Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Recherche
Forums » BattleLore - English » Oh no! I cannot believe it!
Montrer: Messages du jour 
  
AuteurSujet
echtalion
Member

Messages: 96
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2007
Oh no! I cannot believe it! Sun, 30 December 2007 10:21
Having read ColtsFan76 description of the new troop pack: Scottish Wars(thanks Smile ) I have to say I'm sorely disappointed with the units.

Once again, the units included don't seem very different from what we already have(I have a copy of each expansion), on top of that you get 16! dwarven spear bearers AGAIN.(Wielding their mighty pencils).

But my major gripe is the fact that the Dwarven Cattle riders are NO DIFFERENT from horses. No special abilities, no stampede, no checks to see whether the dwarf riding it gets in trouble(a la cowboys), no special damage to units it attacks(trample for example), in fact, NOTHING special.

Why bother with the idea of a Dwarf riding cattle in the first place, then? I think it's a first in the fantasy genre, but under-utilised. It could have been that they ride horses, (the small type, sure, so Dwarves can get on top of them). I think it would have provided with more internal coherence, as I cannot believe bulls are as domestic as horses, and offer the same manouverability. They went the premiere way, but forgot to add some flavour, that is, a special look that is matched with something special, unique.

I was in doubt as to whether getting this expansion, and now I'm definitely convinced that I will wait until the Heroes expansion is released. If, again, they are like embedded troops, with little differentiation from other units, I may, sadly, consider to withdraw from this system. I would still play, but I wouldn't purchase anymore expansions.

[Mis à jour le: Sun, 30 December 2007 10:23]

      
kilrah
Member

Messages: 53
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Sun, 30 December 2007 11:45
Well, the bulls are different. They move 1 hex slower then a horse. But thats it.
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Sun, 30 December 2007 12:25
echtalion wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 10:21


I was in doubt as to whether getting this expansion, and now I'm definitely convinced that I will wait until the Heroes expansion is released. If, again, they are like embedded troops, with little differentiation from other units, I may, sadly, consider to withdraw from this system. I would still play, but I wouldn't purchase anymore expansions.

I totally agree. When I bought the game I knew it would probably end up costing a lot to play, the way I wanted to. But getting units with only slight differences, and even duplicate units, has really turned me off.
I'm aware the differences between units can mean a lot on the battlefield, but putting out five expansions this way is stretching it too far IMHO.
If we don't get rid of those duplicate units, and the Heroes expansion doesn't bring something unique to the game, I'll have to turn my attention somewhere else. And that is really sad, as this game is still a blast to play.
      
Stalkingwolf
Junior Member

Messages: 20
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 02:03
I have to admit that the first wave of expansions seem a bit similar. I was looking at that game Battleground a while back and at first was considering getting it. But after looking at all the units, overall it looked like the same units with just minor variations and called a different race. Laughing Hopefully the next wave of BL expansions will offer a lot more diversity. New and more diverse units/races, New creatures, Lore Cards, Terrain, etc. etc.

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 31 December 2007 02:04]

      
andrewgr
Junior Member

Messages: 28
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 06:33
Stalkingwolf wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 17:03

I have to admit that the first wave of expansions seem a bit similar. I was looking at that game Battleground a while back and at first was considering getting it. But after looking at all the units, overall it looked like the same units with just minor variations and called a different race.


Not to sidetrack this discussion, but I couldnt let this comment pass unchallenged, just in case there are people considering Battleground reading this forum.

There is significantly more variating between different units *within* a single Battleground faction than there is between any two units in Battlelore. Add on top of that the even greater differences between the factions, and there is absolutely no comparison.

In Battleground, you have 3 separate offensive stats, two separate defensive stats, a courage number, a movement rate, a range for missile fire, and differing amounts of damage (broken down into 3 different types of damage, as well), all of which can vary signficantly from one unit to the next.

In Battleground, the cheapest unit is worth about 10% of what the most expensive unit is (reflected by their excellent point system). That should give you some idea of the extreme variation that's possible.

In Battleground, each faction has its own special ability, which makes different armies play very differently; an undead unit with a certain set of stats can have damage regenerated by the necromancer, making it play quite differently from, say, an equivilent Orcish unit, whose army special ability allows you to "lash" it for extra movement and extra attacks.

Battleground may not appeal to everyone, and I don't think it would be seemly to trumpet its virtues on a Days of Wonder forum. But it's really very misleading to imply that there isn't much variation between units or between factions in that system. There is a huge amount of variation, and there is certainly a great deal more variation than there will ever be in BattleLore, if for no other reason than there are so many different stats they can vary.
      
Nusku
Junior Member

Messages: 18
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2005
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 14:46
Well I for one am not disappointed. Perhaps my expectations are set too low, but:

a) I can now field a complete Dwarven army. I've made my own custom CtA cards for French, English and Goblin armies. However, there were too few Dwarven units previously - so I'm looking forward to having a fourth army to choose from.

b) The Bull riders are a bold, blue cavalry unit that moves 2 hexes. As far as I can see that makes them different to any other cavalry unit (but maybe I'm missing something?). It also fits with the Dwarven style: tough, but slow.

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 31 December 2007 14:46]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 15:01
Nusku wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 06:46

Well I for one am not disappointed. Perhaps my expectations are set too low...


I just posted something similar to the following in another thread, but I also am not disappointed, in fact I was impressed by the adventures that came with the set. I really like how they are set up and play out, and also how they utilize the "fantasy" units to approximate the historical battles.

The units themselves are nice, too (and having played quite a bit of C&C:Ancients lately, familiar and new at the same time Smile ). Playing the adventures, one will quickly see that packaging the Mounted Knights in what many see as a "Dwarf Expansion" was no marketing gimmick to target both Fantasy and Historical bent players with one issue (though it does address both nicely, imho). There is real integration, but at the same time, if one wants to keep them separate, that is always an option too.

Nusku, I think many are disappointed that the Cattle Riders are not more powerful, or better, have radically different abilities from existing units. I too, think they are perfectly fine as is, adding fluff variety as well as subtle performance distinctions that become important when making decisions during a game. However, with the introduction of the Mounted Knights (I think, the most consistently powerful units as of right now), the Cattle Riders are not the only inherently bold Mounted units Very Happy

EDIT: and from below, it seems Cattle Riders aren't bold at all Very Happy

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 31 December 2007 22:23]

      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 15:47
Nusku wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 14:46

Well I for one am not disappointed. Perhaps my expectations are set too low, but:

a) I can now field a complete Dwarven army.


If they make the Dwarven army cards so they accomodate 6 units of Iron Dwarves Spear Bearers, or even just 5, I will not complain anymore. But I highly doubt it will be possible to maintain the balance of the game this way.
Right now, as I see it, if I want to make a Dwarven/Goblin -only army, I am forced to buy dublicate units. This is what turns me off. It reminds me of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. In one of the latter editions they put 3 figures in a blister, although a unit should contain 4 according to the rules. So people were forced to buy either 2 blisters, and have 2 spare miniatures, or 4 blisters to field 3 units!
Now DoW might prove me wrong, and show a way to use all the units in a game. But with the lack of info on the future plans with BattleLore, combined with units apparently in excess, This game has started to give me a bad taste in my mouth.
I really hope there is a reason behind the madness. As I said before, I really like playing the base game. I just hope I'll be able to play a more "advanced" version without having to pay for units I can't use.
      
constant-whiner
Member

Messages: 58
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 15:59
dbc- wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 16:47

Nusku wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 14:46

Well I for one am not disappointed. Perhaps my expectations are set too low, but:

a) I can now field a complete Dwarven army.


As I said before, I really like playing the base game. I just hope I'll be able to play a more "advanced" version without having to pay for units I can't use.



I totally second that.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3326
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 17:07
Nusku wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 07:46

b) The Bull riders are a bold, blue cavalry unit that moves 2 hexes. As far as I can see that makes them different to any other cavalry unit (but maybe I'm missing something?). It also fits with the Dwarven style: tough, but slow.

The cattle are not Bold. They are just blue and move 2-hexes.
      
felkor
Member
Cadet

Messages: 54
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 18:08
All dwarven units are bold - that would include cattle riders.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 18:52
felkor wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 10:08

All dwarven units are bold - that would include cattle riders.


Correct Felkor, Dwarfs are bold. But if you see Colt's post, he states the CATTLE are not bold..it is the rider that makes it bold.

Thus in case there are future releases with cattle (oh great, just what we need - a farming edition..ROFL!) one has a basis on what movement cattle have.

Cab
      
felkor
Member
Cadet

Messages: 54
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 18:55
True, but no one has discussed what really makes cattle different from other mounts... how cute they are! Smile

My wife loves highland cattle (which look just like the ones in this expansion) - almost makes me want to get this expansion just so she can play with them.
      
Sultan
Junior Member

Messages: 29
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2004
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 21:28
felkor wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 11:08

All dwarven units are bold - that would include cattle riders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought only dwarf FOOT units were bold.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3326
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 22:04
Sultan wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 14:28

felkor wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 11:08

All dwarven units are bold - that would include cattle riders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought only dwarf FOOT units were bold.

You are indeed Correct.

You may check out Page 37 of the Rule book and look at your Iron Dwarf Summary card.

"All Iron Dwarf foot units are bold."

So not all dwarven units are bold - only foot units. And the cattle are mounted. This obivously has never come up before because this is the first mounted Dwarven units we have seen. But I assure you, the statement Sultan and I made is correct.

9Likewise, Goblin Rush only affects Goblinoid foot units while Goblin Run affects all goblinoid units.)
      
felkor
Member
Cadet

Messages: 54
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 22:08
I stand corrected!

I never noticed the rule about Goblinoid units either - but then again, you'd need a mounted goblinoid unit that only has a speed of 1 hex in order for that rule to make a difference.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 22:13
dbc- wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 07:47


Now DoW might prove me wrong, and show a way to use all the units in a game. But with the lack of info on the future plans with BattleLore, combined with units apparently in excess, This game has started to give me a bad taste in my mouth.
I really hope there is a reason behind the madness. As I said before, I really like playing the base game. I just hope I'll be able to play a more "advanced" version without having to pay for units I can't use.



I don't know if this will make you feel any more comfortable with the way DoW is distributing the game/developing the system, but originally units were going to be made available in blister packs, presumably one or two units per pack, but (what I read anyway) this was not embraced by the retailers, so the current system is what was decided upon. I hope that in the future blister packs are made available, but if this is it, I'll manage Smile

Also, the way expansions up until now have been released, they may play nicely together, but none are required for another to work (things like Epic and CtA may enhance other expansions, but are not required). In order to do this, DoW decided (it appears anyway, I've no inside information Wink ) that some redundancy would be necessary.

Some Scottish Wars adventures require four units of Iron Dwarves Spear Bearers, so 4 is what it comes with. Each of the Goblin expansion adventures have one band in them, so each has one band. While no official adventure currently calls for two, the Goblin Band is very powerful, and having two available for CtA is not a bad thing. The way the system is currently set up, and the way it is developing, one will be able to find a use for the figures.

For reasons I assume come from goodwill and not malice, DoW has decided to package the game the way it has: making it so every expansion purchase is not essential for another.

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 31 December 2007 23:36]

      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3326
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Mon, 31 December 2007 22:25
I agree with toddrew on this. This is another case of DOW being damned if they do damned if they don't. If we got all these units as blister packs (which was indeed rejected by retailers because they were too easy to shoplift and not valuable enough to put behind the precious space at the counter), we would probably only have web-only scenarios and people would complain they have to buy multiple packs (probably costing more than the Specialist pack we have now) just ot play a single scenario.

The way I look at it, I only have to buy one specialist pack and that should be enough to satisfy my Epic games as well. I can field 6 Dwarven Spearbear units with 3 speciliast cards. But the only time I will need 3 specialist cards is in Epic games or standard games where we both take dwarves on our side. Now I have enough (or at least close to enough) without having to buy duplicates of all the expansions.
      
Nusku
Junior Member

Messages: 18
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2005
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 00:54
I too stand corrected. Just shows that you need to read those cards carefully!

Smile
      
Boromir_and_kermit
Junior Member
Cadet

Messages: 25
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 01:56
Well if the Dwarven Cattle Riders are not bold and only move 1 space+ less... that makes the difference between them and normal blue cavalry even less... Sad

Anyways... as much as I want to get this expansion... I will hold off until I find out what affect future expansions have on the game. If the expansions out so far are going to be typical of what is to come, I am sadly going to opt out of the system. I have too many other games to repeatedly buy figures that aren't all that different from one another. Sorry.

Please make me eat my hat DOW by releasing/announcing something that blows my socks off.

Ben.
      
Lord Manimal
Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 75
Enregistré(e) en :
August 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 16:56
Actually, I think that by lameing their cavalry a bit, they gave the dwarves an achillies heel of a sort. I've read discussion to the contrary, but my personal opinion is that as a standale "faction", the dwarves can cream the others, one on one. By making their cavalry a tad worse, well, I liken it to the goblin foot being a tad worse, by being easily driven off the battlefield altogether. Don't misunderstand me, I've seen some masterful usage of the goblin run tactic, but in general, when facing goblins with my dwarves, I do my best simply push their section off the board entirely for my final flags.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 17:05
Again, not trying to talk anyone in to anything, and breadth over depth of gaming is not something I will ever fault anyone for Smile , just want to provide differing perspectives on the current expansions, lest a reader think there are no redeeming qualities whatsoever Laughing :

I've stated this in other threads, but don't think in this one, that I feel the best reason to purchase this expansion is for the adventures themselves (and the accompanying units required to play those adventures). If the English conquest of Scotland floats your boat, it is great. Even if the theme has no significance to one, the way they are presented makes a tidy and fun to play package (that was the hook for me, anyway).

The clan chiefs are units of significant impact on the game, much like warriors in CCA, except stronger, both by being able to ignore an extra flag, and rolling essiential one extra die compared, relationally to the rest of the units in their respective games, to the Warriors. (For those that aren't familiar with C&C:A {and why not, I demand to know Wink }, the Warriors would be like green foot units in BL, except battling at +1d and being bold1 when at full strength, and they are powerful in that game...wait, they do have an advantage over clan chiefs, that I originally thought was the "bonus" referred to: they get to battle again after gaining ground from an initial attack.)

The Mounted Knights are even more powerful, I think. Being able to ignore 2 bonus strikes from most foot units, and one from other Mounted units, is tough. Being bold1 is tougher. The reason why they are introduced in what many consider a "fantasy expansion" is because it is not solely a fantasy expansion, but one in which the Scots are represented by the hardy dwarven units. That this gives lots of people ascetic fits, I understand - but my sensibilities can cope with it. The Mounted Knights are integral to the adventures that are in the expansion.

I am glad that the Cattle Riders are penalized the way the are. They are the dwarf version of the green foot Goblin. Yes, currently, it makes very little sense why one would choose them as a specialist card when playing Call to Arms, but they make for interesting situations during games. Their attack will be more effective against other mounted units than the other non-mounted Dwarf units, and they are still more mobile & have the opportunity to pursue and bonus attack, but compared to other blue mounted units, they are at a disadvantage. The -1 movement penalty is a subtle difference, but it will have an impact on decisions made during the game, and that's all I ask of newly introduced units. And, not that I want to encourage this in the near future expansions - I'm all for variety, as races are developed and introduced, having all types of units will have relational impact and don't necessarily need to have radically differing abilities. Hearing from DoW about plans in this area, however vague they feel that news should be, would probably be a good marketing idea, but, that's their business not mine (unless.. Wink ).

Anyway, for what it's worth, I find this to be a very fun and flexible (in terms of medieval vs. fantasy, scenario driven vs. cta freeplay and campaign potential) expansion.


EDIT: due to my longwindedness, Lord Manimal beat me to the punch about the Cattle Riders, but yeah, good to see others see it that way too, not just a solitairy lame apologist excuse, at least a corroborated lame apologist excuse Laughing

EDIT II: Took me a good ten minutes, but found that dangling "right angled open bracket" that was causing the formating issues Very Happy

EDIT III: No, no I did not. Moving on... Wink

EDIT IV: like other areas in my life, avoidance seems to be the quick fix. I knew I could not let it alone Laughing just removed the offending bracket choice, and use another...no, you are not required to care Very Happy

[Mis à jour le: Tue, 01 January 2008 17:27]

      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3326
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 18:33
I think one thing that people ar emissing with the Dwarven Cattles is the obvious: they are Dwarven Cavalry.

1) It was a unit type that the Dwarves did not have before so who cares how it compares against normal Blue cavalry or Goblin cavalry. This is the first time Dwarves are mounted units.

2) That means they have slightly better mobility. Since practically all Dwarven units are blue banner, this means they can now move 2 hexes and still battle. No other blue dwarven units can do that (except Clan Chiefs at full strength). And while they may only move 1 additional hex after a successful melee, they still get the chance for a second melee battle.

3) A dwarven army can take full advnatage of the "Mounted Charge" card. With an all-dwarven or mostly dwarven army, this card used to be a "move any unit of your choice" card. Now it can move all the cattle on the board.

So while the Cattle Riders may be sub-par compared against other mounted units, they are still something new for the Dwarves. And since this is the first mounted dwarven unit (and possible the last), I wouldn't expect it to be an uber-unit. But it's not a useless unit by any means.
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 23:20
toddrew wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 22:13


Each of the Goblin expansion adventures have one band in them, so each has one band.


The way I see it, they decided to put a Goblin Band in each expansion, so they had to create scenarios with the band in both expansions too. There's a difference...
I know DoW said the Goblin Band is such great a unit, everybody fielding Goblins would like to have one. And since you could technically have two bands present, they decided to include one in each expansion.
I play only Epic games, with one player using Dwarves and Humans, and the other Goblins and Humans. So to me personally, having two Goblin Bands, feels redundant.
Taken as a single case, these releases are OK. I simply decided not to buy the Skirmisher expansion (but still dreams about those Spearbearers...).
But with Scottish Wars, I just feel they have stretched it too far. Even if both players decide to play with Dwarves, it would still cost 3 cards to field all Spearbearers. I just don't see this as being very likely!
Once again I will add that this might be remedied in the future, when Dwarven-only army cards are released.

Oh! And I am also disappointed with there being no Epic scenarios in an expansion with such an epic name as "Scottish Wars"!
While the scenarios included might be good ones, I really find Epic games so much more satisfying. Even if I ended up buying the expansion, I would probably never play the scenarios. Sad
      
*player106579
Junior Member
Cadet

Pages Perso
Messages: 15
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Tue, 01 January 2008 23:47
toddrew wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 16:13



I don't know if this will make you feel any more comfortable with the way DoW is distributing the game/developing the system, but originally units were going to be made available in blister packs, presumably one or two units per pack, but (what I read anyway) this was not embraced by the retailers, so the current system is what was decided upon. I hope that in the future blister packs are made available, but if this is it, I'll manage Smile




I know I have seen where people have small sets of battlelore figures for sale on Ebay. This may not be what you want , but if you are looking for those few units to complete an Epic or something, this just might be the answer.

But As far as I see it, I'm pleased with the current distribution system. Looking forward til the next sets.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 14:23
dbc- wrote on Tue, 01 January 2008 15:20

toddrew wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 22:13


Each of the Goblin expansion adventures have one band in them, so each has one band.


The way I see it, they decided to put a Goblin Band in each expansion, so they had to create scenarios with the band in both expansions too. There's a difference...


And, if that's how you see it, that DoW is purposely meting out the expansions in a way that maximizes profits with a malicious disregard to customers wishes and benefit, I can see how the release schedule and packaging could allow one to come to that conclusion, but I'm just pointing out what I see as valid reasons for why, rightly or wrongly, the expansions have come out the way they did (with the main thrust being, I'm glad they are putting something out Very Happy ).

This gets mentioned a lot, but just a reminder (and not an excuse for DoW to release willy-nilly whatever trinkets and have it fit under this umbrella: ) this game system lends itself very nicely to individual taste. From your post the issue is how does what DoW releases as expansions fit into playing Epic games. While Epic games may be your focus, it is not the sole focus of the game system. If one views it as so, then, again, I can see why people would think it a money grab for Epic to be released separately from the base game, and not have Epic adventures included in each expansion, etc. Rather, to me, the beauty of the game is that if one exclusively wants to play Epic adventures, each expansion will contribute to that experience, but none save the Epic expansion itself is required for it, and whatever adaptions one feels are necessary are certainly encouraged.

The thought of coming up with one's own Epic adventures may not have appeal to you personally, but the way DoW has been releasing expansions, each one basically only dependent upon the base game, none dependent upon another, makes it so that, with few exceptions, integrating the expansions to generate adventures combining elements from multiple expansions is currently encumbant upon the player.

Man, I hope this post does not come off as pedantic (though, I suppose sticking a word like that in there doesn't help that cause Laughing ) - I really just want to ease some of the negativeness of the criticism, but definitely do not want to stifle warranted criticism.

And, TRagedy, if you're still reading Very Happy , I didn't say it explicitly, but Ebay was certainly one of the ways in which I may "manage" if I deem grabbing a few extra units here and there necessary Smile


      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 17:26
[quote title=toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 14:23]
dbc- wrote on Tue, 01 January 2008 15:20

toddrew wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 22:13


Each of the Goblin expansion adventures have one band in them, so each has one band.


The way I see it, they decided to put a Goblin Band in each expansion, so they had to create scenarios with the band in both expansions too. There's a difference...

toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 14:23


And, if that's how you see it, that DoW is purposely meting out the expansions in a way that maximizes profits with a malicious disregard to customers wishes and benefit...

I'm not saying that.
You made it sound like they had to put in a band, since the scenario was created with one. While I think the process goes the other way around - "what units do we want to introduce?" - "Let's make some scenarios to fit".
toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 14:23


From your post the issue is how does what DoW releases as expansions fit into playing Epic games.

I haven't made myself clear, then.
Since fielding two bands in a game is possible, the decision to put one in each expansion can certainly be defended. And had they put all the units in one big expansion, nobody would probably have noticed!
The way I play the game, it is not very likely to see two bands in a battle. So I have decided not to buy the Skirmisher Expansion. While I would have liked to see some other unit instead, I respect the decision DoW has made.
The expansion is not a problem, seen as a single case. The problem is more how many duplicate units I'm personally interested in buying.
Now with the latest expansion they have given us more units, of a special kind, than I believe is realistic to see in the same game. Theoretically they could still put out lots more, so everyone could get four Dwarven Spearbearers in Reluctant Allies. But who would want that? To me there are already too many!
This is my main complaint and has nothing to do with how I personally play the game.
Don't tell me it's impossible for DoW to avoid duplicate units in their expansions. It's all a matter of priorities.
I believe it is possible to cater for both the casual gamer and the "serious" gamer. It is here I find DoW to have made an error, especially with Scottish Wars.
As I have said before - since we can't see the big picture, this whole discussion might show up to be redundant, if DoW has the right cards up their sleeves. But DoW has been very silent about the latest expansion, so it's difficult to judge.
As to the lack of Epic scenarios in Scottish Wars, I'm simply stating that with such an "epic" title, I expected them to put at least one Epic scenario in the book. I'm perfectly fine with the early smaller expansions not supporting Epic, but like the HYW expansion gave us one scenario, I had higher hopes for SW.
This should be read more as a remark than a complaint.
toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 14:23


And, TRagedy, if you're still reading Very Happy , I didn't say it explicitly, but Ebay was certainly one of the ways in which I may "manage" if I deem grabbing a few extra units here and there necessary Smile

I know there are other ways to get miniatures. But to me this discussion is more about what decisions DoW makes in regards to the game, than my "personal" problems.

With all my ramblings, I guess it would be best with a conclusion:
As it look right now, DoW has put in close to redundant units in an expansion. While not a problem for the casual player, it forces players like me to either buy duplicate units, or leave out certain expansions and thereby miss out on new units. This problem could have been avoided, but DoW has gone another way.

(And thanks for a constructive debate, by the way...).
      
dcorban
Junior Member

Messages: 8
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 19:01
[quote title=dbc- wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 06:25]
echtalion wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 10:21

If we don't get rid of those duplicate units, and the Heroes expansion doesn't bring something unique to the game, I'll have to turn my attention somewhere else. And that is really sad, as this game is still a blast to play.


I am confused as to why you feel the need to "turn somewhere else" while at the same time stating the game is a "blast to play"? Do you usually force yourself to quit things you enjoy? Is this some sort of self-inflicted punishment?
      
dcorban
Junior Member

Messages: 8
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 19:04
toddrew wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 16:13

Some Scottish Wars adventures require four units of Iron Dwarves Spear Bearers, so 4 is what it comes with.


This is a strange rationalization. DoW could have simply created the scenarios with fewer spear bearers. Or they could have made scenarios that optionally required 4 spear bearer units. I mean, it's not like they haven't already made several expansion scenarios which require the purchase of multiple sets (Call to Arms and Epic).
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 19:41
[quote title=dcorban wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 19:01]
dbc- wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 06:25

echtalion wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 10:21

If we don't get rid of those duplicate units, and the Heroes expansion doesn't bring something unique to the game, I'll have to turn my attention somewhere else. And that is really sad, as this game is still a blast to play.


I am confused as to why you feel the need to "turn somewhere else" while at the same time stating the game is a "blast to play"? Do you usually force yourself to quit things you enjoy? Is this some sort of self-inflicted punishment?

OK, maybe I should have said "...Turn my wallet somewhere else".
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 21:50
dcorban wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 11:04

toddrew wrote on Mon, 31 December 2007 16:13

Some Scottish Wars adventures require four units of Iron Dwarves Spear Bearers, so 4 is what it comes with.


This is a strange rationalization. DoW could have simply created the scenarios with fewer spear bearers. Or they could have made scenarios that optionally required 4 spear bearer units. I mean, it's not like they haven't already made several expansion scenarios which require the purchase of multiple sets (Call to Arms and Epic).


And taken out of context it does seem an arbitrary rationalization. The four dwarven spear bearer units are used in the Scottish Wars adventures to represent the "schiltrons", which, reading the adventure background anyway, were used en masse to ward off advances from the enemy and hold positions, thus the +1 on battle backs, and the boldness from Iron Dwarves lending itself nicely to this portrayal of the Scots.

The point about the adventures requiring at most 4 units and that's why the expansion comes with four, rather than two, as two Dwarven Spear Bearer units have already been released, is that, rightly or wrongly, it seems DoW has decided that for the most part (some crossover, and here is where I don't think they've gone far enough, with CtA and Epic throughout notwithstanding) each expansion should not require the use of another to be played.

The Scottish Wars expansion is not only a "add more units to a dwarf army" expansion. It targets specific battles during a specific time, and then also the units it comes with can be used for other purposes with the game: CtA, Epic, user generated rule sets and adventures, etc. If one disagrees that this is a good way of developing the game, I understand, and in some ways sympathize, but it is one way to do it, and not simply done to make it as difficult as possible to buy certain units.

Eh, I'm losing my focus at this point, but what I mean to say is in there somewhere Laughing

I like the Scottish Wars much more than I thought I would, as initially I was just looking at it as a unit expansion, but really enjoy the setting of the Scottish Wars and how it utilizes the new units to create some interesting battles. I like this method of introducing new units, HYW, and Scottish Wars. That said, having the option of picking up blister packs of two or three units of a particular type would be pretty good too.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 22:21
dbc- wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 09:26

I haven't made myself clear, then.


Me neither, in many cases, Laughing Apologies retrospectively and in advance for those times. I think you can tell this from my posts, but I really do say things in a good faith effort of earnest discussion, and really do not enjoy posting for the sake of arguing.

Quote:


Since fielding two bands in a game is possible, the decision to put one in each expansion can certainly be defended. And had they put all the units in one big expansion, nobody would probably have noticed!
The way I play the game, it is not very likely to see two bands in a battle. So I have decided not to buy the Skirmisher Expansion. While I would have liked to see some other unit instead, I respect the decision DoW has made.
The expansion is not a problem, seen as a single case. The problem is more how many duplicate units I'm personally interested in buying.


This, I think is the conundrum that DoW faces when it decides how to package expansions. I feel like they made a conscious decision to cater towards buyers who would not be purchasing all expansions, and in order to do so ended up providing duplicate units to those who do.

That said, though, there really isn't the sense that any unit is unnecessarily duplicated, as there are no hard rules for which units can and can't be on the board, save creatures being limited by War Council levels (and even that can be abolished if one so pleases).

Quote:


Don't tell me it's impossible for DoW to avoid duplicate units in their expansions. It's all a matter of priorities.
I believe it is possible to cater for both the casual gamer and the "serious" gamer. It is here I find DoW to have made an error, especially with Scottish Wars.


I guess I see DoW's method of releasing expansions as attempting to do just that, accomodate different facets of the game that any particular gamer may want to focus on. If the current packaging isn't doing that, I believe they will work on that. But, I feel that Scottish Wars, does a good job of this, and many others do not.

Quote:


As I have said before - since we can't see the big picture, this whole discussion might show up to be redundant, if DoW has the right cards up their sleeves. But DoW has been very silent about the latest expansion, so it's difficult to judge.


Agreed - I, too would love to hear more about what's in store.

Quote:


As to the lack of Epic scenarios in Scottish Wars, I'm simply stating that with such an "epic" title, I expected them to put at least one Epic scenario in the book. I'm perfectly fine with the early smaller expansions not supporting Epic, but like the HYW expansion gave us one scenario, I had higher hopes for SW.
This should be read more as a remark than a complaint.


I too was expecting Epic to be used in the adventures with Scottish Wars, and still have hopes that some will be released on the web (maybe that require a dozen or more Spear Bearer units Laughing ). I'm hoping that the web will be utilized more to release series of adventures that do what HYW and SW do, just now that players have, or have access to, the necessary units and numbers of units as more expansions are released, those series of adventures wouldn't require the purchase of an "expansion" in the sense that HYW and SW are.


Quote:

toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 14:23


And, TRagedy, if you're still reading Very Happy , I didn't say it explicitly, but Ebay was certainly one of the ways in which I may "manage" if I deem grabbing a few extra units here and there necessary Smile

I know there are other ways to get miniatures. But to me this discussion is more about what decisions DoW makes in regards to the game, than my "personal" problems.


And apologies if that part was confusing, but instead of double posting (like I'm doing with this one Very Happy ) I piggybacked that bit on responding to TRagedy's prior post. As some of the other content of my post indirectly addressed some other points I've seen in threads here and on BGG.



Quote:


With all my ramblings, I guess it would be best with a conclusion:
As it look right now, DoW has put in close to redundant units in an expansion. While not a problem for the casual player, it forces players like me to either buy duplicate units, or leave out certain expansions and thereby miss out on new units. This problem could have been avoided, but DoW has gone another way.


And I find that a completely valid viewpoint to have, though the "forces" may be a little strong. The first unit expansion I was very excited about was HYW. As of now it is the only one I have yet to pick up (mostly due to timing of availability issues, both materials and funds Smile ), but I've been playing with those rules sets for quite some time, as this game is wonderful for proxies.

Quote:

(And thanks for a constructive debate, by the way...).



Right back at you, though I'd rather be playing Very Happy

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 02 January 2008 22:27]

      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 22:28
toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 21:50

Eh, I'm losing my focus at this point, but what I mean to say is in there somewhere Laughing

I know the feeling Very Happy

toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 21:50


I like this method of introducing new units, HYW, and Scottish Wars. That said, having the option of picking up blister packs of two or three units of a particular type would be pretty good too.


Or, they could simply make themepacks without crossover...
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Wed, 02 January 2008 22:39
toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 22:21


I too was expecting Epic to be used in the adventures with Scottish Wars, and still have hopes that some will be released on the web (maybe that require a dozen or more Spear Bearer units Laughing ).

Laughing Laughing Laughing
toddrew wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 22:21


I'm hoping that the web will be utilized more to release series of adventures that do what HYW and SW do, just now that players have, or have access to, the necessary units and numbers of units as more expansions are released, those series of adventures wouldn't require the purchase of an "expansion" in the sense that HYW and SW are.

If they are planning web-based scenarios utilizing different sets of expansions, that could solve the problem somewhat. But for starters it would be nice if DoW would tell us more about their plans for expansions. Right now I'm not willing to pay for further boxes, as these crossovers really annoy me.

      
echtalion
Member

Messages: 96
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Fri, 04 January 2008 21:08
[quote title=dcorban wrote on Wed, 02 January 2008 18:01]
dbc- wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 06:25

echtalion wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 10:21

If we don't get rid of those duplicate units, and the Heroes expansion doesn't bring something unique to the game, I'll have to turn my attention somewhere else. And that is really sad, as this game is still a blast to play.


I am confused as to why you feel the need to "turn somewhere else" while at the same time stating the game is a "blast to play"? Do you usually force yourself to quit things you enjoy? Is this some sort of self-inflicted punishment?


The "duplicate" units in the new expansions are, for me at least, some sort of "new, but not quite", in that they introduce new units, packed along with old ones. Isn't it a better idea to group all the dwarven spear bearers in one expansion, so if one so wishes can buy multiple copies?

The way it's marketed now compels people to purchase them to get hold of the new units, while getting old ones too. The main problem about these old units is that you don't actually need them for Call to Arms, so they are redundant(only usable in the few scenarios included), and, in a way, makes me think of collectable games.

One thing I've noticed is the price drop in the Scottish Wars expansion compared to the 100 Years War. For the same price, 30e, you get 32 minis in the 100 Years, BUT 42 in the Scottish. That's almost 25% extra, and at no cost. Maybe I'm not the only one who thinks the price of the expansions is too high, specially considering all the goodies you get with the basic set. I know some people haven't been purchasing the expansions, and that may have motivated DOW for the new pricing policy.

I'm happy with the basic set, and though I own all the expansions(except Scottish), I wished I hadn't purchased any, as I don't think they add anything really valuable to the game. Take for example, the "definitive deployment system: Call to Arms". Also, the army expansions, because of the duplicates, offer even less in terms of variety or excitement, the summit of which is the neglect (laziness?) in designing troops riding bulls whose effect in the battlefield is none, zero, nada. That really breaks the fantasy aspect for me.

It's been a while since any announcements have been made, and that was only to show us the back of the Scottish Wars expansion box. So if nothing is making me believe the system is going to have new enticing elements to have me hooked, I will refrain from getting more expansions.
I practise martial arts, enjoy cycling, traveling, going out, reading, etc... and among my gaming, with my PS3 and other board games, I see really little interest in investing time and money to get more of these troop expansions, that micro-manage aspects such as +1/-1 battle dice, +1/-1 hex in movement, and little else(The exception being the musicians).


Another thing I see DOW may have problems coping with is the developing of the uchronia world: taking what we know and have already, we see many of the scenarios in the expansions LACK any background, the "historical notes" (Sultan of Swing, Epic battlelore 3, for example). If they are struggling for ideas with writing a short paragraph intro for a scenario, imagine what may happen when they try to fill a world, with text AND, presumably, graphics.

The base set is good, though, so I will still play it.
      
felkor
Member
Cadet

Messages: 54
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Fri, 04 January 2008 21:19
I have to admit I as well have little desire to buy the expansions, and was just thinking today that I regret buying the two that I did (Call to Arms and Epic.) I've gotten one play of epic in, and while it was fun, I'm not sure it was worth the money. Call to Arms I haven't even tried yet, and don't quite have a huge desire to do so.

Not saying that they and any of the expansions are necessarily bad... just that I think I could be spending my money better. For instance, I was thinking about the HYW and the Scottish Wars expansions, but then realized for the price of both, I could get Memoir '44 with money left over. The expansions need to really "expand", otherwise my money is better spent on other, complete, games. I like Battlelore (currently my favourite game), but that doesn't mean that I don't like other games. I'll keep playing Battlelore a lot, but if they want me to buy an expansion, I need to get my money's worth. The expansions end up being close to a dollar per figure... compare that to the base game (Around 30 cents a figure, and that's not including the multitude of other items), and they do come across a little pricey.

I don't think Days of Wonder is evil, and I don't really care about the issue of extra units here or there. But in the end I'll let my wallet speak, and they have yet to release an expansion that I've felt worth the money on my tight budget.

[Mis à jour le: Fri, 04 January 2008 21:43]

      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Messages: 266
Enregistré(e) en :
August 2005
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Fri, 04 January 2008 22:10
Felkor,

You may want to take a closer look at HYW. This expansion alone added several new elements to the battlefield:
- Embedded Units. The Horn Blowers require a significant change in strategy to leverage their ability. What units to embed them in, what units to group them with, when to "blow the horn" -- all interesting decisions that add a new twist to battles.
- First Blue Ranged Unit. The Arbelisters have three differences to their Short Bow cousins: Can't move and fire, get Bonus Strikes, and are blue! This can have a big impact on how you order your ranged units (no more Green Banners) and how you position your ranged units w.r.t. your other units. You can't just slide over an Arbelister to get LOS without sacrificing a turn of shooting. As they can be devastating (think blue foot without risk of battleback), they tend to become targets, again changing the flow of a battle.
- Defensive Units. Both Spearmen and Halbardiers get +1 dice on battlebacks. I realize from your earlier posts that this doesn't seem much to you, but in practice that extra die really makes the opponent pause. Keep them supported, and these defensive units tend to last a lot longer, because people are reluctant to attack them in melee. They're also great in scenarios with location-specific objectives. As a bonus, the Halbardiers don't suffer an attack penalty against mounted units; another first for Battlelore (foot vs. mounted).

If you only want to spring for one expansion, I'd suggest HYW, as it provides the most new elements that really change how you approach your battles. The musicians in the Goblin and Dwarf expansions are the most unique of the new elements, but I think you get the most bang for your buck from HYW.

As an aside, I personally like all the expansions, expecially the Goblin Band and Hyena Riders (mounted archers -- ouch!). But I can see why those on a stricter gaming budget need to carefully weigh the cost/benefit of these expansions.
      
felkor
Member
Cadet

Messages: 54
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Fri, 04 January 2008 22:18
mvettemagred - Thank you for your thoughts. Indeed, it looks like Hundred Years War provides more additions than the other expansions. In the end, it's more a matter of bang for the buck. If the expansions were all half the price they are now, I would almost certainly already have all of them.

At 30 dollars though for the larger expansions, they're getting into the same price range as full games. I actually have a few games that get a lot of regular play (San Juan for example) that are below $30. So at that price, I have to decide whether getting the expansion would be just as good for my money as getting another game.

Right now I'm finding that a lot of my friends and family really like battlelore (this game has been the most well-received by my non-gaming friends and family of any of my games.) I've been able to get several games in a week so far, which is way more than I expected. If this keeps up, I may find an expansion worth the money. If my friends get bored of the game and start to groan when I suggest to pull it out, then it's going to be much less worth it.

So yeah, in short, I -want- the expansions... I simply don't feel they're worth the money right now. If they came out with a new pack that combined all 5 of the current specialist packs for a discounted price, I'd be very tempted to get it. But individually they just don't add enough for the money they cost. In the end I'm thankful that the base set is so great - the way they release the expansions you'd think they were trying to make this into a "collectable" game. But thankfully I don't feel forced into it, because the base game is tonnes of fun on its own.
      
bitva
Member

Messages: 57
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2007
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Sat, 05 January 2008 00:56
There is no reason why you can't find the expansions for ten to twenty bucks. I suggest doing a little shopping. I'm also not so sure the expansions would be cheaper if they didn't include "repeat" figures. Until I am convinced that a few extra figures increase the price, I will consider duplicate figures extra bonuses.
      
tkostek
Junior Member

Messages: 27
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Oh no! I cannot believe it! Sat, 05 January 2008 06:44
This turned out to be a great thread. At the start it looked like a DoW/BL bashing thread of the kind that shows up over at BGG, but by the end I had really learned some things.

I'm going to go back and take another look at this Scottish expansion. Sounds much cooler than I thought.

I'm strongly in favor of bundling units and scenarios together. In fact if CG did that with Wizard Kings, I might never have started playing BL at all. Instead both v1 and v2 of WK sell the units separately from the scenarios. Big mistake, IMO.

I agree the units are beginning to feel a little too similar (except those musical units; pure genius!). I think it's a fundamental limitation of the game, though. It's a simple game, and there are only a few "stats" to work with.

Finally, after reading this, I realized you need to think of the cattle riders as completing the dwarf army and not as introducing a whole new unit type. The dwarf army would have "poor" cavalry, wouldn't they?
      
Pages (2): [1  2  >  » ]     
Sujet précédent:Leonardo's Tanks - Custom Unit
Sujet suivant:Rogues Den
Aller au forum: