only rule. I even propose to new buyers of the base game to start playing immediately with Battle Savvy and never trouble themselves with the original rules.

The game has become more aggresive, Green units are not easy victory banners for the enemy, more Lore is gained=more Lore spells are cast, players really need to be sure before attacking since equal vs equal unit favors greatly the defender when using Battle Savvy, etc. So many small changes that overall create a better tactical experience IMHO. I didn't enjoy AT ALL to attack units that happened to be unsupported, never fearing a retaliation. Cavalry was too strong and Command cards that moved 1 or 2 units were hard to use because you have to think, plan and move in "triads" to be effective.

I could go on all day but the bottom line is that I really enjoy the game more with Battle Savvy and the old rules are a thing of the past. Never to be used again.

Just my 2 cents.

Yeah Battle Savvy is completely the way to go. It makes the game faster-paced, and it also makes gaining those 7 victory banners in every Heroes adventure a breeze. It also makes retreats all the more strategically important, because any unit has a 5 in 6 chance (per die) that he will get to battle back. So then when you are forced to retreat, you really feel the loss of the battle-back, rather than in the old rules when you were like, "eh, I can just move him back to that hex next turn."

Also, sorry for the double post, but in reply to the top post: Battle Savvy rules have absolutely no effect on the Morale system. Bold units are still Bold, and Frightened units are still Frightened. I would contend that Dwarf units are still fearsome for their inherent Bold-ness (and potential Bold^3). I don't think Battle Savvy has done anything to change the effectiveness, perceived or otherwise, of Dwarven units.

Conversely, I would disagree that Battle Savvy rules make Goblins more fearsome (with the exception of Spear Bearers, but then every race has those). Goblins are still inherently Frightened, and also are the only race where red banner foot units are allowed to move 2 squares. So they still have their weaknesses and strengths.

To summarize, I'd say that all the Battle Savvy rules have done is to expedite game play, improve the strategic texture, and add to the enjoyment of both players.

FragMaster said:

I hear you FragMaster, but I still do not understand the Rules as they are written (does anyone have the ear of FFG or R. Borg?).

I simply have an issue with suddenly promoting ALL my troops to Veterans , particularly as the wording of the rules very clearly avoids stating that ALL troops Battle-Back . The rules just seem incomplete, perhaps they are allowing for a future expansion to include hordes of peasant conscripts or mayhap the wording should simply not be taken literally, but just go with the flow of the implications that I only fight with veterans.

Ho-hum, therein lies the problem of a software developer mindset

awayputurwpn said:

Don't have time at the moment to address all the points brought up again (nor look for other posts regarding these topics ), but quickly: Battle Savvy does indeed have an impact on the Medieval Tactics ruleset - before a unit had to be bold in order to battle back, now it does not. This has a very large impact on decision making in the game. Tactics that broke bold positions are now not nearly as effective. Some like this change, I do not.

Battle Savvy has changed the effectiveness of the dwarves. They used to be one of the few units who could venture solitarily and still be effective. Not the case anymore. Their relative strength on the battle field has decreased.

toddrew said:

I don't have my rules with me but wasn't it a unit that stayed in their hex could battleback, which would include units which can't retreat for what ever reason could also battle back?

* e.g. a unit with an impassable river and a friendly unit immediately behind it, so not Bolden

Chris

El Mikel said:

I'll just copy-paste my self from another relevant post:

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!

I now firmly believe that the game is a lot more tactical with Battle Savvy in effect. I too was not very impressed when reading about it but when I actually sat down and played using the rules everything falled into place. In theory, it seems that this rule will make the game simpler but it actually makes it more complex.

I also believe that the game was tested from the very beginning with Battle Savvy rules. We have noticed a substantial balancing of the races when using Battle Savvy. Dwarves are less effective {but far from worthless} and Goblins are more useful and equal to the other races. Also, we noticed that Lore has more impact due to increased Lore production from the numerous die rolls that Battle Savvy promotes.

As I've already mentioned the Command deck has cards that gain usefulness with Battle Savvy. Mainly 1 and 2 Order command cards. No more thinking in "triads". Moreover you can actually try flanking tactics now that you can break formation without fear that your unit will be attacked unsupported and thus rolling 0 dice.

As I've said I could go on all day about how much more tactical the game is when using Battle Savvy but there is no point. Try it yourself. Me, I'll never ever play with the old rules again. There is absolutely no point.

Elberon said:

With Battle Savvy, yes, the unit (assuming it remained on the board) would be able to battle back. With the original Medieval Tactics, no, it would not be able to battle back, as the prerequisites for battle back with Medieval Tactics are: 1) must be of bold morale and 2) must maintain its position upon the targeted hex. With Battle Savvy, the only condition necessary for Battle Back is 2).

Apologies in advance, I know this is going to be a formatting nightmare

FragMaster said:

This still doesn't address the OP's question of how those units came to be veterans. To me, it isn't an important question, as I think it is just fluff (and not using that term pejoratively) to explain a desired rule change. Where I agree with Fragmaster (to a certain extent ), is that if the way FFG and/or Richard Borg want the game to be played is using Battle Savvy, then just say so. I prefer it to be presented as an option, and prefer it to be presented as an option with reasoning (veteran units being a good start, but how they came to be so, and even better, a game mechanism for them to become so, would be nice), but what I really like to know is the motivation behind the rule adaptations.

FragMaster said:

I would love to hear an accurate and reliable response to this, as I have had the very same question (though differently worded: "Is Battle Savvy the way Richard Borg intended the game to be played, but DoW came up with Medieval Tactics?"). I don't come to the same conclusion as you do with the results however, as I find the balance between the races to be just fine with Medieval Tactics - speed kills in this game, and I do just fine with the Goblins against the Dwarves. I love the contrast of the steadfast, stout dwarves (with the mounted handicap) against the quick but crumbly goblins. Makes for very interesting decision making.

FragMaster said:

I have played with Battle Savvy rules - plenty, at least a dozen games by now. Plus, I've played with these rules in hundreds of C&C:Ancients games(where I think they have a better fit, though it may be interesting, if somewhat anachronistic , to use Medieval Tactics and see how it changes that game play) and am well aware of the impact. There absolutely is a point, in fact several, to using Medieval Tactics instead of Battle Savvy: main one for me is that Medieval Tactics rewards the player who treats his forces as a cohesive army rather than individual units. Let a unit venture off by itself or get left behind, and it is lunch. Unless of course it is a well laid trap... Equally I could go on all day about how Medieval Tactics impact the game differently than Battle Savvy. And I wouldn't find it pointless, I love to talk about this game

I think it is incorrect to say that Battle Savvy makes the game more tactical. I think that the best one could say is that it makes it "differently tactical". I respect that some would find the tactical differences that Battle Savvy brings to the game an improvement over how Medieval Tactics plays, but I don't see myself adopting that viewpoint.

FragMaster said:

hmmm - I did search for Battle Savvy before questioning the rules, but missed that little 'All Units...' gem . I'm also fairly sure it's not in the rules, which is a pity, 'cos that's a) where it belongs and b) would have helped reduce my pre-game prozac dependancy!

I can accept that ruling from the man hisself, although my RPG background would prefer a rationalisation rather than a blatent gaming assumption ho-hum, mayhap I shall simply have to quote Henry V or Aragorn before each battle

btw: I'm not sure of the validity of the H

toddrew said:

I agree that Battle Savvy has an impact on the Medieval Tactics ruleset - specifically the card that says "Medieval Tactics - Battle Savvy Troops."

This is why I said "Morale System," not "Medieval Tactics." My point, which at the time I thought was crystal clear, was that Bold units are still bold and are therefore just as valuable, because of the fact that they Battle Back much more often. I played a game just yesterday where that fact was painfully displayed - I forced several mounted units back with just one flag at a time because they were unsupported, even after they rolled flags against me - which were ignored because of my well-constructed battle line. I even got some hits from flags that my opponent's troops couldn't take. She got no such benefit from any flags that she rolled.

My original point was that Battle Savvy troops have done nothing to change the value of Dwarven units. If you're smart, you're still going to go after the Normal-morale, unsupported units before you go after a mutually supported contingent of troops or a Dwarven unit. It's just that now every unit has a chance of battling back in melee.

My point could be continued, and I think I've said this elsewhere, that the Battle Savvy rules have only changed the effectiveness of ranged combat. Those wimpy Green Archers are now a lot more valuable because they are immune to Battle Backs from a distance of 2 or more hexes. Also I suppose they might discourage using a unit with just its Banner Bearer left to attack a unit with a full troop compliment...but that's just realistic, common sense.

But as to your contention - tactics that break Bold positions aren't as effective anymore - I would have to disagree. All that Battle Savvy troops have done is speed up gameplay. Dwarves are still the most effective solitary troop units, because of their inherent Boldness. If someone thinks Battle Savvy is a license to run their units willy-nilly across the board in loose formations, they are going to be in for a world of surprise. Support is still valuable, Boldness is still valuable, and Dwarves are still fearsome. What's more, both players benefit from Battle Savvy. So your attacks that are met with Battle Backs don't give you a huge advantage over the other player because you will have the chance to Battle Back on his next turn.

Your point that Battle Savvy has a large impact on decision making is well taken. I would say that Battle Savvy has served to necessitate rethinking bad strategies. The greater Victory Banner capacity certainly allows more room for error & also for strategic development, as well as encouraging strategies with longevity in mind.

So in short: while Battle Savvy may have an effect on what tactics you now use to defeat the enemy, the result from Bold units is the same - they still ignore a flag, of which two are a pretty rare occurrence in any die roll; and they Battle Back more often - and so Boldness is still a valuable trait, even if it now becomes underrated by some.

Apologies for the multiple posts which are to follow - my computer is on its last legs and keeps crashing every 5 min or so...

awayputurwpn said:

I am not attempting to be cute by changing terms - I think I understood your point as intended. Battle Savvy has no impact on whether or not a unit will be able to ignore a flag, however it does impact the Morale system of Medieval Tactics of BattleLore in that now a unit is not required to be of bold morale in order to battle back, making the bold morale of less value relative to other states of units on the board than it was previously. Of course it is still better to be bold than to not be bold, it is just not as better

Speaking quite abstractly at the moment, and I am happy to speak to concrete examples in the game if the discussion warrants, but in general, with Battle Savvy one is not penalized as severely if one finds ones units in unfavorable situations as with the original ruleset of the game.

awayputurwpn said:

Dwarves are no longer the only units that are able to battle back without being supported, the way they perform on the board has not changed, but their value relative to other units has changed. With Battle Savvy, the hierarchy of which units one prefers to target has not changed, but the distinctions among the units involved and the expected actions of the targets has.

I am not refuting what you are saying at all, just giving some reasoning behind those that point out that the dwarves have lost some stature with the Battle Savvy rules.

awayputurwpn said:

Ranged attacking units are more valuable in attacking units that aren't bold, but the tactics one uses against range units hasn't really changed: move in close so that they will be subject to battle backs. Battle Savvy has changed the effectiveness of all attacks which target units that were not eligible to battle back before.

awayputurwpn said:

(Todd writing now) This is the one point where I think we do have disagreement, not just different ways of talking about a similar phenomenon - tactics that break Bold positions are not as effective with Battle Savvy in that units which would become ineligible to battle back with the original ruleset will now still be eligible, depending on the dice rolls.

awayputurwpn said:

I thinking I am missing what you are saying here about the greater Victory Banner capacity and rethinking bad strategies. Battle Savvy doesn't impact the victory conditions in anyway that I am aware of - Adventure 5 is still to 6 banners, etc. Main thing I am speaking to here is that cutting off opposing units from the rest of their army does not have as severe of consequences as it does without Battle Savvy rules.

awayputurwpn said:

No argument from me about Bold being a valuable state in Battle Savvy games. The results for Bold units are still the same, the results for units of other morale conditions have changed in a way that impacts the way one positions upon the board and makes decisions about which risks to take. I think it does this in a way that puts more focus on the dice results than the positioning, and that is the contention I have with Battle Savvy.

Crap. Formatting gets me again