pumpkin said:

Whenever you win a round and there are cards in the combat stack that are the same color as your initial combat card (any counter-attack cards you play will also be the same color as your initial combat card, so whether or not you used a counter-attack to win the round is immaterial), you've dealt a deathblow.

Interestingly I actually found combat to be anything but convoluted. If anything, it's rather addictive, and it's rather satisfying to land a counterattack or particularly viscious deathblow on an opponent.

So original poster?

Have you checked out and tried the new combat variants? There are "traditional" rules - or something like that - just use the chart on the last page.

Hey all

I've played dozens of games now - solo or with groups. I've found the combat is easy to learn - fast and furious (we had it down half-way through the first game).

There's a mild element of strategy in the cards (e.g. playing a 4 Str means you'll never get a shot to counter attack but could shut your opponent down early) and a bit more in guessing/judging what your opponent has and what he/she might play next (do I play a magic attacj knowing there are two magic cards in the combat deck or will my foe guess what I'm doing and set me up for a counter...etc).

AFA the names of the moves We call out the moves for flavor or sometimes RPG it a bit for fun (e.g. Tindel dances back and looses a fireball arrow from his quiver..etc). How much you want to get into it, is up to you and your peeps.

I've showed about ten people the game so fat in my experience no one finds it convoluted or difficult.

Of course no one is comparing it to the old DQ or anything else- And that's where I think people are running into trouble. Any time we start comparing diff things come into play - nostalgia, familiarity (let's face it, some people don't like change), etc.

Bottom line, IMO, is It's a diff game, and if one likes V1, or V2 more, it's easy to sell off your new copy and stick to the older editions (as one poster suggested).

We all know GW (who made the 2nd version, I believe) has done MANY reduxes of their own games - improving, changing, trying new rules concepts It's part of the hobby. And to that end there's always the option of fiddling about with some house rules (again a staple of the gaming world).

Just another POV.

The combat system seems not very intuitive at first but after 1-2 tries it really becomes a fast and simple mini card game. The only thing that can bog down game speed are the power cards (reading the one you drew and making up your mind what it really does and when to use it best). Playing combat without power cards really speeded up things for us. Its a good alternative if you dont mind the loss of a small amount of flavour and tactical choice. But then some of the power cards seemed a bit overcomplex for this beer & brezel type fun game so I its ok for me not to include them in combat.

After all this game is all about drawing tiles and cards - not reading combat cards

I don't know Descent at all, but I'll assume the new DQ combat system didn't come from that. It certainly didn't come from RB. Likely it was cribbed from some other game entirely. It's just too bad that in an absorption into the Terrinoth world that the designers didn't opt for a combat system alternative closer to one of that world's other games. The cards used for combat already have terminology from those other games, though used in a manner that makes no sense to imagining the combat taking place or in a logical manner. Since when would one be able to use ranged combat to counter a melee (hand to hand) attack?

Be that as it may, I've already had too many players walk away from this game, preferring to go back to Runebound, Talisman, etc. The combat system alone even turned them off to being open to DQ's absorption into Terrinoth. Absorption in a redesign is a very tenuous approach, as when it happened with Talisman 3E it didn't go over very well with many old fans of 2E. It'll take more than a resurrected old combat system to get all of my players back to the table. Maybe doing a legititmate absorption at the mechanics level (rather the just a skin job) might help.

And so, has anyone else considered the possibility, and method, to take another Terrinoth game's combat system (simplified down) into DQ? Likely it wouldn't appeal to general players, but it's still a semi-interesting notion. The problem of course is that DQ's character stat.'s aren't usable for such, but we do have those matching Runebound characters in the box. A like approach might be possible for those playing Descent, I suppose, but that's not within my reach.

The other difficulty is that cards in the game reference attributes not standard to those other games, so perhaps one would have to keep both a Runebound and DQ character card handy during play. Maybe that's too much for most players, but there it is. The game has few monster types, so a simple chart of monster stats developed based on Runebound challenges (or Descent monsters) might be enough. However, the stats should be re-rigged to use 2D6 in DQ vs the 2D10 in RB. Any other thoughts?

I was one of the people saying: "awful combat system, wee need something different!" only reading the rulebook. So I choose one alternative homemade combat system (not from official variants, but from a BGG forum's user) and it works pretty well.

After 2 weeks, I tried the original combat version...

ok I was wrong. It's not difficult (even my girlfriend after the first explanation was able to give me 7 wounds with a sorcerer) and it can be pretty deep. I like it, even if combat times in some cases would be longer, but I have changed at all my considerations.

Surely I won't use other variants.

Me and Mine finally worked through it as well... but I had to force (bribe) two comrades to do it. It can be learned, but the other players arguments against it still stand.

• On average it does take too long for, and is out of place within, a game like DQ.
• Terms cribbed from other Terrinoth games don't work, or create combinations that are more nonsensical needing wilder justifications, than in other games, such as "Range," "Melee," "Magic" combat.
• Runebound itself does have some fuzziness in this, but its combat system is integrated into the game as a whole via the characters' attributes. DQ's is worse in the disconnect and nonsense combinations of combat types.
• Both the old and new DQ combat systems have nothing to do with the character's attributes. In the old system, this of course leveled the playing field when it comes to combat in a game that is quite deadly. But the old ways don't feel like a second outside game (borrowed from elsewhere) crowbarred into DQ.

Even my wife who bought it for my birthday doesn't want to touch it as is and is quite miffed about it for what it cost. All the gang would rather play Runebound, Dungeoneer, etc., even though such are longer games. The card combat wasn't the only reason, and in most cases I agree with or can't logically argue with their reasons. Sigh. Looks like I'm playing solo until something more can be done with it.

this is DQ: love it or hate it.

Also My friends could be divided about DQ when choosing the game to play...but the reason is not the time (when we started with talisman we played for average 3+1/2 hours) or the combat system (they learnt it well). some of them don't like they cannot control events...you can play perfectly, but if you find the bad tile or the back card, you die the same. And maybe people who play for the first time can reach an exit with ease. it's not a game for everyone, and I love it even for this reason.

DQ rules!!

I agree with Air Show - For me and my game group, the spirit of DQ is non-strategic beer-and-pretzels mindless fun. and it delivers that in spades. For tactical dungeon crawl board games I play Descent or Tomb.

RB

In which case, it's better to move back to the played tiles of the original DQ... or simply used dice rolls against that old table. Fast and random, just like DQ was meant to be played.

I'd highly suggest that the people presently complaining about combat download the quick combat rules off of this site that FFG has provided. It's just as simple as the rochambeau method that some seem to favor.

For those of us who like what Fantasy Flight gave us, we'll keep it. I'd rather a game come with something fresh out of the box, then release a free download for something simpler for the purists who hate what's new.

It's not a matter of hating "what's new" but rather disliking what doesn't fit the game. Comments like that make it rather plain that you aren't listening to what people are really saying. If you enjoy the new combat system, that's great, but I wouldn't assume that you enjoy it just because its new.

I understand just fine what other posters' (particularly the very angry OP's) problem is with the new system of combat. For those opposed to it, they claim that it doesn't fit the game because it "slows down" turns. That says to me that people hate the new system because they believe turns should take no longer than a minute or two at best. Some others say that the new rules are too "complicated," and others (like me) don't get what's so complicated about it. I personally have never had trouble explaining combat to a new player, and combats for us usually last no longer than a couple of minutes.

There is a disturbing trend with just about every game ever re-released by FFG to hate on what is new. It may not be going into specifics of why, but it's a trend. Yes, sometimes it DOES boil down to hating what's new and different because it removes those people from the nostalgia of the original. You can argue that it isn't that simple. Fine. Have at it. I may not agree with your distinction between apples and oranges, because in the end, they are both fruit.

The OP in particular feels the need to insult those who like FFGs DQ. I wanted to point out that there's an official release from FFG for those who like the old combat better...not to mention the multiple optional rules in the original release. It's anyone's right to not like a system, but I consider it grating when it's implied that if some of us DO like it, we're "less gamer" than those who prefer the original.

I was calling out a trend. "Plain" as my statement may be, it may not cover the WHOLE truth, but it doesn't make it an UN-TRUTH.

Doc Belmont said:

"Slows down the game" is only one aspect that may or may not be a part of "fit." I've seen new mechanics introduced to speed up a game that didn't or did fit. I consider the "fit" an "speed" issues to be separate, as fit doesn't always imply a change of speed in game play/turns.

In the case of Dungeonquest, I consider the card combat to have issues in both areas... separately... which makes it not a combined but compound negative influence by the group I play with. I don't personally find horrible... just not good. But I am in the minority, since most of my extended group take a slightly to severely dimmer view of it. Even after learning the cards enough to process them quickly, it made no difference to them.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I've heard some people rant about this game regardless of combat. I thought of DQ as one of FFGs most polarizing games, as I've only seen love or hate for it.

Some people really hate this game due to its random nature, and feel that you really have no control over the game whatsoever. Personally, I love the combat system due to the fact that it represents what little control I have over the mechanics of the game.

Regarding those who hate the new combat, I actually thought it was cool of FFG to release official rules to simulate classic DQ. I honestly thought it was a good way to make everyone happy.

Agreed on the polarizing, and on the retro combat rules. The latter was the only way I got some players back to table for DQ. The true first edition of DQ from years back was, as you say, a very polarizing game even then. I can see the card combat bringing some to it now that wouldn't have played the original. DQ is afterall very much in the category of utter randomness often referred to as "ameritrash"... even by those who love that for what it is.

So doubly agree that providing those alternative rules was a smart move, even though those rules were already spread among players who knew how the game was once played.

Combat is so simple that the only thing done bad is that they have 100 combat cards for something so simple and boring since you have no real options other than play one of the 3 type of attacks.

....which is why every character and creature has power cards to mix things up.

After my first game of DQ I came running to the FFG forum to express how much fun I had!

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=186&efcid=1&efidt=426783

I also found this post.

I too felt that combat worked well enough but didn't fit the feel of the rest of the game. Everything would stop, we'd deal out some cards fuss with stacks, I wonder if that would be enough damage to defeat the monster and eagerly await getting back to the rest of the game.

Still, this is not a show stopper. Not by a long shot. Still a super game. But I can see from this thread that I'm not the only one to notice this.

I really love that it's sooooo much quicker than Descent (which I LOVE) and still offers up a great dungeon crawl experience.

DQ Rocks!