BattleLore Report
Al and I met at 7 at DL to play BattleLore. I set up while Al skimmed the rules. I covered a few more items, and we started. We played a scenario w/ full lore rules, but a fixed council to keep it a little simpler. I had lots of cards, but Al had more total lore masters.
Things ebbed and flowed across the battlefield. As always I never had quite enough control over my troops. The variety of troops was nice. Different kinds of foot and cavalry, a few archers.
The lore helps to smooth out the luck, IMO. Rather than a straight-up miss, you pick up a lore token, which softens the sting. Then your lore cards help you mitigate poor command cards to some degree. Plus the lore council is fairly cool. It's only "cool" rather than "super-cool" because there's a lot of overlap among the different cards reducing the differences among the people.
The downside of all this cool stuff? The game takes longer. Al and I were tied 4-4 @ 9 when we had to leave. The lore deck has to be set-up, and then it requires shuffling on top of deploying the units. The extra stuff in the lore cards, especially healing, stretches out the game. For example I had a healing mist that let me reinforce several weak units, otherwise Al would have won before we had to leave.
I don't have any real complaints, but if I were going to make one up it would be duration to complexity ratio. The game length might be pushing it a little bit for this game. If I'm going to invest that much time in a single game, I'd like to have a lot of control, but the system is set-up to deny you a lot of control.
I like the game and the C&C system. Unit variety, terrain, chaos, magic. At an abstract level it actually models warfare pretty well. Fast and simple for a wargame.
Anyone looking to play?
Labels: ramblings, Review, session report
posted by Ted @ 9:53 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Excellent report and review, Ted. A couple comments:
1. Play time will decrease with repeated play. I've played about 5-6 games now, and I think the latest ones with full Lore are clocking in at under 2 hours.
2. If you want to improve the complexity/duration ratio, you need to play C&C: Ancients. You loose all the fantasy elements, but you gain more depth in the tactical strategy on the board.
Battlelore as a means of replaying some of my favorite medieval battles. I agree with you, Ted, cool but not yet super-cool.
CnC:A is still #1 for now. It has so far done a better job of achieving the epic feel of a major engagement. But Battlelore is still young, and there is much promise.
Well, that was a mess. I meant to begin with "Great report, as I'm more wowed by medieval history than anything else, I'll continue to experiment with..." And I'm not even drinking heavily.
Great report Ted!
To me, BL is just right. I wouldn't change anything. It's fast (less than 2hrs with experienced players), full of flavor, and fun. Definitively, in the Lore system is where its strength lies.
Now, if you want more flexibility overall, you need to adjust the War council to your play style (which means you'll have to play scenarios that allow you to tinker with the War Council points).
Want more control over your
units? Heck, who doesn't want that? Well, invest more Points on your Commander (ie increase your hand size) at the expense of lower level magical Lore masters. You want more magic? Forget the Commander.
You know....I don't know why, but it bugs me the number of people trying to complicate things tinkering with this or that in a game which I think was meant to be simple and full of flavor (nothing against you Ted...it's against the overwhelming number of posters that keep coming up with ideas to tinker with stuff in this game to make it more 'realistic').
Apparently the next version planned to pop out golden goose Richard Borg's oviduct will be Command and Colors: Napoleonics. I'm not sure which board game farmer will be the lucky recipient of this gleaming egg. Though I hope I'm wrong, I suspect GMT will be Borg's next nesting place.
BattleLore is still a shining star in my collection, even though there's slightly less protein beneath the hood, to scramble just a few more methaphors.
BTW, in my opinion the Rogue deck is by far the most creative and fun to play with. The Cleric and Mage seem pretty similar and are good seconds. However, the one deck I do dislike is the Warrior deck. I'm not saying anything is broken or unbalanced, but clearly I have not figured out how to use the Warrior effectively.
I wish I liked the Command and Colors system more. There're so many themes to choose from, options, and flavor (not to mention the usual fantastic production quality). I enjoy playing them, but after all is said and done, I never quite feel satisfied with the experience. It's like eating a big, tasty piece of cake and then getting a stomach ache. Still, I wish more of my favorite games would take this "churning" approach to their systems. I need more Blue Moon decks dammit!
(I should be careful what I wish for...stupid Marvel Heroscape...)
Speaking of games being churned out... I should be getting the latest Runebound set (Sands of somethingorother) in today. For such a relatively simple game system, its amazing the diversity FFG's team is able to come up with for the characters, monsters, items, etc. The item deck alone is approaching 6 inches in height! Its true shuffling the beast is a bit of a pain, but its hard to imagine ever running out of replayability.
One thing that would enhance any of the CnC versions is a campaign, even a very simple tree-style one, that made the results of one game have an effect on the next game.
This was done is Warhammer Historical's Vlad the Impaler, using Vlad Dracula's bitter war with the Ottoman Turks in 1462 as a backdrop to link the games together. I have a goal to convert this into Battlelore terms. Medieval soldiers believed in heavenly intervention, witchcraft, etc. as all playing a huge role in their sucesses and failures, so a well-balanced fantasy game is a natural for fun medieval battles.
But enough theories, I agree that playing the game "as is" is the best way to learn its finer points. I have Saturday morning/early afternoon, or Saturday evening, or Sunday evening, or all day Monday as potential Battlelore or other CnC gaming. What's up for this weekend?
My "non-complaint" is not that I want to tinker w/ the rules, and I don't dislike the fact you don't have nearly enough control over your troops.
Rather my non-complaint is that if I'm going to invest several hrs into a 2 player game it better have some "teeth". BattleLore keeps it around 2 hrs, and it's still good at that length.
The "big board," however, does not interst me. Such battles would take quite a while, and I don't think the C&C system works for that magnitude game.
Sort of like how Monopoly might be fun if it only took 30-45 min, but longer is too long.
Customizing the lore council is better in concept than actuality, IMO. Seems like the big choice is to have a 3rd level guy or to have lots of 1st level guys. Not that many cards use levels, but a 3rd level guy gets a stronghold. It means there's not a lot of point in having a 2nd level dude, except for the Commander.
Re: Sat morning
Steve! I'm your guy! You are probably too new to have read my old post about being a morning gamer. I could be ready to play @ 8a. We could do it at my place or yours. My place = My fresh coffee; your place = I bring good bagels.
Email me; t_kostek (at) yahoo (dot) com.
Holy cow.... let me get this straight... you'd drive all the way to my house, plus bring fresh bagels? Ted, I'm going to have to clear some upcoming Saturday mornings!!
Ted, e-mail sent.
I'm curious about the "big board" rules as they might be a blockbuster way to end a campaign.
Probably not as ideal for one-off games.
And I'm certain I could convert Kingmaker cards into Battlelore units. Plenty to think about down the road.
And yes, they are good bagels. He's brought them over in the past. Man, I need some more block gaming. Where's Mark?
Post a Comment
<< Home