Hello,

Just wanted to make an obvious observation. The manual for Bearded Brave says it comes with 3 Arbalestiers units and 2 Bolt Thrower units but really there's only 2 Arbalestiers units since the third unit has to be split up to man the Bolt Throwers. Am I right or did I get shorted 4 more crossbow figures? Some of the Call to Arms cards will not work together because of this unless the core set crossbowmen are to be crew only. Bear Riders are ehh, Dwarves don't ride anything but that's just my opinion...

As far as Code of Chivalry goes I'm let down that we didn't get more Halberdiers and got tons more Arbalestiers but oh well. Not sue how I feel about the new rules for Arbalestiers either being able to move and shoot, will have to play a few more times to see. I really don't like the models for the new Long Sword mounted Knights, poorly done and I think I'll use them for Green Banner Cavalry since they remind me of the Green Infantry. On a positive note I really love the model for the Foot Knights, outstanding IMO, and I like the rule change to the Lancer Knights, seems to make more since giving them a more offensive capability when ordered to charge given they have lances and all...

Overall I really love this game and sincerely hope FFG continues to produce more expansions.

Thoughts anyone?

Hey there, Malachi.

You did not get shorted any crossbow figures. Unless I did too

Not sure if your 'ehh' for the bear riders is purely aesthetic, or perhaps displeasure at their monstrous ability, but they certainly do make an impact on the board. One unit is the right number.

I also prefer the "old" arbalestier rules over the new ones - I enjoy having distinct crossbow and arbalestier units.

I don't get too worked up about the models, though I do find the mounted "knights" a little strangely depicted.

I wasn't thrilled with the contents of Code of Chivalry (really only one new unit), but I do enjoy the on board interaction between opposing knight units. Lots of interesting decisions and lore plays come about in the plays of the included scenarios.

My biggest disappointment with the three figure expansions has been the implementation of Call to Arms. Maybe I had too high of hopes, but I was really looking forward to having three to six 7-card decks for each of the three races that the game has to date. I had thought that is what Horrific Horde, Bearded Brave, and Code of Chivalry would bring to the game. I still hold out a little hope that this is still a transitory state of the game, and "full" CtA decks will appear, but I don't really get any indication that that is so.

I'll echo your "overall I really love this game" - been my favorite since it came out (and really, since I found out about it ). I think there's a lot more room for it to grow, waiting relatively patiently to see what it becomes.

Actually I'm a little confused with CofC. Back then, I've always considered red human cavalry and infantry units as knights. It's much simpler that way, and I think they're pretty representative. The single SoS resistance (and the fact that foot knights get a little different ruling) is really getting BattleLore past my comfort zone. I mean, I'm okay if such rules are in more complex games, but I really appreciate BattleLore for its simplicity.

Sevej said:

I respect your opinion, but I like those little rules tweaks like with the Foot Knights and the retreating Ogres. I think the "design space," as it were, leaves plenty of room for more such new units, without leaving the basic dependence upon the mechanics of the three "special" symbols on the dice.

I have no problems with additional rules, like the Ogres' one, or even any units from the previous expansions. They've been made very clear.

What we have here is several units with similar rulings. If they had been the same, or very different, it'd okay. Right now, we have 2 units that's pretty similar with little difference. 3 if you count the 'other' Mounted Knights from Scottish Wars expansion.

Even the SoS resistance difference may add to the confusion. The mounted knights resists SoS, from different sources. The first source is from all melee strikes, the second source from only certain weapons.

Add the foot knight in the mix. I actually like the foot knight's resistance to ranged fire (shield and all).

I'm all for new units and new abilities. But please make them distinct. The differences between the red cavalry units are very slight. FFG inconsitency regarding "unit cards" and "weapon cards" doesn't help either.

There are several things I do not like about this expansion.

I agree with toddrew I wish that the call to arms and been handled differently. Especially with the code of chivalry expansion. You only get one card for each section? that's hardly anything and you wont see these new units near as often as I would like.

The FFG models are thinner and smaller then the DoW ones. Even the models that get remade from the old molds are smaller and thinner. Whats up with that? Is it just me or are other people seeing this too?

And lest I don't understand the point of the foot knight specialist card. Why use that card when you could use the mounted knight long swordsmen card. The foot knight lets you replace one red unit and get one foot knight. The mounted knight lets you replace up to two red units with an equal amount of mounted knights. And the mounted knight are better then the foot knights. So I'm a little confused why you would ever take the foot knight specialist card.

I guess I'm most upset about the lack of call to arms cards. One for each section is not enough. To balance it out when playing against dwarf/goblin armies I'm thinking I'll just let the human player take 3 specialist cards instead of 2. That way he can get a good amount of fun special units out onto the table.