Let's Talk WARHAMMER QUEST ADVENTURE CARD GAME

Feed me all the info you have on this game. Has anyone played this besides Barnes? I'm going down to visit my brother the weekend before Christmas for a weekend of gaming. For my birthday my wife said I could pick out and buy a new game to take with me. I've kind of fallen away from board games since I got back into Blood Bowl, but I'm kind of intrigued by WHQAC. I already have Pathfinder, but I prefer the Warhammer setting over the Pathfinder one. Also, Pathfinder feels kind of a pain to lug around.

Save yourself the deliberation. Just spend the $25 or so and get it. If you like Pathfinder at all, you will definitely like WQACG and I would say with 90% certainty that you will like it more because it is a better game overall.

There's quite a bit of discussion in the Games played thread by Grudunza and VonTush as well as Barnes. Just skim the past week's posts and you'll find plenty of them.

I played Pathfinder once and didn't like it, so I have no idea how this one relates.
Right now I'm 8 games in and after a few games to learn and get clear on the rules, definitions and the order that things resolve I went on a steak of winning until I reached the last quest in the campaign where I was utterly smoked.

As a whole, I really like it, but it is a game where I see myself primarily playing it solo. I wasn't a fan of Death Angel is a multiplayer experience and see this having a similar preference. The game is complete out of the box but it is also a game where you want more right away like thicker decks, more characters, more rooms, more dungeon and gear cards...etc. There's already an extensive list of stuff I'd like to see added in the future.

Character development at first I was optimistic about, but in the end it always makes sense to update your Action compared to the other advancement options so characters end up a little more static than I hoped/wanted - An alternate upgraded action per character would be tremendous here. So as it stands the only variety comes from what gear you're able to find. I'd actually love to see more Action Card variety before more characters.

The game itself is solid though. I'm really enjoying it and it does take some creativity at times and really depends on coordination of the characters. It follows in the tradition of Death Angel and Team Manager by taking a GW property and creating something solid that captures the essence of the original.

Columbob wrote: There's quite a bit of discussion in the Games played thread by Grudunza and VonTush as well as Barnes. Just skim the past week's posts and you'll find plenty of them.

Still def the right move to have a dedicated thread. Too much great discussion gets buried in those threads over time!

Yeah, I was actually thinking that too...rather than a couple of new characters in an expansion, I'd rather see more variety in the advanced action card. They're pretty versatile in pairs as it is, but giving them more of an upgrade path would be good.

btw, two characters solo best?

I was just thinking about that and trying 3 or 4 characters. The way the game scales there is always four actions by the characters each round. So two player you have 2 actions each, 4 players 1 action each, 3 player is 1 action each except the Party Leader for the round who gets 2. Each I think would give different interactions so down the line a bit, once I'm very familiar with the other characters and pairings I haven't used, I think I'm going to try those setups out.

Two is really nice though because everything is close at hand and within easy reach. Three might get a bit too sprawling and cluttered. Four means I'd be circling the table.

VonTush wrote: Character development at first I was optimistic about, but in the end it always makes sense to update your Action compared to the other advancement options so characters end up a little more static than I hoped/wanted - An alternate upgraded action per character would be tremendous here. So as it stands the only variety comes from what gear you're able to find. I'd actually love to see more Action Card variety before more characters.

But character advancement through loot (I hate that word ...) is kind of the norm/surprising fun of a dungeon crawler.

What if two players control two characters each?

Michael Barnes wrote: Save yourself the deliberation. Just spend the $25 or so and get it. If you like Pathfinder at all, you will definitely like WQACG and I would say with 90% certainty that you will like it more because it is a better game overall.

Stock is low on Amazon so it's $47 right now ... I seriously hate how when Amazon runs out of stock they allow price gouging to go up via secondary resellers or whomever. I could get it for $26 from coolstuff or cardhaus or whatever but I'm not hitting the free shipping so it's $6-8. At that point if I'm only saving $8 should I just buy it from the local store? Ugh, these kinds of decisions.

I could see handling three characters, if table space allows... I may try that on my next go around. But I think it could get difficult to work things out with more than two characters playing solo. There are a lot of things you need to consider in terms of which action from which character to do in what order. There's enough decisions to make in that sense controlling only two characters. I will try three at some point, but I think two is the sweet spot for solo play.

metalface13 wrote: What if two players control two characters each?

That's probably viable. The scaling is that with two characters, they each get two actions every round. With three, each gets one action but the lead character that round gets two. And with four, each gets one action. So you're dealing with the same number of actions. Still harder than controlling one character each because you would have twice as many different actions to consider between your two characters. But that's the same essential issue when playing solo with two characters, so I don't think that would be too hard to manage.

Playing two characters actually feels complete...I'm on the fourth quest with two solo and I haven't felt like anything was missing with only two. The only thing is that the Aid action may be used more frequently with more players, but that's also highly situational.

But yeah, you could play two players and both use two characters...I think that's totally doable.

If there's one concern, it may be that the game may skew a little too easy and there's not really an out-of-the-box way to bump it up. Granted, I have not played the Delve game, so that may be more difficult. The finishes have been good, fairly close, but the game isn't going to just whip you like LOTR LCG. I _think_ this may actually be a good thing in the long run though- there's enough friction there, but you're not going to get brutalized because of how the cards were stacked or when a certain event came up.

And certainly not because you explored rather than defended or whatever.

^There's also the chance to introduce brutal quests in later expansions, too, to "fix" this problem.