"Westeros versus Battlelore: Questions" Topic

As far as I can see these games use very similar mechanics and the same kind of game map. Is that correct or is the newer Westeros a better rules system?

I like the Battlelore figures better with the added character. Do thiose paint up better?

Is Westeros a more historically accurate game? Or are the games so similar that you could add orcs and dwarfs etc to either?

Are seiges handled well? At all?

Has anyone tried using 20mm or even 28mm figures with these rules/terrain?

Thanks!
sky

As far as I can see these games use very similar mechanics and the same kind of game map. Is that correct or is the newer Westeros a better rules system?

I have only played Westros once. I did not recall enough difference to merit purchase after owning BattleLore, but YMMV.

Is Westeros a more historically accurate game? Or are the games so similar that you could add orcs and dwarfs etc to either?

Richard Borg games are very forgiving in adding/developing new troops types. For historically accurate, Commands & Colors Ancients is outstanding. Westros and BattleLore are excellent and stand alone, but if you find them lacking you could download the living rules for C&CA and apply a few of the better units and additional rules: evasion, elephants and chariots spring to mind.

Are seiges handled well? At all?

In a rudimentary way. Some terrain tiles are fortifications. Borg's systems model large sieges like the Battle of Alesia. It is not very satisfying for smaller scale sieges like a medieval keep.

Has anyone tried using 20mm or even 28mm figures with these rules/terrain?

I have used 15mm with C&CA and 28mm with BattleLore. Just increase your hex size and it looks great. Play is exactly the same as the retail boardgame. This fall I have a 12 ft by 5 ft epic Battle of Five Armies game using BattleLore rules planned.

Between Battlelore and Westeros, I'm not sure which one is better. They are certainly different.

First, Westeros is definitely one or two steps more complex. More special rules, more literal game aspect, and more bookkeeping.

In BL, when I want to "flank", I simply block an enemy's escape route. In Westeros, you attack first with one unit, place marker to signify that the target unit is engaged, and attack with another unit.

If you hate being restricted by command cards in BL, you might like Westeros more since it's much easier to move your units. Another things is with BL you can push a flank while leaving the rest of your army stay in place. In Westeros, you move *all* your units in a round, albeit in alternating manner with your opponent. I enjoy the limitation provided by command cards and the dynamic caused, such as pushing a flank that stop due to lost impetus (no more cards for that section!).

Compared to other Richard Borg games I like BL due to its simplicity without being very basic like Memoir '44. Unit design in BL is streamlined, making it easy to learn, with less exeptions.

Wifey call me to eat, will continue later…

Therefore it's easier to add to Battlelore. For example the dwarf and goblin in the basegame only have few special rules but they already feel right.

Finally, the Lore Cards in Battlelore is unique among its peers, adding some magical chaos to the game.

I don't think these games handle Sieges out of the box.

Before I rant, I need to make it clear that I do like Westeros. I wish we got to play it more often, I wish my friends would immerse further into the system enough to justify exploring the expansions. While the rulebook has ranged beyond the "easy" level, the overall system is clear, flows well, and offers a good game. Oh sure, sometimes your opponent's special rule option will take you by surprise, and without lots of study and an enviable memory it's probably going to happen that way. But the games we've played have been nail-biters to the very end, and it doesn't get any better than that.

[/ RANT ON /]

I can easily imagine how Westeros came to be – imagine taking the BL system (which is fine, and was touted as cutting edge when it was released), and fixing just a few things. Take away the Left / Center / Right aspect of the board, and instead let's let commanders do the activations. Right away, we see the Pandora's Box of trying to improve a simple system with just a couple new rules. Order a commander to order troops nearby? Fine. Now mark the commander, because commanders can only give out orders so many times in a turn. Also come up with a mechanic to send out orders to units who fall outside a commander's range of command. And load on markers to keep that clear, too. And turn the units flags after they've been ordered, to keep track that a unit can only be ordered once during a turn – unless a special rule lets you UN-order them, to allow them a second order. Because that would be cool.

Westeros changes some of the vocabulary that Borg has used over and over across his rainbow of games. What used to be "Bold" is now called "Stalwart". Sure, you can get used to it, and heck I find "Stalwart" to be a better choice for this concept. But I find myself in the "old dog, new tricks" category anymore, and I dream of making up an index of all the Westeros words that say this, but mean that.

Some rules are just tacked on. The Morale Track is kind of a good idea, if you like rules that say "if one guy is losing, let's dump more bad things that can happen only to losers to make him really lose". It's a rule that could easily be ignored and the system would work fine … and that says something to me about how valuable the rule is in the first place.

The fiddly-ness of set-up makes getting the game on the table a bit of an effort. Commanders have unique cards. Your deck combines these unique cards, based on which commanders are fighting today, with another stack of common cards you'll always have in your deck. So assembly is methodical, and putting the game away when you're done is every bit as methodical. While the miniatures are attractive and beckon for a coat of paint to make them just so, there are a number of things the raw plastic tells you that a coat of paint might smother – simply having House Lannister cast in red, and the Heroes on different colored bases conveys a LOT of useful information.

And, while I'd re-write 2nd edition with some vocabulary changes (call it "Bold", doggone it), there are some flat out poorly laid out rules. Ask me late at night exactly how Engaging works and I can come up with more than one completely coherent answer from the rulebook. At what point are units Engaged? When the attack dice are rolled? Or after they're resolved and the two units remain adjacent? Or would a unit that retreats from a fight be breaking an Engagement (I think "no", but I don't see it quickly in print that this is true)? In the end of the book, there's a list Keywords and their definitions (because there's too many rules to put on the little reference cards). Buried in there, if you look at "Stalwart" (because I'm picking on it today), you see them mention that, oh by the way, anybody who is set up properly next to two friendly units can also gain the "Stalwart" ability. I mean … is *this* the place to put this rule? Shouldn't it be on the first page of how to wage combat on your opponent?

[/ RANT OFF /]

Fun game. Draws from vaults of wonderful artwork. Wish I got to play it more.

Very interesting discussion. I bought everything I could from the Battlelore line before it was all gone. I think I have at least one of everything and a few doubles (and a third map I don't need!)

I like the simplicity of the system and the nod towards historical authenticity. It seems they added a lot to Westeros. Not at all a bad thing if you are into that. I like the simplicity of the earlier system. I also like Epic Command and Colors. It is the only "ancients" system I really like.

Great info. Do you guys use the fantasy stuff as well or just the human elements?

Do you guys use the fantasy stuff as well

In Battlelore we've used the fantasy stuff a few times. It can be anti-climatic -- even though you've got the Big Spider on your side, some games he just doesn't get the cards or the opportunities to come into play. Games can be resolved over there while he lurks over here in a strategic threat sort of way.

We've played the different races many times, too. But "Scottish Wars" can be considered either Humans vs. Dwarves, or if you prefer it can be English vs. Scots. Are they riding battle cows, or is it just ponies?

I do like the Magic Lore deck in BL. But I like more the Medieval Lore deck, toning down the magic and giving you options that might even be considered historical.

From what I remember about Westeros the troop types seemed a bit arbitrary. I know I didn't like it as much as BL, in fact I got rid of it at a flea market first opportunity.

Yes I am thinking from what I have read, what you guys on TMP have said and my own reservations, I am thinking that Battlelore is the better rule set. Add tp that the more historical add-on sets changes it from a game than gives the nod to history to more of a heavy lean.

I think it might be time to respend some of that money I just got from eBay back into ebay for BattleLore and the add ons.

Having played both a number of times, I'll add a few comments.

Concerning BL and Command and Colors while we initially liked both the group got steadily burned out on both as too attritional. The Zone concept of command control seemed very artificial and more and more annoying.

When Westros appeared interest returned. Everyone liked the commanders being able to activated units and units not being able to "re-activate" so one unit wasn't used over and over while the rest stood around. We liked the shift to d8 as this allowed armor to come into play (in BL its just as easy to kill Heavy Inf as light). The "fight back" rules in Westros also seemed to work better as did the "engaging" rules. A much more historical concept.

We did not like the increase in special rules often crytically explained. (BL had some problems here too – special rules seem to always unbalance games). Some of the special units did not fit either history or the novels.

Overall we much preferred Westros – more interesting dynamic and much better "historical" simulation.

We had hoped that BL might be relaunched with Westros concepts but this seems unlikely.

You can mix 20mm figures with the original stuff (thought the 20's are a bit less chunky).

Would love to find the time to get more Westros games in (and master the special rules), but BL now resides on the shelf.

TomT