Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BattleLore: Heroes Expansion» Forums » General

Subject: Does this expansion effectively turn BattleLore into C&C:A? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it me or is this basically just a supplement to make this game for like C&C:A? I haven't played it, and honestly I haven't even read the rules. But from what I've read here on the Geek, it sounds like it.

I love BattleLore but I'm not a fan of C&C:A at all. I like that you must maintain formations to get the Bold/Battleback (I detest that everyone get's Battleback in C&C:A). The Battle Savvy sounds like it reiterates general a general Battleback that you get from C&C:A killing the need for formations.

The Heroes seem like Generals/Leaders. They seem like they are more work than worth...

I like the idea of the treasures, but I'm not sure if I want to buy this expansion for the treasures alone.

Please tell me I'm wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, Battle Savvy units are basically the same as C&CA units, in that they can battle back if they aren't forced to leave the hex. In both games, having two units allows you to ignore a flag, which makes it more likely that you'll stay in the hex. And, yes, heroes are like C&CA leaders, though you're usually limited to only one per side, and there are a lot more pseudo-RPG rules in BL Heroes, with heroes being able to collect artifacts and being able to continue on campaigns until they take too many wounds and are forced to retire.

The Heroes rules are online at FFG's site; I'd recommend you download them and make up your own mind.

I myself always thought that BattleLore combat was too all-or-nothing. I have no objection to forcing levy troops to have a tougher time battling back if they aren't supported, though I would have preferred it if you lost dice for lack of support (e.g., lose 1 die if you aren't supported in one hex, or lose 1 die for each hex up to 2 where you lack support) rather than forfeiting your battle back completely. That way, medium and heavy units would suffer if they weren't in a bunch, but they would be able to at least hit back.

I also wonder how different the Britons and Gauls are from medieval units. I can certainly see levy units from either period as being reluctant to hit back without support. But, are C&CA Britons and Gauls "battle savvy" but the medieval Norman, French and English units (at least prior to the Heroes expansion) aren't? Many wargame rules make the distinction between "regular" and "irregular" armies and the differences in getting units to maneuver and react. It seems like "regular" armies/units should be battle savvy and irregulars not, whether they are ancient or medieval.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Frahm
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No. It's a horrible hybrid between the two. Check out my review for what to expect.

By the sounds of it you probably won't like this expansion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sisteray wrote:
Please tell me I'm wrong.


You're wrong. Sorta

sisteray wrote:
Is it me or is this basically just a supplement to make this game for like C&C:A? I haven't played it, and honestly I haven't even read the rules. But from what I've read here on the Geek, it sounds like it.

I love BattleLore but I'm not a fan of C&C:A at all. I like that you must maintain formations to get the Bold/Battleback (I detest that everyone get's Battleback in C&C:A). The Battle Savvy sounds like it reiterates general a general Battleback that you get from C&C:A killing the need for formations.


Small disclaimer: while I have read the rules, I have not played using Heroes yet.

Like you, I also love BattleLore. Unlike you, I also love C&C:Ancients. Like you, I do not like Battle Savvy at all. When I first read about it, I thought it would apply to a select few units, not every unit on the board. There are plenty of other threads where I go into detail why I prefer the original Medieval Tactics to the addition of Battle Savvy, but I think you know exactly what I am talking about. It fits much better with the mechanics of Ancients than it does with those of BattleLore.

While Battle Savvy (if one chooses to play by those rules) does make the game more like C&C:Ancients, the differences in the Command and Lore decks of BL to the Command deck of Ancients, along with the lower dice totals/lower hit rates, and the absence of on board leaders in BL (I'll go more into that to alleviate your fears of Heroes turning the game into C&C:A ) make the game play quite distinct between the two.

sisteray wrote:
The Heroes seem like Generals/Leaders. They seem like they are more work than worth...

I like the idea of the treasures, but I'm not sure if I want to buy this expansion for the treasures alone.


The Heroes in BL do have similar basic mechanics to the Leaders in C&C:A, but there are very divergent mechanics as well. The Leaders in C&C:A are integrated into the fabric of that game - the command deck is built around them, going into close combat without them is begging to get crushed. In BL Heroes do have influence on the unit with which they are attached, but the influence stops there (as far as I know - I haven't looked at all the artifacts, etc), and unlike the Leaders in C&C:A, the Heroes of BL are potent on their own, acting as Champions. In BL the Heroes take on a much greater RPG-ish role (redundant?) than in C&C:A (I suspect most don't even consider the Leaders in Ancients to be of an RPG nature at all). The Heroes of BL have a vastly wider range of abilities than the Leaders of C&C:A, which are mostly generic, save for a couple like Caesar and Alexander who have die modifiers,etc.

Heroes in BL are entirely optional, and if the RPG nature they bring to the game are not ones cup of tea, no need to bother with them. In C&C:A, Leaders are a fundamental part of the game. In that regard, BL is still distinct from the mechanics of C&C:A even if Battle Savvy catches on

EDIT: typos corrected

4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kentreuber wrote:
I myself always thought that BattleLore combat was too all-or-nothing. I have no objection to forcing levy troops to have a tougher time battling back if they aren't supported, though I would have preferred it if you lost dice for lack of support (e.g., lose 1 die if you aren't supported in one hex, or lose 1 die for each hex up to 2 where you lack support) rather than forfeiting your battle back completely. That way, medium and heavy units would suffer if they weren't in a bunch, but they would be able to at least hit back.


Apologies to the OP if this is getting too far off-topic, but I don't see the lack of a battle back for non-bold units as modeling them not fighting back, rather a modeling of superior numbers and position. The non-bold unit's opportunity to respond will not come during the opponent's turn (unless aided by a lore card, etc), but on the controlling player's next turn - still same battle If positioning is such that the unit is bold, then one will have to think twice before attacking, risking the battle back, plus retort on the controlling player's next turn.

In Ancients the dynamics are a little different, in that if a unit is targeted by two medium or heavy units and a leader is involved, one expects that unit to either be retreating or leaving the board. In BL one expects on the average three or more attacks needed to take a unit out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While Heroes might fill a niche in BattleLore that is filled by Leaders in C&C:A, I don't think they are quite the same. Heroes can grow in experience and ability and tracking their progress from battle-to-battle is a neat twist.

Leaders are certainly critical in C&C:A, but, unless you are Alexander or Caesar, are utterly generic. There's no investment in making decisions about Leaders to the degree there is with Heroes.

After reading the rules about Heroes, I wanted to mod' them into something similar that could be introduced into 'Ancients!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BradyLS wrote:
After reading the rules about Heroes, I wanted to mod' them into something similar that could be introduced into 'Ancients!


Something like following Spartacus through his battles, gaining leadership, etc. abilities along the way...I like it

I haven't yet, but may sometime generate some mythological creatures for C&C:A along the lines of creatures.

How's that, sisteray, let's make C&C:A more like BattleLore
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Perhaps the Heroes are more interesting than I first thought. To me, it seemed all the troop are merely differentiated by one million die modifiers. Having to deal with a Leader in C&C was an irritant to me. It always felt backwards where you wanted your troops to charge, but then your mom cries out "don't forget to bring a leader" like he's some outsider kid that you bring to the fun out of obligation. If these guys actually did something fun (I don't consider straight die modifiers fun) rather than being a needed tag-a-long I'd be into them.

Still, I'll never play with the Battle Savvy rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Richards
United States
Salem
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never played C&C:A, but I have played a number of games on Heroes. The first few battles of Heroes, the heroes don't do much. They are much too weak, so basically they just sit in a unit and add a battle die. When they have gained some experience (about five or six battles) they are stronger, but still don't dominate the game. They are too easy to kill as champions. Even when they are totally developed, it doesn't change strategy or tactics all that much.

I don't like Battle Savvy, but I play that way with heroes because it is in the rules. It basically is there to make sure the heroes don't just go and pick off straggling units that can't battle back. But yes, the game is deeper with medeival tactics in play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sisteray wrote:
If these guys actually did something fun (I don't consider straight die modifiers fun) rather than being a needed tag-a-long I'd be into them.



What I expect from BattleLore are glee-filled moments, such as holding Backstab as your opponent lauches a Mounted Knight Charging and Besrek-ing into your Green Goblins.

It is the interplay between the units and cards that made this game so appealing to me. As long as the Rock-Paper-Scissors games within the game continue, so will I.

I haven't played Heroes enough to see how much of that is continued, but I certainly see the potential there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
filovirus wrote:
I don't like Battle Savvy, but I play that way with heroes because it is in the rules. It basically is there to make sure the heroes don't just go and pick off straggling units that can't battle back.


I thought that at first too (and still didn't find it a good reason ), but it is clear from FFG and Richard Borg that the intent is now to have Battle Savvy rules for all adventures soblue

If one doesn't want stragglers to get picked off, don't leave stragglers to get picked off. I very much appreciate(d) how the medieval tactics rules forced one to treat the entire army as important and involved in the battle plan, and the player who best coordinates those forces has the upper-hand.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
filovirus wrote:
I don't like Battle Savvy, but I play that way with heroes because it is in the rules. It basically is there to make sure the heroes don't just go and pick off straggling units that can't battle back. But yes, the game is deeper with medeival tactics in play.


If you played without Battle Savvy, your Heroes would be more like Conan-type HEROES. Units fleeing in fear before the Hero as he chases after them! I'll bet Sisterray can't say 'no' to that!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
filovirus wrote:
I don't like Battle Savvy, but I play that way with heroes because it is in the rules. It basically is there to make sure the heroes don't just go and pick off straggling units that can't battle back.


I thought that at first too (and still didn't find it a good reason ), but it is clear from FFG and Richard Borg that the intent is now to have Battle Savvy rules for all adventures soblue

If one doesn't want stragglers to get picked off, don't leave stragglers to get picked off. I very much appreciate(d) how the medieval tactics rules forced one to treat the entire army as important and involved in the battle plan, and the player who best coordinates those forces has the upper-hand.


I also like the way Medieval Tactics work in the game. But I don't see BattleLore as the kind of rigid, "thou shalt not tweak" game that C&C:A Ancients often is among its fans. If two players agree, I say go ahead and play games without Battle Savvy. If it appears that games are ending too quickly or are lop-sided because of the mix of added Heroes and Creatures, maybe play to an extra banner or two.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As long as it doesn't replace the cool little minis with stupid wood blocks with freakin stickers, I'm OK with it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joachim Pehl
Germany
Daubach
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geosphere wrote:
As long as it doesn't replace the cool little minis with stupid wood blocks with freakin stickers, I'm OK with it.


Exactly that would bring back my interest for BL, I started detesting the whole gray Battlelore mass.

About Battle Savy, imo C&C:A is great, but imo it only works with all C&C:A rules, adding only some rules to BL sounds like a bad idea for me.
 
 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.