I'm having a conflict in my mind with Leader combat. I think the rule book for Heroes is just way too vague on Leader combat to be able to say one way or the other if you don't add the Hero's weapon 1d (or 2d for Warrior) to the units normal dice amount or you do. The threads I've read on it seem to definitely say not to add any dice for the Hero's weapon when acting as a leader but only skill and artifact cards when they apply to a Hero or Leader. But I don't see how a Hero can not be able to cause extra damage with just his basic weapon when he is battling with a unit he's leading because that would be like saying he can not use his weapon. I have not read anything from Richard Borg to clarify this issue but please tell where to find it if he has.

Anyway, this does not make sense when you consider some of the skill and artifact cards. For example, the artifact card "Mace of fright" which targets a Hero with a "Mace" weapon. If a cleric acting as a leader can not use his mace, how can the artifact card cause it to create fright? Same goes for the artifact card "Staff of striking" which targets a Hero with a "Staff" weapon and adds 1d in melee. If the wizard isn't using the staff while he's leading, who then is wielding it to potentially cause extra damage? There is also a "Lore Blade" artifact card which targets a Hero with a "Sword" weapon to use each lore rolled to score 1 hit. Does the Hero let the unit he's with borrow such a valuable and surely prized weapon?

There are also some skill cards that don't make sense if a Leader can not use his weapon or is not fighting along side his unit. The Field Commander, Rogue, and Warrior each have a 'Blademaster" skill card which adds 1d in melee when acting as a Hero. How do they accomplish this if fighting without their sword? Then there is the "Assassin" skill card which the Rogue and Warrior both have. It actually states "Hero.... battling en enemy hero in melee combat". How could they use this assassin skill if not fighting?

Anywho, that's how I'm currently looking at it and by the way I really enjoy playing BattleLore with Heroes no matter how it's played cause I can pretend I'm the Hero and put myself on the battlefield and continue from battle to battle. I just don't like battle savvy for all the troops but think they should earn it by first getting a kill victory medal.

Don't think of it as a simulation. It's abstracted. When the Hero is a Leader he is one man leading 50 men, not fighting in the frontline.

Moreover adding too many dice will unbalance the game.

The special weapon effects can mean that they are powerful magical effects that really change the combat characteristics of the unit and not that the Hero gives his weapon to someone else.

Even a simple banner can give a unit a morale boost and the will to continue the fight. This is a historical fact.

Maybe just KNOWING that their enemy carries the Mace of Fright is enough for the units to be scared. There is no need to actually use it.

Ignoring the thematic explanations, the reason that the Hero can't add his weapon dice is that he will be too powerful as a Leader and worhless as a Champion.

Moreover, don't ignore the Battle Savvy rules as this will also unbalance the game. Using Battle Savvy always is the official way to play BattleLore, even older scenarios should be played with Battle Savvy. This has been mentioned by Richard Borg. If you change the game, you change its balance.

I've found that Heroes work all right as it is and there is no need to change anything.

I have one gripe though. It's not clear what happens when a player has an experienced Hero and plays with someone who hasn't one. How this balances out? We change the War Council levels?

Also, what happens about the Artifact & skills availability. Can two or more Heroes gain the same Artifact? What happens if I have created 6 Heroes with 4-5 Artifacts each? Should I remove their owned Artifact cards from the deck even when they are not in the battle? Or should I write down the ID number of the card on their sheet and shuffle the cards back to the deck so that others can find them too?

Also, by allowing players to spend XP tokens to gain Artifacts you allow a player to keep his level 3 Hero indefinitely. He will never level up and go to the War Council. I find it more advantageous to keep your Hero as a level 3 Hero than having him in the War Council. So who stops me from just spend my XP tokens and never allow my Hero to "grow old" and eventually retire. This I didn't like very much.

Generally, the problem with Heroes is how the games balance out with all the different levels of Heroes that can possibly meet in a scenario and not why they cannot use their Mace of Fright when leading a unit, which is specifically mentioned in the manual, don't you agree?

Thanks for your take on it FragMaster. I'm glad it doesn't bother you, but I can't look at it that way. It bugs me too much.

I would buy that just knowing the cleric has the mace of fright could cause fear. But under these battle rules, the unit fighting would know he couldn't use it and if he got it out and began waving it around, they would just laugh at him. Anyway this doesn't speak to the artifacts and skills which must be used.

Also, although I do admit it might cause a balance problem making leaders too powerful, I have to wonder. When your opponent pairs a hero with good cards up with a red foot unit, it's not hard to simply run away. Or, a warrior holding Blademaster with a blue unit would be 6d. The same as a blue Troll which is already in the game.

But, as far as rendering a champion worthless, I strongly disagree. A champions mobility makes him able to get to places quickly which is a very valuable tool no matter what. I recently sent, by himself, my mounted wizard with Ball lightning and Staff of striking deep into enemy territory and he cleaned out nearly an entire section of partially weakened units in two turns. And not to forget, a champions retreat capability of 3 hexes prevents mounted units from pursuing.

Your questions are not covered in the rules and should have been worked out. My question, I believe, should have been too. For me, it's much more fun if the story fits in with the gameplay than to have to think of it in some abstract way to explain it.

Balroy said:

OK, I know that there is nothing that I can say that can change your mind because it seems to bug you too much but I can try!

Your Cleric has to look after his own self when he is acting as a Champion but when he is a Leader he has to consider the well-being of his troops that surround him too.

So he may use his weapons but he cannot go berserk because he has more important responsibilities in combat as a Leader than waving his Mace and killng other troops. This is simulated by not allowing him to add too many dice when he acts as a Leader. Don't take the number of dice a unit rolls literally as pure damage. It's more like a combat capability.

Because if you think of it as damage then why a single level 1 Warrior can dish out the same amount of damage as 50 men of a Green unit? Is this possible? No.

The 2 dice that he rolls are his relative combat effectiveness potential which the game considers to be equal to a unit of Green quality.

Now that we have established that and I believe that you agree with me on that, let's return to our favorite Cleric example. Why do you expect your Cleric to have the same amount of combat effectiveness when he only has himself to worry about as when he is with 50 other men and has to lead them? I don't find it at all weird that he doesn't add combat effectiveness to the unit to the form of damage. He adds combat effectiveness to the form of morale though, making them Bold.

His role on the battlefield is different when he is a Champion and another story when he is a Leader. I'd find weird if he actually rolled the same amount of dice from his weapon regardless of role. This would mean to me that he is a Leader only in name since all that he does is waving his weapon as always and killing the enemy. This is not a Leader. This is just another soldier.

I hope that this makes it better for you.

FragMaster said:

I view the Heroes as mighty and brave figures who wouldn't hesitate to charge headlong into battle to lead by example. Sort of along the lines of an Aragorn.

Balroy said:

Yes but Aragorn as depicted did nothing that has to do with Leadership. All he did was having his subjects blindly follow him and attack when he attacked. I do not find any Leader traits in this Aragorn example.

I prefer to think of it more as Gandalf if you want Lord of the Rings examples. Whenever he was alone {champion}, he fared a lot better in battle than when he was with others {Leader}. Balrog, getting into Moria and other fights. Why? Because he couldn't muster his full potential if he had to worry about others under his Leadership but he DID give them a morale boost {bold}.

Moreover, if you want to emulate Aragorn then all you had to do is envision a Hero that has the Blademaster and more skills plus other artifacts that give bonus dice to the units when he acts as a Leader. Surely Aragorn wasn't a Level 1 Hero don't you think?

See? It's all a matter of perspective.