HOW is this game connected to BattleLore in ANY way other than having "a BattleLore Game" printed on the box? True, it has dice, cards, and minis. Does that make it a BattleLore game? If so, I guess my little Toyota Echo is actually a Lamborghini. At least, I'm going to start CALLING it that! They both have tires, a motor, and a horn.

Does anyone understand how FFG is getting away with this? I can see WHY they'd do it. I just fail to see the connection between the two.

I am not saying that I think it is a good idea, but it sounds like FFG purchased the name BattleLore as well as the game with the intention of producing a line of tactical combat games, with Battles of Westeros being the first effort. BoW does use the mechanics of BattleLore specifically and C&C games generally as a starting point/inspiration/what-have-you, so in that regard it is marginally a "BattleLore Game".

To stretch your analogy a little further (fully aware you were using it to be ridiculous ), Toyota could certainly purchase the rights to the Lamborghini name and start producing cars using that name. Initial reaction to such a move would probably be similar to the initial reaction to FFG's decisions in some respects, but ultimately, let's see how it drives

While you might not feel it warrants the label based on gameplay, I think they also have to consider legal ramifications. I'd guess that Mr. Borg gets some sort of royalties on the game, but maybe not. I think it was a bad idea on FFG's part if they didn't have to do it. You KNOW there'll be people who are upset that the two games aren't compatible and they wouldn't even think they were if there wasn't a Battlelore logo on BoW. Also, this has rubbed most of the existing BL owners the wrong way and if a BL expansion doesn't show up fast to turn the tide there may be an irreparable loss of goodwill.

I know that the Battlore logo is the Battlelore logo but it seems somewhat unfortunate that the symbol for Lore is in there seeing how there is none BoW.....

I think if people see that it could be somewhat misleading - If they had introduced all the other rules but left Lore in it would be less of an issue but as is ?I feel there are too many changes for the name BL to be attached to the game.

Chris

Trump said:

Yes. Exactly that. There are those people that ALWAYS get disappointed from anything but in this case there are lots of people {me included} that just couldn't "get" why the hell is BattleLore written on this game's box.

It did rub me the wrong way and it did caused frustration even anger. BL is my favorite game and I hate to see it raped that way. I'm waiting for a good fat BattleLore expansion announcement fast because there will be indeed an irreparable loss of goodwill on my part. Until then I'm left with a feeling of betrayal.

I don't even know if there is anyone from FFG still reading what we write in the BL forums. Or maybe they have all moved down to talk with the new kid on the block, Battles of Westeros.

Very very disappointed indeed.....

FragMaster said:

MAN, this captures my feelings exactly! It just seems that FFG is trying to pull a bait and switch on the BattleLore crowd. I've loved BattleLore since the initial release (and the OTHER Commands and Colors games as well) and I could have easily been convinced to buy Westeros on the strength of the words "a BattleLore game". THEN I read the info. on the website and found that it's NOT.

The whole thing leaves me scratching my head. I'm watching for more from FFG and, more importantly, from one of my favorite game designers, Richard Borg himself...

Sadly FFG bought the Battelore line from DoW so they can do their own competing line it would seem..pretty straight forward there - and one can easily see that in the news articles about this VERY POOR EXCUSE of a Battlelore board game...not even close to a Battlelore system..just an excuse for FFG to expand one of their CCG lines to a board game.

Pathethic..and yes they have strung us along!!

Cab

Caboose said:

I think you're letting your disappointment cloud your judgment. Very poor excuse? I think not. It's focusing on certain aspects and ditching others. Sure, I'd rather have the magic of Battlelore, but BoW looks like it'll be a decent 'historical' battle game. And the bit about expanding one of their CCG lines... really? Where in the world do you get that from?

Wasn't it, to my understanding, that the reason they didn't call Runewars, 'Battlemist 2', was because they did not want to confuse or mislead people of the BattleLore games?

Right...

"With the publication of Battlelore, however (which we later acquired from Days of Wonder), we became concerned that the title Battlemist would be confusing, or even seem contrived, to a marketplace in love with Battelore (even if our title originated years earlier). With that in mind, we decided to directly make the game fit within FFG’s Runebound universe, which also encompasses our Descent: Journey’s in the Dark game. What was to be entitled "Battlemist 2nd Edition" was instead re-named Runewars."

I hope this doesn't confuse others new or would be new to the game of BattleLore. I would delay the production of the rules and boxes so they can take the battlelore off the title, if they think Battlemist and BattleLore can be confused.