I really really really really want to like this game and I am trying really really hard to enjoy it but I have walked away from all ten of the games I have played quite disappointed. is it streamlined sure, do the mechanics work well, sure is the terrain beautiful sure. however I have yet to play a game where there is any tension. every game has had one side or the other surge a head on victory points and then there has never been any looking back. I almost feel as though it could be a one round game because who ever is ahead after one round always wins. there really is no reason to pick a scenario that does not give you 2 victory points a turn, other wise you just fall behind.

and is there any reason to take a chaos lord? sure, the abilities rock, but movement stat of 1 is just a waste.

very disappointed by this game so far. glad my friend bought it and I only spent 35 on Diskwars because that game has been far more interesting.

just curious on other opinions and if anyone else is having that feeling of soul sucking disappointment after playing the game.

I just have my first two games today and they were quite tense. Especially in the second game where I fell behind in VPs, but have been putting more efforts in eliminating enemy units, and then I caught up with better board position. Though I lost in the end, I have enjoyed the game very much.

We've had a few games where one player managed to get a big lead in points and it's ended 16-10 or so, but most games are much closer.

I had a fantastic game last night. We both grabbed 2 VPs on our first turn and maintained that through most of the game... it didn't take long to realize it would be a standoff unless someone snagged another VP. My son pushed hard for my neutral VP and managed to take it for one turn, gaining 3 points that one turn. I took it right back, but I was one point behind the rest of the game. I pushed hard to thin out his troops so he couldn't maintain his scenario objective (keep 3 units in woods) but he was always able to shift enough to maintain it. I also pushed hard to take his neutral VP hex but a bad string of rolls (no retreats and not enough hits as he was in a building and could ignore one) kept me from it as well.

Toward the very end he killed one of my units and played his Lore card to gain one more VP and wound up winning 16-14. Looking back , it all came down to his first push that barely managed to take my VP hex for a single turn, but the rest of the game was a very tense battle.

Diskwars has a faster payoff, but I like both games a lot. Every game of BL I have played has had tension. They've all had swings, too.

With focusing just on VP locations rather than destroying units or both, each game just is a struggle for those points. I think it really restricts the game and ends up focussing the action on those static points of the map which is dissappointing.

Check out the scenarios that Richard Borg has uploaded to the scenario builder that award VPs for unit elimination as well. Adds much more tension and is more interesting IMHO.

With focusing just on VP locations rather than destroying units or both, each game just is a struggle for those points. I think it really restricts the game and ends up focussing the action on those static points of the map which is dissappointing.

Check out the scenarios that Richard Borg has uploaded to the scenario builder that award VPs for unit elimination as well. Adds much more tension and is more interesting IMHO.

Thanks, I will take a look, just glad to know that some one else was kind of meh on it.

With focusing just on VP locations rather than destroying units or both, each game just is a struggle for those points. I think it really restricts the game and ends up focussing the action on those static points of the map which is dissappointing.

Well, that's part of the story. There are also the scenario specific VP objectives, and the victory condition for eliminating the enemy army(though the game is primarily a race to 16). I suppose the above statement could appear true if the majority of personal play experience had VP banners placed in close proximity. If the overall game isn't your thing, that's cool. However, saying the game is just a struggle for two points isn't accurate at all.

I found that having VP terrains to control + trying to keep that control and killing enemy units added a lot to the game. I owned BL1 and lots of expansions and I highly prefer BL2. Better rules, more uniqueness in units, more options to win, Scenario cards and setup is really cool.

Lots of cool additions to make the game a bit better imo.

But I can understand those that don't get into it.

Most of my games have been roller-coasters, one side thinking they can not possibly win then turning it around and leaving the other side desperate, only for it to turn back again! I find if you try to apply standard tactics you will fail because you have to expect the battlefield to change quite quickly and drastically. Although sometimes the amount of random chance seems a tad high, I still think it is a game with quite a lot of tactical depth.

With focusing just on VP locations rather than destroying units or both, each game just is a struggle for those points. I think it really restricts the game and ends up focussing the action on those static points of the map which is disappointing.

To tell you the truth, the lack of battlefield objectives is what kept me a little cold on the whole CnC system. If you look at most battles in history, it is real estate that drove the tactics ie: the farm houses at Waterloo, locations such as little round top at Gettysburg and for countless other battles it's been a crossroads, a rail head, a hill or a town; all conferring some advantage on the owner. Simply attacking an army purely to kill it's members, while not unheard of, is not a sound objective in itself and rarely gets a general what he wants, as it usually leads to equal casualties. Objectives in a game give sense of purpose and encourages thoughtful tactics, otherwise the armies might as well just run at each other and slug it out, which is more how Hollywood seems to think battles are fought. Having said that, a VP for high value units could work, but as an addition. I do, however, have a problem with a distinct lack of advantage to having units in a wooded area or on a hill, it should be harder work attacking up a hill.

Cheers.

With focusing just on VP locations rather than destroying units or both, each game just is a struggle for those points. I think it really restricts the game and ends up focussing the action on those static points of the map which is disappointing.

To tell you the truth, the lack of battlefield objectives is what kept me a little cold on the whole CnC system. If you look at most battles in history, it is real estate that drove the tactics ie: the farm houses at Waterloo, locations such as little round top at Gettysburg and for countless other battles it's been a crossroads, a rail head, a hill or a town; all conferring some advantage on the owner. Simply attacking an army purely to kill it's members, while not unheard of, is not a sound objective in itself and rarely gets a general what he wants, as it usually leads to equal casualties. Objectives in a game give sense of purpose and encourages thoughtful tactics, otherwise the armies might as well just run at each other and slug it out, which is more how Hollywood seems to think battles are fought. Having said that, a VP for high value units could work, but as an addition. I do, however, have a problem with a distinct lack of advantage to having units in a wooded area or on a hill, it should be harder work attacking up a hill.

Cheers.

You make sense sir

About the hills and forest hexes, I think it's fine as it is. BattleLore is meant to be bloody and relatively quick to play. It offers some advantages to certain types of terrain so they are sought after but not too much so it makes units in those hexes too resistants and make these hexes a must to control.

I'm an old infantry officer, fought in 3 wars. When we were in combat there was always an objective, always a piece of terrain. So this game makes a lot of sense to me. And when I play games that give points for unit elimination, weak units just run away. Not very realistic. I like this game just the way it is.

I have played Battlelore since the day it was released. I am a diehard fan that has everything for 1st edition (most things twice) and still plays regularly. To give you an understanding of where I stand, I would have liked 2nd edition to be more compatible with 1st edition, but its not and I'm over that. I like Battlelore 2nd edition and think it is presented really nicely (and I play regularly) but think that some things got changed too much due to the complaints of those who played only a handful of times.

Most people that just played Battlelore 1st edition a couple of times don't realise that it did have Objectives in many of the scenarios. Saying that you only got VPs (Banners back in 1st edition) for killing units is patently wrong.

Taking opponent's banners in the first edition wasn't to represent just taking out units, but was to represent the breaking of your opponent's morale.

The Scenario specific VPs in Battlelore 2nd edition are 'mostly' just focus points on the battlefield. Which means that although this may represent having objectives in real life (and I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone), but each game revolves around those spots. You will have an ebb and flow of units taking and being forced from those spots. That's the way it plays. This is undeniable. This will be great for some, but not so great for others that like to see the battlefield evolve over the course of a game, not just continue to back and forth over two or three spaces.

I'm not saying to remove these objectives, but there should be some way to get VPs by taking out enemy units and thus reflecting the loss of morale as their army is degraded. This might be by taking out a number of 'points' worth of units, or elite units only etc... But something to create more dynamic battles.

All the best anyway guys.

Cheers,
Ben.

There are some scenarios where you get points for killing opponents. And both Lore decks have 2 cards that give you VP for killing a unit on a certain half of the board.

I think if you made the ability to score points for outright kills too heavy, though, it would reduce the purpose of the VP hexes on the board.