Recommend
20 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BattleLore» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Difficult to learn, easy to master rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are enough reviews out there that include a run-down of how BattleLore works and do a good enough job at that, so in this review I will focus on something entirely different – the problems BattleLore is causing me.

A little bit of background first so you can see where I’m coming from: For the previous ten years I was living in a fairly large city with an excellent gaming club where I played a lot of board games as well as a lot of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. A year ago I moved to a different part of the country and I now have significantly fewer gamers to play against and significantly less time to play. I heard about BattleLore on a couple of different podcasts and thought it was just the thing for me – it was quick and easy to play, required no painting of minis and was light enough for my semi-gamer friends to play it while being complex enough for my “true” battle gamer friends to enjoy.

I thought it would be the perfect game for me in my situation. I was wrong.

The game itself is nice enough, don’t get me wrong (though see #3 below) and I enjoyed it, but I am rapidly running out of people who want to play it with me. I have pondered this at some length and I have come up with two main problems – Stuff and Luck.


1) The Stuff
There is a lot of stuff in the box. This is one of the main reasons I bought it, since I love stuff-games such as Warhammer Quest and I would probably have picked up Descent if there were more people around to play against. However, there is also relatively many rules for a board and the rules have relatively many exceptions.
For example: The number of dice you roll to attack depends on the unit colour, limited by the terrain the unit and/or its enemy is increased occasionally by the command and/or lore card being played (increased from cards trumpt limits from terrain).
If you get advantage of the bonus strike rule depends on the weapon (which depends on the unit type), except in the case of melee infantry in which case it might also depend on what type of unit you are fighting against.

It’s not a problem for me, but in my experience this quickly becomes too much to remember for semi-gamers who are not used to this amount of detail from a game. The game comes with little reminder cards, but already at scenario 2 you are up to 11 of those per player (3 weapons, 3 terrain, 2 unit types, morale, tactics and dice) and at that point they ceased to be a help and started to be a hindrance.

The designers apparently realised that there is a lot to take in, so the scenarios gradually introduce the various rules (the first one, for example, doesn’t have morale and doesn’t have tactics). While the idea isn’t bad, a semi-gamer needs to play them in relatively quick succession or they will forget how the rules work. I have repeatedly had to go back and play scenario 1 again because it was more than a month since our last battle and my opponent wasn’t familiar with the rules. After playing around ten battles, I have not progressed further than scenario 3, which is somewhat annoying.


2) The Luck
With the amount of detail and nuances to the game, you would then expect it to appeal to “true” battle gamers, then? Wrong. None of my Warhammer-playing friends have enjoyed it and the common complaint is the luck factor. With something like one-tenth as many dice being rolled as in WHFB, naturally each dice becomes much more important, and combats are primarily dice driven. A combat typically involves around three dice being tossed per player, with around a 1/3rd chance of causing damage on each. Thus it is very easy to cause twice as much damage as expected, or no damage at all. I suspect that the method used in Uncharted Seas (many more dice, less variation in what you need to roll to hit) would have been better.

And then there are the command cards. Sometimes you get excellent ones, sometimes they are just awful. The english might get the card that lets all their archers fire twice in the Agincourt scenario and cause havoc, but it might just as easily be the french that get that card (1 archer unit, compared to 5). This would probably have been less of a problem if more cards were of the “X number of any unit type in section Y” type and fewer of “X number of unit type Y in any section”, since you can control where your units are much easier than you can control what units you have.


So amongst my friends, the game fails by having too much stuff for the semi-gamers and too much luck for the “true” gamers.


3) The “... and Colours”
I said that I personally like the game and I mostly do, but the “... and Colours” part of “Command and Colours” annoys me. This is firstly because one of my friends is colour blind and can’t tell the difference between the different colours. And even for normal people, slightly dim light can make it hard to tell blue and green banners apart. As if this was not annoying enough by itself, the designers made the situation worse for colour blind people. If you look at the pictures in the rulebook and on the reference material, the helmet symbols on the dice are all identical apart from the colour (green, blue or red), while if you look at the actual dice, all three helmets are slightly different. This should have been corrected and the pictures of the dice should match the actual dice.
Similarly, they could have added a bit of background pattern to the banners, so that there is more than just the colours that differentiate them. If green banners had a more plain background and the blues and reds have more detailed, it would be much clearer and my colour blind friend could tell green and blue goblin infantry apart (these two units have the same model sculpt, for some reason, so if you can’t tell the banner colour they look exactly the same). Or just cast the models in the appropriately-coloured plastic.

Secondly, I for one don’t get why they put different coloured helmets on the dice at all. Given that there is always one of the three helmets that is a hit while the other two are misses, they could just have one set ‘hit’ side and two set ‘miss’ sides instead and made it much easier. That way I would not have to remind my opponent that they need to roll the colour of the enemy unit and not the colour of their own unit to do damage.


So in summary, it appears that BattleLore is one of those games that is difficult to learn and easy to master, which is not really what I am looking for. I can enjoy the game for what it is, but my friends aren’t. If anyone has any better tips for battle games that will appeal to both semi-gamers and “true” battle gamers, let me know. I am currently looking at Uncharted Seas.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I for one love Battlelore; even if it does have a luck factor in it. Most games I play have some kind of luck in one way or another. In the case of Battlelore, luck works for both sides since you both have cards and you both roll dice. I'm sure that in real battles nothing ever goes as planned or rarely does, and such is life.
One thing I've noticed with Battlelore (and this applies to many other games I've played) is that players very rarely spend their turn to retreat and regroup. It's mostly attack attack attack, even when their unit only has 1 figure left (easy medal for the opponent).
As for the colors used on the dice, I guess they could use colors that are more apparent to those who are color blind. I new someone who was and he had difficulty distinguishing between certain colors or saw red as green and vice versa.
In general I don't consider Battlelore an intense war game as such, not like ASL (which also uses dice, but no cards), but we play it because it's enjoyable and once the game is over we laugh at how the battle went or how it could have been different if only I had rolled better or had that certain card that would have changed the course of history.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,
It's not that it has luck that is the problem - most games are some kind of mix of luck and skill, ranging from chess (more or less pure skill) to the lottery (more or less pure luck). The question is more what kind of balance between the two a good game should have, and that depends on your audience.

The more luck that goes into a game, the less skill you require to win, and the easier it is to pick up. For example anyone can enter the lottery and have the same chance as another player to win (assuming an equal number of tickets). The same can not be said about chess, where a new player is almost certainly going to lose to an experienced player.

Warhammer FB has quite a bit of luck in it, but even so it would probably not be a very even game if I were to play against a new player, unless I made an effort to give them a chance.

The feeling amongst battle gamers here is that BattleLore is based too much on luck and too little on skill.

This should have made it appeal to less experienced players, but they don't like it because the rules are too detailed.

If the amount of luck was reduced, my battle gaming friends would like it more, if the amount of stuff was reduced, my semi-gaming friends would like it more.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harald Torvatn
Norway
Trondheim
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TarjeiAasen wrote:


So in summary, it appears that BattleLore is one of those games that is difficult to learn and easy to master, which is not really what I am looking for. I can enjoy the game for what it is, but my friends aren’t. If anyone has any better tips for battle games that will appeal to both semi-gamers and “true” battle gamers, let me know. I am currently looking at Uncharted Seas.
WW2 games may not be what you are want, but if it is, Combat Commander:Europe may be what you are looking for. It looks so friendly that it has been easy for me to find people who are willing to try, (I really have no idea why, the only way in which it differs from a normal hex-and-counters game is the giant hexes and the small maps, but maybe it is that?) Everyone who has tried have wanted to play more.

The basic rules are probably more complicated than the basic rules in Battlelore (I have not played battlelore, but I have played Commands and Colours: Ancients, which uses the same system) but are much less exceptins and special rules filled.

Lykke til!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joachim Pehl
Germany
Daubach
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The most annoying aspect about the colors is, that they did it right in Memoir and Command & Colors : Ancients. Memoir only used symbols and C&C:A has colors and symbols which are pretty easy to distinguish.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Albert Gao
New Zealand
Auckland
Auckland
flag msg tools
mbmb
TarjeiAasen wrote:
If anyone has any better tips for battle games that will appeal to both semi-gamers and “true” battle gamers, let me know.
maybe you should try Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! – Russia 1941-42
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
camus_dvd wrote:
TarjeiAasen wrote:
If anyone has any better tips for battle games that will appeal to both semi-gamers and “true” battle gamers, let me know.
maybe you should try Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! – Russia 1941-42
Yeah, definitely try conflict of Heroes, it is exactly what you're looking for.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mitchell
United Kingdom
Brighton
East Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, I sold my Battlelore as I felt it lost the simple play of memoir, took a long time to setup and wasn't that rewarding tactically.
Memoir I think is a far more enjoyable game than Battlelore in that it doesnt try to be something more (unless you use the Airpack). It remains streamlined and simple.

Conflict of Heroes however is superb. You have complete freedom, its tense and has hidden mines and units and the setup time, game flow and complexity is nicely balanced.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not looking to change anyone's mind that has already formulated an opinion (though I certainly believe that BattleLore, like the other Commands and Colors games, rewards multiple plays with an appreciation of the game), however just wanted to make a quick comment (with a long preface - perhaps some will find that fitting for the game laugh ) aimed at anyone willing to listen, but certainly at those who have yet to play the game:

In BattleLore positioning and card play/hand management have much much more to do with the outcome of the game than a few isolated dice rolls.

I think opinions to the contrary are formed from playing some of the early adventures in the base game booklet. Those adventures (as the OP rightly pointed out) are intended to familiarize one with the game, not exhaust the game's capabilities.

On the colorblind-friendly aspects of the game, yeah, it's short there. Adapting with different dice and banners is necessary.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hand management if of course important, but if you are in the need of moving, say 2 specific units in a specific section on the board, then there are only around one quarter of the cards that will let you do that and I think that is a bit too few, especially since units can't default to some standard action with no card being played on it (it would be nice if units could default to move towards your table edge, to get away if they get mauled, for example).

Thus the risk of sustained bad luck on the draw is quite high, higher than I really appreciate. Sure, you can assembled three or four useful cards for a push somewhere, but once those have been used up you have no guarantee that what you now have is useful for any coordinated action anywhere.

It would be better if cards were more multi-purpose. For example the section cards could also have a default of 1 unit anywhere.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Santi Velasco
Spain
Mairena del Aljarafe
Seville
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to agree with todd here, in my experience novice players rarely fight the temptation to use up what they have in their hand to rush to the enemy lines; usually this ends up in a disaster. A few games later you realize that:

a) Battlelore is a game of patience. Take your time and make sure your lines are solid. Never risk a lone unit (unless you're setting up a trap )

b) The deck is the same for you and your opponent. With a little practice you can pretty much get an idea of what's in his hand.

c) If things get nasty, retreat. Protect you weakened units, they could surprise your opponent later in the game.

d) Lore is powerful, but timing is essential to make full use of it. An untimely fireball is just a waste of lore tokens.

and so on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Battlelore is as complex as chess, or as realistic as, say, ASL. But I think it is a deeper tactical game than many people claim. Still, maybe it is not your game after all.
On your suggestion about letting at least order any one unit at will in any card, I don't think I like the idea. One of the key aspects of Battlelore is learning to make the best use of what orders you have (and will have), and that way it would be like putting a joker card in a poker game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Kostek
United States
Camano Island
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
While I love BL, the OP has some valid points.

BL does indeed occupy a niche of being too complex for some light-gamers and too light for some heavy gamers.

As a way to play with little army guys, however, it's hard to beat IMO.

As a tangent, I argue the chaos and randomness of BL is *more* realistic than many other games. In real warfare you simply don't have good control of what's going on.

Whether or not that makes a fun game is a totally different question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, in poker you can play (and win) on bad cards.


I guess what I would have liked to see is something like the card system in La Citta, where you do have a limited number of generic cards and access to a random collection of more specialised and powerful cards. Thus you are not completely at the mercy of the random draw, but you can't rely on just your generic cards either.

I don't mind hand management as a concept, I'm just not a great fan of how it is done in this game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TarjeiAasen wrote:
Well, in poker you can play (and win) on bad cards.
Same is true in BattleLore, and for the same reason - no such thing as an inherently bad card (well, maybe Shadow Walk ), just cards that lie somewhere on the spectrum of effectiveness in relation to other cards and (here's a departure from the poker analogy ) for particular situations on the board.

There will be times in the game where Scout Right is a "better" card than Mounted Charge, where Hills Rumble is useless and Blur can win the game. Playing into situations where ones hand gives one higher numbers of possible plays in response to opponent's plays is how the game is won on a consistent basis. One has to play according to the hand one currently has, and play judiciously towards the opportunities the board and the hand present. This is where the tactical richness of the game is mined.

Also, while having the option of ordering any single unit rather than a particular command card's orders may be a fine house rule, it does give an out for a player who has outplayed their hand, as well as blunt the advantage that an increased command gives one player has another - for instance if player 1 has a command of 6 versus player 2's command of 4. This is an integral part of establishing advantages in Commands and Colors games.

But, as Ted suggested, whether one finds all of that fun or not is certainly another matter laugh I find it so

EDIT: O, and to add another poker similarity, plenty of bluffing and calling of bluffs going on in a well-played game of BL ninja

EDIT II: Man, I just don't shut-up about this game - a couple good general hand management strategies for those new (and old, for that matter) to the game that I had intended to bring up are:
1) play section cards before tactic cards (idea being that there is typically more flexibility within the tactic cards' orders)

2) play smaller order cards before bigger order cards (same idea as 1) )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dodge
United States
Highland
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
TarjeiAasen wrote:
Well, in poker you can play (and win) on bad cards. ;)
There will be times in the game where Scout Right is a "better" card than Mounted Charge, where Hills Rumble is useless and Blur can win the game. Playing into situations where ones hand gives one higher numbers of possible plays in response to opponent's plays is how the game is won on a consistent basis. One has to play according to the hand one currently has, and play judiciously towards the opportunities the board and the hand present. This is where the tactical richness of the game is mined.

An example of this is while playing my sons in a Reluctant Allies game I needed one more kill to tie him in banners and take the game into "overtime" as I made my approach to kill a unit that only had its banner bearer left, my sons smiled and produced a lore card that allowed them to retreat the banner bearer three hexes and, thus, win the game. Not a great card in most situations but certainly the most important card in the deck in this situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
14cross wrote:
[Scatter/Evade is] not a great card in most situations but certainly the most important card in the deck in this situation.
Believe me, your point is not lost on me, but for what it's worth, I highly value that card. Holding it enables me to play with a lot more abandon and be aggressive, knowing I've got an out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
Same is true in BattleLore, and for the same reason - no such thing as an inherently bad card
A card doesn't have to be inherently bad, it just has to be bad in the situation at hand. Whether or not it might be good in another situation isn't much comfort all the while they are randomly drawn and not selected. I don't mind Warhammer units being situational, but then they aren't allocated randomly, I pick them.

And a lot of the battlelore cards are often quite situational. On average, each card can order one third of your units (though of course not all of those at once most of the time). So out of six cards, you might expect two that are useable on a particular unit.

I'm not arguing that here are cards that aren't useful at anything, I'm arguing that that more cards should be useful at more things.

But that depends on what you want out of a game. More randomness lets you play against kids on a more even field than you could in a game with little randomness, as who wins is more random which is a relative advantage for the unskilled player.

So while some people think it's nice that you can win the game by having the one correct card to retreat a unit three hexes, other people will say that this makes the game too random and depended on luck of the draw to be interesting.

My gamer friends is of the latter type and don't want to play the game anymore.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TarjeiAasen wrote:
On average, each card can order one third of your units (though of course not all of those at once most of the time). So out of six cards, you might expect two that are useable on a particular unit.
This is a fallacy. The actual odds that a particular non-creature unit may be ordered from a random draw of a full deck ranges between 47% and 57%. For a creature, given at least three lore present, that rises to 88%, or 92% if it is ranged attack capable.

But, depending upon the next draw to give one a viable play is either poor hand management, an actively made decision to take an acceptable risk, or being caught unaware by an opponent's unaccounted for movement/affect on the board.

The lore deck gives another level of control over the proceedings that is harder to quantify, as the combinations and possibilities are complex (or, at least more complex than I'm willing to calculate laugh ) - but it is substantial. Also, the ability to affect the game while it is the opponent's turn offers a level of control/influence that is largely absent in the other incarnations of C&C games.

There are many elements of chance in BL, yes. However, there are many, many decisions to be made that affect the nature and potency of those elements. Decisions and ramifications of those decisions that are not evident and clear upon a couple of plays - which is one issue I have with the subject of this thread, and perhaps why I keep feeling compelled to comment in it
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dann May
Australia
Victoria
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Hi! Pleased to meet you.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally I think you gotta play BattleLore with an understanding that it isn't neccesarily going to be a fair fight.

You're gonna sometimes get dealt some dud cards, make some horrible rolls and maybe get wiped off the battelfield by an opponent with fate on his side. But for me the game is actually all about the fun of trying to command amongst that chaos and make the best of what transpires and the situation at hand.

At the end of the battle, its pretty clear who has had the most luck (and its not a good game to brag a lot afterwards), but I find it satisfying to have won or even lost knowing things havent been going my way and yet I've made a brave stand. It always makes for a good story and I guess why they dubbed it "Epic Fantasy Adventures".

I still reckon its got some solid tactical considerations that have a big impact on the game. And even when things are falling apart luckwise, you still gotta make the hard call and take an action that is available to you, your luck may turn, your men may rally, or lose faith and run...something's are simply out of your control sitting in your little tent on the hill.

In terms of pure numbers it's often not an even fight. But as far as its use of randomness goes, I think it uses it in a very thematic and appropriate way, challenging you to take command, take your opportunities and test your men's mettle when you can gain the most, which is why I think it's a great game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
There are many elements of chance in BL, yes. However, there are many, many decisions to be made that affect the nature and potency of those elements. Decisions and ramifications of those decisions that are not evident and clear upon a couple of plays - which is one issue I have with the subject of this thread, and perhaps why I keep feeling compelled to comment in it
I can understand that if you are really enthusiastic about a game, it can be hard not to feel compelled to defend it. And I don't think we are on exactly the same page either, which makes it more difficult to discuss things.

So I shall paraphrase my initial post to say that there is a fair bit of stuff (this should be self-evident) and a fair bit of luck (evidenced by people having fun playing it with their kids) in the game. That is not to say that you don't need to think to win, but prolonged back luck with the cards or the dice that can affect the result noticeably is not uncommon and less easy to compensate for than in other games.

You can't mind a fair bit of stuff and a fair bit of luck to enjoy this game. If you mind either (as most of my friends do), or both, you're not going to have fun.
If you don't mind either and you think a fair bit of stuff or a fair bit of luck makes a game interesting, you are probably going to enjoy it. If you like both, then it is probably an excellent game for you.

I can see it as a game that can be good to play with someone you think will later enjoy more serious battle games, because it introduces some concepts that a lot of battle games have in common, it is quick to play (if only it was quick to set up ) and looks very nice without the need to paint it. For example you could be a battle gamer yourself and you want to introduce your kids to the genre.

However, someone who is just a casual gamer and not looking to get into battle games is likely to find the amount of rules frustrating, and someone who is already a battle gamer and wants a quick little alternative is likely to find the amount of luck frustrating.

Thus whether or not BattleLore is worth investing in depends on which group of players your opponents are most likely to fit into.


Luck and skill are not mutually exclusive concepts in a game - it is not as if a game either is a matter of luck or a matter of skill - and as you say there are decisions to be made that affect the potency of luck in the game somewhat. However, you have a greater chance of beating a more skilled player in this game than in most other battle games. As shown above, with the right card at the right time, Junior can beat Dad, and that can be just great if that is what you are looking for.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TarjeiAasen wrote:

I can understand that if you are really enthusiastic about a game, it can be hard not to feel compelled to defend it. And I don't think we are on exactly the same page either, which makes it more difficult to discuss things.
I believe (perhaps incorrectly ) that we are on the same page. I think I understand the nature of your comments and my responses are intended to help show the degree to which I believe them to be accurate and the degree to which I believe them to be misleading, from the vantage of one who has played many games of BattleLore. It is my intention as well that this is being done in a way that is helpful to those who may be looking for more depth to this game than drawing the proper card and rolling the proper roll.

Of course I would like you to be one of those persons , but I've been playing this game and other C&C games for a length of time to have seen that once it gets branded as having "too much luck", it is often dismissed.

Quote:
So I shall paraphrase my initial post to say that there is a fair bit of stuff (this should be self-evident) and a fair bit of luck (evidenced by people having fun playing it with their kids) in the game. That is not to say that you don't need to think to win, but prolonged back luck with the cards or the dice that can affect the result noticeably is not uncommon and less easy to compensate for than in other games.
The way the game is presented (through both the base game adventure booklet and the manner in which the larger game has been expanded) is in such a way that the fair bit of stuff can be introduced at a pace determined by the players involved, and one in which as stuff is added to the game, mechanisms become available to the player to give them greater control and influence over the elements of chance in the game.

I can give concrete examples of this, and will if requested, but the best way to see this is to play the game at its fuller capacities after playing it in its more introductory modes.

So:

Quote:
However, someone who is just a casual gamer and not looking to get into battle games is likely to find the amount of rules frustrating,
For this person I would suggest starting with Agincourt and playing it as instructed by the adventure booklet, focusing just on using the cards to order the units and getting used to the units' movement and impact on the board in a very bare bones fashion. Very few things to worry about when played in this manner, and a checker-like experience with dice and cards can be had. If at this point the game is determined to be too complex - can it. If at this point the game is determined to be just the right mix - keep playing it in this manner. If at this point the game is seen as having too much of a tilt towards chance and unsatisfying in terms of tactical and strategic decision making - move on to the further adventures (or dismiss it if patience is thin, plenty of other games to visit ).

Quote:
...and someone who is already a battle gamer and wants a quick little alternative is likely to find the amount of luck frustrating.
For this person, if a quick little alternative to games such as ASL or GBoH is what is being looked for, BattleLore can fill that niche, but it is not ultimately for what the game is aiming. While games of BattleLore played utilizing very few of the total array of mechanics that can be involved do place the balance of determining the victor upon the dice results, games with full war councils or larger armies and medieval lore rules, played to larger numbered banner victory conditions, and/or using the greater space afforded by the Epic expansion, bring so many more variables of success to the game, that it will boil down to which player is making the better decisions on balance throughout the entirity of the game.

I would challenge the player that finds the role of chance in this game frustrating to attempt to adapt their tactical decisions to how the game models the battles rather than force their expectations upon the game. If that is an impossible exercise for that particular player then, again, yeah, time to move on.

Quote:
Thus whether or not BattleLore is worth investing in depends on which group of players your opponents are most likely to fit into.
And I would add to this that it depends greatly upon how the game is presented to them.


Quote:
Luck and skill are not mutually exclusive concepts in a game - it is not as if a game either is a matter of luck or a matter of skill - and as you say there are decisions to be made that affect the potency of luck in the game somewhat. However, you have a greater chance of beating a more skilled player in this game than in most other battle games. As shown above, with the right card at the right time, Junior can beat Dad, and that can be just great if that is what you are looking for.
Do not underestimate Junior devil

If what one requires of a particular game is that the best play is always rewarded with the best results at each step of the game, then no, BattleLore is not the game to play. In the same manner that the Nuggets should be up 1-0 on the Lakers, but find themselves down a game - this is how BattleLore plays: If the Nuggets continue to play at the level they played, and the Lakers theirs, the series will be over in 5-6 games in the Nuggets favor.

BattleLore rewards persistence in a way that few other games do. If one continues to play to the advantages that their position offers, and does so in a manner consistently better than the opposition, the war, if not the battle, will be won.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Santi Velasco
Spain
Mairena del Aljarafe
Seville
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd like to add just one little thing to what Tod said. A big problem with BL for many people is, I think, that there are gamers who like their games to be mechanisms by which they can confront one's intellect against his opponent's in the "fairest" and "cleanest" way possible, thus avoiding luck strokes amongst other things. Well, BL is not one of these games. Most of the time you're not facing only you opponent but a lot of turmoil in the battlefield, sometimes in your favor, sometimes not. This can be frustrating for some people and allow for some victories you could call unfair or cheap but, on the other hand it leads to a sense of battling against all odds that is very dramatic, tense and undoubtely epic. And never forget that, as in poker, most of the time the best player wins the day.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Santi - said better in 100 words what I take 1000 to try to convey
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarjei Aasen
Norway
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
... my responses are intended to help show the degree to which I believe them to be accurate and the degree to which I believe them to be misleading...
You play against kids with (presumably) little experience in battle games and find the amount of luck appropriate, I play against adults with considerably more experience and find the amount of luck a bit much.

Neither point of view is more accurate or misleading than the other, because it depends on the context. If we played against the same type of people and had a different experience, then one point of view could be more or less accurate than the other.

I hope we can agree on that and end our little discussion as it is rather pointless.
(If you like, it's a bit akin to trying to convince a person who prefers dogs that cats are best - it's not going to happen because the things that make her prefer dogs are also the things that will make her not prefer cats.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TarjeiAasen wrote:

You play against kids with (presumably) little experience in battle games and find the amount of luck appropriate, I play against adults with considerably more experience and find the amount of luck a bit much.
Actually, aside from the odd game with my son - who's now 11, the vast majority of the BL games I play are against other adults with a wide range of gaming backgrounds.

Quote:
Neither point of view is more accurate or misleading than the other, because it depends on the context. If we played against the same type of people and had a different experience, then one point of view could be more or less accurate than the other.
I would never call a point of view accurate/inaccurate, and if my comments have lead any to believe that I find a particular point of view to be "incorrect", then it is I who have been misleading. However, if the game is to be characterized as being "too luck-based" I will point to concrete examples that counter that opinion, as it has been my experience that many of these characterizations are made without taking in the whole experience that the game system of BattleLore offers. But, for example, saying that only 1/3 of the cards will affect a particular unit is inaccurate and misleading, tilting the perception of the game as more chance oriented than it truly is.

Quote:
I hope we can agree on that and end our little discussion as it is rather pointless.
(If you like, it's a bit akin to trying to convince a person who prefers dogs that cats are best - it's not going to happen because the things that make her prefer dogs are also the things that will make her not prefer cats.)
I don't find it pointless at all, as I love to prattle on and on about this game though I will say that I won't reply to comments not made laugh

And, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, rather discuss the game on the merits that it does have. If someone likes cats and feels this game a dog, I've no problem with that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |