I guess what I meant by the game being dead was just what you mentioned, forgotten and cast into the vortex of lost time by those at FFG lol
Come on FFG give some love to battlelore
You've likely seen other threads addressing what you intended by "Is it dead?" - but a condensed version of what you'll find in those is "not sure."
It is quite possible that FFG is giving BattleLore all the love it can muster and is fully intent on continuing to support the game by releasing future expansions that expand the races of the game, introduce a campaign style of play, continue to improve Call to Arms, etc., well into an unknown futre. It is also quite possible that Code of Chivalry represents the last expansion of the game that FFG will release, as in one sense its appearance neatly ties up the three existing races and "completes" every element that DoW had produced for the game.
While I would much prefer the outcome to be closer to the former, if the latter (or a similar version of it) ends up being the reality for whatever reasons, in some shape or form the elements of additional races, campaigns, Call to Arms variations/race specific decks, additional Lore cards, and whatever else one can come up with, will see the light of day. For me personally, I hope that those further developments are coming from the hand of a game company being guided by Richard Borg, rather than a (or several...) loose group of players of the game.
The more players aware of this game, the better. I miss the days of popping on to Vassal and instantly finding others waiting to play the game. I had looked forward to DoW pushing its vision of online community that included a playable version of the game as the have done with Memoir '44 and were planning on doing with BattleLore. I still harbor hope of stumbling across local players of the game for face to face plays.
is Westros the same system? have you played that also ?? how does it compare if so ??
If so it makes you think, should I just get westros that is currently being given attention from FFG, I understand its pretty much personal prefrence as to which box/world floats your boat but its nice to know that the company that owns the game still has some love for it.
Westeros is not a Command and Colors game as BattleLore is (other current C&C games are: Battle Cry - American Civil War; Memoir '44, World War II; C&C:Ancients - Ancient Warfare; and C&C:Napoleonics - Napoleon era battles). I am familiar with the rules but have not played it yet. To me the bigger changes are 1) less dependence upon hand management/greater "control" over specific units and 2) more dependence upon leader/character involvement in the action (a more integrated Heroes, if one will). The combat system more explicitly favors "heavier" units over lighter ones, and introduces a few more complex (please note I did not say better ) implementations of ideas such as flanking and breaking engagement, but on the whole does not differ greatly from other C&C games in that regard - my opinion.
When FFG initially introduced Westeros, the indication was that Westeros would provide a more "straight" medieval experience, while BattleLore would focus primarily on fantasy. I have been made happy to see that FFG has, so far, continued the path set out by DoW of providing both fantasy and historical elements to the game, as evidenced by the latest expansion for BL, Code of Chivalry, which provides four historical based adventures that use the Medieval Lore system set up for such conflicts (but also works very well for "limited fantasy" battles). I've not understood the desire to limit the game to one aspect or the other - if a particular player wishes to eschew one of those, by all means the opportunity to deprive is just as available as the opportunity to indulge the way the game is currently produced.
Beginning to ramble a bit, but thanks for the opportunity to discuss these matters