What's so good about MEQ?

After all the complaints here about Dungeonquest's combat system being too complicated for the game (which stopped after the variants have been published on-line), I wonder why is similar situation in MEQ mostly tolerated?

MEQ is the one of the purchases I regret the most (and the only FFG one, it still it made me overly suspicious about the company's recent designs though). What I thought I was buying was one v.s. the rest 3-player Arkham Horror. Unfortunately with all the mechanical similarities between the two designs it seems that the best parts of AH design were left out in MEQ:

1.) Resolution system, card made combat, is overly complicated. Compared to AH's dice rolling which let me get on with the narrative of the game, the cards in MEQ are for me a completely alien game to the rest of the game design and consequently disconnect me from trying to immerse in character. The rule of getting new cards at the start heroes's turn also creates unnecessary downtime, especially in 2 player game. And here we come to the second point:

2.) Why couldn't the game be played with all heroes having the same turn (as in AH)? I see no real reason for heroes having consequent turns except that it increases the downtime.

3.) Sauron's turn is a joke. Bookkeeping makes up for half of all his tasks. This is just downright ridiculous: when my GF was Sauron, she didn't let me help her with this stuff and downtime was increases again. In AH we split these tasks between players so that the game went faster.

Ok, I will complete my whining with a weird comparison - I've just played Munchkin Quest this evening (3 people who played MEQ plus the owner of Munchkin Quest) and we enjoyed it more, because paradoxically even though the game took quite longer than MEQ it felt shorter. It might be something about the anticlimax of MEQ and the last hour of Munckin Quest (the boss fight) being so enjoyable that we forgot the previous 4 hours of utter boredom. But it also might be something with Munckinquest giving us a feel of honestly stupid Diablo-like boardgaming clone which it was, while MEQ feels like dealing with euro/ dungeoncrawl schizo for whom I'm not really sure what it wants to be.

And this is my question - what am I missing? It might be that my main problem with the game is that I wish or expect it to be something else than what it actually is. But I'm not quite sure what it actually is. What's the right mindframe to play this? Playing AT, but secretly wishing to be playing euro? Do I need to play a couple of card driven wargames before I can try this one? I just want to make up my mind about this game - whether we should try playing it again or I just try to get rid of it somehow.

I've had one play of Middle Earth Quest so I'm not the most experienced voice here, but I absolutely loved the energy-inflow mechanic in the game. Using the cards for all those different purposes means you really need to decide what your priorities are and how you want to position yourself for future turns. I was able to set up Sauron in combat with a couple of prep cards and then really tag him hard. There was a risk in doing it, but it was my risk and my decision to take it. The game seemed to provide a lot of options for that kind of thing.

I'm more resistant to downtime than most, so that aspect didn't really matter as much to me. Sauron's job doesn't look fascinating to me, but I know some people that enjoy that part of the game.

S.

I've got some feedback on TOS as well (well, they respond quicker) and it seems a lot of my problems come from:
- the game apparently takes a while for everything to click (after 2 games of understanding the game turn/phases/moves) there is a then also the card combat mechanic to be learned as well. They say the downtime decreases once everybody knows how to play combat cards (and everything else). I'm just not sure if my group would be willing to put an extra effort to try play another game or two just to understand a game.
- me thinking this game plays similar to Arkham Horror which I now see it's not the case
- the combat mechanics which I thought distracts from in character immersion is only themeless or fairly abstracted (compared to weapons, levels or other stuff you find in adventure/ dungeoncrawl genre).

It seems that connection of heroes cards to the theme goes more in the way the euros incorporate the theme (you have to think about it) than to create character immersion, which I thought what the game was about. I can't really tell, but it might be similar to CDGs? (with emphasis on wearing out the enemy instead of fighting them).

I'd disagree with the BGG sages on points one and three. We were clicking after a turn or two (two new players at the table) and I thought the cards painted a pretty solid picture of what my character was like. I imagine Sauron would be harder to play, but the characters were pretty straightforward.

Middle Earth Quest has direct conflict between two players. You need to read your opponent to succeed, and there's nothing like that in Arkham Horror. I prefer that, but Arkham is a good game in spite of not having it.

S.

If you don't like it, you don't like it. I don't think I can convince you otherwise, but here are my thoughts.

1) I don't think the combat is overly complicated. At least, for me it's no more complicated than Arkham Horror. It's just you have two people fighting each other and if one person is new, it can be confusing because it's not intuitive. But then, neither is AH to me. Overall, I find AH much more fiddly than MEQ. I think this is personal taste, not a flaw in the game.

As for the combat system itself, I like the "war with bells and whistles". It reminds me of what I like about Cosmic Encounter's card combat.

2) I don't disagree.

3) Playing Sauron is, next to playing Dungeon Master, one of the most fun being the bad guy experiences I've had. It's heavy on the mechanics, but pulling strings is what bad guys do best. However, if you don't find the mechanics fun, don't be Sauron. Also, I wouldn't have a new player play Sauron.

I really like MEQ's mechanics, but to me the game never pulls together as a whole. It feels incomplete, like it was sent out the door without being 100% ready. There are just so many odd things, like dying being no worse than resting really, and Sauron simply not having enough actions to play with. And that terrible endgame.

The combat is a brilliant idea that is not 100% there in execution. The heroes needed a further mechanic to deal with their lifepoints, which are too high at 30 cards.
That being said I find it immersive, but then I don't get this whole 'dice are immersive' meme at all. Rolling a die and adding a number is hardly a triumph of theme.

Overall MEQ is FFGs weakest release of the past 2 years that I own. I'm hoping for an expansion which will knock it up a gear, because it has more potential than it gave.

In Defense of Middle Earth Quest:

I really think many people who were disappointed in MEQ were thinking they were buying Arkham - Middle Earth or Middle Earth - Dungeon Crawl or Middle Earth - Munchkin.

The people who were pleasantly surprised with MEQ were the war gamers or at least part time war gamers. I've had a few war gamers who said that they didn't like AH or other dungeon games but they liked MEQ and that they'd play it again.

To really understand MEQ you have to look at as a Card Driven War game like Twilight Struggle, WWR or the game I'm going to compare it to Hannibal. Playing Sauron is very much like playing the Roman players turn. One of your main choices are to gain additional corruption to extend your corruption, similar to playing ops cards to place PC markers.

Other choices include adding monsters and moving monsters which is similar to moving armies around Rome.

The final choice Sauron has is to play plots which I compare to playing major events. Major events and plots take forethought and planning to make the work for there maximum effect.

On the Free Peoples side, heroes play the role of Generals and your cards act as army strength. Choices revolve around aggressively moving to get favors and to destroy plots and risk burning to many cards moving that you might need when you get into a fight or playing it conservatively and letting Sauron get more powerful. Sauron job is to slowly bleed the heroes giving him time to advance his plots.

The battles are also very similar to the battles in Hannibal or We the People. Draw battle cards and try to out think your opponent with the battle cards you have in your hand.

The end game doesn't bother me any more. There's enough tactical tension through out the game. So the final battle is just the icing on the cake.

So here's 10 things I like about MEQ:
1. Great Production
2. It has a perfect play length (about 2 hours)
3. It play great with 3 players (not a whole lot great 3 player games)
4. It's a good mix of Ameritrash and War gaming goodness.
5. Intuitive after the first couple of turns.
6. Team work crushing Sauron when I'm playing on the heroes side
7. Out witting stupid heroes when I'm Sauron
8. Hero movement in MEQ is much better than Runebound because players can plan ahead.
9. The combat system in MEQ is much better than Warrior Knight, Runewars or Conflict in the Old World
10. It's not another dungeon crawl.

Answers to Complaints about the games:

Complaint: The beginning quest are too simple
Answer: Beginning quests are just there to give heroes something to work for on turn 1 or 2. The quests help get the heroes some favors before Sauron gets his plots up.

Complaint The game doesn't have dice
Answer: If you want dice roll a dice and randomly choose a battle card based on your dice roll.

Complaint: There's too much down time
Answer: Play 3 players not 4 players. Stop playing with people who take forever

Complaint: I don't like the end game
Answer: I like to see blood and gore and big massive end game battle much as anyone but I played great games of Hannibal or WWr that ended with somebody flipping a single PC marker.

Complaint: It too hard for Sauron or heroes to win.
Answer: I've won and loss on both side. The key thing to remember is the whole game is about the plots. If don't focus on the plots you'll probably lose.

Wow, King Put---this is a great review in and of itself. I know you've talked about it before, but thanks! I have it sitting in shrink-wrap--still unopened (and debating on selling it).

How is it as two player?

Couple of responses. NOTE - I have never played a hero in this (I wouldn't give up playing sauron 'till I won the game as him, then later I was taking him due to playing with new players) so I only know the game from the Sauron side.

3. It play great with 3 players (not a whole lot great 3 player games)

I found with 3 players Sauron is kind of boned. 2 actions a turn is simply not enough to do everything you need to. With 4 players Sauron is much more competative. You don't find this to be the case?

7. Out witting stupid heroes when I'm Sauron

I like playing Sauron, but it's very unforgiving - too unforgiving. If you can't get the right plots going within the first few turns you really cant catch up. Ditto if you fall behind at the start of the second 'phase' of the turn track.

Merkles wrote:

Wow, King Put---this is a great review in and of itself. I know you've talked about it before, but thanks! I have it sitting in shrink-wrap--still unopened (and debating on selling it).
How is it as two player?

I haven't played it 2 player. I've played 3 games with 3 players and 3 games with 4 players. I've only been a hero once. For me it's sweet spot is 3 (as I said earlier there isn't a lot of great 3 player games). With 4, MEQ suffers down time for the heroes. And if I have 2 player I'm likely to play War of the Rings or a different war game but I have heard some people say it plays best with 2 play.

As you can see the game is getting really mixed reviews so may like or you may be disappointed. I'm hoping Ken B. will write up his review because he was originally disappointed but now he's digging the game. I really interested in what he things about the game.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Couple of responses. NOTE - I have never played a hero in this (I wouldn't give up playing sauron 'till I won the game as him, then later I was taking him due to playing with new players) so I only know the game from the Sauron side.

3. It play great with 3 players (not a whole lot great 3 player games)

I found with 3 players Sauron is kind of boned. 2 actions a turn is simply not enough to do everything you need to. With 4 players Sauron is much more competative. You don't find this to be the case?

7. Out witting stupid heroes when I'm Sauron

I like playing Sauron, but it's very unforgiving - too unforgiving. If you can't get the right plots going within the first few turns you really cant catch up. Ditto if you fall behind at the start of the second 'phase' of the turn track.

Have you focus all your effort on getting out 3 plots and then getting 2 or 3 move plots out? I almost always use one of my actions to pick plot and shadow cards that I have large hand of plot and shadow cards and than I can always play a plot when a spot opens up. That's how I've played game and I'm 3-2 as Sauron (not great but not bad). As Sauron I haven't worried to much about playing monster tokens and defending plots.

When I played as hero the guy playing Sauron focused more on putting out monsters. He ended up heavily defending weaker plots verse letting the weaker plots be foiled so he could put up stronger plots.

So far most of the games I've played have been pretty close. I did run away with one game Sauron because I had the ring Mission and lucked out with a bunch of ring plots.

KingPut wrote:

I've played 3 games with 3 players and 3 games with 4 players. I've only been a hero once.

I need to bone up on the Sauron side of MEQ (UniversalHead's game summary should help) so that I can give you a proper trouncing by The Eye. Maybe in a week or so.

This game really plays well with two players. The hero player just needs to play two (or all three) characters by himself. Ignore what the book says and play that way.

Once I got over what my expectations were for this, and took it for what it was, is when I started to enjoy it more. It's neither a beer and pretzels game (nor is Corey's Starcraft come to think of it) or a hack 'n loot. It really does seem like a unique game and I'm worried that people weren't expecting it to be a bit of a thinker. There really is a bit to the play, a fine line of not being too obvious while also not hindering your overall objectives. Overall, it's weird and different but in a good, interesting way. I'm glad it's not the same old shit. Sure, it might be a little abstract but it certainly doesn't feel like any of the few euros I've played. I'm not quite sure where the euro bit is coming from. The main thing that annoys me is the blank monster chits. How fucking boring those are. Does the game break if you take those out?

Whether some elements may have been left out to keep the playtime or learning curve down is still a dark secret. If that's the case though it was probably a good idea considering the depth of play. I would buy the expansion for this in a heartbeat though.