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.
I'm two steps from salvation, but I'm only taking one. Pardon me.
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.
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.
I'm two steps from salvation, but I'm only taking one. Pardon me.
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.
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:
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.
"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!
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.