Dungeonquest - New Combat Rules

Mr Skeletor wrote:

..but I'll be sticking to the combat system found in the box, which I find to be one of the best bits of the game.

That is interesting and the first thing I've heard that made me interested in trying it out. With pretty much unanimous F:ATie disapproval of the card combat system I thought maybe it was too complex but on further reflection it sounds highly unlikely. Too bad the game itself never quite grabbed me but I'd still love to try. Dr... you free this Sunday?

I've said it several times before, but I'll be happy to repeat it: I really like the new card combat. It's tense, it requires actual skill, and most importantly it pits the players directly against each other. And it's NOT complex, but still holds interesting tactical choices.

Fine by me that FFG gives us some variants, and great that they listen to their fans. But why a lot of cry babies on both F:AT and TOS talk about this rather bland set of variants has saved their game or rekindled their interest in the game is beyond me.

Actually, I confused myself.

I like the combat SYSTEM, but not the THEME of it. It's not just abstract it's like the reverse of thematic, for me at least.

Have to agree on that. Skeletor can talk all he wants about how it makes Terrinoth-sense, but I still hate that all characters and monsters are hurling fireballs and shooting arrows like there's no tomorrow.

mads b. wrote:

Have to agree on that. Skeletor can talk all he wants about how it makes Terrinoth-sense, but I still hate that all characters and monsters are hurling fireballs and shooting arrows like there's no tomorrow.

Are you talking about the actual names of the cards or thier classification.

Names of the card - I don't really read them so I don't care. Middle Earth quest has the same (non) issue.

If it's classification, the only classification that doesn't make a lot of sense is troll using magic. Just pretend he is a special troll who went to runeschool.
Or use the wonderfull D6 table of theme. Oh, a 3, it's a hit! Themey!

A bit of both. But actually the magic is not the worst part, the ranged combat is. Especially since you can, apparantly, go from shooting arrows to close combat and back again in a small dungeon chamber.

But it's worth mentioning that this is truly a minor thing. A different kind of flavour would, I think, have added a lot to the story in the game (because it seems a bit weird), but generally I just ignore the card titles/types and concentrate on the duel part.

mads b. wrote:

A bit of both. But actually the magic is not the worst part, the ranged combat is. Especially since you can, apparantly, go from shooting arrows to close combat and back again in a small dungeon chamber.

Avoid Runebound and Decent then (runwars you should be fine with).

I'm very fine with Runewars. And though I haven't tried Descent I really like Doom and would love to play through a Road to Legend campaign. I don't think a very minor thing such as being annoyed with a tiny bit of flavour will keep me from trying and otherwise interesting game.

But actually the comparison with Descent has made me rethink DungeonQuest combat a bit. These are super badass heroes and monsters after all, so maybe cirkling an enemy, firing the occasional arrow/musket/fireball before charging is plausible within context. Or maybe I'm just overthinking things.

You gotta give FFG credit...they are apparently beginning to listen to those who support their employees' families and livelihoods.


'bout fucking time!

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Umm why, it's still true. We find the new combat quicker than the old, and that doesn't change because I read some bullshit on the internet.

That bullshit is straight from FFG.

superflytnt wrote:

You gotta give FFG credit...they are apparently beginning to listen to those who support their employees' families and livelihoods.

'bout fucking time!

I agree that it seems like a wise business decision. However I do get the impression that most of the so-called problems with the new combat system is due to internet hype (the negative kind) and a very vocal group of people that would rather have had the game they played when they were kids and might even still own.

If you read about a game on the internet and hear lots of people complaining about oh how complicated combat is and oh how long it takes, that's probably the mindset you'll have when you actually play the game. Seriously, the new combat system - whether you like it or not, whether it's not what you remembered, or whether it fits the game or not - is not long nor complicated.

Dr. Mabuse wrote:

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Umm why, it's still true. We find the new combat quicker than the old, and that doesn't change because I read some bullshit on the internet.

That bullshit is straight from FFG.

And?
You believe everything companies tell you?

I like that FFG has responded and posted these alternate rules. The first one looks interesting and the one that I'd like to try first.

The combat rules in the box aren't that long and they aren't that difficult and in another game and place I'd like the rules. For me though, that system just feels out of place in DQ.

The new version takes me out of a Me vs The Dungeon mindset and puts me into a Me vs My Opponent mindset which isn't welcome in what amounts to a multi-player solitaire game.

The change of mindset means I want to beat my opponent down even more and I've found deaths caused by combat to be the least enjoyable deaths for me. I killed my opponent with a golumn in the third turn of the game by causing 15 or so wounds to his two or three, in the same game my dwarf, who had a cakewalk to the center room only to be bifurcated by a swinging blade. My death was enjoyable and we laughed about it, my opponent's death was followed up by a "oh, you're dead" comment.

So for me overall I don't think the system is bad, but it feels intrusive and not wanted by me so I am very excited to try out some other combat options.

Personally I love that the combat is player vs. player and I find great joy in pummeling an opponent with a demon. But that's a personal taste and I can easily see what you mean, Von Tush. However, the original RPS-system is exactly the same. When I played it as a kid, we didn't actually pick cards, but both monster and hero would draw randomnly. But it was still very much me against my father/brother/etc. and vice versa.

Michael Barnes wrote:

...and there's no provision to ditch the effort tokens) but since the game is published and can't really be changed at this point I think they did they best they could to satisfy people.

Weren't we just talking about this some time back, how games of late are giving away little medals for "just trying" and "good effort" like some damned little league team? When will they learn that if we want "good effort" awards, we'll get on XBOX and earn our little "Achievement Unlocked: Made a trophy wife cry" awards, but when we want bloodletting of the highest magnitude, like in Dungeonquest, we want it to be the Non-ketchup, Non-hollywood version where people fucking die...

The softening of my once-great nation makes me weep...

<edit>
...and this was one of my only bitches about The Adventurers - that you get a "second chance". Indiana Jones never had a backup plan, where if he was crushed under that boulder his buddy, Montana Jackson, would swoop in and save the world for him. Maybe it's just me, though.