Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Recherche
Forums » BattleLore - English » Battlelore in 2008?
Montrer: Messages du jour 
  
AuteurSujet
eric
-= Crew =-
Entraînement au combat niveau avancé

Pages Perso
Messages: 3196
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2002
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 08 January 2008 20:32
Nope, we're not even close to make an announcement. There are many, many factors that come into play, so we will just have to wait and see.
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1004
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 08 January 2008 20:39
sounds sweet anyway
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 08 January 2008 20:58
That was a quick response Smile
And thorough too Smile Smile
If the duplicate unit situation is only an issue with the current races, I can definitely live with it.
You just got a "compleatist-customer" back! Very Happy

I can understand how a success like BattleLore puts a lot of extra work on your shoulders, being a small company.
I believe the best way to deal with missed deadlines is to give people as much information as possible, as quickly as possible. While this has taken some time, with this game, we are now up to date. This is great and I'm really looking forward to see how the game develops in the coming years.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3326
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 08 January 2008 21:00
eric wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 13:05

An alternative, which we're currently seriously considering is to offer complete army boxes when we introduce new races (ie when we release an undead army, to have it come with all the units required to field an undead army, including its own creatures, heroes, lore deck, deployment set, ...), rather than packs at the multiple units level like we've done up to now.

To some extent, thankfully, this issue was/is really tied to the Dwarves and Goblins since some Dwarf and Gobbo units were already included in the base game box, which is not an issue we'll face with future races.

I for one had expected this to happen as it falls in line with what happened with Eastern Front, Pacific Theater and hopefully the British Expansion in Memoir.

I for one would much rather have this all encompassing army expansion for future races instead of seeing it spread over 3 or 4 expansions each time.
      
Orc Breath
Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 47
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2004
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 08 January 2008 21:23
Thanks for the info on your thinking Eric.
1. Yes, keep costs down, hopefully this will translate to more variations being released in the future and BL staying financially solid..

2. Scottish Wars worked for me, it gave me more Dwarves for Fantasy fights and I personally didn't have a prob with them being Scots, tho_ some did. And if spears are a big Dwarf weapon in BL's world so be it. It do' represent the tough battleline all
games give Dwarfs!

3. I'll probably buy all the BL exp's when released. BL gives me a chance to field different fantasy armies, not just one or two as other games cost wise force me to do. I get my fantasy war-gaming fix with BL.

4. As one of the C&C fans that wanted BL to be my Fantasy war-game of choice
I vote for the idea of "complete army boxes when we introduce new races ".
( Course your going to then have people complaining about its cost,, cost per fig VS the base BL per fig cost, being forced to take units they don't like, etc)
But you cater to gamers so you can never please them all anyway (BiG smiley face)

5. As far as releasing BL as only medieval set,, ehh,, You certainly wouldn't of sold as many. I don't think there is an many medieval players as there are fantasy players.
Even as a C&C system fan, I would of held off buying the base game till the fantasy armies came out, myself. You were between a rock & hard place on that business decision.
You could of released it as a Dwarf VS Gobbo or Dwarf VS Human set, but lost the medieval crowd. Tough call but its 'slowly' (ha) working !!!

P.S.
I do hope you release a 'Hero Pack' for the Dwarfs,Goblins & Humans/medieval
soon and get them caught up. Then,, yea, put heros in the army packs as their released.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 08 January 2008 21:23
eric wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 12:05

The reason for duplicate units in several packs is three fold:

- Mould constraints: In order to keep mould costs reasonable, we have to share moulds between different figure types. Each unit having its own # of figures (a Goblin drummer band requires one big drum and three drummers, a Dwarf cavalry unit 3 figs, a halberd unit 4), we end up with smallest common denominator constraints on the figures count.

- Scenario constraints: For the Scottish Wars specifically, Richard wanted a significant # of schiltrons (ie dwarf spear bearers), as these were necessary to represent the battles selected.

- A Wrong Assumption: We thought most people would only buy a pack here and there, and thus might not have any of the figures required for a new scenario if we did not include it there. This assumption seems to have been wrong for the most part (it looks like folks who picked up the Goblin Skirmishers also picked up the Goblin Marauders, for instance, or that folks interested in the Scottish Wars have already picked up the Dwarven Battalions, for instance). Our original plan (selling units individually, in blisters) was avoiding that issue, in that people would have been able to buy precisely what they wanted.

An alternative, which we're currently seriously considering is to offer complete army boxes when we introduce new races (ie when we release an undead army, to have it come with all the units required to field an undead army, including its own creatures, heroes, lore deck, deployment set, ...), rather than packs at the multiple units level like we've done up to now.

To some extent, thankfully, this issue was/is really tied to the Dwarves and Goblins since some Dwarf and Gobbo units were already included in the base game box, which is not an issue we'll face with future races.

In hindsight, we might have been better off releasing the base game solely with human armies, as a purely medieval set, and released races in separate army box. It would also have solved the dilemna between historical and fantasy versions which some folks pointed out. Then again, sales of the initial set would likely have been quite lower if there had been no fantasy element whatsoever, which in turn would have meant less ressources devoted to the game going forward.

Hope this helps shed some light on some of the constraints we faced and decisions we had to make.

eric


Eric thanks for at least what MIGHT be happening. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 in regards to what to do for expansions, since it's the "darn if you do, darn if you don't" scenario.

I know the Blister issue definitely put DoW's plan back quite some time and thus had to reconsider how to do the expansions. Hopefully people will remember this, since the current expansion "kits" (and I use the term loosely) was not what you had hoped to do. I had no qualms with dups, unlike some others, since obviously those figs worked great. Namely if you wanted to have 2 goblin band/drummer unit - definitely better to have 1 of each goblin kit than have 2 of the same one, just to get that 2nd band/drummer unit.

Also nice to see that you have take people's issues to heart and thus maybe get around this issue with army boxes for future races. I suspect that this probably will be the case once the Heroes and other items are out that will "round" out the BL universe. And also nice there is possibility of other races, even if they are undead. Better to have something to hope for than nothing...

Like the other's mention above, once every item gets caught up in the BL world for the goblins/humans/dwarfs, then I agree that doing the "army kits" for an individual NEW race would be the way to go. It would be nice for the packaging to reflect the new race, but not if it drives up cost. I'm all for nice packaging, but hey, it's what is inside that counts!! And thus do include everything for that race. So - what by next month, we should see a everything caught up and by March a new undead race? (Yes folks that is humor!! <G>)

As for suggestions, and I'm hoping this thread doesn't come this, but it sure would be nice to have at least one Epic scenario in upcoming kits/releases - or at least via web release, if that would reduce costs. People do like Epic, namely with reluctant allies and thus I know not everyone likes Epic but it would be nice to see that still somewhat supported.

Cab

[Mis à jour le: Tue, 08 January 2008 21:29]

      
Old Dwarf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 122
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 09 January 2008 00:51
He's talking UNdead Army Very Happy Twisted Evil Yes!
The complete Army packaging would be so sweet,I hope
we will be able to buy boxs of just human troops & the other
races for that matter.

OD
      
Boromir_and_kermit
Junior Member
Cadet

Messages: 25
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 09 January 2008 01:06
I must say a BIG thank you to Eric for being so upfront and honest about everything. I think why some people got a bit carried away (me included) was that there was no communication for a while.
Even if the communication means announcing a delay or a problem, at least we kind of know what's going on.

What you have planned for Battlelore sounds FANTASTIC! I really like the idea of army packs for future races and those hero sculpts are very nice too.

So without giving any release dates away (as you stated you're not sure which is fine) is Heroes the next expansion? Or is something else slotting in?

Again, thanks for the honesty Eric, I'm sure everyone appreciates it. Keep up the good work.

Ben.
      
mwalbion
Senior Member
Cadet

Pages Perso
Messages: 115
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2005
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 09 January 2008 01:15
Yes - army packs for certain.

I blame everyone here for buying BattleLore and causing these problems !! Wink

      
eric
-= Crew =-
Entraînement au combat niveau avancé

Pages Perso
Messages: 3196
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2002
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 09 January 2008 02:06
Ben,

I don't know whether Heroes is the next expansion or whether we might be able to get something else in. The reason being that we're working on several items and pursuing several options at once, so depending on production & all, we might readjust our plans as things progress.

What I do know though is that a product that contains some Heroes is our top BL priority at this time.

eric

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 09 January 2008 16:46]

      
Boromir_and_kermit
Junior Member
Cadet

Messages: 25
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 09 January 2008 02:13
Thanks Eric Very Happy

Ben.
      
bcpravel
Member
First Lieutenant

Messages: 34
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2005
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 09 January 2008 23:41
Coming from a miniatures background, I tend to concentrate on collecting a specific army at a time, rather than multiple armies at once. As a result, I would *love* to see a complete "large box expansion" that contains everything I would need to deploy a race specific army via the Call-To-Arms rules! I wouldn't need enough miniatures to play Epic games, but would expect enough miniatures to use a race specific army "out of the box."

My ideal army box would include the Call-To-Arms rules, Specialist Cards for that army, some starter Heroes/Creatures for that army (and appropriate rules), some scenarios using the new army vs. the core human army, and some deployment decks that allow me to tailor my army towards a specific play style (Ranged Emphasis, Infantry Emphasis, or Cavalry Emphasis),. This means there would probably need to be at least three different deployment decks per box.

I wouldn't be opposed to one or two additional "re-enforcement packs" for each army that might included enough miniatures to allow you to play Epic battles, adds in a couple of new units and heroes, and maybe adds an additional deployment deck (perhaps a "hero/creature heavy" deployment deck). It might even be possible to release more of these down the road, but I'd rather not have tons of them. The folks I talk to would rather just have a set or two they need to buy, and then move on to another army (similar to what folks are doing with "Battleground: Fantasy Warfare" from Your Move Games).

That's my 2 cents anyway. Smile

P.S. Thanks for the update and the great game. I'm loving it and think the following would go a long way towards converting some of my fellow miniatures players.

Edit: Just another quick thought. An expansion with a race specific Lore Council and Lore Cards would be awesome as well! Very Happy

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 10 January 2008 15:27]

      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Messages: 266
Enregistré(e) en :
August 2005
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 01:39
Eric,

Thanks for the insight into the development of this great game. It was really interesting to read about some of the tough decisions a game company has to make about how to package and market a constructable game like Battlelore. For one, I fully supported having the medieval/fantasy mix in the original box, as it allowed for slowly layering on many new elements, extending the "newness" of the base game. For me, the "modest" changes in the expansion packs to date have really added some nice spice to my games, but I'm really looking forward to the possibility of those race-based army packs you mentioned.

However you plan to package it going forward, just keep the cool stuff coming!

Oh, and I'm sure the Troll will be fun to play with, boobs and all. Very Happy
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 02:40
mvettemagred wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 17:39



Oh, and I'm sure the Troll will be fun to play with, boobs and all. Very Happy


Mvettemagred, I'm not attacking you personally but do need to talk about the fact about the private parts on a creature.

I don't think there is a need to do that. I for one was quite "offended" when I saw those pics and even PM Eric about that. BL is suppose to be a family type game. (let's not open the "war" issue - it still can be a fun game even with that). But I believe that one doesn't have to explain to their 8 year son or daughter about boobs and buttocks and what they are that is so "obvious" on the creature.

Of course the picture could be an early development (I hoping!) and thus maybe DoW realized this and moved to a more pleasing creature.

If the troll is released like that, then obviously I'm going to have to re-evaluate my position of demoing and playing BL, even if that means selling my sets. It's one thing to have a great game, it's another when a figure is showing private parts. And there are definitely ways of creating a troll w/o having to do so.

So if you think it is "fun" to play with boobs and all, please keep that to the bedroom, there is no need for it in the game.

Cab
      
nspicer23
Junior Member

Messages: 15
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 03:40
Does any one have a link to said troll?
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1004
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 03:44
er cab battlelore clearly states on the box that its is surjested for ages 10+ this surjests that it is not meant for those under 10
as for parts of the body whats the problem if a child asks you what boobs are tell them the truth there for feeding babys and the same gos for butocks there for going to the toilet with it seems strange that violance is okay but parts of the body are some how tabboo seems stange to me Confused

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 03:59
nspicer23 wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 19:40

Does any one have a link to said troll?


Here you go nspicer:
the troll in question
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1004
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 04:16
Surprised okay now im realy confued Confused i was under the impreshon it was a female troll and its just a fat troll now i realy dont see what the problem is the troll has manboobs thats what happens when you eat to much Confused Confused Confused
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 04:19
Moobies: a fact of life. Some prefer it to remain in the shadows, but a troll knows not shame.
      
nspicer23
Junior Member

Messages: 15
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Fri, 11 January 2008 04:53
Yea I dont see the issue here. The troll is just really fat. I would think fat people like me should be more mad at the troll lol
      
bwcMD
Member

Messages: 42
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 01:16
It's quite clear from The Raven's log that it's a male troll, and while not an "official" announcement, it was obviously a planned one from DoW, as Eric was making references to the troll as soon as it was out. So even without getting into a pointless debate on whether or not the female body is a thing to be ashamed of (way too much experience in this, everyone's notions are too set to find any significant common ground), I'd just like to point out that you can see man-boobs anywhere and, while not pleasant, I've never heard anyone argue that it's obscene. Usually just disgusting, sad, or just funny (and sometimes all three!).

Actually, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a female troll in normal fantasy (including everything from LotR to D&D)--although I have a vague recollection of a children's cartoon from the 80s that had a bunch of monsters they referred to as trolls (or was that ogres?) that I think included a female--basically a male with lipstick. So I guess if you paint your figs, you could easily make this one a female. Very Happy
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 02:00
Roobarb wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 19:44

er cab battlelore clearly states on the box that its is surjested for ages 10+ this surjests that it is not meant for those under 10
as for parts of the body whats the problem if a child asks you what boobs are tell them the truth there for feeding babys and the same gos for butocks there for going to the toilet with it seems strange that violance is okay but parts of the body are some how tabboo seems stange to me Confused




Just because the box says 10+ doesn't mean I cannot let my child of 8 play? It's a guideline. If I feel my child is intelligent to play it, he should be able to.

And that even adds more fire as to why there should not be private parts be shown. The game is suppose to be played by almost any age and thus DoW should take that into consideration. This is an item that I'm very passionate about (Battlelore) and I do NOT feel that such blantant disregard for showing private parts have any merit. As I mentioned before, I did write Eric a letter about the matter since I feel there is no need to display such items. And I doubt I would be alone either. Why try to introduce something controversal into a very popular game (#10 or #11 on BGG) ?

Cab


      
Roobarb
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1004
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 02:42
nothings or no one stoping you but movies have a guideance rateing music has a parental advisory these are put on these products for a reason its warning that the product MAY not be suteable for the yongens

its all relative some muslims belive that a womans hair is a private part and some muslims belive that when that woman is wed that no part of her body should be seen by any man unless they are a family member

at the end of the day the goddess and gods made us in her own image and that makes our bodys holy so why be ashamed of it
man made war and it is that we should be ashamed of if anything
      
Chaotic_easy_going
Member

Messages: 33
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 03:14
Your desire for a family friendly game is admirable, but your concern in this case is misplaced.

It's clearly a Fat Male Troll. The 'buttocks' being shown are also no more than you see in non-sexual humourus ways all the time. Heck, I see worse than that every time the old guy next door mows his lawn in the summer. Wink

Caboose wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 20:00



Just because the box says 10+ doesn't mean I cannot let my child of 8 play? It's a guideline. If I feel my child is intelligent to play it, he should be able to.

And that even adds more fire as to why there should not be private parts be shown. The game is suppose to be played by almost any age and thus DoW should take that into consideration. This is an item that I'm very passionate about (Battlelore) and I do NOT feel that such blantant disregard for showing private parts have any merit. As I mentioned before, I did write Eric a letter about the matter since I feel there is no need to display such items. And I doubt I would be alone either. Why try to introduce something controversal into a very popular game (#10 or #11 on BGG) ?

Cab




      
jdw1710
Member
Cadet

Messages: 85
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 04:09
Shouldn't someone check that poor gynecomastic troll into a weight loss clinic? At least have his cholesterol checked?! Ouch! Laughing
      
AK_Aramis
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 399
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 05:14
For me, any supplement over US$30 is problematic. I had to save up for a bit to fit BL into the budget. I have yet to get Scottish Wars, but I'm goin to get it soon.
      
dbc-
Senior Member

Messages: 180
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 09:08
Caboose, while I do respect cultural differences I believe you are jumping the gun here.
This is a male troll and we see nothing on this guy we wouldn't see on a sumo-wrestler. I believe I have even seen some show-wrestlers coming close to looking like this guy.
Also as Roobarb says, the game is labeled 10+, meaning it might or might not be suitable for younger kids. If you violate the age guidance, you have no right to blame DoW for the outcome.
Wether you find that is is too early for a 10 year old to find out that fat people grow breasts, even men, is entirely up to you. But I don't think DoW is crossing the line with this one.
      
ScottE
Junior Member
Cadet

Messages: 13
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 13:18
Chaotic_easy_going wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 11:25

That sounds amazing - and exactly how I envisioned new races and forces coming out. I would caution against cramming TOO much stuff in it though - just enough to field a couple of basic army configurations. Then a few months later you can release smaller "Reinforcement packs" with more creatures and specialist units. I ask from a purely selfish perspective because if the army pack is over $50 it will make it so much harder for me to justify that purchase to my Girlfriend! Embarassed


I have to respectably disagree. I'd prefer a bigger race expansion box. Have a good size expansion with all figures, monsters, cards, etc. Just don't make them too fast. Maybe do 2 races a year with other smaller stuff mixed in.

I dislike the current format which sounds like what you want, several smaller packages with same race spread out. I wish they just had done 1 box of dwarves and 1 box of goblins. I haven't bought any of them yet since its just too little for the cost. Heck I was planning to sell off the game at the next con flea market until they did this latest blog. Now I'm hopeful we'll see some truely cool stuff coming. My only concern is we might be waiting quite awhile for the next expansion.
      
Old Dwarf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 122
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 14:47
semi nude troll Laughing really,stay away from historical ancients then Shocked

To get back to a serious issue,the big box approach idea
does get my vote give us a complete Undead(or Elf)ready
to go .
      
Vasilis
Member

Messages: 36
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 14:51
I agree with ScottE. Waiting is OK if the final product is awesome.

The idea of spreading a new race over 2-3 expansions is making the game look like a cash cow for DOW and nothing more. There are no practical reasons to do that (except making more money for DOW).

Eric's straightforward response gained my respect and gave me new hope about the game's future. I am giving it one more chance to prove its great potential. Endless supplies of new specialist units and duplicates is not the way to go IMHO.

The potential for BattleLore is like a volcano ready to erupt and all those similar expansions are holding it back to hot fumes. Heroes, Lore decks, Deployment decks, new terrain, new mechanics, new races, Siege rules and tiles, new landmarks and lairs. It's all there waiting to be explored.

As for the cost, it's the same amount (possibly even more) if one spends it buying 3 small expansions instead of 1 big expansion. (I believe the big expansion will be cheaper overall, less packaging etc. etc.) Go for the Big Race expansions I say! Very Happy
      
Chaotic_easy_going
Member

Messages: 33
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 22:09
Vasilis wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 08:51


The idea of spreading a new race over 2-3 expansions is making the game look like a cash cow for DOW and nothing more. There are no practical reasons to do that (except making more money for DOW).
As for the cost, it's the same amount (possibly even more) if one spends it buying 3 small expansions instead of 1 big expansion. (I believe the big expansion will be cheaper overall, less packaging etc. etc.) Go for the Big Race expansions I say! Very Happy


Don't get me wrong - I think the idea of an army "big-box" is a great idea and def. the way to go. All I meant was that I was hopng they wouldn't abandon the smaller "reinforments" style boxes completly. First and foremost, the army box must be a complete and playable army. Once they release several large full armies of different races I think it would be cool to see a few smaller specialist packs for those armies. It's a way to introduce new units and scenarios without breaking the bank every time.
      
Magic Man
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 100
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sat, 12 January 2008 22:30
To me 16 models and 2 adventures for £11.99 ($20?)(Goblin Marauders) is not as good as 42 models and 5 adventures for £17.99 ($30?)(Scottish Wars), so my vote goes to the larger packs.
      
bitva
Member

Messages: 57
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sun, 13 January 2008 16:49
I like the idea of army boxes. However, I hope DoW isn't seriously considering undead as a "race". Undead is not a race, and isn't really fantasy oriented as Batllelore should be; they're more like horror. I just don't feel they belong in an army/battle game. I'd much rather have actual races like elves, orcs, and giants (even if the giant is considered a creature right now).

I too would like to see reinforcment expansions for already existing racial armies. Just because a whole army is released at once doesn't mean it can't be expanded upon in the future.
      
Captain Kremmen
Member
Oberleutnant

Messages: 46
Enregistré(e) en :
August 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Sun, 13 January 2008 19:32
To me "Undead" is a race, and is certainly fantasy. Vampires are horrow. Undead are fantasy.

I would rather have undead than any other race.
      
Vasilis
Member

Messages: 36
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Mon, 14 January 2008 08:13
bitva wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 17:49


I too would like to see reinforcment expansions for already existing racial armies. Just because a whole army is released at once doesn't mean it can't be expanded upon in the future.


Expanded with new units and no duplicates YES
Expanded with a new unit and lots of duplicates NO
or we are back to square one with Battlelore.

Just my opinion...

P.S. They are releasing Armies not races. Undead=army. Right? Razz

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 14 January 2008 08:16]

      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Mon, 14 January 2008 23:36
Vasilis wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 06:51

I agree with ScottE. Waiting is OK if the final product is awesome.

The idea of spreading a new race over 2-3 expansions is making the game look like a cash cow for DOW and nothing more. There are no practical reasons to do that (except making more money for DOW).

Eric's straightforward response gained my respect and gave me new hope about the game's future. I am giving it one more chance to prove its great potential. Endless supplies of new specialist units and duplicates is not the way to go IMHO.

The potential for BattleLore is like a volcano ready to erupt and all those similar expansions are holding it back to hot fumes. Heroes, Lore decks, Deployment decks, new terrain, new mechanics, new races, Siege rules and tiles, new landmarks and lairs. It's all there waiting to be explored.

As for the cost, it's the same amount (possibly even more) if one spends it buying 3 small expansions instead of 1 big expansion. (I believe the big expansion will be cheaper overall, less packaging etc. etc.) Go for the Big Race expansions I say! Very Happy


Vasilis, I would concur that having one expansion for each race would be the way to go. Of course, one has to allow for "creative" factors to weigh in as well (i.e. Let's say that DoW had created a Goblin Army group but forgot to include a slinger archer group - and thus DoW included it maybe an another edition/expansion..just saying that to say that maybe someone thought of something after the fact).

I believe Eric explained the hows and whys pretty well and if the delay makes for a better game, then I'm all for it. Since just like software development, a rushed software product out the door with lots of bugs is NEVER better than a well developed and tested one.

And I would disagree on the aspect that the last few expansions are "cash cows", since if DoW didn't do ANY expansions, people would be miffed. Thus given the position that DoW was put in, between a rock and hard place since they had envisioned a blister expansion pack system but that had to be junked after the feedback from retailers. DoW does like giving more value to games and thus I believe they have. Sure some people might say otherwise in regards to the duplicates and that is a "war" that can't be won since DoW had their reasons for doing it plus the fact that they didn't think people would purchase even expansion either! And thus DoW sees that it seems people are buying each expansion for BL, for the most part (not saying everyone does, but probably a good majority does).

This Eric and/or DoW just keeps us customers in the loop with information every so often (hopefully monthly - but I suspect that it might be quarterly or so), hopefully that will appease the BL customers. Of course, it would be nice to know what possible BL goodies (i.e. in a general system, like the BL world, if campaigns will be introduced/handle and other general things of that nature without tipping their hand) in the coming months/year would be nice to know too.

In regards to duplicates "in general", that is always a hard one to answer, since what if on their first attempt they put in 4 of a particular unit/type. But people keep pressing / asking for another 4 of that type. Sure one can purchase via Ebay. But one can't fault DoW if they see that people would like to have more of that unit and thus include another 4 in another expansion. A "duplicate" that comes to mind is the Goblin Drummer unit - sure 1 unit was nice, but really 2 of them made them effective. Just a thought and thus it seems DoW is away of the duplicate issue but again I think one has to allow for creative differences since BL is such a vast world. And thus DoW plus Richard knows how they want to create this world. Sure they have made mistakes and thus hopefully in making these mistakes they see the error of their ways and thus will correct them in the coming months.

Cab

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 14 January 2008 23:43]

      
Vasilis
Member

Messages: 36
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 15 January 2008 15:37
Caboose wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:36


Vasilis, I would concur that having one expansion for each race would be the way to go. Of course, one has to allow for "creative" factors to weigh in as well (i.e. Let's say that DoW had created a Goblin Army group but forgot to include a slinger archer group - and thus DoW included it maybe an another edition/expansion..just saying that to say that maybe someone thought of something after the fact).


If I remember correctly Eric stated that they had the units, that the rest of us play with now, in January 2007. Anyway, this doesn't justify releasing new expansions with duplicates and 1 new unit.
If every company released an expansion every time they got "creative" or got a new idea, everyone would need to rent a new storage space for their games! Laughing
Just my thoughts...

Caboose wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:36


I believe Eric explained the hows and whys pretty well and if the delay makes for a better game, then I'm all for it. Since just like software development, a rushed software product out the door with lots of bugs is NEVER better than a well developed and tested one.


I absolutely agree with you on this one.

Caboose wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:36


And I would disagree on the aspect that the last few expansions are "cash cows", since if DoW didn't do ANY expansions, people would be miffed. Thus given the position that DoW was put in, between a rock and hard place since they had envisioned a blister expansion pack system but that had to be junked after the feedback from retailers. DoW does like giving more value to games and thus I believe they have. Sure some people might say otherwise in regards to the duplicates and that is a "war" that can't be won since DoW had their reasons for doing it plus the fact that they didn't think people would purchase even expansion either! And thus DoW sees that it seems people are buying each expansion for BL, for the most part (not saying everyone does, but probably a good majority does).


I didn't say the expansions are cash cows, I said that they give this impression to people (including me) that don't like buying duplicates.
If they want to fulfill people's needs about more of the same units then they can release duplicates-only packs. But then the sales will drop don't you think?
The fact that in order for someone to have access to Mounted Knights he must buy a bucket of Dwarven Spearmen (again) doesn't bother you? Because it sure bothers me! Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I have bought every single expansion and I'll continue to support the game (because its awesome!) until I feel that someone is trying to trick me into buying. I certainly don't feel that way now but I must admit that I was dissapointed with the continuous releases of the same mechanic (Specialists) over and over again in 2007. The thing is that the BattleLore system doesn't NEED marketing tricks to be successful. It's potential is huge on its own.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe DOW is trying to exploit the game's success. I'm saying the thought just hovered inside my head and there is no reason for this to happen. Eric's response is great news and I feel that the game is back on track!

Caboose wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:36


This Eric and/or DoW just keeps us customers in the loop with information every so often (hopefully monthly - but I suspect that it might be quarterly or so), hopefully that will appease the BL customers. Of course, it would be nice to know what possible BL goodies (i.e. in a general system, like the BL world, if campaigns will be introduced/handle and other general things of that nature without tipping their hand) in the coming months/year would be nice to know too.


I greatly appreciated Eric's response. I'd certainly like more info on upcoming releases but if it causes them delays I can live with no information for a while...


Caboose wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:36


In regards to duplicates "in general", that is always a hard one to answer, since what if on their first attempt they put in 4 of a particular unit/type. But people keep pressing / asking for another 4 of that type. Sure one can purchase via Ebay. But one can't fault DoW if they see that people would like to have more of that unit and thus include another 4 in another expansion. A "duplicate" that comes to mind is the Goblin Drummer unit - sure 1 unit was nice, but really 2 of them made them effective. Just a thought and thus it seems DoW is away of the duplicate issue but again I think one has to allow for creative differences since BL is such a vast world. And thus DoW plus Richard knows how they want to create this world. Sure they have made mistakes and thus hopefully in making these mistakes they see the error of their ways and thus will correct them in the coming months.


In my mind, some Specialists should have limited numbers, otherwise they lose their "special" status. As I've said in another post, I wouldn't like at all seeing an entire army's left flank composed of Dwarven Bagpipers or an army with 3 Halberdier units in the center. They are called Specialists because they are special and unique.
For example a cool battle will be one army with Longbows and the other with something else. If everyone can have Longbows then what's the point? Everyone is the same!
That's only my opinion though and I can certainly understand that some people like having a lot of powerful units in their armies to make them look spectacular.

Another thought is that Richard and the rest of DOW know more things about Battlelore that we don't and this discussion will be pointless if a new mechanic makes use of all those extra units (Dwarven Spearmen for example). Now they are just dead weight.

I'm very positive that these mistakes will be corrected and the game will get to the next level. I trust DOW!!!
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

Pages Perso
Messages: 1842
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Tue, 15 January 2008 18:09
Only just caught up with this thread, so sorry if I'm backtracking here...

1. Love the hero figures.

2. Love the troll. Respect the view that it might not be suitable for certain gaming groups. Easy solution - don't use troll, or use alternative suitable figure from another supplier. Don't abandon game! (D&D was labelled satanist in the 70s because it involved demons etc. - I'm surprised it hasn't happened to Battlelore yet). Suspect troll issue will be non-issue in Europe... (honestly, we're such barbarians!)

3. Army packs sound FANTASTIC (ho ho). I agree undead are not strictly a 'race', but they could be a people with their own cultures and motivations, so a race in game terms. Would really like to see an undead army! (They come from Rumania or the Pripet Marshes, by the way Wink

4. Duplicate 'figures' could be turned into selling point if someone writes some killer official (or user) scenarios for them. Or, same figures but with different banners could represent units with different capabilities... Bit of creativity needed there from someone.

[Mis à jour le: Tue, 15 January 2008 18:14]

      
Scragnoth
Senior Member
Eclaireur du Jour-J - Argent

Pages Perso
Messages: 194
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2005
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 16 January 2008 13:46
Just be aware that in some Asian countries showing a skeleton is offence also. An Undead showing his (internal) private parts is no-go zone in that part of the world. Rolling Eyes

Boy, do I love it to live in barbarian Europe Very Happy
      
The New Romance
Senior Member
Spécialiste des blindés

Messages: 122
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2007
Re:Battlelore in 2008? Wed, 16 January 2008 16:08
Yay for barbarians! I'm so happy we don't have to bother with such 'problems' over here. Hey by the way, Battelore takes place in a European setting, and if you're a bit observant, you might see some these trolls strolling around here. I swear I saw one on the bus yesterday - honestly, they look exactly like their little plastic offspring! Very Happy

Edit: I wouldn't be too pleased with undead. I think they don't fit in the setting to well, and I generally don't like undead. They're too generic, too much D&D and Warhammer Fantasy. I think Battlelore is and/or should be different from that. I don't wanna see Chaos humans either. I'd rather have some more convential things like for example elves that you can imagine well within a Hundred Years War game. Or perhaps some entirely crazy new idea, like an army composed of - well honestly, I don't have the faintest idea since nearly everything has already been there and most things are linked to specific game settings other than Battlelore. But I guess that's what Richard Borg and his creative associates are there for! Razz

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 16 January 2008 16:16]

      
Pages (4): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  >  » ]     
Sujet précédent:Cliffs and archers question
Sujet suivant:Specialists
Aller au forum: