No disrespect intended, but researching and playing a game is totally different.
Oh I agree. But one can't always try every game unfortunately. If BattleLore comes out with a new army that really appeals to me I might give it a try.
Westeros is fiddly. It is not a streamlined game. Even placing tokens on each unit that moves is fiddly. Engagement tokens, turning banner, command tokens, leadership tokens...
It doesn't seem so to me but I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. Coming from BattleTech the rules seem refreshingly streamlined. BattleLore might feel more so but it might lose out on depth for me. I really like some of the effects they bring and careful balance of resources.
I don't think many people would agree that the leaders are very balanced in BOW - some are and then there are some real out-liers. Magic in Battlelore can certainly vary in power, but there is always a card that you can use to counter it. If you see someone starting to horde lore, you know which cards to keep and which to get rid of very quickly.
D8s make green banner units like glass and red banner units untouchable. The difference in ability is too great. Plonk a red banner unit with "The Mountain" on an building and see if you can move him. If you have green banner units, you can't even capture him unless you get some absurdly lucky circumstances - ridiculous. Even just plonking a red banner unit on an objective makes it very difficult to take it.
Have you played with the optional rules in the FAQ? Specifically the rules for combined fire and reduced strength units? I think those help to make a big difference.
This just demonstrates that you haven't played Battlelore and reflects the "common complaint" about sections that is made by people that have only played a couple of games. By having full control over your army, each move becomes less important as if you miss something, you can usually fix it up on the next turn.
The time limit is so pressing in the scenarios it doesn't feel to me that you can just fix things your next move without it having an effect. But you also don't feel totally helpless on an entire flank either. And because of the varied objectives such a system would really make you pay for bad luck even more so than BattleLore does. Even if I played BattleLore and loved the command corridors in that game I'm still not sure they could ever fit Westeros.
Battlelore has excellent variety, with race abilities as well as a huge spread of regular troops and special troops, you have creatures and heroes as well. BOW's approach of being able to field any troop as a green, blue or red banner unit (depending on the scenario) does not feel right to me and is a false sense of variety.
I wouldn't say it is false. I would say BattleLore has had 4-5 years more expansions and development time than Battles of Westeros has had. It has helped give variety to a limited amount of scultps in the short term and will give a staggering array of units in the future. And I think different experience levels/equipment levels makes perfect sense to me.
The Battles of Westeros miniatures are exceptionally fragile and small. The cavalry are way out of scale with the foot troops.
I really haven't had any problems with them except the Lannister Lances and Pikeman were a bit bent but I fixed that with the hot/cold water trick. A trick I learned from a BattleLore forum.
I think BOW is a fine game in its own right, but compared to Battlelore, to me it completely pales in comparison.
As is BattleLore. How could it not be? It gave birth to my favorite game! The original poster can't go wrong with either choice. It's all in what aspects he thinks is most important. Both games are doing what they're supposed to. They are not, nor should they be, fulfilling the same purpose.