Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by g1ul10

  1. BattleLore 2nd edition plays very differently from the 1st. It still has command cards and lore cards. You still play a command cards to order units based on type or section and possibly a lore card to enhance your action, but similarities end here. In 2nd edition you have: strongly asymmetric armies: each faction has specific units with specific traits and powers, victory points are not based on eliminated units but rather by fulfilling scenario specific conditions, armies are freely designed by players using a cost point system, simplified lore management, but faction specific lore cards. If you can grab the base box at a reasonable price I'd suggest to try it.
  2. g1ul10

    Epic Variant

    I suggest to add a stripe between two maps that fills the half hexes to obtain a largest play area. I uploaded the file I used on BGG and you can find it here: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/141851/connecting-stripes
  3. Haha that's nice Garret :-) But also if the game is NOT discontinued, one can always choose NOT to buy the expansions, right?
  4. Well on Bleeding you might be right. I don't have a strong opinion. It is true that some conditions seem stronger than others. I think it must be tested a bit. On bone blast, attacking BEFORE advancing sounds generally weaker than attacking AFTER advancing as it reduces the likelihood of advancing a second time, and then attacking a third time. And I can anticipate rules issue: if the Grotesques attack an adjacent unit in hex 1 with the melee attack and they are able to advance but before that they decide to attack a second adjacent unit in hex 2 with the range attack and they roll a flag.... where do they advance? In hex 1 or in hex 2?
  5. To summarize, my initial proposal (amended after interaction with Garret) was: Bone Blast: Instead or after advancing, this unit may perform... This modification addresses the main concern I have with Grotesques, that is the fact that they have to give up the advance to use Bone Blast. Incidentally, I tend to think that 3 dices are enough and that the bleeding condition is not particularly weak. Removing one dice does not only reduce the number of hits, but also the number of flags, the expected amount of lore gained and the probability to activate a special ability. So, in my opinion, this modification already solve the main issue of the Grotesques. But reading your posts I had the feeling that you think that they are still weak. Thus, I came up with version two: Bone Blast: Instead of advancing, this unit may move one hex and perform... This is really strong. Now on a flag result in the initial melee attack, the Grotesques can do a lot of different things. As I wrote, I suspect that with this modification they become often more useful than the other elite Uthuk unit. I would like to test both modifications and see if the second is really overpowered. In case you want to test them, remember the possibility of MULTIPLE range attacks that both modifications make more likely and also nasty tactics specific of the second modification, like jumping out from a wood, attack in melee with 3 dice, score a flag then move back in the wood and perform a range attack with 2 dice on the same target without counter-attack. And you end up still protected in the wood. And if you test them, of course I would like to hear your opinion. Edit: Ah, the grammar!
  6. I would not recommend to introduce a "stackable condition" with multiple Bleeding tokens. This would be a totally new concept and it is prone to create confusion. I would rather leave the Bleeding condition as it is but change the Bone Blast text to read "Instead of advancing, this unit may move one hex and perform...". This modification is stronger than the one I originally suggested. It opens up very interesting tactical possibilities. Remember that a unit is NOT constrained to a single advance. With this modification, I think the Grotesques become more desirable than the Obscenes in a number of situations.
  7. Yes this is the way I play it: double heroic poisons and inflicts one damage to a previously not poisoned unit. I think the advantage of this modification is that it does not change the way the Vipers work and it's easy to remember (plus, they tend to roll a lot of double heroic in my games :-) ). This is not trivial. For instance, in one of my campaigns, in order to boost a bit the Vipers, I added the rule that poisoned units should roll a die at the beginning of their turn and take one hit on a heroic roll. This is nice because it mimics the effect that one normally associates to how poison works. The problem with this rule is that it introduces a kind of new mechanic, involving the rolling of dice before the play of the command card, which is new for players. As a consequence, people might easily forget it. It's ok for a campaign, in which you are in any case aware of the presence of "special" rules, but I would not recommend it as a generic boost in regular, scenario cards games.
  8. I think "less specialized" is an important component of "better all around". @phalgast: If I understood well, your point is that the information of what unit is better "all around" is useless, because at the end your are playing a specific scenario. It is of course true that you are playing a specific scenario, but it is also true that a large part of the thinking around the game, at least for me, abstract from a specific scenario. I'm thinking to questions like: what are the synergies of the different units? How their traits and powers interact with the cards? Which unit is good to keep the banner? Which unit is good to contest it? But if you think this analysis is sterile, I suggest an alternative. Propose a specific combination of scenario cards that you repute interesting and let's see how the Obscenes fare in that specific case.
  9. As Garrett was saying.. It's a gedankenexperiment, I'm not suggesting to do it in real games.
  10. The case in which the Grotesque is already on the banner... it should not have attacked at all :-) In any case, I would keep the range attack conditional upon forcing the enemy to retreat. So if you really want to add this possibility, I would say "After or instead of advancing...". On the Viper, this bring the probability to hit a poisoned target to 1/2. Not bad. I would think twice to leave a poisoned unit in the range of the vipers. And imagine if they attack with the Fury of Ylan....
  11. My suggestions below. The idea is to try to fix the units with the minimal modification of the rules. Viper Legions: I tried and tested several alternative for the vipers. Now I think a good choice would be: [Heroic] Poison the target and if already poisoned inflict one hit. Grotesque: This is untested, but hardly overpowered. Bone Blast: Replace "Instead advancing" with "After advancing" Blood Sisters: This is untested, but again not a game changer. It trasforms the sisters from a sink to a source of magic, which is also thematically more appealing. [Lore]: If Blood Magic is used, in addition to cause 1 damage to the target unit, it also grants 2 Lore tokens to the Uthuk player. More importantly: I'm available to test all these variants on Vassal  :-)
  12. Me neither, to say the truth. But imagine you have to chose the army BEFORE the scenario card is revealed. This is a good exercice to see which units one considers "generally" useful, and not only useful in some circumstances. That's the point of the "all purpose". I'm curious to know what would be your choice.
  13. I agree with everything you said. My personal experience with them is not particularly exciting. In theory they are a very useful unit, especially if appropriately placed to challenge the control of hot spots from the first turn. Consider, however, that in the Uthuk army the key deployment hex one/two hex away from the VP is typically occupied by the Chaos Lord. In practice, they tend to deliver less than I expect. The problem can of course be with my expectations. The don't find a place in my generic "all purpose" Uthuk army chaos lord + doom bringer + flesh rippers x 2 + blood harvester* x 6 + 3 LP + command tent * replace some blood harvesters with berserkers if wood hexes abound or are key positions
  14. Dear all, while we are waiting for the official document, I decided to prepare an unofficial collections of replies by FFG to players questions. The document is hosted on BGG and it's available here https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/136459/errata-and-faq Do not hesitate to suggest additions or correct mistakes. Enjoy! G. P.S.: This post was initially mistakenly posted on the BattleLore 1st edition forum
  15. ****! The typos are many I suspect... I was unable to print the document and read it on paper :-) If you can just point out the bad entries I can try to fix them.
  16. Dear all, while we are waiting for the official documents, I decided to prepare an unofficial collections of replies by FFG to players questions. The document is hosted on BGG and it's available here https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/136459/errata-and-faq Do not hesitate to suggest additions or correct mistakes. Enjoy! G.
  17. I noticed that several abilities are based on forest hexes. So maybe one can postulate that, analogously to what other armies can do with their crystal spires or blood fields, Elves can deploy at most two forest hexes at the cost of 2 Muster Point each. And maybe these can be "magical forest" providing some extra power...
  18. Thank you Julia for your nice words. It's nice to see people discussing fan-made expansions. I like very much Toenail idea of having different/improved units on the battlefiled and heroes is surely a thematic way of doing it. I think an essential question is if one wants to design a hero expansions that integrates with the existing official rules of scenarios creation (scenario cards, for short) or if instead heroes are going to have their own scenarios, and maybe campaigns. Both approaches are interesting, and of course their are not mutually exclusive, but I have the suspicion that designing heroes for the scenario cards requires a more cautious attitude. In my campaign "Sailing Down Corinna tears" I introduced the notion of "veteran units", with the intent of having heterogeneity on the battlefield, very much along the basic idea suggested by Toenail. In fact they could have been "units with heroes". But that was done specifically for the six scenarios of the campaign so it was easy to check that the extra power of the veteran units did not interfere too much with the game balance. In fact I remember that I had to somehow adjust the benefits during play testing. With scenario cards I suspect the task is more difficult. I have also to say that while I like very much the simple approach of unit-specific heroes proposed by Toenail, I'm not convinced by the idea of using them to fix "weak units". The mustering system in BL2ed is rather flexible, so if you think some units is relatively less useful and is never mustered, you can just decrease its cost or, imho better, slightly re-design its characteristics. There are already several good suggestions outstanding on the BGG forum for the Vipers and the Grotesques. In fact I'm myself willing to test them asap (now BOW is absorbing the totality of my playing time :-) ). In my opinion this would be a more straightforward approach and also easier to test: if the modified unit is ALWAYS mustered, then it means that now it is too strong :-) Conversely, I think that heroes are mainly interesting as long as they introduce new tactical challenges, like the one suggested by Budgernaut. It's not an easy task but I expect the discussion here to come up with some good suggestions, in addition to those already put forward by Toenail. (Sorry for the longish post)
  19. Dear fellow players, all this moving units into specific location to acquire this or that advantage, or using this or that power to induce your opponent to react in some specific way, sounds to me has battle plans. And as a famous Prussian general once wrote "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy". Thus, the only way we have to know which units are more useful and which are dispensable is to organize a competitive Battlelore 2nd Edition tournament. And since we are geographically scattered, we have to do it online. The last VASSAL module contains both the Daqan and Uthuk army packs and I'd be more than willing to organize the tournament if there is some interest. Let's put our opinion about the different units to a real world test :-)
  20. After having committed one double swords, the target unit takes one hit (if it cannot ignore it) and retreats two hexes (if not supported or otherwise able to ignore flag results).
  21. If it said "forced to retreat" and stopped there, I'd believe it. But because it says 1 or more hexes, it seems like it is not the act of resolving retreats, but the fact that the unit has actually moved 1 or more hexes that prevents the counter, because you cannot counter if you are not adjacent... Honestly I don't know. I was on the point of writing that you were right, then I thought "forced to retreat" does not mean "retreat". You seem to read the sentence as it would be "The player cannot perform the counter if the target unit retreats one or more hexes before being eliminated." Are the two sentences equivalent? What do you think? (I suspect we have hit one of the many subtleties of the English language here and I'm not a reliable judge on that) Edit: The "1 or more hex" part could be there to avoid the rule lawyers like us to pretend that the unit cannot counter because it was forced to retreat 0 hexes, if for some reason it can ignore one flag, for instance.
  22. Reference Book p.10 "Unstoppable" second bullet point: "The player cannot perform the counter if the target unit was forced to retreat one or more hexes before being eliminated.". Thus Unstoppable and Ferocity are mutually exclusive: if the Obscene are eliminated in place, use Unstoppable. If they are forced to retreat, use Ferocity.
  23. Marcus, I think you've got the answers directly from FFG, right? Maybe you can consider posting them here.
  24. Version 0.7.1 includes a button to toggle visibility of deployment hexes. Clicking this button, after the mustering and deployment phase the red/blue shades can be easily removed from the map hexes.
  25. The updated version 0.7 of the VASSAL module contains all units, cards and tokens necessary to play the Herfarn Guardians and the Warband of Scorn army packs. Players can select the deck they want to play with between those in the base game and those made available by the expansions. Further customization is allowed by selecting and replacing single cards. To facilitate off-line deployment and mustering phase, Lore decks can be saved to and loaded from external files. Enjoy!
  • Create New...