Jump to content

affro

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About affro

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Busto Arsizio, Va, Italy
  1. toddrew said: Here you go, B&K: http://artofgastonbros.blogspot.com/ (guess I should provide a warning that one won't find any other revelations for BL, but isn't to say there won't be any revelations a'tal). These guys were on the canceled Legacy of Kain project. Well, If only seeing Kain and Raziel and a bunch of Saraphan make an appearance as miniatures would be a possibility... Rules ret-con! Battle savvy! All clear now! It's AN HYLDEN TRAP! Geez, am I nerdy, ain't it?
  2. I'm not sure I've understood... so, there are some abilities for the Ogre unit referenced on the card (unreadable on the low res pdf) and not resumed on the manual? Another bit of confusing editing (or something that got under my clunky radar), but an addition I like - the more, the merrier. Perhaps I'm lone, here, but I don't dislike the Call to Arms approach adopted in HoHo: for once, Richard Borg posted a long time ago a list of variant uses of CtA decks; basically, from the maximum of randomness to the maximum of planning, at random all card in your hand and the sections they are assigned to or choose your hand to the last bit from the entire selection, or make your opponent choose your destiny - the evil variant. And, after all, selecting only the three old goblin cards with "human mercenaries" plus the new cards, the decks are something similar the old one (dimension, %, and troop selection), easily tailored to tastes (ye, trashing humans) with Specialist (which, again could benefit from a casual prebattle discarding, to avoid "Mounted Knights Syndrome". Randomize!). So, I think that, really, everything is legitimate here - even if, again, the wording seems shamefully foggy and rushed. However, in perspective, if new races will be published in BL, this kind of system could be interesting, sticking with the usual six-CtA-decks and distributing unevenly the races: Pennants got all the Gobbos and... Elves? Halflings? Lizardmen? Nimble races, and Standards all the Dwarfs? Undeads? Golems? Staltwart and sturdy races?... Or the division could be thematic -Evil/Good, or Mountain/Desert/Sea/Plain/Etc related, or usually related (ye French fight alongside Scot Dwarfs and...) . Adding perhaps some internal differentiation between A, B and C, could evenanswer some perplexities about the original decks, accused of being too similar one to another. About the Ogre/Goblinoid rules relationship: I don't think it exists. It's another "never clearly stated, but common sense" conclusion (by myself, so take it as gamer onanism) that Goblinoid are the units marked with the Gobbos symbol in Adventures. Even in HoHo booklet, they don't have it, so I'd say they are not part of the army (perhaps, a commonly associated mercenary race... Moorish? Or they come from Sicily? Their temperament seems to suggest it...), and are not affected by all Goblinoid special rules.
  3. Yes, I think they forgot the first part - it seems choice of words and editing aren't strong point of manual, lately. Not the first time it happens either, a similar omission was committed with Dwarf Clan Chiefs. Beside: I forgot to mention what do I think about the new Adventures, but Fragmaster beated me on time, under the comments following the news post (and on the Giant Ogre, also: too succulent to miss!): I agree with his opinion, they seem interesting, and bolder in victory condition choices. Like'em!
  4. ... Well, and now Horrific Horde publication is officially up in the news and in the Support section! What do you think of the new rules? Some interesting bits reviewed at speedy light: - Ogres: the expectedly juicest new entry seems a really fun unit. Rampage (or Frenzy) is an ability actually intended to be useful when the unity is NOT supported, 'cause, when forced to retreat, Ogres go BOMB on all adjacent units before compulsory movement. Teleporting the Fatties behind enemy lines is a must, wild evil laughter ensuing. After all speculations, Beast Bands are simply an entirely different breed than Creatures, rulewise almost unrelated: they are referenced at least once as foot units (even if I could expect some FAQ requested to state them as such without doubt), retreat as foot units, well, basically they are a less numerous (and so, more vulnerable) foot unit with Red Banner and a skill to give a real punch. They aren't goblinoid, not marked as such in Adventures' layout and furnished with white bases. Again, these rules on paper seem more interesting when Battle Savvy is NOT a default option for all units on field, but that's perhaps only me. - Goblin Halberdier are Green. A simple yet effective way to differentiate between them and their elite human counterpart. It seems different nations take radically different ways to teach their armies. - Call to Arms: the new cards are implemented adding them to existing Pennant decks: it's not explicitly stated, but it seems to me strongly hinted between the lines to do as you wish with composition, to suit your tastes and tailor the % of Goblinoids to need and avalaiblity. The system is modular: 2x3 cards with only HoHo, 2x3 cards with Goblin Marauders and Skirmisher into the mix. - Rumour Mongering: Giant Ogres are referenced en passant. Go wild. - Adventures: someone seem to have heard my rant and five adventures are already included with the PDF online. HOORAY!... and thanks FFG, I'm confident this is a good decision not only from a consumer, but even from a marketing point of view, nurishing the community for the best.
  5. Hi! Here I am with the answers, after a party night and consequently a terrific hangover... What's my age again? I'm too geeky to be animalhousing around ()... By the way: 1) Yes, the intention was to create a small, enclosed area with only one way in, above all for the feeling of the "lonely castle rock": one of those experiments where I must see if the result is interesting & fun to play or if it bogs down the action, or if it gives too much an edge to ranged units. 2) Yes, it's a two way passage. I should have noted it in the description from the start, however. The reason for using the Den is really trivial: I used two expansions for the Adventure (Heroes, CtA), and a base set, one copy each, so I'm phisically bound by the fact that I can use only one secret passage in combination with the Rogue's den (the forest and the hill being printed on opposite faces of the same tile). It's not so expansion heavy, and with CtA one could include whatever he wants, so I sticked with it. Another anomaly: I used the Pentacle as a stand-off for the Grave... why not immediately the latter? 'Cause the software didn't incorporated graphically the tile yet ()! Lazy me, I should have photoshpped it. 3) My fault, I intended it to be the usual symmetrical 6x for both armies, but I forgot to copy/paste the pertinent line! Sorry! Thanks again, and please, lemme know! I hope it will be a good time!
  6. Niiiice! Waaant! Monsyllabic rapture!
  7. @Toddrew: Thanks! That's fantastic - and I'm flattered ()! And thanks to invite me to play, too: I'd like myself, but unfortunately I'll be out of home today and tomorrow (to party, this time, lucky me)... And I think I'm misteriosly cursed in regard to Vassal: everytime I make my mind up to try it online - and it happened often - something distracts me and I forgot it entirely; true, I'm one of these easily distracted types who lost their head in the middle of action - a friend of mine tried in vain to play some MMORPG with me from many years... @Aenea: I knew this already, but you are a pillar of BL society! Someone should dedicate you a monument! Great!
  8. @ Interceptor: very inspiring, especially the tidbit about the badass Viking who alone slaughtered the hell out of his enemies to control the bridge. To give justice to this brutish scene in BL, one could set conditional events where if a Hero manage to repel enemies from the bridge X turns, reinforcements arrive. Or the opponent lose one VB due to the strenghtened Viking morale. I'd grant bonus for the player singing Viking Hymns all the while - or even Klingon hymns! @Quentaeron: yep, they don't fly themselves. Disney send them fling. And covered the story. What a clever son of a...! Eeeevil!
  9. Well, I wanted to playtest this prior to publish, but it seems that soon I will have (fortunately) a bit less free time thanks to a new job, so, by any chance, let's see the rough draft. Design Premises: 1) This is a CtA map more than a laid out adventure to allow players to use whatever units they have. 2) I phrased perhaps strangely many rules, making it seems more complex than it really is. Sometimes Rulenglish come out a bit as Engrish from me, I apologize. 3) The middle line of the battlefield is dominated by three massive features - the big forest on West, the river in the central section and the hills-montains on East. I included a "secret passage" point of interest where troops can fast travel between two points far away on the battlefield. This, in the intention, will produce local (big) skirmishes, but having not playtested it yet I don't know if they will result more funny or if, instead, they will backfire on my design, producing too much clutter on maneuvering. What do you think? 4) One special Tie Breaker Condition, the possess of a named artifact to spice up things. I hope. Should make the battle longer. 5) The idea is to use the simpler set of Multiplayer rules with some specifics on Heroes instead of Reluctant Allies to see if (partially) conflicting Heroes could make this mode of game shine on his own (many consider it the lesser stepchildren of Epic play, with good reasons)... 6) Speaking of which, the Map is designed to make Heroes bicker at least a little, to be the first to acquire a Treasure, so there are some "Gamer types" which could influence the outcome and pleasure of the battle. The ideal probably is the "Funny Powerplayer" who likes to build up his roleplay Hero and is egotical and diabolical in that sort of way which make all the players laugh at his dirty nastyness. The "Pure Powerplayer", instead, could ruin it, on the contrary. The overly competitive or strongly collaborative gaming group could make the conflict harsher or too bland, too. Let's work to make it suit every taste. 7) The setting is a radical blending and not too much respectful, too, of history and folklore. See this for a fascinating figure, exemplar of Mediterranean legends... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II. Primaluna (which, in Italian, roughly sounds like FirstMoon) is a real location near Lecco, and the birthplace of Della Torres' family. Awe evoking name, never been exactly there, actually, even if I'm not to far from there IRL. The meat: Realized with http://www.battleloreadventure.com/ Background: December 21, 1262 After the death of Lungisguardo, farseer and necromancer, the new Archbishop of Milan, Ottone Visconti, resolved to lead a force of purification against the horrors yet lurking in the depths of the sorcerer's fortress, Rupeferro. Not all the intentions of Ottone were good and pious, however, because great treasures lied in the deep darkness of the dungeons: especially the Living Bronze Head, a mysterious golemish artifact once possessed by Silvestro II, The Mage Pope, capable of predict the future. However, the reckless and infamous Della Torre, rivaling in power the Visconti's family, and historically allied with the dead Lungisguardo, had the same intention, and greedy adventurers flocked under one banner or the other, granting their loyalty, above everything, to their share of the loot... Briefing: Pennants play as Della Torre, Standards play as Visconti Victory: Decisive: 9 banners + possession of the Bronze Head of Innocenzo II at game's Marginal: 9 banners Capture of Rupeferro's Castle (Stronghold Hex) counts as one victory banner as long as a camp occupies it. Possessor of the Bronze Head of Silvestro II at game's end is considered the Supreme Winner of the adventure. See special effects of Rupeferro's Castle for further informations. Special Conditions: OPTIONAL: Battle Savvy rules. Your choice! The river is impassable except at bridges and fords. Lore Masters Landmark rules are NOT in use. Lungisguardo Evil Pentacle Follow Graveyard rules. Place three Chest tokens on the Pentacle hex. A hero may search for hidden treasure in the Pentacle hex (Quest). A hero on the Pentacle at game's end receives an artifact. Rupeferro's Castle Treat as Stronghold, with the following exceptions: the Camp which benefits from the Stronghold morale boost is the camp actually occupying it. Do not discard a command card from your opponent hand while you're occupying the Stronghold. Place three Chest tokens on the Stronghold hex. A hero may search for hidden treasure in the Stronghold (Quest). A Hero on the Stronghold at game's end receives the Bronze Head of Innocenzo II; if there is no Hero on the hex at the end of the battle, the artifact goes to the Camp whose unit is controlling the Stronghold - assign it as a ransom; if no unit occupied the Stronghold at game's end, at last, treat the Head as a ransom for the winning camp. Rupeferro's Secret passage Treat as Rogue's Den - Secret passagge Hexes, but both camps can benefit from their special effect. V VARIANT House Rules: Multiplayer Battle with Heroes (aka Dashing Heroes), for 3-6 players - NOT Reluctant Allies! A player has always complete control of his Hero and any unit for which he acts as a Leader (the Hero "requisites" the unit). When a Section or Tactic card allows to order the Hero, the player has always the right to order it, even if the player in charge of the section's command disagree. Use an alliance marker to signal the unit who'll receive the order. When more Heroes are eligible, Section's player's can choose who will act first.
  10. affro

    Ready to port!

    @ Oshfarms: Don't worry, I really don't mind thread hijacking: it's in the nature of good conversation ()! @ Interceptor: have you tried this: www.battleloreadventure.com/? It's a fanmade-editor and I'm a strong supporter of it, having some good ideas of its own! Good ideas about the roads! Some of them spark the idea of race specifics terrain (Cadaverous Road... gothic!)
  11. I agree about BL not being a GW games, but I probably think it will set at least for two more traditional armies (ye, Elves and Undead) - I don't dare to say more, but... Usually games like this tend to give players "all the classics", to cover the expected iconic and plus some "brand identity" armies: GW tried settled for the Skaven, for example (paradoxically, them too being "a classic" nowadays for the very same reason), after an unfortunate experiment with the Fimir (slightly celtic cyclopean lizard wih a mace tail, a flawed and perhaps unmarketable concept which leaved fond memories in every Heroquest player). One thing sadly underused in BL is the modularity given from the specialist card: I mean, the plethora of new races in that old famous topic from Richard Borg was perhaps too much to manage as full fledged armies, but a mercenary here and there to show that "there is a big weird fantasy world out there" is a simpler and fun way to implement a lot of interesting units. By the way, Elberon is doing something along this line including the "deployment rules" for many of his custom races, taking advantage of CtA; the seemingly welcomed by the community of gamers around the world Summoner Wars is doing this. And when I reread the description of "The Shadow Army" of Richard Borg, where, I think, would end many of the dark doubles of the "forces of light" races, plus, perhaps... Warriors of Chaos? Demons?, I cannot avoid to think about how neatly the basics of a similar system would work. Beside, there are a lot of fun minis out there ready to be customized - the man to ask would be my visually impaired friend cited in another topic, a manic of the littler scales (he has a blog which I'm shamlessly going to promote, now: http://nonerdsland.blogspot.com/ , and, yes, Battle at Affro's as at my home). I'm an urredemable optimistic: I see something new in the future of BL; well, the promises about a "game battle system to end all game battle system, and heavily supported too" perhaps were scattered in the wind, but perhaps the rythm of publishing expansion will be that of Wings of War... I hope!
  12. affro

    Ready to port!

    The (legitimate) concerns about BL future pushed me to think something a like to see ported from BoW (in a broader sense): the tidier distribution model. It seems FFG treasured BL experience and listened to fans' pleas including in the base package as much as possible: an enriched CtA and variable board configuration a la Epic. Now, I want to see that in BL, too, and, seeing the retail price of the new game I'm more and more convinced that if the basic boxed set will be revived (and I don't see many alternative, if they want to mantain both the lines) it will be in the form of two complete fantasy armies (the much clamored Undead and Elves) with their Specialist and CtA decks included, plus some reprints (updated rules, board, token... cards? I'd like to see some novelty in Lore, here...). Not the first time I figured something similar, I know, but given that FFG doesn't seem at all concerned in colonize market niches with even really similar characteristics (I mean, how many dungeon crawls do they publish?), a truely fantasy battle game seem compatible with the plans announced, and clearly branded, too. I'd buy, it, I think. Finally, a minor note: BoW included Road Tiles, a piece of terrain straight from Memoir whose exclusion from base game and expansions I never understood; I mean, plenty of roads, in medieval Europe, and they are something that alter in a significant and interesting way movement and maneuvres on the battlefield, allowing really different clashes with a minor add. Plug it in!
  13. Great! Thanks Elberon: I'm always eager for fanmade goodness and your ideas are always welcome! Fun fun!
  14. affro

    Ready to port!

    OT: Ehm... on the contrary I was fearing reprisal from the mods because talking about ripping parts from one game (BoW) in favor of the other (BL), based exclusively on the web publicated (read: open) rules seem enough a bucaneer act from me... ahr, matey -. freely "Sabotage" from Beasie Boys here ()! Actually, I'm not too inclined to buy BoW EVER, neither C&C: Ancient, nor Memoir, for that matter: I made my choice with BL, and I stick with it; other members of the "family", well, I'm glad to know they exist, but I 'd rather date the beautiful daughter than granny or the little brother, ehm... This, however, don't forbid me to shamelessly take ideas from other ruleset and try to squeeze them in... After all, I even think that Soviet Commissar rules from Memoir could represent thematically well Undead, in a very elegant way - no need to clunky modifiers to movement for slower unit, for example... On a side note: I'd feel a little embarassed if the two product lines blurred together and FFG started to release doubles, I hope not so! I was talking about home rules inspiration, to tell the thruth. Obviously, the purist will add that not all the rules could work well in both settings, for taste, mood, originality (and the controversial Battle Savvy, shared between BL and Ancient demonstrate this), but I've also seen some really creative and well thought Adventures written with the larger scope of all the C&C Game in mind, like the excellent War of the Roses and Battles of the Middle Earth on the old DoW website. Geez, if only I'd more time to test!* Finally, I must admit that, beside the fact that I'm not a huge fan-protectionism practitioneer (and I could not care less even of hominous things like the horrible cosmology change in D&D 4th Edition - I'll simply continue my love interest with old Planescape, ah, take that, WoC!), the major hindrance for BL remain the print of a new base boxed set, and if I'd see someone really interested in the game, and impatient, I'd tell him that BoW is more or less the same - waiting patiently to cannibalize some of his component for some huge, cumbersome and overtly mad project! End of OT! About the Hand Management: you are right, that's a neat idea! It's only unfortunate that, if not "officially translated", it requires a lot of artistic skills, or at least, time consuming activities to test and realize in a Home set... mmmmh... *Speaking of which: anyone experimented with some weird Adventure, perhaps on that "batteloreadventures" site? We posted many times the archives where the memory of old scenario still lives, but we don't see something new from a long time... I know many of you tinkered with it, come on! NB: me too! I was trying to realize a large epic slaughter for multiplayer without Reluctant Allies, but never published because, **** it, I've not playtested it, yet!
  15. affro

    Ready to port!

    That's exactly the kind of insight I was searching for () - About Engagement/Flanking: I agree about the chance of having more static battles implementing the rule, so, it's not something I like to see in every battle, and also about the fact of having the mechanic yet simulated (in a broad sense) by decisions and events on the battlefield (I'm not one of those types who see a "rules vacuum" at every step in BL, by the way, favouring myself simplicity). That said, every now and then, I think it could be interesting using it to exemplify special conditions and causing a change of pace in usual tactics (here in the dynamic of lesser and stronger units, I think). Before I thought of climate variables, but could be also used for urban warfare or a "last stand", and every situation where mobility is compromised; one could also limit it to specific zones (perhaps sections of the battlefield)... Obviously, this is wild speculation, haven't tried it in game. In regard of different ratios: I thought about it, but i confess I cannot establish before time, being a statistic sucker, if that could be really a factor; sure, green units are striken more heavily, and they should come down faster, so, probabilly, a battle strains for more time regardless of the unit involved... but, hands on, I don't know - still wanting to tinker, however! I'll try - About the traits: I bought every expansion 'cept Creatures, having already the Giant and Elemental figure, and I tried that particular Adventure that pits an all-Dwarves vs an all-Goblin army against a friend of mine, first-timer of Battlelore (but not of miniature games in general); he's the type spirited against the "game with hexes", because they corrupt the purity and beauty of wargaming, so I knew I must got things complicated to get him hooked. He chooses also a Fire Dragons as his Creature and... The Battle run smoothly. Really smoothly. The only downside was that it took a good chunk of time to explain him beforehand units ability, and helping him a little bit with banner colours, because he's visually impaired, but he has beaten my a$$ pretty hard thorough the battle using Gobbos and putting into effect his nasty little critter... It was a close, balanced and, above all, FUN battle, so... I'm at all inclined to carry as much "traits" as it seems fit in the game, believing the original "two Specialist" limit more a choice to root BL in the Family Gaming lot, and ease the learning curve, than anything else. My advice is to try the maddest combinations, here, it didn't detract from the game experience, here, on the contrary... About fire: again, I agree about the possibile fiddleness and limit it to specific adventures: something like "The rebel Baron Gustave LeFey obtained the alliance of the ancient Wyrm Flammefureur, and now they want to show deviously to the King of France they are a force to be reckoned, razing the campaign surrounding Avignon"...
×
×
  • Create New...