I have the For Troll and Country scenario set-up and ready to play tomorrow wth my good lady. I am tossing up whether to play with Battle Savy rules or not. We've been playing Heroes scenarios lately, so we are used the Battle Savvy rules, my inclination is to play with them, but without the heroes. Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Giles.

caradoc said:

Always play with Battle Savvy if you are asking me. I don't find that they unbalance the game or anything even when used with older scenarios. Moreover, Battle Savvy rules are simply better than playing without.

No need to have two different rules mindsets every time you sit down to play BL. Just play with Battle Savvy always. I do the same. No chance of playing with the old rules again.

Yup. Richard Borg has made it clear that Battle Savvy is "the" way to play now, not "a" way to play. Best to just throw out the old Medieval tactics rules.

I prefer playing the game per the morale rules laid out in the original rule book, i.e. not bold=no battle back. For my tastes this makes the decision making richer throughout all phases of the game.

I haven't played any Heroes games, so maybe I could be talked into battle savvy having an overall desireable impact when facing Heroes, and I could certainly be talked into battle savvy units going against Dragons to even things up a bit, but I do not enjoy the impact it has on other scenarios. Could well be a taste issue, but I prefer being better rewarded for out positioning the opponent than needing to roll a flag, and completely cutting off retreats now has a double edge as well.

I've actually warmed to Battle Savvy - Having played a bit of it now, there is still quite a bit of strategy with this in the mix.

You really need to be more mindful of who you attack, with what and when. I prefer it now, despite being quite against it in the past.

I use it for all scenarios now.

Cheers,
Ben.

Boromir_and_kermit said:

Exactly. When you read about it you think that it makes the game worse. But it doesn't. It makes it better.

I can state so many reasons that the game is better with Battle Savvy that there is no contest in my mind:

1} Units don't have to move in triads always and forever in order to be effective.

2} More Lore is rolled = more usage of Lore. I always hated how little effect Lore had in the original ruleset. With Battle Savvy you gain Lore in a more satisfying rate.

3} More tactics. Yes, MORE tactics than the original rules. You want to cut off retreat paths with a lone unit, you can do it. You want to risk advancing a Red unit all by itself, you can do it. Cavalry does not trample so easily any unit that is cut off from the rest especially if they are Red units.

4} Spearmen are WAY more useful and practical.

5} Better gameplay when using Heroes and/or Dragons & Creatures.

6} {really important change} Finally Order 1 and Order 2 units cards are USEFUL. You can actually do something interesting with these cards instead of just maneuvering into position to fix your triads while waiting for Order 3+ units cards.

7} You can try different tactical approaches when starting a scenario instead of the fixed original rules tactic of "Get support for your units NOW or else...!"

You can go and attack head-on taking risks. You can stay put and fix your lines in one section but attack with the other and many more things. You don't have to wait for good cards for every single section so that you can fix your lines before considering an attack. Many players {incorrectly} complain that sometimes they do not get the right cards for the right section and that they've lost some battles because of this.

Old rules actually promote this effect, because if a player has his units without support in his starting position, never gets cards for that section for a few turns and his opponent attacks him there, he will lose horribly. This is indeed frustrating. Well with Battle Savvy this will not happen. Your units are not sitting ducks even if they don't have support from the beginning of the game to the end.

No more easy losses just because you didn't have the right section cards at the time while your opponent rampages easily over and through your units.

8} Players must think before they attack always. No more "free attacks" because they found a unit in melee range and unsupported. Hate it when I see players attacking lone Elite units with Green Irregulars because there is no fear of retaliation just to potentially push two more damage in. This is not realistic.

9} Cavalry's strength seems more balanced with Battle Savvy.

10} Morale supports effect in the game is not unimportant as some might think when using Battle Savvy. It's still a very important thing to consider when playing especially when the attacking unit can pursuit-attack again.

11} Some overpowered Lore cards {Mass Shield} become more balanced. Mass Shield was a showstopper when it was played before Battle Savvy. Generally cards that allow flags to be ignored are more balanced since they only do what they were meant to do {ignore flags} and not give Battleback capability.

12} Did I mention how the Order 1/Order 2 units cards become a LOT more useful when using Battle Savvy?

13} I really enjoy that player have to think twice now before attacking in close combat Full unit vs Full unit, even when your opponent is unsupported. It makes Archers a lot more useful early in the game since players have to cause a few casualties first before considering a head on attack with other units. To counterbalance this, they don't collect Lore anymore. No one will blindly attack anyone even if it is an unsupported unit because the defender has the advantage over the attacker in a lone full unit vs lone full unit of the same color scenario.

Just about the only thing that I can think that I liked when I played with the old rules was the "hooray, I broke your lines now! Look at your units dying and fleeing" situation. It did grow old very fast though after a few games. Especially if my opponent was frustrated because he didn't have the right section cards to actually do something about his broken lines. It seemed like the winner was determined by luck and not by skill. The loser didn't actually have a chance to fix his lines at any time during his opponent charge.

One funny thing that I should mention is that I played Command & Colors: Ancients two months before Battle Savvy was announced for BattleLore. C&C: Ancients already uses Battle Savvy as the default rule. I was THRILLED when I played with these rules. I dare say that for a moment I thought that Ancients was better than BattleLore just because of this rule. Then two months later Battle Savvy was announced and I was a happy man!

My opinion? Play with Battle Savvy 10+ scenarios before deciding that you don't like it. I doubt that you will after seeing how much better the game plays. Lore is better, Ordering units is better, tactics are more diverse, battlefield movement is more active and luck has a lesser effect regarding availability of Command cards that order a specific section. Players have much more time to fix their hands before their opponent starts to break their lines.

wow, now I'm really looking forward to play with Battle Savvy!

this part of your post, Frag, made me want to comment:

Just about the only thing that I can think that I liked when I played with the old rules was the "hooray, I broke your lines now! Look at your units dying and fleeing" situation. It did grow old very fast though after a few games. Especially if my opponent was frustrated because he didn't have the right section cards to actually do something about his broken lines. It seemed like the winner was determined by luck and not by skill. The loser didn't actually have a chance to fix his lines at any time during his opponent charge.

I'm still playing fun games just with the core box, but I have noticed a couple of things that must be common ground to you all. one is that everyone with whom I'm playing is making their strategy all about supporting units. it does makes the game thrilling, because it is very risky to attack units that can battle back, but at the same time everything tends to revolve around the same taticts and luck does seem to be a major player.

I do love the situation Frag described, when you succesfully breakes the opponents' lines. I tend to look for these opportunities very carefully and very eagerly.

but it will be very good to see the game's strategics needing wider perspective, and also luck diminishing it's hold, even if just a little.

I don't think anyone is surprised that I couldn't let Frag's post go uncontested

FragMaster said:

First, I'll only mention this point once during this post, but it is an important distinction to me, and perhaps an unnecessary one - "better" is an opinion, and I try to make it very clear when I am voicing an opinion. Using second person ("you") and then making a statement of "better" leads the reader to think it is an obvious conclusion. It is not, and I will painstakingly (read: verbosely ) attempt to point out why Battle Savvy makes the game different, but only better to those whose tastes cater more to those differences. Namely, positioning in relation to other units loses importance and dice roll results gain importance.

FragMaster said:

Without Battle Savvy, units do not always and forever have to move in triads in order to be effective. They do have to end up at the end of one's turn in bold positions or they will not be eligible for battle backs. So, if one is going to leave a unit unsupported one better either a) be willing to take the acceptable (or unacceptable ) risk, or b) have a sneaky lore play in mind, or c) (and this is related to a) ) be creating a diversion by leaving a tasty unit for the opponent to harass while cooking up an offensive in another area of the board. With Battle Savvy, one can just leave that unit in what was formerly a bad position and now only pay a price of losing a battle back if a flag is rolled.

FragMaster said:

This is a misleading reason. The implication here is that there are more rolls happening in a game of Battle Savvy than in a game without. In an average game there should be just as many rolls, as it takes rolls to get hits, hits to get banners, and banners to win the game. Still need to get the same amount of banners, there will still be, on average, the same number of rolls, leading to the same number of opportunities to roll lore.

I understand what you are saying here, that there will be more rolls per turn, but that is a function of how each player plays, not necessarily a function of Battle Savvy or no Battle Savvy. Whether or not a unit has an opportunity for a battle back is entirely up to the players.

FragMaster said:

The only tactic one can say that arises from using Battle Savvy that sorta isn't present when not using BS is that it may be more wise to push units up unsupported in the hopes that they will get battle back opportunities even when they are not supported. This used to be exclusively the territory of the Dwarf foot units and Creatures, then the mounted knights came on the scene as well. In my opinion this diminishes the "specialness" of the dwarf army and has an overall impact of reducing variety in the game.

It is misleading to claim that there are more tactics. What does happen is that tactics have changed, and cutting off enemy units from the rest of their forces now does not have the same bite it used to, as those units will likely get a battle back or two that they would not have gotten had they found themselves in the same untenable positions pre-BS. Portal and Greater Portal are not nearly as effective position breakers as they once were, for example. Some will applaud that fact , but it does not inherently make the game better, just different.

FragMaster said:

Only in the sense that one doesn't have to be as careful in their positioning to be eligible for battle backs. Nothing else has changed here.

FragMaster said:

So, this is the one area where I feel that BS has some equalizing impact that I can view as "fairer". I am not as sure about Heroes, but I can see how their relatively high movement will have a similar impact that creatures, especially dragons, have on the game: Very adept at moving to all areas of the board - faster than an opponent can respond in shoring up positions, and many abilities that serve as "position-busters" (Giants' pushback, for example). Giving units a fighting chance, so to speak, by allowing for battle backs as long as they don't move from the original hex probably does keep many games involving Dragons and Heroes from devolving into races to get to unsupported units. However, I am not convinced of this, and do still think that the importance one should attend to positioning trumps this effect. I am still not ready to call this "better"

FragMaster said:

And in my opinion the need for wise hand management has decreased. Going with a level 1 or 0 commander is now has more validity/less risk, as most any card will be of some use, battle backs are more prevalent, poor position less severely punished, etc. For my tastes, this is another argument against using BS.

FragMaster said:

After reading this a thought occurred to me: Using the original Medieval Tactics as described in the base game rulebook as "advanced" rules, and Battle Savvy as...searching for a word that won't have pejorative associations...can't come up with one, settling for "novice" rules. It isn't an accident when scenarios start off with poor positioning. that is to reflect problem areas in the battle that particular command is going to have to overcome while the opposing commander attempts to press the advantage. If a player doesn't have the experience with the game to understand how to best respond to those situations, perhaps BS can be an ally.

By the way, I abhor having different rule sets, so this particular way of viewing the game is not attractive to me

And yes, blaming the cards instead of considering their best use isn't a very helpful way of enjoying the game

FragMaster said:

One better always think before attacking, BS or no BS. How the *bleep* did the controlling player of the Elite unit let that situation arise in the first place?

FragMaster said:

Whether this is "realistic" or not, I am not certain of - I am no more than a very casual historian when it comes to medieval battles - but I thought this imbalance was intentional. Cavalry are the tanks of the times. Have to protect them early in the game, and unleash them late (or at least opportunistically) in order to best take advantage of their bonus attacks and combat superiority (reflected by ignoring the first bonus strike rolled against them) over the foot units. I feel that having them at figure counts of three rather than four is balance enough for game purposes. I do not want to see the balance shifted any further through BS.

FragMaster said:

Not enough of a nod to sway me in switching over. Yes, bold is still important in BS. Just not nearly as important. BS tilts the importance of rolling a flag result too far towards the dice aspects of the game. Many 4d rolls become 50/50 affairs of too great importance for my tastes.

FragMaster said:

Item 2} was an argument that BS encourages more lore play. Here is an argument that discourages (in a sense) particular lore plays. Yes, a likely impact of a Mass Shield play is that the opponents typically powerful play has been nerfed. That is the intention of Mass Shield. It is still a strong play in BS, as it removes the single flag results from nullifying battle backs. In fact, it is a little funny to me that one of the frequent complaints about Mass Shield was/is that it allows units that prior to its play "unbold" to be able to battle back - just like BS Anyway, to me, BS does not balance this lore cards, it makes them more irrelevant. Weakens the richness of lore play in general, is my opinion of BS.

FragMaster said:

12} Did I mention how the Order 1/Order 2 units cards become a LOT more useful when using Battle Savvy?

Yes, yes you did

FragMaster said:

I've addressed this point earlier, but just to reiterate, BS or no BS, one better think before attacking. BS changes the parameters and effectiveness of particular attacks, it does not change the need for decision making in BattleLore.

Archers are not anymore effective with BS (in fact, by not collecting lore at range, I view them as overall less effective - lore fishing with archers is an important tactic in my games ), they still serve the niche they do in no BS games.

FragMaster said:

Um, if the lines breaking was due to luck rather than smart play, I don't think the game is being played to its potential by one or both of the players. That is the game: get better position, break the lines, crush the opponent - before they do the same to you BS doesn't completely change this, but now the balance of dice vs position has shifted towards the dice. I like the balance between those facets of the game just fine no BS.

FragMaster said:

One funny thing that I should mention is that I played Command & Colors: Ancients two months before Battle Savvy was announced for BattleLore. C&C: Ancients already uses Battle Savvy as the default rule. I was THRILLED when I played with these rules. I dare say that for a moment I thought that Ancients was better than BattleLore just because of this rule. Then two months later Battle Savvy was announced and I was a happy man!

Not going to get in depth here on the differences of BS's impact on Ancients vs BattleLore, but I will say that it is different. Due to Leaders and higher dice values, I do enjoy the fit with Ancients, often for the same reasons I don't enjoy it with BattleLore.

FragMaster said:

My opinion is that newer players will not appreciate the nuances of playing BS vs no BS. I have played 1000+ scenarios no BS, and 25+ scenarios BS (many of those early on, when playing Ancients players who thought it a necessary part of a "better" C&C game). I completely respect any player's desire to want to play BattleLore using BS, but I do not agree that it makes the game better. I will agree that it makes the game play distinctly from no BS, but I do not enjoy what it adds to the game as much as I dislike what it has removed.

toddrew said:

I'm not as you are always quick to shoot down any arguments about BS being better and I've sort of expect it every time now Todd.

First, I'll only mention this point once during this post, but it is an important distinction to me, and perhaps an unnecessary one - "better" is an opinion, and I try to make it very clear when I am voicing an opinion. Using second person ("you") and then making a statement of "better" leads the reader to think it is an obvious conclusion. It is not, and I will painstakingly (read: verbosely ) attempt to point out why Battle Savvy makes the game different, but only better to those whose tastes cater more to those differences. Namely, positioning in relation to other units loses importance and dice roll results gain importance.

Obviously I'm not trying to make it very clear when I am voicing my opinion. Disclaimer: that's the way that I write, so expect to see more of it below.

Without Battle Savvy, units do not always and forever have to move in triads in order to be effective. They do have to end up at the end of one's turn in bold positions or they will not be eligible for battle backs. So, if one is going to leave a unit unsupported one better either a) be willing to take the acceptable (or unacceptable ) risk, or b) have a sneaky lore play in mind, or c) (and this is related to a) ) be creating a diversion by leaving a tasty unit for the opponent to harass while cooking up an offensive in another area of the board. With Battle Savvy, one can just leave that unit in what was formerly a bad position and now only pay a price of losing a battle back if a flag is rolled.

Yes, but we are playing a medieval battle not chess. So using units as bait and taking acceptable risks abusing the fact that the opponent knows that he can attack and do free damage is not medieval battle. It's simply too chess-y in my mind.

My turn now to talk about phrasing: "one can just leave that unit in what was formerly a bad position" strongly implies that there is no tactics involved in that move and only if you actually do what the first sentence of your paragraph says: "They do have to end up at the end of one's turn in bold positions" makes it look like a smart move. Actually it is the only move 80% of the time if you are not using BS. Unless you have a Chess-y Lore card that can trick your opponent to attack your lone unit. But this is not Chess, it's a battle. Armies are divided into units so that they can be effective well... as a unit. Not only in triads.

Moreover, ending up at the end of the turn in bold positions as an objective that should happen 90% of the time {the other 10% being your tricky Lore card/lone unit as bait combo} is actually what I meant by saying always moving in triads because that's exactly how it feels.

Without BS, units are worthless or bait and nothing more.

FragMaster said:

This is a misleading reason. The implication here is that there are more rolls happening in a game of Battle Savvy than in a game without. In an average game there should be just as many rolls, as it takes rolls to get hits, hits to get banners, and banners to win the game. Still need to get the same amount of banners, there will still be, on average, the same number of rolls, leading to the same number of opportunities to roll lore.

I understand what you are saying here, that there will be more rolls per turn, but that is a function of how each player plays, not necessarily a function of Battle Savvy or no Battle Savvy. Whether or not a unit has an opportunity for a battle back is entirely up to the players.

Here your statement is wrong. "Whether or not a unit has an opportunity for a battle back is entirely up to the players" is not valid in a game with dice because random things can happen. The NON-random thing here is the possibility of a battleback when attacking a unit {unsupported or not}. With BS that possibility is greater. So more rolls will happen. Without BS there will be many instances where a player just attacks-attacks-attacks never getting any retaliation because the enemy units can't do anything. With BS they CAN and will do something.

Surely you can't believe that the same number of dice are rolled when playing with BS as when playing without BS. From game 1 using BS it was apparent that players had more Lore available.

The only tactic one can say that arises from using Battle Savvy that sorta isn't present when not using BS is that it may be more wise to push units up unsupported in the hopes that they will get battle back opportunities even when they are not supported. This used to be exclusively the territory of the Dwarf foot units and Creatures, then the mounted knights came on the scene as well. In my opinion this diminishes the "specialness" of the dwarf army and has an overall impact of reducing variety in the game.

It is misleading to claim that there are more tactics. What does happen is that tactics have changed, and cutting off enemy units from the rest of their forces now does not have the same bite it used to, as those units will likely get a battle back or two that they would not have gotten had they found themselves in the same untenable positions pre-BS. Portal and Greater Portal are not nearly as effective position breakers as they once were, for example. Some will applaud that fact , but it does not inherently make the game better, just different.

This "specialness" is not a balanced I believe. I like variety but balanced variety, not game-breaking variety.

I insist that there are more tactics since you can continue to do what you did before BS but you can opt to do something else entirely if you want. Without BS you don't have a choice. More choice = more tactics.

Portal and Greater Portal nerfing makes these cards more balanced and I know that you know that I'm right even if you won't say it here ever.

FragMaster said:

Only in the sense that one doesn't have to be as careful in their positioning to be eligible for battle backs. Nothing else has changed here .

Again Spearmen are a specialist UNIT. They should be able to do their thing without some guys cheering them from the back so that they can gain Battleback capability. It doesn't make any sense that Spearmen unit is worthless when not supported. Not that is makes any sense with any other UNIT either anyway.

FragMaster said:

So, this is the one area where I feel that BS has some equalizing impact that I can view as "fairer". I am not as sure about Heroes, but I can see how their relatively high movement will have a similar impact that creatures, especially dragons, have on the game: Very adept at moving to all areas of the board - faster than an opponent can respond in shoring up positions, and many abilities that serve as "position-busters" (Giants' pushback, for example). Giving units a fighting chance, so to speak, by allowing for battle backs as long as they don't move from the original hex probably does keep many games involving Dragons and Heroes from devolving into races to get to unsupported units. However, I am not convinced of this, and do still think that the importance one should attend to positioning trumps this effect. I am still not ready to call this "better"

With the devotion that you are showing in shooting down any pro-BS posts, I believe that you will never be ready to call this "better" nor anything elsethat I'm going to say for that matter but I can try and that's why I'm answering to your post after all.

FragMaster said:

And in my opinion the need for wise hand management has decreased. Going with a level 1 or 0 commander is now has more validity/less risk, as most any card will be of some use, battle backs are more prevalent, poor position less severely punished, etc. For my tastes, this is another argument against using BS.

I couldn't disagree more here. If there was one single argument that I'd choose over the others to convince me to play with BS is this one. Order 1 and Order 2 units cards are pretty much restricted to maneuvering without BS rules. Again more player choice = better game at least for me. This game is not a card game, it's a wargame. I want to see great battlefield movements and tactics not card play.

I appreciate the Fog of War aspect of the game and I really like the section command system but I want the cards to give me options. Without BS, order 1 and order 2 cards are very restricted.

Battlefield mobility increases with BS and this is an undeniable fact.

FragMaster said:

After reading this a thought occurred to me: Using the original Medieval Tactics as described in the base game rulebook as "advanced" rules, and Battle Savvy as...searching for a word that won't have pejorative associations...can't come up with one, settling for "novice" rules. It isn't an accident when scenarios start off with poor positioning. that is to reflect problem areas in the battle that particular command is going to have to overcome while the opposing commander attempts to press the advantage. If a player doesn't have the experience with the game to understand how to best respond to those situations, perhaps BS can be an ally.

By the way, I abhor having different rule sets, so this particular way of viewing the game is not attractive to me

And yes, blaming the cards instead of considering their best use isn't a very helpful way of enjoying the game

Here describing BS rules as novice rules is really funny. You are already assuming that the old rules are way better. Let me remind you your opening paragraph about my phrasing. {Just kidding!}

I know of course that some scenarios are meant to start with poor positioning but you know also that it is perfectly possible to NOT get the right section cards for some turns and if you are not using BS you will take a lot of "free" damage. Please don't argue with the "player skill" argument here because not even R.Borg can do anything in this situation if he doesn't have the right cards.

With BS you have the time to hand manage your hand and fix your poorly positioned units {reminder: positioned by the scenario}.

FragMaster said:

One better always think before attacking, BS or no BS. How the *bleep* did the controlling player of the Elite unit let that situation arise in the first place?

It's a battle. No plan survives contact with the enemy. Not Chess, remember?

FragMaster said:

Not enough of a nod to sway me in switching over. Yes, bold is still important in BS. Just not nearly as important. BS tilts the importance of rolling a flag result too far towards the dice aspects of the game. Many 4d rolls become 50/50 affairs of too great importance for my tastes.

You have a problem with the roll of a flag but you don't have a problem with the "not having the right section card while getting your butt handed to you". This situation is not only the result of player actions and I won't accept a "player skill" argument here either. It can and will happen even if you are the best player of the game. I much prefer to have a few rolls go sideways than losing the scenario because my left flank units broke and never have an honest chance to rally.

Fra gMaster said:

Item 2} was an argument that BS encourages more lore play. Here is an argument that discourages (in a sense) particular lore plays. Yes, a likely impact of a Mass Shield play is that the opponents typically powerful play has been nerfed. That is the intention of Mass Shield. It is still a strong play in BS, as it removes the single flag results from nullifying battle backs. In fact, it is a little funny to me that one of the frequent complaints about Mass Shield was/is that it allows units that prior to its play "unbold" to be able to battle back - just like BS Anyway, to me, BS does not balance this lore cards, it makes them more irrelevant. Weakens the richness of lore play in general, is my opinion of BS.

Even from the name you can see that Mass Shield was intended to just give the ignore flag and hit bonus not additional attacks. Mass Shield without BS was a complete showstopper, even broken I would say.

To me BS, does not make them irrelevant, it makes them balanced because it reduces their wild swings of play. The richness of Lore play is not weakened when you have MORE Lore to use.

FragMaster said:

12} Did I mention how the Order 1/Order 2 units cards become a LOT more useful when using Battle Savvy?

Yes, yes you did

Well, let me do it again. The single most important reason I like BS. Others are just a bonus.

FragMaster said:

I've addressed this point earlier, but just to reiterate, BS or no BS, one better think before attacking. BS changes the parameters and effectiveness of particular attacks, it does not change the need for decision making in BattleLore.

Archers are not anymore effective with BS (in fact, by not collecting lore at range, I view them as overall less effective - lore fishing with archers is an important tactic in my games ), they still serve the niche they do in no BS games.

I disagree. Archer are more effective because all things being equal attacking lone 2/3/4-figure units with BS is not a very tempting proposition and player may prefer to continue shooting arrows for more turns. Without BS there is no real thought. Why shoot arrows when you can simply attack and do "free" damage?

If Arrow combat lasted 4-5 turns without BS, it lasts at least 3 more turns with BS in order to soften up the front line before armies clash. Removing their Lore collecting ability is a balancing factor and actually removes your favorite tactic of trying to fill your Lore pool without real risk. A bit cheesy if you ask me. If you want Lore you should go and get it in melee not ranged combat. I much prefer it that way.

FragMaster said:

Um, if the lines breaking was due to luck rather than smart play, I don't think the game is being played to its potential by one or both of the players. That is the game: get better position, break the lines, crush the opponent - before they do the same to you BS doesn't completely change this, but now the balance of dice vs position has shifted towards the dice. I like the balance between those facets of the game just fine no BS.

If the only argument is "player skill" whenever there is a "battle savvy or not" discussion we will never reach any conclusions. With so many sessions that you have clocked you surely have stumbled in situation were you DID make a mistake {or your opponent it does not matter}, your lines broke and you couldn't roll the right card to rally your units into a cohesive formation. Then you lost. This has nothing to do with player skill and I can certainly understand how happy the winner will but I'd prefer it if the game is more balanced and does not rely so much on lucky card draws.

You don't like how the balance has shifted towards the dice {which I can argue but I won't} but for me relying on drawing cards while you are decimating my units which won't do anything at all to defend themselves but stay there and die is much worse. Again, mentioning "player skill" is not a valid argument in all of that cases.

F ragMaster said:

One funny thing that I should mention is that I played Command & Colors: Ancients two months before Battle Savvy was announced for BattleLore. C&C: Ancients already uses Battle Savvy as the default rule. I was THRILLED when I played with these rules. I dare say that for a moment I thought that Ancients was better than BattleLore just because of this rule. Then two months later Battle Savvy was announced and I was a happy man!

Not going to get in depth here on the differences of BS's impact on Ancients vs BattleLore, but I will say that it is different. Due to Leaders and higher dice values, I do enjoy the fit with Ancients, often for the same reasons I don't enjoy it with BattleLore.

That's weird but anyway.

FragMaster said:

My opinion is that newer players will not appreciate the nuances of playing BS vs no BS. I have played 1000+ scenarios no BS, and 25+ scenarios BS (many of those early on, when playing Ancients players who thought it a necessary part of a "better" C&C game). I completely respect any player's desire to want to play BattleLore using BS, but I do not agree that it makes the game better. I will agree that it makes the game play distinctly from no BS, but I do not enjoy what it adds to the game as much as I dislike what it has removed.

EXACTLY! Since

1} newer players will not appreciate the nuances of the different rulesets

2} All new scenarios are meant to be played with BS

3} Older scenarios play differently when using BS giving them a new air of freshness

4} Having two different rulesets {which is also confusing for new players} is not good for any game.

5} Personally I thing that they make the game much much better

I think that BS should be the way that new players learn the game and they should not get tangled on the "which is better argument". BS rules are the default for BattleLore officially now and trying to keep the old rules around creates only confusion to new players. This is not good for the game. Many players will get frustrated with the different rulesets and avoid the game system all together.

P.S. I'd much like to see when someone over the Battles of Westeros forums will propose using that rules over there too. It's just a matter of time I believe... It will be funny to see what non-BattleLore players have to say about it. They have the most objectivity.

Moreover there are some players that have gone over to the BoW wagon exactly because they didn't like the section system and the luck of the command cards draw. Without BS this is especially promoted. I strongly believe that if BL had Battle Savvy rules from the beginning some of them wouldn't have this problem. Oh well...

Todd, I don't really thing that there is a point in arguing this thing again and again. I just want to mention my own point of view for this. I believe that you are "romantically" inclined if you will towards non-BS rules and many of your arguments are defensive of this ruleset. I don't know if I'm right but that's what I get from your posts. I mention this and wrote this whole post in a completely friendly attitude towards you just for the discussions sake.

You are a BL veteran and you won't get frustrated with multiple rulesets but insisting to newbies {and other reading the forums} that the old ruleset is better or otherwise different enough as an "advanced ruleset" for BL while the newer expansions require the new ruleset using BS, is not such a good idea, don't you think?

Just my two cents. Keep playing and supporting original BattleLore.

FragMaster said:

Briefly (for me anyway ) here, as I don't have the time for a proper rebuttal at the moment, but yeah, that is the same reason I keep posting on this, not to argue with you, as much the same you will not be able to convince me that I would prefer BS over no BS, I have no illusions that I will be able to convince you of the converse. However, anytime the difference is discussed or debated, I do feel it worthwhile to express my feelings and experiences on the subject.

Though loyalty and persistence are two qualities that heavily define my personality, I assure you that this is not a blindly romantic attachment I do prefer the way the game plays out, the story of battles that the game tells, with the original Medieval Tactics over the Battle Savvy rendition and am happy to enumerate the concrete reasons why, as I have in many posts. I have nothing but good feelings for you personally (please do not read more into that than intended ), and enjoy discussions about BattleLore and its variety of play.

From your last post, I think I've got the crux of the issue now, and will post about that sometime tomorrow or later in the week, but, yeah, ultimately I think you prefer a more pell mell style of game where I do prefer a more nuanced experience. That is not at all to say one is better than the other, more advanced than the other, or any type of value judgment that rates one over the other - just to say different strokes for different folks.

Well, we played the game using Battle Savvy - I got fairly smashed, but I had tried to play a fairly defensive game and should have gone after a few targets at different times. Oh well.

I am really enjoying what Battle Savvy brings to the game. I also really love the Epic game, which I hadn't played prior to this scenario. A wonderful subset of the rules - and probably the best addition to the game introduced in any expansion - at least in my view.

This is what I wrote in my ratings on BGG:

Epic Battlelore is a wonderful way to play the game. The best Battlelore Expansion I have played.

Playing two section cards or one tactic card makes for an interesting balance. Having some of these on public display also adds to the interest and tension.

The best thing is the sheer size of the map. In regular Battlelore the terrain is something that needs to be exploited in an opportunistic sense. Grab whatever terrain will protect your troops while you can.

In Epic the board takes on another role; players have the opportunity to mold a strategy around the board. A line of trees or hills becomes an opportunity for a defensive structure, or a strong position to attack from. Ranged units become much more relevant and powerful. Co-ordinating movement across the field becomes important as you need time to bring up the heavy hitters. You also want to either support the heavies with lighter units who can mop up or weaken units before the heavies arrive.

Tha pay-off for everything that Epic adds is a slightly longer playtime.

In other words, Epic takes a tactical battle game and gives it an air of strategy. A wonderful expansion to a game I really enjoy!

I really liked the Epic rules, hopefully in the next week I'll get Here be Dragons set up and played - Epic AND Dragons? Awesome!

After that I think I'll order Horrific Hordes!

Cheers,

Giles.

And the dog has found time to play with his bone:

FragMaster said:

Alright, so for me anyway, this exchange helped me a lot in figuring out why some players would prefer BS over no BS (and perhaps this was already obvious to most - takes me awhile sometimes ). Many of the players that I've played with where the game found an enthusiast would make a comment to the effect of "I love this, it's like chess with dice", ie, positional movements to gain advantages, but then chance enters the equation when resolving the battles using dice instead of pure position. Typically this response has come after a non-lore game. I go a bit further when describing the game (to myself mostly ), and, especially when lore is involved, the game becomes a thrilling hybrid of Chess (or any positional abstract game, but Chess fits the bill nicely), Poker, and Yahtzee. There is a lot of gaming going on within this game, and that is one of the main attractors BattleLore holds for me.

I think those that have leanings towards the chess-like elements of the game prefer no BS as the rewards for positional & numbers superiority are greater.

Back to the details: What I intend to imply (and hopefully be rather explicit ) by saying "one can just leave that unit in what was formerly a bad position" is that the tactics have changed from no BS to BS. What would be considered a bad or poor position to hold in a no BS game (and may in fact not be a bad or poor position at all when talking about this rather complex and nuanced game) may not be a bad or poor position in a BS game. This is not to say that one style of play is better than the other, it is to say that this facet of the change is the largest - with BS one does not have to be as concerned with positioning of ones forces as a whole as one does (or should anyway ) in a no BS game. This changes the decision making involved in the game. Doesn't make it better or worse, makes it different.

In a no BS game there are going to arise many crucial decisions about keeping units bold or extending them out for an offensive edge. In a no BS game being bold or not is still a factor in this decision, but the stakes have changed. It is not as risky in a BS game leaving a unit alone, which should encourage being offensive minded with ones command cards, whereas in no BS games more weight needs to be given to either positioning units boldly or out of range of melee attacks. Ultimately, the objective has not changed for either style of play: roll more dice at higher hit rates than the opponent. How one arrives at that end does change between the two styles of play.

Stopping here, short on time, probably best for all involved

Indeed it's better to stop this discussion as there is no more benefit that can be gained from it. I'll just say two things one as a general advice to all that read this thread and one personal thing answering this quote:

toddrew said:

I go a bit further when describing the game (to myself mostly ), and, especially when lore is involved, the game becomes a thrilling hybrid of Chess (or any positional abstract game, but Chess fits the bill nicely), Poker, and Yahtzee. There is a lot of gaming going on within this game, and that is one of the main attractors BattleLore holds for me.

I think those that have leanings towards the chess-like elements of the game prefer no BS as the rewards for positional & numbers superiority are greater.

It just happens that I don't like neither Chess, Poker or Yahtzee. Maybe that is the reason that I don't like non-BS rules too. If BattleLore felt like Poker and/or Chess in my mind I'd stay so far away from it as I possibly could.

The other thing that I wanted to say is a general reminder for all readers. Better BS or non-BS aside, Battle Savvy is the official and recommended way to play BattleLore. All the latest {and possibly the older too} scenarios are tested with Battle Savvy. Moreover, when a player finally adds Heroes and Creatures into the mix, he must use Battle Savvy.

So, my advice especially for new players of the game is: Play with Battle Savvy rules just for the reason that you don't have to mess with two rulesets and get confused. Veteran players like Todd can actually find it easy to differentiate playing with two different rulesets but newer players will most likely be confused when reading posts after posts of which is better. Arguing about it is not helping new players of the game at all. Having new players bashing Battle Savvy will only make them angry when they found out later that they MUST use Battle Savvy in all the later BattleLore scenarios.

I won't say that Battle Savvy is better. But I WILL say that you MUST use it when playing the latest scenarios and you WILL use it when playing with anything new that comes from FFG. So, don't bother with non-Battle Savvy. It will only get you confused when you finally have to start playing with Battle Savvy.

Final word: Unless you don't have a problem tackling two different rulesets, don't bother with the old rules and just play with Battle Savvy, even if you find that the old rules are a bit better. Newer BattleLore expansions make the old rules obsolete.

Just my two cents.

Slightly irrelevant P.S.

I'm greatly amused when I read so many posts about adding home rules for Battles of Westeros so few weeks after its release. Maybe this gem is not so shiny after all eh? {yeah, I do hate that game and I'm not afraid to say it.}

Go to the BoW forums and read about problems with retreating or parting blows or the Flag mechanic or the counter-attack eligibility and so on. Am I a bad person, doctor?

FragMaster said:

BS or no BS, the game is rife with elements of Chess, Poker, and Yahtzee BS tilts the mix towards Yahtzee Still plenty of Poker as if one doesn't have the right hand to fend off an advance in a certain area of the board and is reliant completely on battle backs and lore plays, their hand will often be beat, so to speak. Still plenty of Chess, as I still believe even with BS, positioning of units is the most important aspect of the game in regards to being victorious. All I am saying with the game comparisons is that ultimately it is a game we are talking about and while the game mechanics certainly do have some modeling aspect to them, in the end it is a game and whether I play a game or not is almost purely related to how much fun I have playing it. BS or no BS (this is a phrase that I use often in life now, and chuckle inwardly at each occasion ) I have a lot of fun playing (and talking about playing ) BattleLore.

FragMaster said:

Not completely true. I assume by play testing you are talking about Richard Borg and his gaming group playing out the scenarios. I could be very wrong, but I would be surprised if the original BattleLore game and ensuing expansions were not playtested at some point using the Medieval Tactics as presented in the original game. Plus, Richard Borg and his gaming group, while they may have also played using Battle Savvy as it currently is described (and I am sure a few other ways as well ), play using a more complex version of Battle Savvy where the peasant/levy/green units do not have Battle Savvy attributes (or so I gather from conversations Richard Borg has had with bloggers, podcasters, and the like). I am assuming that for simplicity's sake FFG decided to make it an across the board rule.

A very cool aspect of BattleLore in general is that one never "must". Game lends itself incredibly well to mixing and matching not only "official" ways of playing the game, but also houserules for those that find the game play better suited to them with a couple (to several ) personal touches.

When I am trolling Vassal looking for players to join in the fun, if they are new to the game, I do take the time (if I get the impression they want me to) and explain the difference between BS and no BS and let them decide how they would like to play it. If I find someone who is versed in BS, I play it that way. Most players that I encounter on Vassal (well, all currently, as it ain't that **** many ) use no BS because that is how they were introduced to the game originally. I would love for that to change, because that would mean that FFG is introducing a lot of new players to the game.

FragMaster said:

I still haven't (and possibly never will - I've got Napoleonics to turn to first ) turned much attention towards Battles of Westeros, but when I did go through the rule book, the biggest impression I got was that the game itself was a collection of "house rules" intended to fix what many players find distasteful about BattleLore in particular, and C&C games in general, then molded into, a similar in some respects, but distinct game of its own. If in fact, there are a lot of changes being bandied about, house rules, etc., I am not surprised at all. I've experienced the same phenomenon with BattleLore, Ancients, and Memoir '44.

toddrew said:

FragMaster said:

BS or no BS (this is a phrase that I use often in life now, and chuckle inwardly at each occasion

I find that very amusing, as I have to laugh every time I see BS mentioned with or without the "no" part.

toddrew said:

This is fantastic!!! I had the exact same thoughts as you! I actually wrote about this in the BGG forums. This game indeed looks like someone took notes and wrote down all the gripe from the C&C system whiners and changed the rules to appeal to them.

Almost every single popular home rule that I've read about at DoW forums back when some people couldn't understand the elegance of the command & colors system and tried very hard to change it, is in the BoW manual ready to be used.

A game that has its players searching for home rules just after its release is not a good sign. All games have players trying to change some rules but not immediately after release!!

My apologies to Fragmaster, didn't mean to drag your name into my post above.

To quote The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, "There are two kinds of people in this world my friend" those with BS and those with no BS.

Little by little, and to talk out these aspects of the game for myself, if no one else:

FragMaster said:

I didn't go into detail (and won't go into a large amount of detail here) about the reasons that will influence a particular player to chose to advance an unsupported unit aside from potential lore plays, but especially as the game draws to a conclusion (and often during other points of the game) what a particular unit can reach is more important than what can reach it. Boldly (pun intended ) pushing a unit towards danger while at the same time pushing it towards an opportunity for glory are situations that I enjoy in the game, and are situations that are tempered by BS.

Non-bold units have more designations than worthless or bait, often foregoing the opportunity for battle backs is a necessary payment for positioning towards future plays.

FragMaster said:

Todd said:

This is a misleading reason. The implication here is that there are more rolls happening in a game of Battle Savvy than in a game without. In an average game there should be just as many rolls, as it takes rolls to get hits, hits to get banners, and banners to win the game. Still need to get the same amount of banners, there will still be, on average, the same number of rolls, leading to the same number of opportunities to roll lore.

I understand what you are saying here, that there will be more rolls per turn, but that is a function of how each player plays, not necessarily a function of Battle Savvy or no Battle Savvy. Whether or not a unit has an opportunity for a battle back is entirely up to the players.

And then FragMaster said:

Here your statement is wrong. "Whether or not a unit has an opportunity for a battle back is entirely up to the players" is not valid in a game with dice because random things can happen. The NON-random thing here is the possibility of a battleback when attacking a unit {unsupported or not}. With BS that possibility is greater. So more rolls will happen. Without BS there will be many instances where a player just attacks-attacks-attacks never getting any retaliation because the enemy units can't do anything. With BS they CAN and will do something.

And now Todd is saying:

Allow me to clarify a bit on what I intended by "whether or not a unit has an opportunity [ "is eligible" may have been a better choice] for a battle back is entirely up to the players." With BS every single unit upon the board is eligible for a battle back. No BS puts the onus upon the players to position their units so they are eligible for battle backs. I like how this impacts the game and the decision making, and do not view it as rendering units helpless, rather it is the commander's imperative to do his or her damnedest to see that those units are not helpless.

There almost certainly will be more battle backs in a BS game than a non-BS game given that there are a larger number of conditions that accommodate battle backs with BS, however:

FragMaster said:

Surely I can believe that, as it must be, on average, true. The total number of dice rolled throughout an entire game of BattleLore will not markedly change whether or not BS is involved. In order to get hits, dice must be rolled. BS has no impact whatsoever on the hit rates of dice, so in order to get the necessary hits to collect enough banners, on average, the same number of dice will need to be rolled throughout the game. When those dice are rolled, 1 in 6 will collect lore (assuming the unit rolling is eligible to collect lore), BS or no BS.

Now, if players chose to play more aggressively when using BS than they do when not, that may lead to more dice being rolled earlier in the game, meaning more lore will be accrued sooner turn count wise, but when all is said and done, the same number of lore tokens will be generated by battle rolls in either game - on average

Stopping here now, caught a fish on vassal

Well, all of my most recent plays of Battlelore have been with Battle Savvy.

In my opinion it is a wonderful addition to the game. I liked the game previously, for all the reasons that toddrew is saying, but I find the a BS game still contains those elements. Positioning, for example, is vital as the ability to battleback is very important - one rolled flag can give the attacker a lot of impetus, particularly around terrain. Positioning units so they are bold as well as able to battleback is still vital to a strong defensive line. However, attacks and offensive pushes must now take into account the potential for Battleback. There is little use me sending my light skirmishers out to attack the heavy infantry in open and flat countryside - I am best to do it in terrain that suits that type of action and limits the abilities of the defending unit to Battleback. Previously this was the case too, but could be mitigated if I was lucky enough to be able to activate units on a flank for which my opponent had no command cards.

There are many aspects to BS I like. I think they add value to the strategies in the game, and mitigate some of the more unbalancing situations that used to arise. All in all, I feel encouraged to think more carefully about my lines - balancing them to take advantage of terrain, for defensive reasons and in areas of the board where I am attacking. At first i wasn't sure I'd like them very much, but now I am a BS convert.

That's my view anyway! And the Troll scenario played great with BS!

Cheers,

Giles.

toddrew said:

OK, you like defending non-Battle Savvy and I have free time to spare so let's go:

I don't agree that on average there would be the same number of Lore tokens generated because you forgot to mention that when not using BS rules the opponent's units may NEVER have a chance to roll dice simply because they would be destroyed by "free damage" from "free attacks".

Your "average" scenario assumes that all players will roll average dice and all players will have plenty of order cards to do it. The scenario also assumes that the players will go toe to toe with a score of 5-5 until someone gets his 6th kill.

We both know that this is not always possible and again if you are not using BS rules the most likely scenario in a situation where an opponent doesn't have the necessary cards to counter-attack is that you will be the only one rolling dice thus collecting Lore and his unit will just sit there dying and NOT collecting Lore.

A unit can't roll Lore if it's dead, can it? At least when it's not dead it can collect some Lore when it battleback because of B.S. rules. Without B.S. we have the same results but ONLY when they are supported. If they are not, they won't collect Lore from battlebacks. So I cannot accept that regardless of rulesets, the total collected Lore will be the same.

It's different {Lore-wise} winning a battle with all your units at 3 or 4 figures status and different when all your figures are at 1-figure status. The latter means that you have taken back some hits and ofcourse your opponent has rolled some Lore too. In both scenarios you've won but the Lore collected by both players is different. So attacking without B.S. rules has a chance of producing the first scenario because there will be a time when you will be attacking unsupported units and your opponent will not be rolling dice back. Then if you win, which is a not unusual scenario, your opponent NEVER had a chance to roll his Lore results.

On average this very usual BattleLore scenario will produce far more Lore results than the same scenario with BS rules in effect.

Without using BS rules, it is more likely that when you break your opponents line the score will be around 3-3 and then it is possible to jump to 3-6 easily because of "free" attacks During this "I'm the only one rolling dice" period the other player will collect less Lore and if he has a bad hand he may be unable to collect Lore. In the same scenario with B.S. rules, this will not happen so easily because the other player will be rolling dice too, bad hand or not. More dice=more Lore.

Moreover the scenario will end sooner because of this and this "average" scenario of yours will never have a chance to happen. When using BS, you have more time to do things, more dice to roll even if your hand is useless in a specific situation because your units will not sit there and die, they will fight back rolling Lore results at the same time. This will not happen in the same scenario if you are not using BS rules because all things being equal if you manage to caught your opponent's units unsupported you will collect less Lore in total because he will just stare at you rolling dice doing nothing.

Let me repeat, that BattleLore is a medieval combat wargame and not chess. I don't enjoy at all having to use my units as bait or doing other Chess-y tricks with them. I want the game to feel like a battle. Rolling dice and doing "free" damage is not a battle, it's a massacre. Ah, war is hell anyway!

Plus we can argue about player sklll all day but I won't accept that the "free" damage situation can only happen from player error. We are talking about a game that has dice and cards. A lot of different scenarios can happen and some of them cannot be altered by player skill. By allowing your units to have an "automated" defense of sorts {namely Battle Savvy rules} when you as the commander of the battle cannot give orders is a good thing. Plus more realistic. As I mentioned before armies were divided into units for better organization but units can be individually effective in a certain degree too. If you don't use Battle Savvy, your individual units can be only bait or worthless.

Let's leave from the fantasy and theme part and return to the reality of the situation. I will repeat again for the third time because I believe that it is very important: It's not good for the newer players that we argue if the old rules are better.

Battle Savvy is the official way to play now, newer scenarios use Battle Savvy rules and eventually when someone starts to use the expansions with Heroes and Creatures he must use Battle Savvy. I believe that arguing about using the older rules or not is not doing any good at all to the new players of the game. They should start using Battle Savvy right from the start and stick with it.

Having a percentage of new players learn the game without B.S. will only lead to confusion later on. So we can argue which is better all day but in the end it's better to use Battle Savvy just to play the official way and not get confused when adding expansions.

Let's leave the old rules with those that are veterans of the game and they don't have a problem with using different rulesets.

So for new players of the game reading this: Play with Battle Savvy rules. It's the official way to play. You can find the Battle Savvy rules in every FFG-released expansion manual. Forget about the old rules. If you start playing with the old rules you will HAVE to change to Battle Savvy rules when you start playing with the newer scenarios. It's better if you start learning their tricks right from the start.

No time this morning to elaborate (read: go on and on more and more ) on this topic, but wanted to quickly point out that I have never said (nor ever will say) that playing with BS requires more or less "skill" ( I would choose the word "experience") than playing no BS. It is not a skill vs luck issue for me at all, it is a dice vs positioning issue (which I understand how could be construed as a skill vs luck issue).

One thing people forgot to mention, is that with BS the game fit more in the 60-90 min writen on the box.

FragMaster said:

I did not forget to mention this, as while it may impact the number of dice rolled during a particular turn, it alone does not impact the number of dice rolled in an average game (and by average, just as all the other times I have used "average game" in this thread, I do not mean a singular game, rather many games over time so that averages have an opportunity to be known - just as if looking at single or few rolls isn't very instructful in showing what one should expect as an average, neither is pointing to particular games in these cases). BS or no BS, the hit rates in this game have not changed, and each side will need to roll an equivalent amount of dice playing either of them in order to reach the banner counts. If a BS game played to 7 banners while a no BS game played to 6, then yes, more lore would be rolled in combat during that BS game, but it would have nothing to do with there being more battle backs.

In fact, the affect of more battle backs, if it is to have any impact on the number of lore collected by each side during the game, will likely decrease the overall lore during an average game, if what most proponents of BS say is true - that the games are more brutal and thus shorter. If the game has fewer turns, less lore phases will be had while, in an average game, the same number of dice will be rolled to reach the required banner total leading to overall fewer lore tokens being collected. However, I am not convinced that this is the case. I believe that as players become more savvy about BS they will become less reckless with their play rather than more reckless, and the games will be just as long, on average, as no BS games. More on this phenomenon if the meandering discussion heads in that direction

FragMaster said:

I kinda addressed this point above, but no, that is not at all what I am assuming. What I am assuming is that, on average, 1 in 6 dice rolled will achieve a lore result. The final banner count for a particular game is not influenced by BS or no BS, that is influenced by the banner total set, the initial set up, how players choose to implement their units, when statistically improbable rolls occur and who they favor, card draws, etc, etc.

Now, if what you are saying is that BS games, on average, will lead to closer games than using no BS, say more likely a 6-5 game whereas no BS is more likely to result in a 6-2 game, then yes due to the higher overall banner count one would expect more lore to be accrued in the BS game. But that is a different matter, and also a matter that I do not believe is true. I've had no experience that would suggest it is true and can think of nothing that would show it to be true. I've played both was and had widely disparaging results in each. Plus, in BattleLore, and C&C games in general, a wide banner margin at the end of the game doesn't always equate to a game that wasn't close (apologies, veering away from the point there ).

FragMaster said:

None of what is presented here is going to affect, on average, the number of rolls required during the game. I understand what you are pointing out, but none of it is simply a function of whether a non-bold unit gets to battle back or not - card play, positioning, dice results, etc, etc, all feed into that. It appears to me that you are assuming that every no BS games ends in one side overrunning the other. That is simply not the case. On a smaller scope, it appears that you are arguing that one side or both is almost constantly running out of cards to respond to action on the board, also not the case.

Alright, my Ancients opponent is getting restless More to follow...

More, but not as much as I originally intended:

FragMaster said:

If in playing BS one doesn't do chess-y tactics one will be at a grave disadvantage. BS does not eliminate this element of the game, it just changes the percentages for potential success of particular tactics, rendering them either more or less useful (often depending upon the dice results), but still very necessary. Call the inability to battle back a "free damage" situation if you like, but that is a small view just focusing on the particular turn at hand, but there will be a turn for the opponent following up that "free damage" situation, just as there was a turn leading up to that situation. Players have a lot more control in a BS game than your arguments suggest. Whether the battle back is happening on the same turn or the opponent's next turn does have an impact, but it does not alter the game so dramatically that hand management and positioning are not still more important than fortunate dice rolls now and again.

I don't like to engage in arguments about whether or not game play is "realistic" or not, as with the relatively simple game mechanics involved with C&C games good arguments can be made for most mechanics involved. "Realism" comes down to accepting the chosen model that the game play utilizes to represent the situation. You call it "free" damage, I call it outmaneuvering. Whether or not that outmaneuvering is occurring through the designs of the players or the fortune of the dice and cards doesn't matter - the game will tell its story regardless which (and usually it is a measure of both) is behind the ends.

Switching gears right along with you:

FragMaster said:

When (if?) FFG produces a base game that introduces Battle Savvy as the official way to play, I will give more credence to this line of reasoning. I still won't agree that BS is "better" than no BS , but I would expect then to come across more players who are familiar with BS and have that as the default way to play. Currently, if I find someone willing to play the game at all, 9 times out of ten (in reality, it has been 3 times out of 3 in the past couple of months ) that player knows Medieval Tactics and is either a) unaware that BS even exists or b) unaware that is the way FFG would like them to play the game.

My issues with BS are not that it is confusing to players, rather that I prefer the way the game unfolds using the Medieval Tactics described in the DoW produced base game. If I am playing with players who feel that BS gives them a better playing experience, I will switch over in a heartbeat (for those particular games ) as any BL opponent at this stage of the game is a gift in itself. I won't look it in the mouth, so to speak. However, I will not be going out of my way to play BS. Much as one can use BS on any of the scenarios, one can use Medieval Tactics as well, be there Dragons or Heroes or not. Doesn't break the game, just alters how the action will play out in some facets of the game. As is continually pointed out in BS discussions, still better to be bold than not.

It's quite possible that we can reach 50 pages of back and forth arguments about this matter but until summer is over I do have the time to answer.

So here goes:

I don't agree about the average dice rolls thing and the above arguments don't alter my opinion. In a game full of possibility {dice, cards etc.} I'm trying to use situations that will always have a chance of happening instead of mentioning that in SOME cases they won't happen.

With BS there will ALWAYS be an opposing roll happening with a chance of rolling Lore. Without BS this is not the case. This example has nothing to do with card draw in the first case but everything with the 2nd because the positioning of your units has a great part of whether there will be a battleback roll or not.

So with BS the random factors of rolling a battleback are greatly reduced = more Lore. Moreover, as I've already mentioned, there is a bigger possibility that players will finish any combat with casualties on both sides instead of the possible non-BS situation of doing "free" damage with no retribution. More casualties means that more rolls have been made which in turn means that more Lore has been collected.

Overall, there will be more Lore collected since there is a BIGGER possibility of rolling battlebacks and doing some damage back when using BS rules. I agree that overall the number of hits to win is the same but the LOSER's number of rolls is different . When using BS the loser would have rolled more dice as battlebacks thus collected more Lore. I don't know if I can make it any clearer than that without actually showing it on a BattleLore board.

Also, extending the game time over many turns is a nice way to interpret a turn-based melee battle but this works best when all units have an opportunity to activate every turn like in Tide of Iron for example. BattleLore mechanism of activating units only with Commands does not fit very well with this interpretation since that means that your units are actually worthless drones that need a Leader to command them to defend themselves in melee combat unless they are together.

Battle Savvy fixes these strange timing issues of the game.

None of what is presented here is going to affect, on average, the number of rolls required during the game. I understand what you are pointing out, but none of it is simply a function of whether a non-bold unit gets to battle back or not - card play, positioning, dice results, etc, etc, all feed into that. It appears to me that you are assuming that every no BS games ends in one side overrunning the other. That is simply not the case. On a smaller scope, it appears that you are arguing that one side or both is almost constantly running out of cards to respond to action on the board, also not the case.

Overrun issue: It's more likely to happen with non-BS than with BS due to "free" damage.

Command card issue: I'm not assuming that one side is constantly running out of cards and cannot respond. I am though taking the possibility of this thing happening and compare it between the two rulesets. So non-BS, this situation CAN happen {not constantly as you say but it can happen}. With BS, it will NEVER happen, you can always respond even with a simple battleback without maneuvering movements from Command cards. We have a 'possibility' and a 'never' or a 'less likely' if you don't agree with the word 'never'. Which is more likely to happen?

If in playing BS one doesn't do chess-y tactics one will be at a grave disadvantage. BS does not eliminate this element of the game, it just changes the percentages for potential success of particular tactics, rendering them either more or less useful (often depending upon the dice results), but still very necessary. Call the inability to battle back a "free damage" situation if you like, but that is a small view just focusing on the particular turn at hand, but there will be a turn for the opponent following up that "free damage" situation, just as there was a turn leading up to that situation. Players have a lot more control in a BS game than your arguments suggest. Whether the battle back is happening on the same turn or the opponent's next turn does have an impact, but it does not alter the game so dramatically that hand management and positioning are not still more important than fortunate dice rolls now and again.

I would agree with the above IF the game allowed all units to be activated for free {as most other wargames do} sometime during the player's turn. Since the unit activation is NOT free and is tied to the card draw and hand management I won't accept the above argument of 'next turn battleback'. You have to spend resources to make this so-called battleback to happen therefore the previous turn's damage that your unit received and didn't do anything about is indeed "free" damage. We are talking about close combat, people bashing each other with swords and not machine gun fire. If I come running towards you with a big sword and swing it at you you will try to hit me back with yours. You won't wait orders from your leader to do a self-defense motion {namely: activation via command card next turn}

I cannot accept the timing argument that you are making here because to do anything in this game you have to use a card. When using BS rules your units have a "defense" roll of sorts that does not require a resource expenditure {command card}. If you play non-BS and don't have a viable card then where is your unit's self-defense action, same turn or not?

Also, who said that hand management and positioning is unimportant with BS? Far from it. I just don't like at all the 'reasoning' when I try to explain in my mind what a unit that has just engaged in close combat is doing when it does not battleback because the non-BS rules say so... Maybe I don't like the reasoning because there is no reasoning...

I don't like to engage in arguments about whether or not game play is "realistic" or not, as with the relatively simple game mechanics involved with C&C games good arguments can be made for most mechanics involved. "Realism" comes down to accepting the chosen model that the game play utilizes to represent the situation. You call it "free" damage, I call it outmaneuvering. Whether or not that outmaneuvering is occurring through the designs of the players or the fortune of the dice and cards doesn't matter - the game will tell its story regardless which (and usually it is a measure of both) is behind the ends.

Agreed. For me, non-BS rules don't simulate the battle correctly. There are timing issues and a lot of things that remain unexplained. Battle Savvy solves lot of those problems and explains better the situation and what exactly is happening.