Memoir '44 D-Day Landings Memoir '44 D-Day Landings

Forums

Search
Forums » BattleLore - English » Double all Lore cost
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
player316586
Junior Member
Cadet

Posts: 2
Registered:
January 2007
Double all Lore cost Sun, 06 May 2007 21:40
Lore is not working well.

I like the idea of Lore, and want it to work, i'm just finding it too powerfull. Your men setup disorganized (non-supporting = disorganized) on say the left flank. You get them organized (all Bold) and decide to push on the Left and begin to close... BAM!

Its too easy. I think a good fix may be:
1) Double all Lore cost
2) Forrest Frenzy, Hills Rumble, and River Rages.... select one such hex (not ALL) and slam all adjacent. Still very powerfull in the hands of an L2 or L3 Cleric, particuarly at the low price of 7L(..14L).

This keeps Lore. Puts the BAM in BAM as it is no longer so Horribly Frequent. At double cost Lore management and War Council selection will come more to the fore, and with out of character play now 6L, more thoughtfull ( = more fun).
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Sun, 06 May 2007 22:38
I'd be willing to give it a try, but I don't see the need - yes the cleric spells are very powerful at l3, but one will know going in that one is up against a l3 cleric and should play accordingly, plenty of thought needed Smile . Would definitely need to double the lore pool though, if greater portal is going to cost 18, assault 26, etc.

Definitely be interested to hear how the games go.

EDIT: I need to lay off the Rain Man viewings.

[Updated on: Sun, 06 May 2007 22:39]

      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Mon, 07 May 2007 10:07
I tend to agree with toddrew. Half the fun is the unknown...Wink. And yes these cards may be powerful but u still need to execute them appropriately (nevermind a bit of luck involved in the dice also) to be effective. So for me, congratulations on the player that can execute them to their fullest.

And as toddrew eluded to, particularly with the powerful cleric cards, one can predict their popping up (ie if hilly terrain, forests or rivers predominating), and thought needs to be put in as to how one tackles these adventures: head-to-head with both players level2/3 clerics or counters in anticipation that opponent plays cleric.

Don't forget that not all cards are included in the deck building process and you won't find out wich have been excluded till end of game!....don't u luv the element of surprise?!?

Changing rules as knee-jerk reactions to make games "more balanced", in my opinion would tend to restrict the future of games much more than broadening their horizons..... playing different opponents with varying styles also helps Smile

No intention to go hard on you, just to shed a different point of view.... Smile

Cheers Sam
      
player316586
Junior Member
Cadet

Posts: 2
Registered:
January 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 08 May 2007 01:54
"knee-jerk reactions"

Is any suggestion of a house rule by default a "knee-jerk reaction", or was there something particular about this one?
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 08 May 2007 02:47
player316586 wrote on Tue, 08 May 2007 09:24

"knee-jerk reactions"

Is any suggestion of a house rule by default a "knee-jerk reaction", or was there something particular about this one?


No nothing particular meant about this- ie my comment was not quoting anyone in particular on these forums or a reflection on you either Smile. Communicating by writing alone can have its limitations in that it can be a bit tricky trying to convey one's full meaning and for the other person to grasp things the way you initially might have intended. I may have fallen victim to this...so I apologise if I have.

House rules are fine and always fun to play by when in a group and everyone is agreeable Smile. What I was eluding to (and obviously mistook your comments to mean) was if the intention was for the designers to "fix" things by changing the ground rules so as to balance things out. The changes would be permanent (unlike house rules) and would more than likely require heaps of errata/ammendments/exclusions to a number of other situations. The FAQ would just get larger and larger and game becomes less fun if playing against someone who just wants to play a game. I'm an advocate of the KISS principle Wink
      
Zeal
Senior Member
Second Lieutenant

Posts: 214
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 08 May 2007 18:19
sdafilli wrote on Mon, 07 May 2007 18:47

player316586 wrote on Tue, 08 May 2007 09:24

"knee-jerk reactions"

Is any suggestion of a house rule by default a "knee-jerk reaction", or was there something particular about this one?


No nothing particular meant about this- ie my comment was not quoting anyone in particular on these forums or a reflection on you either Smile. Communicating by writing alone can have its limitations in that it can be a bit tricky trying to convey one's full meaning and for the other person to grasp things the way you initially might have intended. I may have fallen victim to this...so I apologise if I have.

House rules are fine and always fun to play by when in a group and everyone is agreeable Smile. What I was eluding to (and obviously mistook your comments to mean) was if the intention was for the designers to "fix" things by changing the ground rules so as to balance things out. The changes would be permanent (unlike house rules) and would more than likely require heaps of errata/ammendments/exclusions to a number of other situations. The FAQ would just get larger and larger and game becomes less fun if playing against someone who just wants to play a game. I'm an advocate of the KISS principle Wink


I agree on this, House rules are a great way to level it you your group or tournament that you are running, but at this point I don't see a need for a "Official" rules change.

However, I have been the vic of "Hills Rumble" twice, and have lost twice. If I keep getting hit with it, I might change my mind Wink
      
Talespinner
DoW Content Provider
Rikugun Taii

User Pages
Posts: 119
Registered:
March 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 10 May 2007 15:02
A lot of people seem to have problems with those three specific Cleric cards. Out of curiosity, if you take those cards out of the deck (for fairness sake, drop 3 from each Loremaster so that all of them have the same size card pool) see how the game plays that way. Is your problem with Lore just those cards?

The only scenario I have played that runs into problems with those cards is "Free Companies on a War Footing" (#9) because of the large amount of terrain on the battlefield. Lore plays much less of a role in other scenarios with less terrain in my experience. Also, the Epic scenarios definitely curtail the effectiveness of Lore given the greater room to maneuver.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 10 May 2007 16:25
Talespinner wrote on Thu, 10 May 2007 06:02

The only scenario I have played that runs into problems with those cards is "Free Companies on a War Footing" (#9) because of the large amount of terrain on the battlefield. Lore plays much less of a role in other scenarios with less terrain in my experience. Also, the Epic scenarios definitely curtail the effectiveness of Lore given the greater room to maneuver.


I was thinking the opposite about the effectiveness of terrain based lore cards on the "Epic" scale - more terrain leading to more area of influence, but again that would be adventure specific, like your #9 example. You're right, though, about the balancing effect of all that room - assuming the units aren't outright destroyed by the spell, there's plenty of space to maneuver the depleted units away from enemy units and behind full strength friendlies.

At least I would think so - haven't actually played an epic game yet Laughing

[Updated on: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:26]

      
constant-whiner
Member

Posts: 58
Registered:
February 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Fri, 11 May 2007 12:14
I' ve got similar concerns about Lore not working well. In my group we think that the addition of Lore cards significantly tilts the balance of the game towards a more tactical game. (versus a more strategic one which we would prefer). Furthermore, I think that the addition of new races / weapon types and core components (as in heroes) would increase the depth of the game allowing for more strategic play even for "plain" medieval battles. Throwing Lore into the mix yields a more chaotic / combo-driven / tactical game. However, Lore does have a nice flavor so I am definitely in agreement on the need to consider mechanisms to reduce Lore's role in the game. Such mechanisms could be: remove powerful Lore cards, increase Lore costs, decrease the pace at which Lore points are collected, and so on. A promising idea which we have not yet explored in our group would be to allow Lore to be collected only for the attacking player (i.e. not on battle-backs). This would have the additional effect of rewarding the attacking player and reducing the incentive to stay on the defense which is already too high.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Fri, 11 May 2007 13:15
player323712 wrote on Fri, 11 May 2007 19:44

A promising idea which we have not yet explored in our group would be to allow Lore to be collected only for the attacking player (i.e. not on battle-backs). This would have the additional effect of rewarding the attacking player and reducing the incentive to stay on the defense which is already too high.


Given that Battlelore seems to be a game revolving around lore (its in the name), and as much as I personally must say am not in favour of eliminating or minimizing effects of lore cards, the last point u raise would truely be worth looking into (and especially for just the reasons mentioned). I am all for lore rewarding the attacker as well as slowing down the accumulation of lore.

On the other hand, from my experience (in the just few games i've played), it's just those scenarios with alot of terrain benefiting the use of those powerful cleric cards that have been the biggest 'problem' with lore. I havent played Epic scenarios yet, so would be interested to see if those who have played Epic, have similar concerns.

Sam
      
andrewgr
Junior Member

Posts: 28
Registered:
September 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Sun, 13 May 2007 09:05
Talespinner wrote on Thu, 10 May 2007 06:02

A lot of people seem to have problems with those three specific Cleric cards.


I was tremendously excited when Battlelore was released. I bought 2 copies sight unseen, organized a regular play group at the local gaming club, etc.

My interest has withered to almost nothing, and those 3 cleric cards are at the root of it. It's not the fact that they're incredibly, obviously, completely broken. It's that DoW has a dismissive, patronizing attitude about it, and isn't going to ever admit that the cards are broken.

Making a mistake is acceptable. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending that you didn't make a mistake is not.


      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Mon, 14 May 2007 00:04
I have played a few epic games and so far those cards have had far less impact than in a basic game.
Maybe DoW have played mostly epic games during playtesting?
While I would like a better explanation than "it plays the way Richard Borg intended", I really don't believe the problem is caused due to lack of play testing. There must be a reason why those potentially game-wreaking cards have been included - and placed with the same Lore Master.

In the future this will probably become less of a problem as more types of terrain will be introduced. Combined with the epic rules those cards will probably not be worth much, unless you are charging an entrenched group of units. But this is no excuse for not letting the base game work satisfactory. And it seems to me there are a lot of players who don't like these cards as they are.
It would be nice with some kind of nerfed replacement cards. Other companies have ocasionally done that, based on public demand...
      
constant-whiner
Member

Posts: 58
Registered:
February 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 15 May 2007 11:53
We played three games in our group testing the idea that you get only Lore on attack and not on battle-back. The idea was that maybe in this manner you get less Lore and thus you reduce the impact of these overpoweful cards. Can't say it worked though. Still the cards are too powerful and Lore is accumulated only slightly slower. What we will try next is "collect lore only on melee attacks (not on ranged attacks, not on battle-backs) AND change FF, HR and RR to affect only as many hexes as the cleric's level".
(Edit:) Forgot to add that what did in fact work was that since Lore was gained only on attacks, it provided an additional incentive to attack. We played scenario #10 "Assaulting the Toureiles" where the entrenched French player has very little incentive to attack and it worked quite well. I think it also fits well with the theme. Lore favors the bold and the one who performs heroic deeds on the field. Seen in that light it should also make sense and fit with the theme that ranged attacks should not give you Lore, being cowardly pot-shot attacks of commoners shooting from a safe distance against mounted (well, most of the time) nobles.

[Updated on: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12]

      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 15 May 2007 14:25
Reducing lore income or increasing the cost of HR/FF will not fix the problem. All it does is cause the game to be wrecked a couple turns later.

I really wish DoW would publish some sort of alternative reading for these cards in .pdf format or something. At least half of my gaming group refuses to play any house rules, nerfs, or basically anything not "official". Yeah, these are some of the the same guys that complain that HR/FF are unfair. Instead of utilizing one of the serviceable house rules on this forum though, they'd just rather not play Battlelore at all.

Fantasy Flight Games published an alternative card (in pdf format first then stock later) for their Twilight Imperium 3 game, after a large chunk of the gaming community were unsatisfied with it. People could choose either way to play and it worked out really well for everyone. Here's to hoping! Smile
      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Posts: 266
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 15 May 2007 19:06
While I agree that HR/FF/RR CAN have a large impact on SOME maps with SOME War Councils and with GOOD rolls, I just haven't personally experienced the "if you play it, you will win" condition that some of you appear to be saying.

First, you have to draw the card. Odds are you will not. Rarely does a game burn through the entire Lore deck, and you're opponent should draw as many cards as you. Even if the card you want is in the deck, you have less than a 50% chance to draw it.

Second, you have to commit to a L2 or L3 Cleric. Personally, I like the other lore masters for their ability to sway a specific roll or devastate a specific unit. After all, the object of the game is to kill units, not pluck a figure from several units. I'd rather use Lore to finish off a unit I'm attacking (or one that's bothering me), rather than damaging some units in my opponent's rear guard.

Third, if you draw one of the "terrible trifecta", it has to match the map you're using. I seem to draw RR whenever I'm playing on a map with no river. Go figure.

Fourth, expensive Lore cards can only be played once every few turns, based on the typical production of Lore Tokens. However, you play a Command card every turn. Therefore, the impact of getting good Command cards is much larger than the impact of a "broken" Lore card. In my last game, I used FF to damage 11 or 12 of my opponent's units. Guaranteed win, right? Wrong. I lost 6-3, due to my opponent using several Advance cards to overwhelm my center section and wipe out several units before I could protect them. He was able to use his superior Command cards in combination with timely Lore cards (like Mass Might) to press an advantage and eliminate units. IMHO, this is much more useful that a Lore card that blindly strikes at several units spread across the board.

Do HR/FF/RR have a large potential impact for their cost? Yes. Will they guarantee a win? No. Superior Command cards and better tactical play along with timely dice rolls will help you win more games than these three Lore cards.

Just one player's opinion after 20+ games.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 15 May 2007 19:31
mvettemagred wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 02:36

While I agree that HR/FF/RR CAN have a large impact on SOME maps with SOME War Councils and with GOOD rolls, I just haven't personally experienced the "if you play it, you will win" condition that some of you appear to be saying.

First, you have to draw the card. Odds are you will not. Rarely does a game burn through the entire Lore deck, and you're opponent should draw as many cards as you. Even if the card you want is in the deck, you have less than a 50% chance to draw it.

Second, you have to commit to a L2 or L3 Cleric. Personally, I like the other lore masters for their ability to sway a specific roll or devastate a specific unit. After all, the object of the game is to kill units, not pluck a figure from several units. I'd rather use Lore to finish off a unit I'm attacking (or one that's bothering me), rather than damaging some units in my opponent's rear guard.

Third, if you draw one of the "terrible trifecta", it has to match the map you're using. I seem to draw RR whenever I'm playing on a map with no river. Go figure.

Fourth, expensive Lore cards can only be played once every few turns, based on the typical production of Lore Tokens. However, you play a Command card every turn. Therefore, the impact of getting good Command cards is much larger than the impact of a "broken" Lore card. In my last game, I used FF to damage 11 or 12 of my opponent's units. Guaranteed win, right? Wrong. I lost 6-3, due to my opponent using several Advance cards to overwhelm my center section and wipe out several units before I could protect them. He was able to use his superior Command cards in combination with timely Lore cards (like Mass Might) to press an advantage and eliminate units. IMHO, this is much more useful that a Lore card that blindly strikes at several units spread across the board.

Do HR/FF/RR have a large potential impact for their cost? Yes. Will they guarantee a win? No. Superior Command cards and better tactical play along with timely dice rolls will help you win more games than these three Lore cards.

Just one player's opinion after 20+ games.


TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU Wink
And if a player manages to cause heaps of damage with one of these cards despite ur best attempts to avoid their potentially devastating effects... well congratulations to them Smile as its not an easy or guaranteed task to pull off in the first place. It's abit like any game where if u manage to pull off a mighty but not so common combination, u win (like u see in many card games- Magic comes to mind- where some combos (albeit not easy to pull off)are almost certain victories with few really satisfactory counters). This doesn't mean the game is broken though- just adds to the surprise and unpredictability factor Wink and i don't think thats a bad thing.

But if winning is everything for somebody, and not just enjoying the experience (its only a game Wink), well then they're setting themselves up for disappointment. Battles by the way are never "fair" Wink (or "go to plan")

[Updated on: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:32]

      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 00:18
Quote:

But if winning is everything for somebody, and not just enjoying the experience (its only a game ), well then they're setting themselves up for disappointment. Battles by the way are never "fair" (or "go to plan")

The problem is these cards can ruin the experience for both players. If I win a battle due to the use of one of those cards I feel it as a cheap way to win. If the card is played against me and decides the outcome of the battle, I feel powerles due to a game mechanic.
I don't mind to lose/win because of a clever combination of Lore- and Command Cards being played. But RR/HR/FF have simply been game deciding, on their own, too many times in the games I have played.
I like to use the Cleric in my games as I like a lot of the cards available. If I get a card like HR, I want to use it, as it is part of the game. But at the same time I hope not to cause too much damage to too many troops, as it will ruin the experience for both players. If it is any other card, I would hope for maximum damage!
RR/HR/FF has the potential to make massive damage on a large amount of troops. I don't care for statistics. To me it has happened far too often. I really hope some kind of alternative card will be produced by DoW.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 04:24
Sure, one may not like having these cards played against them...and being successful. So, nothing stops anyone coming up with agreeable house/tournament rules. No need for an official ruling which will permanently restrict their use.

After all, the game seems to be heading towards Epic, and with a larger board and more spread out terrain, theses cards will likely not be as effective. Theres only 1 or 2 current adventures that are a problem, so if these cards are going to create issues- then frankly there are many more adventures to chose from, or just play house rule... One house rule that I must say i liked is that these cards should affect BOTH players when played (this only requires a subtle word change on the card without makinh things too complicated- "targets: all own and enemy unit...")

Don't mean to be ignorant of people's concerns, just that my opinion is that having powerful cards should be part of the game. And congratulations if one can pull them off.

From my experience with other games, by making things too "balanced", it quickly takes away the fun factor and games soon become dull and boring - why play with lore if there are just 'weak'/'average' cards to play with. (I remember playing Star Wars Card Game by Decipher and for a while sets were coming out with essentially similar cards for both sides to balance the game and other cards which were introduced purely to counter specific powerful cards- after a while game became so monotonous, to the point that there was no incentive to be creative cause you knew that despite all the preparation, it would be easily countered. Put me and many others in our group off the game for that very reason). I personally like cards that surprise and go off with a bang Wink!

By the way, I'm enjoying this debate. It's appearing in multiple threads though. I'm impressed that it hasn't gone out of hand -like these debates sometimes do Wink. It's healthy for the game and its future to hear from everyones opinions. Puts designers/DoW right in the picture and if/when they chose to, they can respond more asertively and more confidence.

Sam

[Updated on: Wed, 16 May 2007 04:29]

      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 09:57
sdafilli wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 04:24


From my experience with other games, by making things too "balanced", it quickly takes away the fun factor and games soon become dull and boring - why play with lore if there are just 'weak'/'average' cards to play with.


I totally agree on this part. Right now there are only a few cards that overlap in effect between Lore Masters. All Lore Masters have powerful cards available. Some are powerful on their own, others only in combination with the right Command Card. But I don't think this balance would be offset by limiting the scope of HR/FF/RR.
I don't mind a game being decided by my opponent successfully playing Fireball on my Spider and then gaining the last Victory Point by a massive assault on a week unit. Or losing by having my weakest unit teleported right to the front of the battle. This is all part of the "Oh my god" feeling that makes this game so much fun. But to our experience, if playing on certain maps, this feeling comes before the dice are even rolled. And this is what annoys me the most.

sdafilli wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 04:24

After all, the game seems to be heading towards Epic, and with a larger board and more spread out terrain, theses cards will likely not be as effective. Theres only 1 or 2 current adventures that are a problem, so if these cards are going to create issues- then frankly there are many more adventures to chose from, or just play house rule...


Yes, the game seems to be heading towards Epic. Actually I believe Richard Borg has always intended it to be played this way. And in this light I don't mind the balance to be a bit off if only playing on one board. After all it is difficult to keep a game balanced if it is supposed to be played on different scales.
It is also correct that these cards are less powerful in Epic mode. At least to my experience so far.
But if there is a lot of terrain, they still pose a problem. I believe it would be possible to limit the scope of their effect, so they will be more balanced in "Basic-mode" without you noticing in most Epic games. If there was a limit to the amount of hexes affected, you would probably not notice in Epic, as the terrain is mostly spread thin. But on a single board the effect would not feel as overwhelming. [/quote]

sdafilli wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 04:24

Sure, one may not like having these cards played against them...and being successful. So, nothing stops anyone coming up with agreeable house/tournament rules. No need for an official ruling which will permanently restrict their use.


Actually I would like an official ruling/change. I'm hoping to see an alternate version of these cards, like Fantasy Flight did with Twilight Imperium 3. This way the issue could be quickly solved at tournaments. You could simply ask "are we using this version or the other?". It would be much easier than having five different people arguing about how to balance things.
And since this game actually seems to be able to pop up as a tournament in my area once in a while, it is an issue of mine...

sdafilli wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 04:24

By the way, I'm enjoying this debate. It's appearing in multiple threads though. I'm impressed that it hasn't gone out of hand -like these debates sometimes do Wink. It's healthy for the game and its future to hear from everyones opinions. Puts designers/DoW right in the picture and if/when they chose to, they can respond more asertively and more confidence.


I agree Smile
I would not have committed to this discussion, had it been any other way. But it is impressive no one has started a fire yet Twisted Evil
      
Vilemare
Junior Member

Posts: 6
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 11:14
This house rule idea combines the suggested double casting cost idea with my own twist. NOTE: this is just idle speculation and wild idea type of thing - I have no idea if this has any merit in actual gameplay - it might not work at all or it might complicate things that dont need complications.
------------------------

Counter spell

Lore caster can buff extra lore to the lore cards basic cost. Lore card cast with double the normal cost is called concentrated casting. Lore card cast with concentrated casting can not be countered with normal counter spell (it still can be countered with another lore card). With normal or buffed casting the opponent can counter spell the lore card if he wants to and has enough lore to do so. Counter spell cost is equal to the buffed lore cost paid by the caster. Lore card and counter spell caster lore master level with respective lore card affect the lore cost of the counter spell with lore cost bonus: Caster Level – Counter spell Level which is added to the lore cost of the counter spell. Minimum counter spell cost is always 1 lore. If lore card is countered, all lore used for lore card and counter spell is used up and the lore card is cancelled and discarded.
The +3 extra lore cost for spells cast by zero level lore master are not counted into buff, concentrated and counter spell costs. Buffing and concentrated casting is calculated with the printed lore cost of the lore card and the +3 extra lore cost is added final casting cost. Level zero lore masters counter spells do NOT have the extra +3 lore cost – only the level difference cost of the normal counter spell. (Notice for example that a level zero lore master counter spell against level 3 lore master spell becomes +3 additional lore).

Example: Level 3 Mage lore master casts a lore card with lore cost 4. His mage opponent is level 0 mage so counter spell would require 7 lore. Mage decides to buff up the spell a bit and casts the spell with 5 lore making counter spell now cost 8 lore.

Example: Level 0 Priest lore master casts a lore card with lore cost 9. He does not buff the spell and pays 12 lore for the lore card (9 + 3). His opponent, a level 3 priest, decides to counter the spell and pays just 6 lore (9 – 3) to do so.

Example: Level 0 Priest lore master casts a lore card with lore cost 3. He does not want to allow his level 3 opponent the opportunity for easy counter spell, so he casts the lore card concentrated paying 9 lore for the spell (3x2 + 3)

Game effect: casting a lore card requires some new thought: “how much lore I need to buff the spell?” “Will I pay the full double cost to make a concentrated cast even if it is very expensive?” Having advanced lore master caster now gives the additional advantage of protecting the spell casting against lesser opponent and but more importantly superior counter spells against zero level spells cast by opponent without any lore master in that class. This gives level 1+ lore master very tasty choice at counter spelling his zero level lore master opponent spells because in addition to the counter spells being cheaper, the zero level casting cost of those spells is very high with the +3 lore additional cost. Zero level opponent on the other hand might not cast his spells easily, but he can counter the opponent spells a bit more easily (counter spells of zero level caster has only caster level bonus and no extra three lore cost bonus in cost). All in all the effect will be to make it very sensible to trade out lore cards with unfavorable classes. Having zero level lore master against any 1+ level lore master, makes casting any spells with that class very expensive indeed.




      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 11:38
I hope Eric or others from DoW can take heed of these debates on this topic and comeup with something... soon. It's obvious that it's on the mind of quite a lot of BL gamers/fans. Would be a shame to see a game lose favour due to this and no satisfactory resolution to all these people's concerns.

Sam
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 11:48
Vilemare, interesting suggestion. My only concern with this is that everyone will just counter opponents spell when possible. The outcome being that lore is always used up by both players and very few spells actually cast successfully. With most spells taking 2+ turns to save up enough lore for, I see people giving up on anything greater than level1 lore masters and just going for level 3 commanders. Alternatively everyone going for level3 wizards for the pentacle- but if both players pick the same then the pentacle is not played and then we'rs back to square one...


Sorry, Vilemare, not trying to be harsh on you- just my non-play-tested opinion.

Sam

      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 13:25
sdafilli wrote on Tue, 15 May 2007 13:31

mvettemagred wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 02:36



First, you have to draw the card. Odds are you will not. Rarely does a game burn through the entire Lore deck, and you're opponent should draw as many cards as you. Even if the card you want is in the deck, you have less than a 50% chance to draw it.

Second, you have to commit to a L2 or L3 Cleric. Personally, I like the other lore masters for their ability to sway a specific roll or devastate a specific unit. After all, the object of the game is to kill units, not pluck a figure from several units. I'd rather use Lore to finish off a unit I'm attacking (or one that's bothering me), rather than damaging some units in my opponent's rear guard.

Third, if you draw one of the "terrible trifecta", it has to match the map you're using. I seem to draw RR whenever I'm playing on a map with no river. Go figure.

Fourth, expensive Lore cards can only be played once every few turns, based on the typical production of Lore Tokens. However, you play a Command card every turn. Therefore, the impact of getting good Command cards is much larger than the impact of a "broken" Lore card. In my last game, I used FF to damage 11 or 12 of my opponent's units. Guaranteed win, right? Wrong. I lost 6-3, due to my opponent using several Advance cards to overwhelm my center section and wipe out several units before I could protect them. He was able to use his superior Command cards in combination with timely Lore cards (like Mass Might) to press an advantage and eliminate units. IMHO, this is much more useful that a Lore card that blindly strikes at several units spread across the board.

Do HR/FF/RR have a large potential impact for their cost? Yes. Will they guarantee a win? No. Superior Command cards and better tactical play along with timely dice rolls will help you win more games than these three Lore cards.

Just one player's opinion after 20+ games.


TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU Wink
And if a player manages to cause heaps of damage with one of these cards despite ur best attempts to avoid their potentially devastating effects... well congratulations to them Smile as its not an easy or guaranteed task to pull off in the first place. It's abit like any game where if u manage to pull off a mighty but not so common combination, u win (like u see in many card games- Magic comes to mind- where some combos (albeit not easy to pull off)are almost certain victories with few really satisfactory counters). This doesn't mean the game is broken though- just adds to the surprise and unpredictability factor Wink and i don't think thats a bad thing.

But if winning is everything for somebody, and not just enjoying the experience (its only a game Wink), well then they're setting themselves up for disappointment. Battles by the way are never "fair" Wink (or "go to plan")




Lemme address a couple things here...

- You say odds are that a player will not draw one of these cards. The problem comes up however when *either* player draws one of these cards. Assuming that both players have a cleric, the cards will almost certainly be in the deck and have a very high likelihood of being drawn at some point. Or... as it was in my last game, I had both HR and FF in my hand by the third or fourth turn. I was dealt HR in my original hand and played it on the third turn, crippling my opponent before the battle had really had a chance to get going. I played FF a couple turns later and my opponent quit, feeling helpless and that it didn't matter what decisions he made (which was true).

- People keep comparing HR and FF to powerful combos in BL or in other games. This is a flawed, poor comparison. HR and FF are NOT combos! They're just one card (for a puny 7 lore). If one single card is getting compared to the most powerful multi-card combos known to man, doesn't this tell people that there's a problem? Like you said, the mega-combos in Magic are quite challenging to pull off. Playing HR/FF in Battlelore on the other hand, is a piece of cake.

Why are you saying people should be congratulated for pulling off something like HR/FF? There's no "pulling it off". Just dumb luck to draw it and a medium lore cost. No strategy, no "combo" as you keep saying. Just play a card.

If people want to compare combos, then please take into consideration the value of casting HR on a dozen units plus a mounted charge card to mop up the pieces with your 3-4 mounted units. 50 dice of damage. No card or even combo is comparable to this. Not even close.

- No, winning isn't everything. Fun is everything. And most people do not find it fun when a game says that it doesn't matter what decisions you make, or that both players have played an excellent/fun/close game so far - all that matters is that a person can pay 7 lore and everything so far is negated.

- Yeah HR/FF adds "surprise and unpredictability". It's unpredictable who will pull HR/FF and wreck the game. Surprise! you lose 14 units! Sounds like a bad thing to me.

[Updated on: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:32]

      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Posts: 266
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 14:37
If you want to house rule these cards, I recommend limiting the number of units affected based on the caster's number of Command cards. That way, only 3-6 units can be targeted. The caster chooses which units are targeted from those on or adjacent to the apropriate terrain. Also, if you're rolling more dice because you went with a high-level Cleric, you typically have either a lower level Commander, or no other Lore Masters. Either way, it's a balancing effect.

This seems to put the potential impact of these cards in line with their Lore cost, without fundamentally changing the game.
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Posts: 180
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 15:01
mvettemagred wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 14:37

If you want to house rule these cards, I recommend limiting the number of units affected based on the caster's number of Command cards. That way, only 3-6 units can be targeted. The caster chooses which units are targeted from those on or adjacent to the apropriate terrain. Also, if you're rolling more dice because you went with a high-level Cleric, you typically have either a lower level Commander, or no other Lore Masters. Either way, it's a balancing effect.

This seems to put the potential impact of these cards in line with their Lore cost, without fundamentally changing the game.


This is my preferred house rule as well.
But I would still like to see an official variant card from DoW.
I don't like to have cards in my deck with special rules new players has to memorize. And I don't like to write on my cards either...
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 15:50
My gaming group generally refuses to play with rule variants unless they're official. Instead of house ruling HR/FF, they dismiss Battlelore as "broken", and play other games. Beats me how they can ignore what is an otherwise great game that can be patched up with a house rule, but they do.

For me, limiting the hexes affected by the number of command cards is an okay solution. Something about one loremaster's card being dependent on another loremaster's levels doesn't sit right with me though. All of the other loremasters are independent of one another, so the mechanic seems a bit odd. It looks a great deal more balanced though. Smile

Dreaming here, but I would prefer HR/FF to not do damage at all. This is a cleric we're talking about after all - a protector and a healer. Instead of being a nuclear bomb...

- Maybe these cards would entangle enemy units. Anything hit by HR/FF would get a token, meaning they would be paralyzed until given an order. That order would free them from the entanglement in vegetation or rock slide, but would not allow them to move or attack that turn. Maybe a mechanic like the spider's web or something?

- Maybe these cards would serve to cause the hills/trees/rivers to defend your own units somehow.

Just brainstorming real quick. I think some rule variant like this though would be more favorable to the community than simply nerfing these cards.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 18:01
These cards are only powerful in adventures with several hills,forests and/or water terrains and little other room to maneuvre- ie mainly problem in non-epic BL. Hence there shouldn't be much incentive to pick a cleric in these scenarios (Remember: if no one picks cleric only 5/15 cleric cards in deck and chances are these cards will be out of play, if only 1 player selcts cleric 8/15 cards in deck. But if both select clerics well ur asking for trouble...14/15 cleric cards in deck Wink ) Try picking wizard/rogue combos for the foil/dispell cards- of course these cards may also be absent depending on both players choice of war councils Wink.

Alternatively, given that this debate is going on for so long and is obviously becoming upsetting to many BL gamers, I'd like to see DoW take an official stance and come to some resolution to this. A summary of some good and simple suggestions (with some variation Wink ) thrown around these forums have included:

1. Limit total units targeted to a maximum (ie cleric level
+2or +3 units= 5 or 6 units max)

2. These cards affect BOTH players (not just enemy)

3. (player142544's suggestion above -or variant)
ie
- 1lore/unit rolled= unit 'stunned' (effect like spider's
web ie cant move or battle till 1 lore played)
- for each extra lore/unit rolled= unit loses 1 figure
and is also 'stunned'

4. Limit effects to a particular SECTION of board (caster's
choice)

[Updated on: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:02]

      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Wed, 16 May 2007 18:52
I pretty much agree that if you play on very flat, open maps that HR/FF are not a problem. So these cards are only broken if you play on an "average" map or one with quite a bit of terrain (which makes for a cool battle IMO). People will still pick the cleric though, even on less-diverse maps though. For 7 lore, dropping 4 dice on even just three or four targets is still unmatched in its destructive potential.

One question, in Epic Battlelore, how is this not a problem? How is this not the same problem or a bigger one in Epic? There will likely be even more hills/woods on larger maps, increasing the destructive potential of HR/FF, right?
      
Borgopolis
Junior Member

Posts: 18
Registered:
May 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 17 May 2007 01:38
sdafilli wrote on Wed, 16 May 2007 09:50

1. Limit total units targeted to a maximum (ie cleric level
+2or +3 units= 5 or 6 units max)

2. These cards affect BOTH players (not just enemy)

3. (player142544's suggestion above -or variant)
ie
- 1lore/unit rolled= unit 'stunned' (effect like spider's
web ie cant move or battle till 1 lore played)
- for each extra lore/unit rolled= unit loses 1 figure
and is also 'stunned'

4. Limit effects to a particular SECTION of board (caster's
choice)




Please consider an even simpler alternative as well:

What about : HR/FF can target only one Hill/Forest and adjacent hexes.

This way you're looking at 1-7 hexes which will be targeted, which is still nice.
Number of Dice rolls still increases with lvl of Cleric, so lvl does make a difference.

[Updated on: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:39]

      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 17 May 2007 02:38
Any comment from DoW staff on this topic? Smile
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Posts: 206
Registered:
April 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 17 May 2007 02:43
Borgopolis wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 09:08


Please consider an even simpler alternative as well:

What about : HR/FF can target only one Hill/Forest and adjacent hexes.

This way you're looking at 1-7 hexes which will be targeted, which is still nice.
Number of Dice rolls still increases with lvl of Cleric, so lvl does make a difference.


You'll probably find that most people will be reluctant to keep more than 2 (or3) units on surrounding such terrain. And with luck involved in the roll of dice, it would make these cards very innefective...hence 'breaking' the game in reverse Wink

You need strong cards in this sort of game that can change the tide (maybe not toooooo strong) but rendering them too weak will take a huge (and I'd like to call it fun) element out of the game....
      
tech7
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 147
Registered:
September 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 17 May 2007 11:50
sdafilli schrieb am Thu, 17 May 2007 02:43

Borgopolis wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 09:08


Please consider an even simpler alternative as well:

What about : HR/FF can target only one Hill/Forest and adjacent hexes.

This way you're looking at 1-7 hexes which will be targeted, which is still nice.
Number of Dice rolls still increases with lvl of Cleric, so lvl does make a difference.


You'll probably find that most people will be reluctant to keep more than 2 (or3) units on surrounding such terrain. And with luck involved in the roll of dice, it would make these cards very innefective...hence 'breaking' the game in reverse Wink

You need strong cards in this sort of game that can change the tide (maybe not toooooo strong) but rendering them too weak will take a huge (and I'd like to call it fun) element out of the game....



Ineffective ? You still roll 2-4 dice against at least 3 units. Since there will alwasy be at least one hill/forest/river hex with 3 units, so that those units are bold. And on the official maps, there are a lot of terrain features. Sometimes you don't even have the command cards or time to move your units away.

By the way, those cards wrecked four games in a row, in my playing group. This is indeed a rare occassion, but even the possibility that a card can wreck the game is bad. And the cleric has 4 of those cards, where is the balnce ? Until now I seee only two possible war councils lvl 3 cleric + x, or lvl. rouge/warrior/wizard +x . Or in other words against the cleric, or with him.

[Updated on: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:52]

      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Thu, 17 May 2007 13:58
You don't have to be with him or against him. The best strategy is to do both. Always have a level 2-3 cleric so you can keep your hat in the ring as far as the HR/FF lottery goes. Then have a wiz/rog level 1 as well.

Sdafilli, Tech7's point is a good one. You're still going to be rolling 12 dice on most maps with that house rule. Maybe more. On many official maps you can't even escape the terrain because it's everywhere. HR/FF doing 12 dice would still be the most powerful lore cards in the game. And for only 7 lore, which is pretty cheap.

The whole notion that people need to spend their games fleeing terrain is really rotten IMO. Terrain is there as a big part of the strategic element. It's fun to move your units into formation, using terrain to bolster your strength, while trying to figure out how to deal with entrenched foes. Not being able to utilize it because of the threat of game-wrecking lore cards should tell people that something is very, very wrong.

[Updated on: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:00]

      
Silverwings
Senior Member

Posts: 161
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 09:40
Several ideas have been tried out in our group on account of lore being too powerfull:

1) use only lore card up to (and included) lvl 6

2) Allow the 'dispel scroll'. In most game systems you can buy a means of cancelling (or trying to cancel) your opponents magic action. We sometimes include these in scenarios.

3) Allow one to always try to dispel. For example: for each Lore that you spend, you may roll 1D, if it comes up with lore, it cancels your opponents card unless he spends 1 extra lore. So, you could decide to spend 4 lore to counter your opponent's fireball and you roll 2 lore. Your opponent can then decide if he is going to spend another 2 lore to push the spell through or not.

Let us know what you think. WWW.BATTLELORECAMP.PAGE.TL
      
Lord Manimal
Member

User Pages
Posts: 75
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 16:13
As a very new player, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but from that perspective, I'd like to add that so far, when going against the cleric, I simply forsake clusters of troops. I'll go with a warrior, and just outmanuver (usually) and outclass my opponent. I suffered 2 initial losses against him trying the wizard (hoping for the dispell card) and the rogue, hoping to simply be able to eat the damage and disrupt his battle plans enough to re-stabalize. I was severely wrong on both counts.

The first time I was hit with RR, I felt the same way the folks against it do; WTF?!! All of my forces were clustered in very nice battle lines, and I was playing a rogue, so I was completely helpless. Felt like the game was broken. Until I realized the opponents I were playing against were completely counting on those cards to win the game.

The warrior, in my opinion is the best counter to the cleric, as he increases the overall strength of the skirmisher tactics required. Give up on having emboldened units unless playing with dwarves, and maxmize that cavalry! Terrain be d@mned!!
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1003
Registered:
May 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 16:20
all veiws are immpotant and with the suppot of the goblin band(s)your stratagey should be more potent Smile
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 16:43
Lord Manimal wrote on Tue, 04 September 2007 10:13

As a very new player, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but from that perspective, I'd like to add that so far, when going against the cleric, I simply forsake clusters of troops. I'll go with a warrior, and just outmanuver (usually) and outclass my opponent. I suffered 2 initial losses against him trying the wizard (hoping for the dispell card) and the rogue, hoping to simply be able to eat the damage and disrupt his battle plans enough to re-stabalize. I was severely wrong on both counts.

The first time I was hit with RR, I felt the same way the folks against it do; WTF?!! All of my forces were clustered in very nice battle lines, and I was playing a rogue, so I was completely helpless. Felt like the game was broken. Until I realized the opponents I were playing against were completely counting on those cards to win the game.

The warrior, in my opinion is the best counter to the cleric, as he increases the overall strength of the skirmisher tactics required. Give up on having emboldened units unless playing with dwarves, and maxmize that cavalry! Terrain be d@mned!!



Not sure how the warrior is better than anything else at countering a L3 cleric.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 17:13
cebalrai wrote on Tue, 04 September 2007 08:43



Not sure how the warrior is better than anything else at countering a L3 cleric.


Lord Manimal is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but what he is saying is that the lore cards in the Warrior deck are conducive to leaving troops unsupported (and thereby less prone to cluster attacking cards like creeping doom, chain lightning, and the cleric spells): Parry, Fearless, Evade, First Strike, Mass Shield, maybe others that I'm not thinking about of the top of my head, all provide safeguards for unsupported troops. Granted, it would get expensive having to play a lore card every turn, but likely it would get one through a couple in order to do some damage offensively.
      
Lord Manimal
Member

User Pages
Posts: 75
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 18:34
You said it better than I, toddrew. The cleric mentality ( at least against the limited number of opponents I've played) is such that they tend to play very defensively until enough lore is collected, and lore cards have been cycled through to get the heavy hitters in hand.

My wargaming experience is vast, I'm not ashamed to say, and if I have an idea as to how you're going to play your forces, I'll generally craft a solution, in most games with enough thought. Someone taking the high level cleric, so far, has ensured the exact same defensively minded utilization of forces, which is an ample opportunity to exploit that mentality.

With that in mind, the warrior's ability to get troops "there" faster without the use of clusters (mass run, or field command anyone?), and then employ cards like mass shield/cry havoc/assault combined with foot onslaught etc make for potentially devestating mid-game scenarios. Rolling 6+ dice while being able to move all of your troops additional hexes will rock anyone just as well, if not more-so than rushing river, etc.

The best part is that as you're utilizing the aforementioned strategy, with any luck, you're re-accumulating lore with all of the dice being thrown to get setup for a follow-on assault, while your cleric opponent is pretty much a one shot wonder when it comes to his lore. He dumps the infamous rushing river, loosing all or at least most of his lore. Your cards enable you the opportunity to replenlish some of your lore through rolling, potentially leaving you with cards to dump the very next turn.

I dunno. So far the warrior has been my favorite, hands down, but only in a situation in which I can make fairly solid assumptions as to my opponents actions/re-actions. I tend to be of the playstyle to seize game momentum at it's earliest and force my opponent into re-actionary mode anyway, so his cards really fit into that playstyle. If you're playing rushing river as a defensive action to try and soften the coming blow, then I've accomplished my task by taking away your ability to wait till the most opportune moment.
      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Posts: 266
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Double all Lore cost Tue, 04 September 2007 19:36
Lord Manimal wrote on Tue, 04 September 2007 10:13

As a very new player, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but from that perspective, I'd like to add that so far, when going against the cleric, I simply forsake clusters of troops. I'll go with a warrior, and just outmanuver (usually) and outclass my opponent. I suffered 2 initial losses against him trying the wizard (hoping for the dispell card) and the rogue, hoping to simply be able to eat the damage and disrupt his battle plans enough to re-stabalize. I was severely wrong on both counts.

The first time I was hit with RR, I felt the same way the folks against it do; WTF?!! All of my forces were clustered in very nice battle lines, and I was playing a rogue, so I was completely helpless. Felt like the game was broken. Until I realized the opponents I were playing against were completely counting on those cards to win the game.

The warrior, in my opinion is the best counter to the cleric, as he increases the overall strength of the skirmisher tactics required. Give up on having emboldened units unless playing with dwarves, and maxmize that cavalry! Terrain be d@mned!!

I hadn't thought about the Warrior being a counter for the Cleric, but I agree he allows the player to be a little more aggressive with unit placement. I think the Warrior is the most underappreciated Lore Master.

I completely agree with your assessment that some players take a L3 Cleric, hoping solely for the 1 or 2 Lore cards that will match the map terrain. Others take Cleric because of his 7 level-dependent cards. He is definitely a powerful Lore Master, but I still like the surgical precision of the Warrior's cards. I like to set up cool combos on my turns, and have little surprises waiting for my opponent on his turns. The Warrior's cards fit that bill quite nicely.
      
Pages (2): [1  2  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:3 Players FFA
Next Topic:Rules Questions: Epic section card replacement and re-rolls
Goto Forum: