In the BEGINNING , when a defending unit was not eliminated or did not retreat from the hex it occupied would fight back. No man, dwarf or goblin, in our brief history would stand and do nothing to defend itself. That indeed would of been pure fantasy!
Battle Savvy, was a way to straighten out some of the half-truth chronicles of the past. For a man, dwarf or goblin, will always fight back if given the opportunity!
Enjoy the Truth as now presented!
Richard Borg
Believe me, I know I've offered little proof of this, but I can shut up in regards to Battle Savvy v. only bolds battle back...however it won't be here
Mr. Borg, I always appreciate when you jump in and comment, set straight, etc., and always understand if you do not, but here's another opportunity:
Was the rule of requiring bold status for battling back an accident, or who decided on putting it in there? I still stand by all my commentary about liking how that subtle rule affects the game play.
Battle Savvy or no Battle Savvy, thanks again for this (and the others, played three games of ancients this morning
) game
(though I've the utmost of good feelings towards you, the beating heart smiley is aimed at C&C
)
Richard Borg said:
In the BEGINNING , when a defending unit was not eliminated or did not retreat from the hex it occupied would fight back. No man, dwarf or goblin, in our brief history would stand and do nothing to defend itself. That indeed would of been pure fantasy!
Battle Savvy, was a way to straighten out some of the half-truth chronicles of the past. For a man, dwarf or goblin, will always fight back if given the opportunity!
Please forgive for bringing this back. Been wondering if this is meant to include BattleCry and Memoir '44 too?
And..... if it's not too much to ask, how it happened, as toddrew asked about BattleLore, that it wasn't in those games from the beginning as well?
Only because I've been playing the "old" way for about 9 years with these wonderful games. Looking back, my nephews and I did wonder why they couldn't fight back right away but then just looked at it that they would have a chance to do that when it was your turn. Though I understand of course, Battle Savvy eliminates any chance you don't have the right card to play.
p.s. just wanted to know about the other games and maybe the how part, not looking to continue the debate here if Battle Savvy is or isn't better
.
Well, I came to this forum looking for a definitive answer from either FFG or Mr. Borg about Battle Savvy, and it looks like I got it. However... there was this forum item on BGG regarding Green units and Battle Savvy (second from the bottom):
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/534780/battle-savvy-impact-on-game-strategy
The salient quote: "I spoke with Richard Borg about Battle Savvy when he was at KublaCon in May. I asked about what differentiated Gaul and Celtic barbarians (which would be battle savvy under C&C: Ancients) from medieval armies (which would not be battle savvy by default under BattleLore). He said that his group generally plays that most BattleLore troops are battle savvy with the exception of Green (levy) units. He said that the non-battle-savvy status is most appropriate for feudal levies and peasants."
I was wondering if anyone here has tried playing that way, or if Mr. Borg could comment on which is the preferred approach (all units, or all but Green).
Balroy said: Please forgive for bringing this back. Been wondering if this is meant to include BattleCry and Memoir '44 too?
Still would like to hear Richard Borg's response to this, but I don't think "Battle Savvy-like" tactics are meant for either of those two games (and off-hand, I can't remember if they are incorporated into the upcoming Napoleonics either). The battle backs happen in the opponent's next turn almost exclusively in those games. I am interested (for several reasons, but this one too
) to see if in (hopefully) upcoming anniversary edition of Battle Cry has "Battle Savvy-like" tactics incorporated in either the base rules or as some type of variant.
Jvsquare, I have thought a lot about Battle Savvy, and one of the variants that I think I would enjoy is for only red (elite) units to be considered Battle Savvy. I haven't tried playing that way, nor the way that Richard Borg mentioned (and I heard awhile back before that, but can't recall where) about the green/irregular/peasant units not being Battle Savvy. Will probably play a few like that too
EDIT: gah, formatting
Richard Borg said:
In the BEGINNING , when a defending unit was not eliminated or did not retreat from the hex it occupied would fight back. No man, dwarf or goblin, in our brief history would stand and do nothing to defend itself. That indeed would of been pure fantasy!
Battle Savvy, was a way to straighten out some of the half-truth chronicles of the past. For a man, dwarf or goblin, will always fight back if given the opportunity!
Enjoy the Truth as now presented!
Richard Borg
De Man has spoken but the rational still has me thinking......The attacked Unit did defend itself,it fought the attacker to a stand still,after that effort I would think that both sides would be exhausted & it would be exceptional for the defenders to counter attack at once.That is unless unless they were Elites or they had ready support.
I don't see us using BS,I guess if the rule was part of the game from the start we would not question it,but now we're too use to the regular rule to change.
OD
Old Dwarf said:
Richard Borg said:
In the BEGINNING , when a defending unit was not eliminated or did not retreat from the hex it occupied would fight back. No man, dwarf or goblin, in our brief history would stand and do nothing to defend itself. That indeed would of been pure fantasy!
Battle Savvy, was a way to straighten out some of the half-truth chronicles of the past. For a man, dwarf or goblin, will always fight back if given the opportunity!
Enjoy the Truth as now presented!
Richard Borg
De Man has spoken but the rational still has me thinking......The attacked Unit did defend itself,it fought the attacker to a stand still,after that effort I would think that both sides would be exhausted & it would be exceptional for the defenders to counter attack at once.That is unless unless they were Elites or they had ready support.
I don't see us using BS,I guess if the rule was part of the game from the start we would not question it,but now we're too use to the regular rule to change.
OD
It's not a counter-attack, it's the casualties caused from the original fighting that have occured. Surely the attacking unit didn't only hack and slashed their enemy without the latter causing some casualties back, don't you think? How can you stop someone that attacks you, with nice words?
Moreover from R.Borg answer I assume that BS was indeed part of the game from the start but somehow {call me Days of Wonder, I'd say} it got changed in the process.