Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

BattleLore: Heroes Expansion» Forums » General

Subject: Do you think battle savvy improves battlelore? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Danny Frahm
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played about 6 games since gencon and I'm still a bit unsure about whether battle savvy is an improvement. The game has become much more agressive leaving less time to slowly prepare your positions. instead charging mounted units and ignoring bold seems to be the new way to play. This has changed the game into a much more aggressive game, but not necessarily better. Agression from turn one means you are more reliant on a good starting hand.

Do you think battle savvy is a rules improvement?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Battle savvy is just a mechanism to let the average Joe unit go after Heroes. Personally, i think it is poorly implemented byt giving the power to everyone in a scenario. I would ratehr have only seen it given to select few or earned somehow. But maybe it is just a foretaste of a campaign system to be released in the future.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Frahm
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Battle Savvy is a big parcel of things, however the key mechanic I'm talking about is the ability to battle back if as long as the unit isn't destroyed and remains adjacent to the attacker. Now that is pretty big deal in Battlelore.

In all honesty the original battlelore was about patience and remaining bold. This always favoured a defensive and patient player - who would position his troops and spend bad cards and develop a hand of good ones before making his move. Usually my opponents would over extend themselves and I would be able to crush them by remaining bold having as many possible units within reach. Also saving my good cards till I saw the whites of their eyes. For me this was the vibe of original Battlelore.

Now, it feels as though units are in each other’s face very quickly, there is little time to set up formations and cycle through bad card draws.

I feel as though there are less tactical decisions for the player. In original battle lore reorganising divided units was a legitimate/strong use of a card, especially if you didn't think your opponent could attack you without breaking his bold formation. Now if a unit is within striking range its better to try to get that first strike in and destroy the unit than grouping the units into a bold formation on the chance that a flag is rolled and your unit isn't destroyed. This leads to almost none of the units attempting to get bold status unless its really convenient.

The overall vibe of battle savvy feels as though you are forced to continually attack when within reach. Also there feels like there is less time to cycle out bad cards from your starting hand before things start getting heavy and you begin trading blow for blow.

I may need to rediscover the hidden tactics and subtleties but I haven't seen any yet ...

PS. my hero balance is way out in the games I'm playing. My mate has a Champion Warrior with 6d and a fear blade ... very nasty. While I have a Wizard leader whom can convert lore into one hit and rolls 1d extra against mounted and ignores one shield against mounted.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Battle Savvy is essentially how combat works in Commands & Colors: Ancients. That is, if you aren't killed and don't retreat, you can battle back. I don't see that as a bad thing for professional units particularly later in the medieval period.

Remember that having support means that you also ignore a flag, which means that unsupported units are less likely to be able to battle back.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joachim Pehl
Germany
Daubach
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In C&C:A it is definitely an improvement, but in BL it could be a little problematic. The main difference here is that in C&C:A a flag can be deadly since units have to retreat as much spaces as they can move, with any kind of cavalry and light troops this usually is a big deal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Frahm
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I've figured out some of the issues with Heroes I've been having. Battle start a lot quicker due to the closer starting positions of the armies. The starting setup in Heroes campaigns are approximately 3 hexes where the starting positions in Original BL is approximately 4.

I guess I liked the distance before because you needed to move up your troops in an organised fashion before launching an assault. Now I just rush whatever cards I have, bolding if convenient.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Searles
United States
Providence
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When playing Call to Arms we consider Battle Savvy a specialist card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Niemcz
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
without battle savvy heroes would easily splint wings or the center where they would be at the moment and 'normal troops' wouldn't be able to battle back. so splitting bold formation (with heroes much easier) would end up with easy massacre.
But now dwarves are becoming weak. I found them worse than goblins earlier (flexibility of 'rush'), but now they turned worthless, when literally any blue infantry can be sent out as a lure and kill several figures in battlebacks...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.