Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Shadows of Brimstone is the closest a game has felt to 90s Quest.

Considering the piles of expansions and supplemental material that's out there (not even including all the crazy fan made content), all you're basically missing is the IP.

Plus with the upcoming releases they'll have even more fantasy themes covered via the Norse Adventures.

There's also Darklight: Memento Mori which is made very much in the vein of 90s Quest, but it's a bit more challenging to get a hold of (especially with the exploration deck, which really adds to the atmosphere).

I was going to bring up Shadows of Brimstone. The fact that it has single-handedly kept Flying Frog Productions afloat as a company for the better part of the last decade is pretty good indication that there is a large demand for games in a similar vein to the original Warhammer Quest.

Cyel wrote:
I am astounded by the demand for a game with such outdated, passive mechanics in a world where games like Gloomhaven exist. OO

Apart from the minis, which are excellent, the graphic design also looks lazy and cheap. Photos of miniatures instead of artwork, simple drawings etc. GW must have saved a lot of money on artists.

People who extol the virtues of 'advancements in game mechanics' rarely have any idea what they are actually talking about. It's rare for a particular mechanic to be objectively better or more fun than another, only newer. There can be differences in the ways that particular mechanics are implemented, leading to them working better or worse in a particular situation, but just because you don't enjoy the way a particular game mechanic works that doesn't mean it's 'bad'. Along with that, just because a mechanic is newer, that doesn't make it automatically 'better'.

As for Gloomhaven, it came out the year after Silver Tower. If Silver Tower's mechanics are 'outdated' then so are those in Gloomhaven.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
people on these boards *always* underestimate the cost of board game carboard, cards, and dice.

These are more expensive to produce than people think. I'm not saying that this isn't expensive, but just check the prices of regular old board games with cardboard, cards, and wooden pieces, and dice. That stuff alone adds up.

Yes, let's!

Spoiler:

You can get all 3 in the series for less than Cursed City

Seriously? A WotC board game from 10 years ago? At least pick something that isn’t terrible component quality lol. Quantity != quality.

Anyway, I did say cursed city is expensive and won’t argue that. Too expensive, even. I didn’t buy it, but I might have if it cost the same as black stone fortress. Again, I’m just saying people underestimate the cost of basic good quality board game components and artwork.

I think it's odd that there are people saying "It's just nostalgia!" that makes us want things like Old Quest.

That might be true if it were just something in the past, something we look back on and think "Weren't things better back then?". Except there are a number of us here who aren't just looking back wistfully. Some of us actively play Old Quest to this day, with a large group, and love it to bits.

That's not nostalgia. That's genuine affection for a game that was, and still is, a fun and fantastic time.

Isn’t that partly about getting to hang out with old friends and enjoying reliving the good old days? The comfort and comradely derived from reliving a shared experience?

Like when we rewatch an old tv show or movie we can practically quote line for line. It helps sooth old neutrons. I’ve been playing some old Amiga games for the same reason; they are not ‘better’ than modern games, but no modern game carries with it that comforting familiarity from a time in my life when everything was simpler.

Or do you think 90s quest is objectively the pinnacle of a dungeon crawler?

 Denny wrote:
Or do you think 90s quest is objectively the pinnacle of a dungeon crawler?

Never claimed it was, so why would I answer that question?

To help clarify your position?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's odd that there are people saying "It's just nostalgia!" that makes us want things like Old Quest.

That might be true if it were just something in the past, something we look back on and think "Weren't things better back then?". Except there are a number of us here who aren't just looking back wistfully. Some of us actively play Old Quest to this day, with a large group, and love it to bits.

That's not nostalgia. That's genuine affection for a game that was, and still is, a fun and fantastic time.

It doesn't change the fact that your perception of it is colored by nostalgia.

 Zethnar wrote:

People who extol the virtues of 'advancements in game mechanics' rarely have any idea what they are actually talking about. It's rare for a particular mechanic to be objectively better or more fun than another, only newer. There can be differences in the ways that particular mechanics are implemented, leading to them working better or worse in a particular situation, but just because you don't enjoy the way a particular game mechanic works that doesn't mean it's 'bad'. Along with that, just because a mechanic is newer, that doesn't make it automatically 'better'.

As for Gloomhaven, it came out the year after Silver Tower. If Silver Tower's mechanics are 'outdated' then so are those in Gloomhaven.

Subjectivity only goes so far when you try to learn about the world. Some people like being kicked in the balls but you wouldn't put being kicked in the balls in the same line as, for instance, playing the Witcher 3 when discussing good and bad entertainment.

Some mechanics are outdated and bad, because there are reasons for it. For example:

Rolling dice and comparing it with a table to see what happens is outdated and bad because
-outdated -it belongs in a museum, being a staple of games from almost half a century ago
-bad-it is non-interactive, involves no agency or decision-making, players are just bots that mindlessly push the game forward when it plays itself

Action cards in Gloomhaven are innovative and good
-innovative - choosing from a hand of actions cards and planning which ones to use and which actions on them to pair up, which also determines your initiative and is also your stamina pool is a pretty new concept
-good- there's a lot of decision-making ALL THE TIME. You plan tactically which cards to use to solve the current situation, but also strategically, which ones to save for later and how to optimise your moves, because the trickle of cards from your hand (which are also your stamina/HP pool for the adventure) determines how many turns you can play before you exhaust your cahracter. This level of agency and meaningful planning (which isn't arbitrarily cancelled by the game's randomness too) isn't something I have seen before in the dungeon crawling genre.

That's not to say that Gloomhaven doesn't have flaws. Upkeep and set up are very painful in this game too. But decisions are involving and interesting and player agency and choices form the basis of gameplay instead of being an afterthought when the game plays itself on random rails, with players being just the drudges pushing it, because someone has to operate the engine manually (most GW games, Monopoly etc).

It’s....not though.

If I sit down to watch a film because I remember it from childhood (such as Caravan of Courage), that is nostalgia driving my decision.

If I enjoy watching it (Caravan of Courage again), that’s not nostalgia.

Example. I loved M.A.S.K. as a kid. Toys were great, and I fondly remembered the cartoon as being pretty excellent. But when I watched it again as an adult? The cartoon was shown to be awful, and I can’t bring myself to watch it again. The toys are still great though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

People who extol the virtues of 'advancements in game mechanics' rarely have any idea what they are actually talking about. It's rare for a particular mechanic to be objectively better or more fun than another, only newer. There can be differences in the ways that particular mechanics are implemented, leading to them working better or worse in a particular situation, but just because you don't enjoy the way a particular game mechanic works that doesn't mean it's 'bad'. Along with that, just because a mechanic is newer, that doesn't make it automatically 'better'.

As for Gloomhaven, it came out the year after Silver Tower. If Silver Tower's mechanics are 'outdated' then so are those in Gloomhaven.

Subjectivity only goes so far when you try to learn about the world. Some people like being kicked in the balls but you wouldn't put being kicked in the balls in the same line as, for instance, playing the Witcher 3 when discussing good and bad entertainment.

Some mechanics are outdated and bad, because there are reasons for it. For example:

Rolling dice and comparing it with a table to see what happens is outdated and bad because
-outdated -it belongs in a museum, being a staple of games from almost half a century ago
-bad-it is non-interactive, involves no agency or decision-making, players are just bots that mindlessly push the game forward when it plays itself

Action cards in Gloomhaven are innovative and good
-innovative - choosing from a hand of actions cards and planning which ones to use and which actions on them to pair up, which also determines your initiative and is also your stamina pool is a pretty new concept
-good- there's a lot of decision-making ALL THE TIME. You plan tactically which cards to use to solve the current situation, but also strategically, which ones to save for later and how to optimise your moves, because the trickle of cards from your hand (which are also your stamina/HP pool for the adventure) determines how many turns you can play before you exhaust your cahracter. This level of agency and meaningful planning (which isn't arbitrarily cancelled by the game's randomness too) isn't something I have seen before in the dungeon crawling genre.

That's not to say that Gloomhaven doesn't have flaws. Upkeep and set up are very painful in this game too. But decisions are involving and interesting and player agency and choices form the basis of gameplay instead of being an afterthought when the game plays itself on random rails, with players being just the drudges pushing it, because someone has to operate the engine manually (most GW games, Monopoly etc).

So by all means. Don’t play it.

But please, do not confuse your preference of game play as some kind of universal opinion. Because you can only speak for you. And that opinion has no bearing on me, or the wider market.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And that opinion has no bearing on ... the wider market.

Well, Gloomhaven is number 1 board game on BGG, Blackstone Fortress 1384 and Silver Tower 1771 so I wouldn't say the wider market doesn't care about the quality of the rules.

Of course buying and playing are two different things too! I am quite sure that many players buy GW games not to play them and as a result don't rate their quality rules-wise, but still enjoy them as collectors/painters.

Also people often have limited reference points. Like has already been said in this topic, players who want to play Monopoly in most cases don't know board games with modern design exist and would probably have their minds blown away by, say, Brass or Food Chain Magnate and never want to waste their time with Monopoly again (and if someone says that you cannot claim Monopoly is an objectively bad game, I will lose all faith in people's ability to judge game design )

Gloomhaven is also (clearly) much better at appealing to board game fans that do things like rate games on boardgamegeek... I expect a large proportion of the Cursed City market have never even heard of it. All the BGG rankings mean is that that game is popular with BGG visitors.

There’s also the assumption that everyone with a copy of Gloomhaven will therefore have no interest in Cursed City. For which there is no basis.

Appears to be 5 copies in stock (with a discount) here for any US posters still after one -

https://www.gamenerdz.com/warhammer-quest-cursed-city

Cronch wrote:
It doesn't change the fact that your perception of it is colored by nostalgia.

No it's not.

"You only like it because of nostalgia!" is a weird line to take. I like it because I like it, not because of some half-remembered perception from the days of yore.

We really need a control group of people who have never played oldtimey games to determine of Quest is good or not

I'm not sure it matters: I've played horrible games that I've had loads of fun with and very good ones that were a total chore.

It's kind of two different axis, even before you take into account the people you're playing with.

What this new WHQ is, is "too rich for my blood". I already have BSF and I don't think what it offers in addition to it is worth it.

Also, before someone feels the need to point it out, I am obviously speaking for myself.

 Albertorius wrote:
I've played horrible games that I've had loads of fun with

Necromunda 1995

and very good ones that were a total chore.

Necromunda 2017

I'll get my coat

I mean, you're not exactly wrong, but given the amount of errors, backtracks and stupid minutia, I can't say I'd call N17 good.

Maybe more of a good idea than a good game.

OTOH, Battletech is a fairly antiquated for watever possible metrics... but I would actually call it a good game, because it is very tight. It works, the rules are very clear, interactions between rules are usually very well defined... that kinda stuff.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
We really need a control group of people who have never played oldtimey games to determine of Quest is good or not

Sign me up



Control group means I get a free copy of Cursed City right?!

Cyel wrote:

Rolling dice and comparing it with a table to see what happens is outdated and bad because
-outdated -it belongs in a museum, being a staple of games from almost half a century ago
-bad-it is non-interactive, involves no agency or decision-making, players are just bots that mindlessly push the game forward when it plays itself

Action cards in Gloomhaven are innovative and good
-innovative - choosing from a hand of actions cards and planning which ones to use and which actions on them to pair up, which also determines your initiative and is also your stamina pool is a pretty new concept
-good- there's a lot of decision-making ALL THE TIME. You plan tactically which cards to use to solve the current situation, but also strategically, which ones to save for later and how to optimise your moves, because the trickle of cards from your hand (which are also your stamina/HP pool for the adventure) determines how many turns you can play before you exhaust your cahracter. This level of agency and meaningful planning (which isn't arbitrarily cancelled by the game's randomness too) isn't something I have seen before in the dungeon crawling genre.

Rolling on a table is bad, drawing a card from a deck is good. Gotcha.

 Zethnar wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Rolling dice and comparing it with a table to see what happens is outdated and bad because
-outdated -it belongs in a museum, being a staple of games from almost half a century ago
-bad-it is non-interactive, involves no agency or decision-making, players are just bots that mindlessly push the game forward when it plays itself

Action cards in Gloomhaven are innovative and good
-innovative - choosing from a hand of actions cards and planning which ones to use and which actions on them to pair up, which also determines your initiative and is also your stamina pool is a pretty new concept
-good- there's a lot of decision-making ALL THE TIME. You plan tactically which cards to use to solve the current situation, but also strategically, which ones to save for later and how to optimise your moves, because the trickle of cards from your hand (which are also your stamina/HP pool for the adventure) determines how many turns you can play before you exhaust your cahracter. This level of agency and meaningful planning (which isn't arbitrarily cancelled by the game's randomness too) isn't something I have seen before in the dungeon crawling genre.

Rolling on a table is bad, drawing a card from a deck is good. Gotcha.

Well... it is more tactile. Also, you don't need to find the result on a table, and you can extend the "table" (meaning, the cards deck) without needing to reprint, just adding stuff.

So, taking into account that they are meant to give you the same end result... yes, a card deck would generally be better, as it is more versatile, easier to fix if it's broken, upgradeable and with faster resolution.

Is everyone is forgetting the original WHQ was card based? Dungeon layout, monsters, random events, treasure, all cards. It also included lots of tables to expand on the cards.

Original WHQ was awesome because it gave you a simple card based game to play, and included a book to expand it into something more. Rules for all the monsters they made, and rules to expand the game to the umpteenth degree. It was like being given the keys to the whole Old World and being told ‘go nuts’. This game looks very slick but its a very different product.

Well if you want to talk about control groups with regards to WHQ I only got into Warhammer in 2003. Only really started playing in 2005. I never played WHQ and my experience with the mechanics are a combination of playing the video game, Tabletop Simulator and watching GMG videos on the original game.

I infinitely prefer it to most modern games because it's wacky, hard and brutal.

Frankly the critique of "just nostalgia" is a deeply lazy critique to be honest.

Now back on topic...my local game store isn't doing pre-orders sooo. Hopefully I can grab the game this weekend. If not I'll have to wait for the next print...if there is one that is.

Card vs dice tables is a very different experience (the former is absolutely more elegant which is why it's the standard in Eurogames these past 25 years), has different probabilities (depending on when you reshuffle), has different possibilities for player knowledge of and influence of the draw, etc.

On the other hand, modern games have gotten a bit too trigger happy with having a card for everything and it makes set up and storage more inconvenient. Descent/imperial assault are particularly annoying, *everything* is a card. Good luck putting a campaign on hold and coming back to it in 6 months when even the campaign structure is in a deck of cards.

I detest games with too many components in general. It suggests the designer is more concerned with showing off all the cute mechanics he's thought of than making a smooth game.

Albertorius wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Rolling dice and comparing it with a table to see what happens is outdated and bad because
-outdated -it belongs in a museum, being a staple of games from almost half a century ago
-bad-it is non-interactive, involves no agency or decision-making, players are just bots that mindlessly push the game forward when it plays itself

Action cards in Gloomhaven are innovative and good
-innovative - choosing from a hand of actions cards and planning which ones to use and which actions on them to pair up, which also determines your initiative and is also your stamina pool is a pretty new concept
-good- there's a lot of decision-making ALL THE TIME. You plan tactically which cards to use to solve the current situation, but also strategically, which ones to save for later and how to optimise your moves, because the trickle of cards from your hand (which are also your stamina/HP pool for the adventure) determines how many turns you can play before you exhaust your cahracter. This level of agency and meaningful planning (which isn't arbitrarily cancelled by the game's randomness too) isn't something I have seen before in the dungeon crawling genre.

Rolling on a table is bad, drawing a card from a deck is good. Gotcha.

Well... it is more tactile. Also, you don't need to find the result on a table, and you can extend the "table" (meaning, the cards deck) without needing to reprint, just adding stuff.

So, taking into account that they are meant to give you the same end result... yes, a card deck would generally be better, as it is more versatile, easier to fix if it's broken, upgradeable and with faster resolution.

An expanded card deck would require a printed expansion in order to be modified (unless you're fine with adding home made cards to your decks), a table could be extended online, in a magazine, in a PDF, or simply be printed again in any expansion material. A table doesn't need to be buried in a book, it can be printed on to a play-aid or a dedicated card. Also I think you're over-emphasising how often a company will actually modify a deck of cards. Depending on how popular a particular game is it may never actually see any expansions, making the modularity of a card deck a moot point. As for tactility, you're rolling dice to consult a table, that's a fairly tactile experience (and can add its own drama as everyone cranes in to see what result you got).

Realistically, the two mechanics resolve in a similar way and are merely different methods of achieving the same result. There are situations where a card deck absolutely would be a better choice, I won't deny that, but there are plenty of cases where a table would work fine and would not, in fact, be a detriment to gameplay.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Card vs dice tables is a very different experience (the former is absolutely more elegant which is why it's the standard in Eurogames these past 25 years), has different probabilities (depending on when you reshuffle), has different possibilities for player knowledge of and influence of the draw, etc.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "absolutely more elegant" as cards add extra set-up, bookkeeping, and storage concerns to any game they are included in (not to mention potential for damage or wear). But, as I said in my initial post on the topic, any mechanics utility is dependent on the way it is implemented into a game. Tables have their uses and aren't automatically bad just because some people feel they are 'antiquated'.

Anyway, this is getting ridiculously off topic. I've said my piece and I doubt I've changed any minds. Sorry for dragging it out.

Well, to move slightly back towards the topic, Cursed City in particular is definitely not a game where the designer just kept piling on stuff for the sake of more stuff.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Well, to move slightly back towards the topic, Cursed City in particular is definitely not a game where the designer just kept piling on stuff for the sake of more stuff.

I dunno. There are a lot of tokens that you only appear to use once (the experience and level tokens).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I dunno. There are a lot of tokens that you only appear to use once (the experience and level tokens).

I think they're just here to keep track from one game session to another. Put everything in your bag with your hero cards until the next time. Since, you know, the material in Cursed City is definitely not designed to be written on like Old Quest.

Miss customization from Old Quest, but unlike others, I'm not blinded by nostalgia : Old Quest had serious drawbacks because of lack of direction (with random maps making absolute nonsense). Silver Tower was more similar to Old Quest than you'd ever want to aknowledge, and had the same weird situations as well.

And having characters with strong ties with the story and setting of the game helps a lot for immersion.

Cursed City and Old Quest have clear ties to each other, but they are different games entirely. Which is certainly why Ash from Guerilla Miniatures keeps playing Old Quest as it was and laugh of the wacky nonsense dungeon maps and monsters spawning in the middle of the first corridor three times in a row. I must say it's funny to watch from time to time.