A thought.

A Standard unit is attacked by three (3) Pennant units. Should the Standard Unit be able to Battle Back ALL THREE attacks (if the Standard unit survives)?

When will the battleback occure? After each attack or after all attacks?

It seems to me that the "most realistic" rule is that a unit can only battle back ONCE per turn.

All "professional Battlelore players out there" , any ideas?

Will try the rules with Battle Savvy troops this weekend.

Cheers!

Hey Yoda,

There are no limits to the number of times a unit can Battle Back - it is simply once per battle, after each given battle. Though I'm sure you can imagine, 3 units battling 1 unit will normally spell certain doom for that lone unit.

Also, if the lone unit retreats, it doesn't get any more battle backs that turn. Otherwise, it is allowed to battle back against any melee attacker, per Battle Savvy rules. In other words: Pennant unit attacks in melee and doesn't eliminate or force Standard unit to retreat, so Standard gets to battle back. This can be repeated as many times as the Pennant player has troops to attack with (in melee of course) and the Standard unit manages to "hold its ground."

We have decided to use the "house rule" of only ONE battle back per round. Its not logical that becasue a unit is attacked three times it should battle back three times. We see it like that all three attacks occure at the same time and it that case its not logical if a unit battle back simulatnious against three enemies.

There should maybe be another rule for a unit that is "surrounded" by enemies. In blood bowl (fantastic boardgame!) it there is 2 enemies against 1, they will SUPPORT each other, by increasing the STRENGHT with +1/each supporting player. Maybe Battle Lore should have the same rule.

GreenYoda666 said:

Of course any can house rule to modify the game (while it isn't a house rule per se, I don't use Battle Savvy rules unless opponent has a strong desire to do so), but there is a logic to the way the game plays by the designed rules. Players of the game do have a lot of control over what happens on the board, but it is the dice that determine the story. Many of the things that happen during a turn, or even over a couple turns, are happening "simultaneously", but out of necessity of resolving the action happen in the sequence that they do according to the rules. While the scale of BattleLore is somewhat mysterious, it is obvious by design that a unit is not represented 1:1 by the figures that comprise it. It is logical that many (represented by one unit) can fight many (represented by a few units) to a stand still, or even come out ahead - that is what the dice determine. However, luck can only hold out so long - the player that positions themselves in such a manner as to roll more dice than the opponent will almost always win this game.

There are lots of other situations in which players feel the game could use some tweaking, but many subtleties are addressed by the base game's rules.

awayputurwpn said:

One clarification...

The unit doesn't get to battle back again during that battle... not turn.
If another unit attacks and ground is held then a battle back can occur on that same turn.

overdog said:

And a mudification on the clarification - in Commands and Colors: Ancients, which Battle Savvy is modeled after, a unit that has retreated and is attacked again by the same unit that caused that retreat is eligible to battle back for that attack as well. I am still not sure if that is the intention or not for Battle Savvy.

A unit that retreats and is attacked again on the same turn may battle back if not eliminated of forced to retreat.

Richard Borg

Richard Borg said:

As long as it's a new battle, correct?

For instance a mounted unit that causes a unit to retreat and then pursues making a bonus attack against the same unit doesn't risk a battle back if the unit isn't forced from their hex a second time, correct?

pg31 of rulebook:
"If the defending unit is forced off it's hex, for any reason, during the initial melee attack, its opportunity to battle back during this battle is lost, even if the unit falls back into another supported position once its retreat is completed."

A battle includes follow-on actions such as bonus attacks.

Always gives my spirit a boost when you pop in here, Richard Borg

But, yes, overdog, that is exactly my question - does Battle Savvy override that rule?

(and, different game, I know: if Battle Savvy doesn't override the "no battle back if retreating during the same battle" rule, is that the way C&C:A was intended to play as well?)

toddrew said:

I've only ever played Battlelore... the fantasy theme drew me in.

And being a new player (3 months), I've honestly only ever played with battle savvy rules as Richard highly recommended for all Battlelore gaming.

I've read the battle savvy rules and they don't modify pg31 of the rulebook that I quoted. If that's his intention, has it been stated anywhere that I missed?

My point in this is to make sure I'm playing the game correctly using battle savvy rules.

edit: gotcha toddrew... looks like we're posting at the same time.

overdog said:

I think you've got it right - I don't think that Battle Savvy changes the rule about a unit not being eligible for a battle back if it has retreated during a particular battle for the remainder of that particular battle (typically one follow on attack), but there are some subtleties that probably could use some direct "yes/no" responses.

By contradicting the need for a unit to be bold in order to battle back (original rules required this), this relatively subtle change in the rules has a big impact on the tactics employed in the game - whether or not a unit is eligible to battle back on a follow on action after having retreated may be a part of that impact.

overdog said:

edit: gotcha toddrew... looks like we're posting at the same time.

dangit, I still can't figure out how to break a quote in the way I would like to...

My wife and I had a situation in the game we just played where one unit was attacked multiple times and didn't retreat. I think it makes more sense to allow the unit to battle back against all of them (as per the rules).

Odds are the outnumbered unit is going to get hurt. Also - no unit can expect to attack another unit without the potential at least for suffering some form of damage - especially if the unit they attack obstinantly stand their ground!

I like the Battlesavvy rules a lot. I think they really add to the game.

Cheers,

Giles.

toddrew said:

Pretty simple to do Todd...

toddrew said:

Just like that...have matching QUOTE and SLASH QUOTE - [typed it out so the editor won't think they are commands, never know with this FFG editor!! and yes I put the blah blah blah in the first quote...