El Grande didn't just overtake BattleLore. BattleLore dropped!

There's a little spat going on over at the DoW boards where now Richard Borg had come on and basically stated the the Hill Rumble/Forest Frenzy/River Rage Lore Cards are not broken. This is the second time after DoW had already said it. Well, the fans aren't too happy about it.

http://www.daysofwonder.com/index.php?t=msg&th=11258&start=0...

Are people dropping their ratings because of this?

If you consider ratings to be applied to game-out-of-the-box, then I think it deserves it. 10 kills for 7 lore is a pretty obvious bug in the game, and makes the game entirely unfun when it triggers. I'm secretly going to keep playing the game my way, but out-of-the-box BattleLore does kinda suck.

Update: DoW has since weighed in with their view of a "house rule" for this, though they stick to their position that such is not necessary.

User comments seem to suggest that users who have lowered their ratings have mainly done so out of frustration with the randomness of the card draw or a general feeling of samey-ness with the scenarios.

I've been watching its rating closely every day for the past three weeks (actually to see if would rise on news of the recent CtA release). The issues of about cards and scenarios has been talked about since the game released in late 2006, so that should have already been figured into the score.

This was a sudden drop.

Is it me or does arguing over this seem a bit like arguing with a schoolkid about whether he should play a game of "Pig" or a game of "Horse" with that basketball he's holding? I mean that coming from both sides, designer and gamer.

It seems kind of absurd as a designer to start to argue with gamers about a rule. If I were a designer, what would I stand to gain from such an argument? Don't like it, play your way. I'm not going to come be the rule police in your house.

As a player, is Borg gonna come bop you over the head if you change his card rules...? So you don't like the rules... I have a couple of rules in games I play that I change if my friends/family allow.

If a game was broken enough to deserve a lesser rating, why wouldn't it have gotten that lesser rating before now? And furthermore, what does a lesser rating actually mean? Are people gonna boycott BattleLore just because of a couple of possibly broken but in-house-fixable rules? I guess the real question here is: who cares?

Truly, is there statistical evidence that a rise and/or drop in BGG ratings = greater or lesser sales?

my $.02
MJ

Eh? I read that thread. There are 4 or 5 whiners who are pissed because the cards mentioned got dropped on them when they weren't ready for it. How does that make it broken? I'm a fan and I don't consider it the slightest bit broken.

After about 40 plays of BL it's my observation that the effectiveness of the cards is based on whether a level 3 cleric is used, whether the specific cards are in the mix, whether the level 3 cleric player is fortunate enough to draw the cards, whether he has the 7 lore to drop one, whether the opponent has "lore drain" "cancel lore" "foiled" "false orders" or any of the 1 lore cards that reduce the die rolled by -1 on a target.

Not to mention, if you KNOW the card is in the deck and you don't have it but you observe the opponent (with the level 3 cleric) amassing lore, then how stupid is it to leave your units in harm's way?

The entire premise that BL is broken because a few carping owners are poor players is bogus.

As for BL dropping one position on BGG, I hardly think that a few grumpy people did that. perhaps it's like many other games, very popular and highly rated initially because the people most likely to enjoy it are the early buyers and early raters. After time many games drop down when bought and played by the wider gaming audience.

I'm a little bewildered myself at all the stink many users have been creating. You see a lot of calls for "official" rulings over at the DoW site and for things a lot less controversial than the HR/FF/RR issue. To me BL is not perfect, but it seems there are enough small moving parts for players to tweak what they like and move on. The scenario stuff flap is even worse. I mean for Chrissake, DoW developed a scenario editor for their users. Don't like the scenarios, create your own! Yet people still bitch.

I'm still at a ten for the base set and I'll definately play any time. But , I have to say that I've thought about lowering the rating after the expansion line up.

CtA, made two serious rules ommissions, IMO. 1) Start player for placing units was not described. 2) Creature placement in a fixed position with no blue creatures. They've since discussed them on the battlelore forum at DOW. But, the answer seems tacked on ... roll 6 dice and the most green helmets go first? I just think the base set did a better job.

Dwarves and Goblin specialist packs, these two sets seem to lack... no cavalry for the Dwarves, no new creatures, no new cav for the Gobos but instead a band and pikemen (that will probably get little more than bonus strike against cav).

I know there will be more coming down the pipe so I'm not too worried. Slingmen goblins has me interested in the gobos. I'm getting CtA's and the specialists cards and army creation rock. So, I'll keep Battlelore and Epic at a ten for now.

it's an alright game, but I really don't understand the drooling about how great it is. Is it because it's pretty? Otherwise it's just a flash in the pan that C&C:A did better if you ask me.

The real reason for the drop: the new hype machine is starting to fade, and it will settle into a semi-high ranking after people get over it.

I don't think Richard was arguing with a player over how to play a game, I think he was just trying to dispute the charge that the Lore cards were broken.

His fix is ridiculous though.