BattleLore by Any Other Name...
I don't know how many of you are BattleLore fans, or whether you've been following all the brouhaha about it all over the interwebs, but it's got me a bit worried. I've been following the announcement of Fantasy Flight's new game, Battles of Westeros, both on their site and at The Hopeless Gamer. And the big issue is how, right there on the front of the box, it says, "A BattleLore Game". This raises a lot of questions, both about the BattleLore brand (and how it will be supported) and about the system used in Battles of Westeros. To answer some of the questions, Christian Petersen released a Q&A document about the subject.
Now, I could go through the whole thing, but instead, Mark Jackson has already done a great job of it. So go back to that last sentence and click that link, read it, and come back. Go on... I'll wait.
As Mark said, why the heck would they call it "A BattleLore Game" if they're not using the same system? Is the Game of Thrones license not enough to drum up excitement? Throwing in the "BattleLore" brand even though it apparently has no tie to the game at all (other than being vaguely medieval) only muddies the watters and breeds confusion. And then all the talk about how cost-prohibitive it would be to reprint the core BattleLore game sounds to me like they just aren't going to bother with it much at all.
So while we may still see another random expansion or two for "real" BattleLore, it seems to me that the answer to the question, "Will Fantasy Flight save BattleLore?", which many of us asked back when FFG acquired the game, is a resounding "No!".
Posted by Chris Norwood at 2/23/2010 2:20 PM 
Categories: Meta-Casting, Random Thoughts
Tags: BattleLore
Categories: Meta-Casting, Random Thoughts
Tags: BattleLore
It looks like the Westeros game is using a modified version of the Battlelore system. My guess is when Fantasy Flight bought the rights to Battlelore they also got rights to make changes to the system and publish their own games. Christian said it isn't a Command & Colors: Ancients-based game, which I simply take to mean it isn't designed by Richard Borg. Even from the small glimpse we have on their site, the Westeros game is clearly based on the Battlelore system. I noticed the one command card didn't mention a flank, so it would seem they are making some core changes to the system.
Fantasy Flight either bought Battlelore simply to get rights to play with the system or else they bought it and have since realized it simply isn't feasible for them to keep Battlelore going as is. Instead they've decided to spin off games using a modified combat system.
Makes sense to me. Yeah, it is a little odd using the "Battlelore" name on the box but they know they have a built-in audience and this is a way to cash in on it. If they name all of their tactical combat games "Battlelore" systems going forward it will certainly help set expectations for what a game will be like.
I do agree with Christian that Battlelore's mix of fantasy and history really didn't work. The base game is decent but the magic rules just weren't fun. I haven't read the Game of Thrones books so I have no attachment to the IP, so I'm a little bummed that their new Battlelore-based game has that chrome slapped on it. Still, if it fixes my issues with Battlelore I could be suckered into giving it a try!
Reply to this
Mike,
Out of curiosity, what did you not like about BL's magic system?
Also, what did you not like about the fantasy-history mix?
Reply to this
The magic system added in a level of randomness that really took away from the fun of the game. Some of the cards were so much more powerful than others to the point of simply not being much fun.
I really wanted Battlelore to just be a medieval or fantasy version of Command & Colors: Ancients. Unfortunately it didn't live up to that. Not only is the magic system not all that fun but the tactics cards simply aren't as interesting as those in C&C:A. You are pretty much forced to group units into triangles and move them around the board; I just didn't find it as satisfying as moving entire lines of units with your leaders like in C&C:A.
Battlelore isn't bad by any means, just not the game I wanted it to be. I'm actually curious to see if FFG's new game hits the mark.
Reply to this
I've never actually been able to play BattleLore as much as I'd like to, but that wasn't my experience at all. I'm not really saying that it was terribly "historical" in its realism, but I thought it made for interesting tactics, and was more fun that my experience with C&C:A.
The only thing I think really needed to be imported from C&C:A to BattleLore was the leader role, and I was hoping that the "Heroes" would fill that. It didn't happen, though, so I'm a little disappointed about it.
Magic and the whole Lore thing in general, however, I'm happy with. It seems about as balanced as anything else in the game (which relies both on card draws and dice rolling for randomness), and makes for nicely cinematic (and I admit, possible swingy) battles.
But I always thought that one of the main strengths of BattleLore was how well it rode the line between historical and fantasy elements. If you wanted mainly medieval history (100 years war) stuff, then you had that. But if you wanted to throw in a monster, some goblins, and a mage as well, then you had the tools to plug them in as well. Of course, blurring the lines between fantasy and history appeals to me a lot in fiction and other gaming as well, so I was predisposed to like the theme.
Reply to this
I don't mind the historical/fantasy mix at all, I thought that was pretty fun. The failing I felt was in the actual magic system, not in the theme.
Chris, I think you better described the magic as being too "swingy". The base rules work perfectly well; throwing in magic just seemed to result in wild swings that resulted more from luck than tactical decisions. You can make decisions based on the movements your opponent has been making but there's no way you can really plan for all the crazy effects from magic cards.
Regarding leaders, the reason they work so well in C&C:A is because of how the tactics cards use them. That system with a fantasy setting would be great.
Jormi has an early preview of the Westeros game up on BGG and it sounds interesting, I just wish the theme appealed to me more. Instead I may hold out for C&C:Napoleonics.
It is sad to see FFG having a tough time supporting Battlelore, though. Lots of people love it and there's a ton of potential that may never be fully realized. Clearly Days of Wonder wasn't having any better luck, though, so I kinda get the feeling it was doomed to languish from the start.
Reply to this
Christian Petersen's comments, coupled with the Westeros announcement, disappoints me.
I like Battle Lore a lot, as does my wife. It was an excellent mix of historical and fantasy. We don't get to play as much as we would like b/c of time constraints, but I was hoping that FFG would continue to broaden BL, introducing a campaign system and more scenarios.
For all intents and purposes, BL is dead to FFG, but the user community should step in and continue introducing new units, scenarios, etc...unless FFG decides to go GW on the BL community.
Reply to this
I don't entirely disagree with you, Chris, but you inspired me to write up a slightly different take on the situation. Cheers! http://sunblu.sh/u/2
Reply to this
Good article, Stephen. And you're probably right, it may actually be a better game than BattleLore. I, however, have invested in buying everyting that is BattleLore up to this point, like the game, and am seeing that support for the game that I love is pretty much dead. Instead, FFG is going to bastardize the name in some misguided attempt to support a license that probably doesn't need the help. But ultimately, it will completely not be compatible with the game system that I was promissed (first by Days of Wonder and then by FFG when they bought it) and so invested in.
But again, the game itself may actually be really fantastic. If someone else buys it and asks me to play, I'd be happy to give it a shot. The changes you mention sound interesting and probably have a lot of potential. But personally, I would have rather they brought some of that innovation and expasion to the core game. Why not create some expansions that bring non-banner-based scenarios to BattleLore? Why not introduce leaders and maybe even leader-specific command cards into the mix? And who knows, maybe they still will. But my fear and expectation now is that the "classic" game (as they have now referred to it) is dead.
Reply to this