|Battlelore | Published 28 July 2009||Rating||106 votes|
Greetings BattleLore Commanders!
BattleLore: Heroes Expansion arrives this Fall and in the lead-up to its release, we present this series of preview and strategy articles for the characters that this expansion introduces. Our previous installments looked at the Cleric, Rogue, Field Commander, and Wizard. The field of combat is dominated by the fifth, and last, hero in our series of Battlelore: Heroes previews. The Warrior is a good choice for aggressive players or players new to the BattleLore system itself.
“War is no art. It is an opportunity to test my blade’s sharpness.”
The Warrior, like the Wizard, uses an offensive strategy that enables her to take on enemy units face-to-face, whether opposing heroes or normal troops. However, the Warrior relies on melee combat and dismisses Lore as a non-essential combat ability. It is with steel and sword arts that the Warrior is able to smite her foes.
The Warrior has all six skills to choose from at the beginning since none require a prerequisite.
The “Riding” skill is very useful since the Warrior can ride quickly to different sections of the battlefield in order to bring an offensive burst of power. However, until the Warrior’s combat techniques are developed, this skill should be avoided.
Another movement skill, “Path Finder,” that was first introduced to us by the Rogue is a good one to select with “Riding” so the Warrior can ignore movement restrictions and take unwary enemies by surprise.
The four remaining skills all help the Warrior is combat, only one of which is restricted to targeting enemy heroes. The others help you in any melee battles your Hero is involved in.
Let’s take a look at the restricted combat skill first. “Assassin,” another from the Rogue’s repertoire, adds a die when engaging an enemy Hero in battle. If damage is caused, there is also a greater chance to wound the enemy hero.
“Blademaster” and “Hack-and-Slash” are two skills that do the same thing in varying degrees. “Blademaster” adds one additional die when you are battling in melee while “Hack-and-Slash” adds a whopping two additional dice when you are battling in melee.
Finally, “Bruiser” is a skill that allows Sword-on-Shield results to “explode.” For each Sword-on-Shield rolled, the Hero rolls an additional die until no new Sword-on-Shield results are rolled. The only catch is that Lore results rolled on the extra dice are ignored. This is a small price to pay for battlefield dominance.
With a fully-loaded arsenal of skills and weapons, the Warrior hero presents a terrifying aspect in the field of combat. Only the bravest and most cunning generals will be able to stand against armies led by the Warrior. Will you be one of them?
Stay with us as we show select general knowledge skills available to all classes as well as some of the types of Artifacts available over the next couple of weeks.
Set in a world that bridges history and fantasy, BattleLore is board game that puts players in command of a vast array of miniature troops on the battlefields of medieval Europe. Using the easy-to-learn Commands and Colors system, players can wage thrilling battles without a lengthy time commitment.
I agree that the tone of the thread was fine and it should not have been removed. Why can't someone voice their opinion that he didn't like the fact that the warrior was a female? No doubt, many agree with him, and just as many probably disagree. I would think that FFG would want to have honest feedback in the future.
oh diaper put one on.
The tone was fine. I happen to disagree and that seems to be too much for some to handle so get a grip of yourself and enjoy the discussions and games. The games are all about conflict and enjoyment, be so :-)
No one is ramming any agenda at you.
If you can´t stand having your views opposed or even ridiculed in discussion you really shouldn´t start debating in a public forum like this.
Based on earlier discussions in this forum, where people have been much more critical of FFG, i´d say that it was not because of the FFG-critical views that this thread was removed but because of the tone of the discussion.
Incredible! The most response about the product FFG have had and becuase its not poitically correct it is not allowed!
All comments relating to the nature of the warrior have been removed! Well if you don't want honest comments and feed back why have it.
Some of us do have our own opinions and can think for ourselves without the politically correct ramming their agenda at us.
This post will be removed as well no doubt.
Did anybody notice that the warrior has at least 4! cards out of 6 in common with the rogue?
Balance is fine, but that seems to me a little too much....
Actually Alexander was more of a warrior/field commander hybrid if compared with Battlelore's characters. Today we can easily state that a good general leads from his command HQ where he can assess all the various pieces of information and make the proper decision at the best possible moment. At that era though, you had to lead from up front, you had to set an example with your own personal bravery. Remember that Alexander had reached nearly god status with his troops and was most likely expected to lead up front with his cavalry vanguard. For the rest, he relied on very able section commanders such as Parmenion to carry out his battle plan. You are right when you speak about the history of Thebes and the commanding duo of Epaminondas and Pelopidas. When one was killed the other followed suit and that was the end of Thebe's supremacy over classical Greece. This however is the fate of powers whose rise relies solely upon their leaders' prodigy.
On the other hand, Ceasar could fall back upon the fabled institutions of Rome. The Roman empire survived and went on despite bad generals, despite stunning defeats (Cannae, Teutoburg forest). Rome would have survived a possible defeat at Alesia or even the untimely death of Ceasar himself. Granted the Western world would be entirely different but the Roman empire would have gone on.
I don't think you can compare great leaders from different eras. For me Ceasar was more of a statesman and a brilliant strategist rather than a general. Alexander, although he could hatch brilliant strategic concepts, in the end fell victim to his own legend. He felt as if he was a god himself, destined to rule the world and thus never thought about the after Alexander period. Ceasar on the other hand knew that he was leading an already great power to even greater glory and he wanted to leave his mark upon the path of the Roman empire.
I could continue and write about Napoleon as well but then I'd need another page or two and I'd most certainly be out of the boundaries of the subject :-)
Wouldn't most if not all of those named actually be great field commanders rather then warriors?
What I don't get is why they say that Pathfinder and Riding is a strong combo. Pathfinder says: "hero on foot" - therefore it should not be compatible with riding at all.
As far as the Champion thing goes. I have the feeling, that there will be a second way to become champion besides taking the riding card. Like have 3 other cards or somesuch.
Simply Wonderful! I don't think that it is bad that some of the cards are repeated. It likely adds good balance to the game. Again... I can hardly wait for this expansion to come out!
I don't like it that the heroes share some skills. Like assassin. I guess it's for balance, but it feels weird.
So reading from the different Riding cards, a mounted hero is called a champion? And if that is true, does that mean, that Hack-and-Slash is only useable by a mounted warrior? On the other hand the text above states that non of the six skills has any prerequisite... I am curiously puzzled :)