The Rules of Battle of Westeros are online: they seem solid, but, best of all, with all the differences between the BoW and BL, the similarities are still abundant, and porting is really simple.

Which rules you see do you like more or envision as viable options for a porting in a standard or specific scenario of BL? How do you like to employ them?

Things I'd like to port, in a form or another:

- Engagement/Flanking rules: normally, I'm kinda hater of everything bringing unnecessary complexity in a game which happily favour easy of use and quick play (I know, aside staging the board), but I like how the designer implemented this new aspect. I don't know if I'd turn it always on, but could be refreshing see them in a scenario every now and then - perhaps to represent difficult terrain after rain, when poor soldiers are sinking into the mud and melee become unrelenting and inescapable.

- Unit traits: some well known mechanics returns and a bunch of funny twists surface in this section. Obviously, the porting here is a no brainer, as easy as stealing rules from C&C: Ancient. My personal favourite is the Dogs of War trait, which basically allows you to field a Beastmaster armed with canine aides as ranged weapons, no LoS required and random strenght. You'll want them in BL plays as soon as possible, I think.

- Scorch and fire rules: "pillage'em all" is a classic for every Hack'n'Slash role-power-player, so, with Dragons and everything in BL, a marvelous "destroy everything in sight" scenario, in pure Metal Militia style, should be on everyone wishlist in top position, I think.

Finally, a little complain: one of the thing I was most curious about was the first official say on the use of siege engines in a medieval C&C setting; unfortunately, it seems that they are scenario built, and, with the policy of FF not to publish adventure with PDF booklet I cannot say anything about the matter, for now. Still, I believe they will sound familiar, and for me the best manner to experience a siege on a board would be crossgaming a play event with Stronghold, but that''s my taste, I think...

Umm, I'm not sure I want to do that. It seems redundant, and BoW looks like quite different, especially how the units are activated.

I wouldn't port flanking. BL has flanking. Most people just don't realize it. Ever got your retreat path blocked by another unit? You're getting tactically flanked. Ever had one of your sections crushed and then they turned to your center? You're getting strategically flanked.

As for 'traits', the units in base game doesn't have much trait, but the expansions are abundant of 'traits'. I'm still on the fence of getting them because the system currently allows only a few (2!) can be brought in a CtA games. But if the Horrific Horde fixes this, I'll gladly get them.

The fire rules seems could be fun, but I perceive them to be too complex. Especially in a game as simple (or dare I say, elegant?) as BL.

EDIT: I feel flanking in BoW to be fiddly and limits maneuver after the first clash. Hey, a unit is only 4 figures, and it can't really afford free hits!

@ Sevej: It is true that the official rules only allow for 2 specialty cards to be played for each battle, but there is no reason you couldn't house rule allowing 4 or even 6 specialty units. We have played with 6 specialty units per side in the past, and it has been a lot of fun. Now we use our own version of deployment cards to deploy all human, all dwarven, and all goblin armies. The deployment cards have the specialty units on them. That being said, I cannot wait for the Horrific Hordes to come out to see what a "balanced" goblin army looks like.

@ Affro: I skimmed the rules but have not had a chance to look at all the details. One thing to consider with porting rules into BL from a non-BL game , is that BoW is designed with completely different hit ratios for the different types of units. This could have a significant impact on bonuses for flanking in BL. But hey, if you try it, be sure to let us know how it goes. Personally, I think it would be great if some of those things work.

That's exactly the kind of insight I was searching for ( )

- About Engagement/Flanking: I agree about the chance of having more static battles implementing the rule, so, it's not something I like to see in every battle, and also about the fact of having the mechanic yet simulated (in a broad sense) by decisions and events on the battlefield (I'm not one of those types who see a "rules vacuum" at every step in BL, by the way, favouring myself simplicity).

That said, every now and then, I think it could be interesting using it to exemplify special conditions and causing a change of pace in usual tactics (here in the dynamic of lesser and stronger units, I think). Before I thought of climate variables, but could be also used for urban warfare or a "last stand", and every situation where mobility is compromised; one could also limit it to specific zones (perhaps sections of the battlefield)... Obviously, this is wild speculation, haven't tried it in game.

In regard of different ratios: I thought about it, but i confess I cannot establish before time, being a statistic sucker, if that could be really a factor; sure, green units are striken more heavily, and they should come down faster, so, probabilly, a battle strains for more time regardless of the unit involved... but, hands on, I don't know - still wanting to tinker, however! I'll try

- About the traits: I bought every expansion 'cept Creatures, having already the Giant and Elemental figure, and I tried that particular Adventure that pits an all-Dwarves vs an all-Goblin army against a friend of mine, first-timer of Battlelore (but not of miniature games in general); he's the type spirited against the "game with hexes", because they corrupt the purity and beauty of wargaming, so I knew I must got things complicated to get him hooked. He chooses also a Fire Dragons as his Creature and...

The Battle run smoothly. Really smoothly. The only downside was that it took a good chunk of time to explain him beforehand units ability, and helping him a little bit with banner colours, because he's visually impaired, but he has beaten my a$$ pretty hard thorough the battle using Gobbos and putting into effect his nasty little critter... It was a close, balanced and, above all, FUN battle, so... I'm at all inclined to carry as much "traits" as it seems fit in the game, believing the original "two Specialist" limit more a choice to root BL in the Family Gaming lot, and ease the learning curve, than anything else. My advice is to try the maddest combinations, here, it didn't detract from the game experience, here, on the contrary...

About fire: again, I agree about the possibile fiddleness and limit it to specific adventures: something like "The rebel Baron Gustave LeFey obtained the alliance of the ancient Wyrm Flammefureur, and now they want to show deviously to the King of France they are a force to be reckoned, razing the campaign surrounding Avignon"...

Sevej said:

I agree 100% with everything you wrote. BoW looks good but it essentially adds additional rules even if they are not needed. BattleLore indeed has Flanking. That's the elegance of the system. It doesn't NEED to have it written in the manual as a rule. It produces the effect from its gameplay! This is elegance.

I strongly believe that BoW is a bad thing for vanilla BattleLore. The game may be good but its what it symbolizes that matters. By producing the BoW BattleLore mutation FFG essentially tries to "test the waters" and see which game goes well. Of course they are going to stop supporting the other. I don't think even for a minute that they are really planning to produce these two lines normally. One of two has to go. FFG tries to force BoW on us IMHO.

I've decided to NOT buy anything Battles of Westeros related. Every step forward for BoW is one step towards the grave for vanilla BatlleLore. I urge you to do the same.

How much more cool would it be if all these new ideas found on BoW were in an "advanced rules" expansion for vanilla BattleLore? I will be sincere here and outright say {hope} that BoW sells bad so that FFG can focus on the real game here which is vanilla BattleLore.

Back to the discussion, I've read the BoW manual and the things that I want to see transfered {officially, not home rules} to vanilla BattleLore are:

1} Morale victory condition. My only gripe with vanilla BattleLore is the pretty unimaginative victory conditions. Just kill units.

2} Flanking is fiddly and there is no need to use it since BattleLore already has Flanking bonuses but Parting Blow and units that are considered Engaged in Melee are very nice ideas.

3} Hand management options. The Commander cards that get added to the Command deck is a neat idea. Since BattleLore has a common deck for both players this cannot be used but more Hand Management options using another similar mechanic and/or Heroes, War Council options would be very cool.

Unit traits are cool but they should be playtested thoroughly before players can use them. Or they shouldn't and just create unbalanced units. Vanilla BattleLore units seem balanced enough but BoW unit's traits are balanced by the scenario and for by the units advantages and disadvantages. I don't know if I'm making sense here...

Overall, I think that

1} BoW adds new ideas but not all of them are good.

2} BattleLore should use some of those ideas that fit well.

3} If you are a real fan of BattleLore and want to see it grow instead of wither and die, then ignore BoW and don't buy it.

4} I'm still not convinced that FFG is actually giving a s..t about vanilla BattleLore. I want to hear an announcement about an expansion that adds completely new things, even a new race so that it proves that they are going to support it in the long run. Horrific Horde and the inevitable Dwarf expansion are not proof. They very well can kill BattleLore after those releases and call it a day. They haven't promised something that says "we are really supporting this"

5} On the other hand they push BoW to new levels of marketing. Announcing an expansion even before the Core Game is out. Wow!

This echoes "money sink" to me.

Disclaimer: It may seem that I'm bashing BoW {and I certainly am} but I'm not doing it with no reason. I strongly believe that BoW's progress is vanilla BattleLore's downfall. So I think that supporting BoW is not a good idea for BattleLore fans. Just think about it.

Port all you want just don't support it is my proposal.

Cheers.

OT: Ehm... on the contrary I was fearing reprisal from the mods because talking about ripping parts from one game (BoW) in favor of the other (BL), based exclusively on the web publicated (read: open) rules seem enough a bucaneer act from me... ahr, matey -. freely "Sabotage" from Beasie Boys here ( )!

Actually, I'm not too inclined to buy BoW EVER, neither C&C: Ancient, nor Memoir, for that matter: I made my choice with BL, and I stick with it; other members of the "family", well, I'm glad to know they exist, but I 'd rather date the beautiful daughter than granny or the little brother, ehm... This, however, don't forbid me to shamelessly take ideas from other ruleset and try to squeeze them in... After all, I even think that Soviet Commissar rules from Memoir could represent thematically well Undead, in a very elegant way - no need to clunky modifiers to movement for slower unit, for example...

On a side note: I'd feel a little embarassed if the two product lines blurred together and FFG started to release doubles, I hope not so! I was talking about home rules inspiration, to tell the thruth.

Obviously, the purist will add that not all the rules could work well in both settings, for taste, mood, originality (and the controversial Battle Savvy, shared between BL and Ancient demonstrate this), but I've also seen some really creative and well thought Adventures written with the larger scope of all the C&C Game in mind, like the excellent War of the Roses and Battles of the Middle Earth on the old DoW website. Geez, if only I'd more time to test!*

Finally, I must admit that, beside the fact that I'm not a huge fan-protectionism practitioneer (and I could not care less even of hominous things like the horrible cosmology change in D&D 4th Edition - I'll simply continue my love interest with old Planescape, ah, take that, WoC!), the major hindrance for BL remain the print of a new base boxed set, and if I'd see someone really interested in the game, and impatient, I'd tell him that BoW is more or less the same - waiting patiently to cannibalize some of his component for some huge, cumbersome and overtly mad project! End of OT!

About the Hand Management: you are right, that's a neat idea! It's only unfortunate that, if not "officially translated", it requires a lot of artistic skills, or at least, time consuming activities to test and realize in a Home set... mmmmh...

*Speaking of which: anyone experimented with some weird Adventure, perhaps on that "batteloreadventures" site? We posted many times the archives where the memory of old scenario still lives, but we don't see something new from a long time... I know many of you tinkered with it, come on! NB: me too! I was trying to realize a large epic slaughter for multiplayer without Reluctant Allies, but never published because, **** it, I've not playtested it, yet!

oshfarms said:

I'm one of those people who hates to house-rule anything, except if it's recommended by the designer (i.e. written in 'variants' section at the end of the rulebook, official FAQ, or expansion). Indeed, I was very happy when Horrific Hordes was announced. Not that I disagree with people wanting Elves or Undead, but FFG needs to wrap things up with previous badly integrated expansions. But now I'm a little worried. BoW and HoHo are announced and released at about the same time, but we hear no more previews or rule book (as opposed to BoW's numerous previews).

affro said:

I do too. I believe that the "vanilla Battlelore" + Call to Arms is the way to play Battlelore. That's why I never use the unofficial variant of using 4 or 6 special units. I like the way human troops gets some non-human alliance. But when I'm buying multiple packs of Iron Dwarves and Goblinoids... man... I want to field most of them, not just 1 or 2.

Battlelore is a great game hurt by a slew of badly integrated expansions. Not bad expansions, just badly integrated (I can see some see both as the same thing, though).

(I hope I'm getting the quotes right)

EDIT: You hit the spot there with War of the Roses and Battles of Middle Earth scenarios. That is something that a generic (but characterful at the same time) game system like BattleLore will excel in.

For the hand management thingy, if I ever want to change BattleLore, I'd do these:

1. Split the deck in half, dividing the card types evenly.

2. Any excess (like cards with 3 copies will have 1 excess) is set aside (oh, no! no Battlelore!)

3. Each player has his own command deck

But I can't see myself doing this in the foreseeable future, even when I've just been trashed by toddrew recently while having 3 scout cards.

And, oh, I'm not saying that BoW is bad with all those aspects. I don't hate fiddly games. I love Android. But BL is a very simple game, and I just don't see place for fiddly mechanics in it. BoW is just different. For a rather complex game, BoW feels lacking in some aspects. BL is (again) very simple, but it comes with creatures and magic just from the base game. Does BoW need them? Probably not, they have tactics and special commander cards, that will probably fill the same niche, and more in line with the intellectual property.

@ Sevej

You are much smarter (or braver) than me. . . I won't even try responding with multiple quotes!

I love the fact that BL is designed to not be a money sink, where the person willing to spend the most money has the most and best units. I also love the simplicity of the game. Which, btw, makes it easy to house rule. Normally, I don't like house rules that much either, but when we play, our group plays a home brewed Humans vs. Dwarves vs. Goblins, so we have been forced to house rule many things (mostly in regards to deployment). As for the number of specialists, I really think that is a design issue of making sure players could play competitively. If both players are willing, I don't see why it would hurt to play with multiple specialists. Try it, you might like it! (or maybe you won't )

@ FragMaster

I agree with you. I do not think FF will support vanilla BL and BoW. (unless of course both sell extremely well). I will not be purchasing anything related to BoW. I am hopeful however, that we will see more info on Horrific Hordes soon. When BoW was announced, it was a couple of weeks later that FF finally announced HH. Since they just released the rules for BoW, I am hoping info for HH will be posted any day, considering it is already listed as "shipping". If there is no info posted before the game is in stores, that may be a telling hint from FF that they will not be putting much effort into BL. (And I was AMAZED as well that the expansion for BoW was announced before the game was even in stores!)

I love the BL system (with CtA)but have already home ruled Engagement/Flanking & Objectives but BoW moral system does interest me.Still BL loss of Banners rather produces the same effect.

BL is elegant (but IMO has some clunky parts-War Council &,Lore )but someones elegant to too simple for someone else.BL does not handle Flanking & Engagement execept in the broadest of fashion.You can just hop from one attack to another without the slighest problem with the enemy Unit your leaving to go on to the other.Flanking is not given any advantage , unless you can block both your opponents retreat hexes.This is elegant but rather flys in the face of common sense.

OD

I agree whole-heartedly that lore council+lore card set up is clunky. When I was making BL review, I pointed out the killer set up time, but give lore set up its own section, just because I think it's such a fuss.

As I said in BoW forum, I like a lot of things in BoW. But I don't see the point porting them to BL. If I want more detail, I'll pick BoW. It's different enough from the C&C family for me to get it. I haven't been exposed to GoT novels, but when I do, I'll probably consider it even more. No, I don't want BL terminated either. When someday they finally get the dwarf expansion, I'd consider that FFG has done their job pretty well.

Old Dwarf said:

The rule change I am most interested in seeing in action is the routing action of the morale track compared to the "first to x" mechanic of the C&C games. Like OD, I suspect it won't feel much different, as under the current rules plenty of see-sawing occurs already.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Stuff like the war dogs' attacks will make great templates for further specialist units and "racial traits" either if FFG decides to grow the available variety or stop after humans, dwarves, and goblins, leaving the rest to the players.

Still very much looking forward to seeing how CtA is adapted to the goblin-only army - biting at the champ to see the rule booklet for HoHo (I like that abbreviation, thanks, Sevej )

Sevej/FFG forums = Aswin/Vassal servers, I think I've got it straight now - good to play with you again

The (legitimate) concerns about BL future pushed me to think something a like to see ported from BoW (in a broader sense): the tidier distribution model.

It seems FFG treasured BL experience and listened to fans' pleas including in the base package as much as possible: an enriched CtA and variable board configuration a la Epic. Now, I want to see that in BL, too, and, seeing the retail price of the new game I'm more and more convinced that if the basic boxed set will be revived (and I don't see many alternative, if they want to mantain both the lines) it will be in the form of two complete fantasy armies (the much clamored Undead and Elves) with their Specialist and CtA decks included, plus some reprints (updated rules, board, token... cards? I'd like to see some novelty in Lore, here...). Not the first time I figured something similar, I know, but given that FFG doesn't seem at all concerned in colonize market niches with even really similar characteristics (I mean, how many dungeon crawls do they publish?), a truely fantasy battle game seem compatible with the plans announced, and clearly branded, too. I'd buy, it, I think.

Finally, a minor note: BoW included Road Tiles, a piece of terrain straight from Memoir whose exclusion from base game and expansions I never understood; I mean, plenty of roads, in medieval Europe, and they are something that alter in a significant and interesting way movement and maneuvres on the battlefield, allowing really different clashes with a minor add. Plug it in!

I agree about road tiles. I think these would be very cool, and they would not add too much complexity to the game. I used to play Tide of Iron before I decided to stick solely with BattleLore (my true love has always been the Medieval era). In Tide of Iron, the only road effect was really to make movement easier for trucks and tanks. As long as your vehicles were moving continously from one road hex to another, they recieved major movement bonuses. Moving BattleLore troops along a road, especially calvary, would be a great dynamic to throw into the game...especially in an Epic game where there is much more terrain to cover. Armies would have to be very careful about getting flanked by troops moving rapidly along roadways. Also, if BattleLore ever introduces siege engines (this would be awesome), the best way to move them would be along roads. I'd also like to see dwarven tunneling units or sappers (dwarves with explosive barrels strapped to their backs) for destroying ramparts.

Also, in Battlelore you have different types of waterways. You could easily do this with roads as well, making stone roads or muddy, rutted roads. I also really like the idea of using a sunken road, like "Bloody Lane" in the Civil War Battle of Antietam (the sunken road that became piled with the dead). A sunken road could benefit movement, but also provide a cover bonus to units in it, like wooded terrain. It would almost be like a trench.

Also, as to buying Battles of Westeros...hell no! I love the open-endedness of BL. I can re-create historical battles (like the Battle of Stamford Bridge in my recent post), or create a variety of battles in any fantasy setting of my choice, be it Middle-Earth, the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance (I'm a big fan of these novels...especially the Drizzt Dark Elf stuff from the Forgotten Realms), Arthurian, or anything else I can imagine. I really like the idea of creating a Black Company campaign based off Glen Cook's Black Company books...these books are so war themed anyway, using BL to recreate the Black Company would be awesome. With BoW you're so limited to just that setting, and I was never impressed with the setting or the books. Also, for you Warcraft fans out there...originally warcraft was real big on a Humans verses Goblins theme. Now we have more support for the Goblins in BL. I really like the idea of doing big human verses goblin battles.

Since no one is forthcoming with a level editor for BL, and this probably won's happen now, I just returned to my D & D roots and made BattleLore campaign and battle sheets using pen and paper. I printed up some really nice looking campaign sheets using Word. I then photographed the battlemap (both standard and epic) at a 90-degree angle, and I can then paste this map (in Word) to my campaign sheets. I use a dark pen to write in terrain types and troop types on these maps. The finished product is an easy way to make campaign sheets so I can play all kinds of custom battles, from small skirmishes to massive conflicts, and in any setting I want, be it historical or fantasy. This is what makes BL great and appealing to me. It is lack of a structure like this that makes BoW completely unappealing to me. Just my opinion.

Hail and kill!

I really like the idea of Road Tiles in BL as well. And I'm really hoping to see some love shown to the original BL by FFG soon. I can't believe that HoHo is shipping to stores and they have not posted anything new to do with it. It's almost as if they are not even trying to market it, hoping that BoW takes over the existing BL line. I couldn't be more excited about HoHo and less excited about BoW. And I'm really hoping the BL community will show its support by purchasing HoHo, providing incentive for FFG to continue not only supporting, but also promoting, the original BL line.

(Sorry for hijacking the thread. . . but at least I started talking about porting )

@ Oshfarms: Don't worry, I really don't mind thread hijacking: it's in the nature of good conversation ( )!

@ Interceptor: have you tried this: www.battleloreadventure.com/ ? It's a fanmade-editor and I'm a strong supporter of it, having some good ideas of its own!

Good ideas about the roads! Some of them spark the idea of race specifics terrain (Cadaverous Road... gothic!)