World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game | BoardGameGeek

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Alliance vs horde.. anyone try like this?

Mythdracon — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:42:14 +0000

It's a nice idea. I do like the "you never know who's on your side" gameplay of the default game quite a bit though. I guess for team play you could have individual player points, and team pool points. That way if a team wins you can still get more points than your partner and be the top player...:p

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Variants:: Re: Using other character packs to create a family environment

Mythdracon — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:41:08 +0000

by Mythdracon

How exactly would mixed character cards work? Does each player control different heroes each turn? I guess that would be a novel idea....it could be screwy concerning quest completion though (i.e. "I'll move the shaman to do the quest" is followed by opponent then moving shaman in opposite direction on her turn).

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: General:: Re: Northrend board petition

Mythdracon — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:38:15 +0000

by Mythdracon

I wonder what the game developers are up to now. They must either be working on an expack for this or for the big WoW BG. But no word from them yet....hm.

Anyhow, thanks for your support guys. :)

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Variants:: Re: Solitary Rules

princemousey — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:56:15 +0000

by princemousey

ozjesting wrote:
I am not sure I understand the 10xp points thing. If it starts on 3, and always resets to 3, isn't it just 7?

Hey Will, I have the same question as Tommy Dean.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Variants:: Re: Using other character packs to create a family environment

princemousey — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:43:08 +0000

by princemousey

Hmm, I'm gonna need to do something like this as well since I want to play it solo.

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Variants:: Using other character packs to create a family environment

TileGrout — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:28:15 +0000

by TileGrout

My family when we play games do not like to have too much cutthroat gameplay. The original WoWAG characters power pools are nearly 40% screw your neighbor type cards. When the expansion characters came out, I picked up one of the same class types and them handmixed the powers to make it more family friendly. You can then tailor the decks to be power based (which aids the casters a great deal). While the backs will be mixed, it still doesn't indicate what type of card is coming up next.

While I am still not sold on the game, the mixing of two classes card decks did make for a more enjoyable session at home.

TileGrout

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Reviews:: Re: I HATE IT !! I LOVE IT !!

TileGrout — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:19:49 +0000

by TileGrout

I think you may have explained why I love my Runebound/Talisman/Prophecy, but despise this game. I think there are a lot of amazing mechanics to be found here, but it just never worked for me. Part of me wants to believe that if they changed the math from a d6 to a d10 or d20 it would have been better. As a d6, it is far too harsh from level to level on the math. There could have been so many better shade of power with a bigger dice scale.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:05:53 +0000

by Mythdracon

I would go with 5 for AH. The only problem I can see with it is people taking too long to decide which loot item they want, but if the deck has been shuffled right it should only really result in 1 or 2 items that people can use anyway. Besides, if you auction off a lot of items, you'll go through the deck more quickly, so there won't be any shortage of items people need.

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Variants:: Alliance vs horde game?

Soldinar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:06:05 +0000

by Soldinar

So I have some of the expansion packs for the game.. and I think there is 4 choices for each horde and alliance now... so I was thinking about trying an alliance vs horde game. Has anyone ever tried this?

I was thinking 2 players per side (or maybe 3 vs 3..but that would take forever). I would let them pick their characters.. cast spells on each other, share benefits etc. I think some of the cards will be a bit weird.. but I think it could be worked through.

I thought I'd let them take their turns together (horde all at once..then alliance all at once etc). This way they could be strategic with who was going to do what.. or work on what quests.

For combat I was thinking, if they both chose to fight in an area together for their combat phase.. they could take the better of two rolls.. and share the rewards. However they would have to make one person go first in the combat and if they fail they still get hurt.. then they both get hurt if they both fail. I think this would only really be helpful in level up areas.. but since these are mostly instances.. it'd make sense.

I would probably keep the same vp limit of 8-10 per player (based on familiarity with the game) and once one team reaches their limit they win. I would also encourage pvp with the 1 valor point per kill

What do you guys think?

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

KingCroc — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:00:45 +0000

by KingCroc

5 might be too much, but I think the player should have a decent chance of drawing something they can actually use. When I did 3 cards drawn as an auction action, I still ended up drawing useless cards quite often. Not a big deal, but a bit frustrating sometimes.

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Alliance vs horde.. anyone try like this?

Soldinar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:59:36 +0000

by Soldinar

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Soldinar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:46:34 +0000

by Soldinar

I think the AH should be 2 or 3. I'd say if you do it as a free action, then go with 2. If you make them use a resource for it.. maybe like 3-4 as using a resource in town basically just sucks under the games rules. Essentially if you do that you can't do anything else.. so you should get some sort of benefit to counteract that.

I plan to make people use an action to use it.. (under my 3 actions a round rule) and make it 3 card to look at. The excess will be discarded. I think 5 is just way to much though... as there are clearly better rewards then others.. and seeing 5 would almost always yield a clearly better reward then others. I dunno.. it could work.. I just think it would be a bit much.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Reviews:: Re: [Video Review] World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game

tornspace — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:14:07 +0000

by tornspace

We played this for four turns, then put it back in the box. I gave my copy to a friend's kid, not sure if he's played it yet. Bleh.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

KingCroc — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:32:31 +0000

by KingCroc

When I allowed the players to draw 3 cards and keep 1 as an Auction House action, I had the 2 passed over cards discarded. (In this case, that meant on top of the deck.)

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:23:01 +0000

by Mythdracon

When you draw 5, did you make it so the 4 not chosen remain on the bottom of the deck? The problem is that making item draws that nice begs the question of what to do with AH's--maybe allow auctioning off up to 3 items to pick 3 from 15....Hm.

Also, for fighting until victory: we've allowed players to choose if they want to retreat or keep fighting, and so far it's worked out. People like the flexibility and strategy a lot more.

However, for PvP, we've kept it to one round. The increased rewards for PvP mean that people still fight each other, which is great, because that's one of the most fun parts of the game.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

KingCroc — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:15:42 +0000

by KingCroc

One of the Auction House Action fixes I've used is to allow the player to draw more item cards. As it is, the Auction House action rarely seems worth it. I've used draw 3 item cards at a time as a house rule, but still didn't seem worth it. I feel a player should have a good shot at getting something they want, so I might go up to draw 5, keep 1.

Fighting until victory / defeat isn't a bad idea. It would help to speed up the game a bit and I don't see it as unbalancing. I'll probably give it a shot in my next game.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:59:15 +0000

by Mythdracon

Hm. Good point on the loot decks, but I do think having people get loot they want off the bat without needing to auction it would prevent the imbalance where someone gets a great piece of loot with luck and then just goes around and kills overlords while everyone else auctions so they can get a chance at doing the same thing.

As for discovery tokens, we make it so that you choose the deck under the table, so no one will know if you're picking a bad or good one. They will know that the person who's picking knows, though. So there's some psychological warfare there which makes it more interesting, so I'm intent on keeping that fix.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Soldinar — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:58:51 +0000

by Soldinar

Yeah I can see the not wanting to fight thing.. but I still think if people are out fighting and getting loot.. etc.. and you don't choose to do that.. you should be able to do something else. I dunno.. thats not a huge deal.. just trying to make it more fair all around.

As for loot.. I was almost thinking the auction house be a free action.. or having 2 or 3 items come up for trade.. just to cycle the deck a bit more (with 4 expansions its getting pretty big) and have a lot better chance of getting something you actually want. After all.. thats what you did in the game.. throw up crap you don't want.. and very likely get something you do.

See I think if you separate the decks into loot types.. no one would ever get something they don't want.. which could be good and bad. I think there is something interesting that you have to deal with.. when you get something like the bear steak.. or a treasure chest.. kind of forces you to get creative. One sort of off topic thing I had considered though.. is separate the piles of monsters in areas where they SHOULD be. All the people I play with have played WoW quite a bit.. so to be in stranglethorn area and get some like defias guy.. or scarlet monastery guys.. its like.. well lame. This probably won't work.. but it could help with loot if it did... since I imagine humanoids give more typical results.. as compared to like beasts.

As for discovery tokens.. I would not do the separate piles. I think this is a bad idea because if you KNOW they picked up a bad token.. and put it right by you.. well jeez.. go around it.. or just don't stop in that space. Also.. if they pick up a good one.. of course they will put it right by them.. so just go get it before their turn comes around. Half the fun of those tokens are that you get to be creative / tricky with them. Even the rules say that you should try and throw people off.. like if another player is around you.. put a bad one by you.. and more than likely they will try and snag it up.. thinking its a good one, and you'll try and get it first. You just lose ALL of that doing separate piles.. and you can really abuse the good ones if your off on your own side of the map. Some of them are like free max item level.. free portal.. steal items.. that beats the hell out of all the other resources on the map...

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:31:25 +0000

by Mythdracon

Mythdracon... by 3 actions I don't mean 3 turns. On a given players turn they will typically do 3 actions. Move.. discover.. and challenge. On countless occasions when playing with new people... they have moved.. hit a flight path.. used that as their discover and ended in a town.. WITH NOTHING TO DO. This makes them mad.. they have nothing to do in their challenge phase at all. Instead they twiddle their thumbs. This in combination with the fact that if you make use of any city resource on your next turn.. YOUR STUCK IN TOWN AGAIN, ARG! which makes doing anything but staying in the field and leveling up and gathering loot a huge hinderance. I say get rid of the phases... just let people do 3 things.. but you can only do one of any specific action per turn. Move.. potion... discovery token. Discovery token, book, fight. Auction house.. move ... fight. Why should any one character NOT get 3 actions.. while some are very much able to. Also the resources are all useful and very different from each other. If someone pulls ahead.. you can start using more of your actions on discovery tokens to hinder them.. and still be able to gather skills.. but just not move or whatever else you don't care about at the time.

Oh, right. Well if you mean actions, not turns, I agree: for town actions, our house rule is just that we allow 2 actions (i.e. flight + heal, then you can challenge if you end up on a non-town space). That way it doesn't feel wasted when you end your turn in a city. We've seen lots of people auction and heal, and feel satisfied with their turns because they *don't* want combat.

We've also allowed it to be where you must draw a challenge, but if you get an event you can choose whether or not to keep drawing until you find a monster.

With all the new expansions it's actually become harder to find the loot people want, which is making me think of separating color decks into different loot decks....that way the game won't be unbalanced if, say, someone got a massive sword while a spellcaster got a useless mail armor item. On the other hand, that'd make auction house useless....What do you guys think is the best loot fix? Still a bit unsure about this.

Another thing we've done with discovery is separate discoveries into negative and positive (yellow ones go in either depending on their effect--the one that makes people discard a quest is considered negative). People select without looking, but they select from negative and positive. This makes the discoveries more enticing for people because there's more drama when someone says "I want the discovery box please" and people wait to see what that person does with it. In the original game, having one that you were stuck with meant people weren't interested--it could be negative or positive, how would anyone know? Thus they didn't see much use until now, so I'm happy with that fix. It's just loot which is an issue now...

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Soldinar — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:13:17 +0000

by Soldinar

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

nyhotep — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:51:26 +0000

by nyhotep

Very true.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:05:34 +0000

by Mythdracon

No, I meant that it's a slow process of getting an item you want. What we do now is allow people a choice between 2 items when they auction, and they keep the monsters in the deck in the same place, making sure others don't look at it. We also allow auctioning up to 2 items, and the use of 2 resources in a city (except replacing quests, since we have made those shared for everyone).

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

nyhotep — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:05:59 +0000

by nyhotep

You could always let them do it during someone else's turn...

Does it really take that long for someone to swap out an item or two?

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:06:38 +0000

by Mythdracon

The problem is that that takes too long...and it would only be a limited fix for people, unless one was allowed to AH 3-10 items at a time (because that's usually how much useless loot characters acquire).

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

nyhotep — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:49:31 +0000

by nyhotep

An earlier suggestion for Auction houses:

... just use some sort of auction house in the cities: Discard a loot card to the auction house and replace it with one from the auction house of the same colour, with maybe 1 card per colour per player starting in the auction house.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Blazing Speed

nyhotep — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:06:40 +0000

by nyhotep

I believe Clement is correct. It occurs in combat, so you would skip to the cleanup phase.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Blazing Speed

Mythdracon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:42:36 +0000

by Mythdracon

Hm, I suspect you're right. The card is a 0 energy costing combat ability with the following text: "Play this card after being hit in combat to move 1 space, ignoring any Aggro markers. Improved green: Spend 1 energy to return this card to your hand instead of discarding it"

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Blazing Speed

princemousey — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:07:55 +0000

by princemousey

I don't have the Fire Mage, so I would like to check with you first, is the Blazing Speed card a Combat card, Instant, or Movement Card? Ok, to answer your question, you got to look at the turn order for this game.
1) Movement (Roll dice and move)
2) Exploration (Discovery tokens/Resources)
3) Challenge (Even/Challenge/PvP)
4) Cleanup (Quest/Equip)
So, if you were fighting already, I would assume that you would be in phase 3, which means that after you move out, you would move into the Cleanup phase of your turn.

HOWEVER, I do not have the card, so I may be wrong.. Would help if you uploaded an image of the card and I'll revise my answer.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Reviews:: Re: WoWtAG - Another Review

Mythdracon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:15:43 +0000

by Mythdracon

Good review, this can be a very fun game under the right conditions. Some balance issues I see with the game that I would add to the review:

-There are too many events that make levelling up too easy, take Solomon's Plea for example.

-Fights are not especially fun, either being default wins (and not having to use abilities to take them out) or simply not having that many options (you roll randomly to see how much energy you get, there are few ways to manipulate it). Also, fights take forever to finish if you have 1 attack, and it's frustrating to have your character sitting around hitting an aggro bear while your plated mates are red and slashing at Kel'Thuzad (though to some that could be a relief--it means the game is almost over).

-Some quests are worth more points than they should be. Simple token placement and so on should NOT be worth 3 points, that's almost as much as an Overlord.

-Loot is mismanaged. As are discovery tokens. One solution might be to allow people to draw more of these and choose between them, setting aside the unchosen results. This would mean more choice in the game.

What do you guys think?

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:05:13 +0000

by Mythdracon

One other thing we should consider is loot. Today a lot of my friends complained they were getting loot meant for other people, with pallies envying the mail gear of casters, and casters desiring the uber cloth armor pallies equipped. What would be a suitable fix?

I think one idea might be to allow people to draw 3 loot items (including the one on the back of the monster fought) and allowing them a choice. It could increase game length, but I doubt it'd upset the balance much, and it might make for a much more satisfying game.

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Blazing Speed

Mythdracon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:03:04 +0000

by Mythdracon

Today my friend tried to kill Lord Kuul and decided against fighting him continuously by using the Fire Mage Brebo's Blazing Speed to get out onto an adjacent red square. Would he then resolve discovery tokens on that space, fight a mob, etc?

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Reviews:: Re: A faithful adventure in the World of Warcraft [review]

Mythdracon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:58:05 +0000

by Mythdracon

My friends and I like some aspects of the adventure game a lot, and I often want to play it simply because the concepts contained inside are great. But the execution is horrible, for several reasons:

-Too many discovery tokens means less ability to plan traps
-Fights take too long and are dull/uninspired. They are supposed to be fast but forcing people to wait on a space while they hit at a monster futilely is not fun. In the very least allow people to instantly sacrifice some health to kill a mob if the going gets tough.
-Not enough ability to choose item rewards. We often find there aren't many wands or cloth armor sets in the game, and mages often get mail while pallies get useless cloth.
-The game forces you to use a set amount of energy randomly determined, rather than strategically used (as in the WoW BG).
-Not enough lore/theme in the game. The lore text in the quests is fine, but there simply isn't enough variety to allow for the oozing of atmosphere ala Prophecy. One simple solution might be to introduce a variety of variants to the game, something more lored than the monthly League scenarios FFG puts up.

There are probably fixes for all these problems, but at the moment the game seems mostly to be fun only for me, my friends often try to edge away from playing it, which is a bit sad given that I bought all 8 character pack expansions after much deliberation.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: General:: Re: Northrend board petition

jp_creationschaos — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:36:38 +0000

by jp_creationschaos

i say wooooo, plus the reprinted misprinted cards(COMPLETE REPRINT)

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: General:: Re: Northrend board petition

Siddy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:08:53 +0000

by Siddy

I say, "Aye!"

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: General:: Northrend board petition

Mythdracon — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:30:20 +0000

by Mythdracon

The WoW: Board Game (different from WoW TAG) had the Burning Crusade expansion close to the time the computer game of the same title was newly released.

Now, WoW TAG should not do an Outland board game expansion, in my opinion, for several reasons:
-It's already been done in the WoW Board game (as have Eastern Kingdoms I might add)
-You'd get more sales from tying a board game to Wrath of the Lich King than you would from an Outland expansion (and to be fair, WOTLK is stronger thematically imho)
-New class (Death Knight) would be a fun one to play with.

I'd recommend there be two heroes, no new discovery tokens, and separate encounter decks for each region in the game (i.e. one deck for Dragonblight, one deck for Icecrown, etc). This way, each encounter would be more pertinent to a specific region and encourage players to interact with each other more (instead of flying across the board to a completely different region to avoid PvP, interaction, and so on, which often happens in the base game with default rules).

There could also be some interesting spaces like the Argent Tournament, where you would roll a die up to 3 times, with the following results:

-Mostly 1s or 2s: Lose 2 health (injuries from tournament)
-Mostly 3s or 4s: You may use the Argent Tourney grounds as an auction house or questgiver resource, and then end your turn.
-Mostly 5s or Crits: Receive two free items of your level, you may now fight the Black Knight boss encounter.

And so on! Think of the possibilities!

HEROES
The two heroes would be a Human and Orc Death Knight, of Frost and Unholy specs accordingly. The Human Frost Death Knight would be very defensive, with some ranged attacks (icy touch) and AoEs (Howling Blast, etc), while the Unholy Death Knight would be more about speed and damage (and having a permanent ghoul companion).

With just two heroes, it'd be clear that this is an expansion not to be played on its own, and thus sales of the base game would increase too.

LOOT AND MONSTERS
Also, there should be monsters, level-up bosses and overlords with more hitpoints, and perhaps improved loot. Maybe bosses would drop special loot which is better than that dropped by normal monsters? Maybe they'd be double sided cards, with one side for spellcasters and the other for warriors/melee attackers?

There'd be later opportunities for a Draenei and Blood Elf character set with Outland expansion, and frankly I feel that if FFG doesn't do the Wrath expansion soon, people would lose interest in expansions of any kind.

What say you?

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:20:39 +0000

by Mythdracon

The problem with 3 actions is:
-longer wait for other players
-could potentially unhinge balance of the game (i.e. someone could make so much progress towards a goal that other players are powerless to stop it, whereas with one action they at least have a chance of anticipating what other players will do, and acting accordingly).

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Soldinar — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:02:24 +0000

by Soldinar

I'm unsure how you think the 3 turns will be overpowered. If everyone gets three actions.. it'd be fair. It would just allow you to do a lot more on your turn if you couldn't make use of every phase. Essentially at the moment.. this game truly favors the person that has to move a few spaces every turn and then fight. If you can accomplish quests simply by moving short spaces around the board.. you basically win. But if your stuck trying to complete one particular hard thing.. and moving or healing does you nothing.. why not be able to take advantage of the book, the discovery token.. and fighting?

As for the eating loot.. I'm not dismissing the idea completely.. I'm just saying you have to actually be using at the time you can make use of it.. once again promoting people to hack each other to pieces for each others loot.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Levelling up, Turn order, PvP and other questions

Mythdracon — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:54:51 +0000

by Mythdracon

Thanks all! Looks like the rules are pretty complicated. I wish they would update their FAQ with exceptions like the one I listed...my group runs into weird situations with WOW TAG a fair bit, in my experience.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Mythdracon — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:53:48 +0000

by Mythdracon

1. 3 actions per turn. You would not be able to do the same action twice per turn, but if your just standing in a city.. you could make use of more then one resource (grab a quest, Auction house something, heal.. on your turn.. for example). The reason I would want to go with this one, is cause my friends loath going back to town.. and we almost never do it, simply cause you have to watch 3 people go.. and work on their quests.. get loot, level up etc.. while all you get to is pick up a card.. that you might not even want. We almost NEVER auction house anything. I think this will make towns a lot more useful. Also, we have used about 2 of the discovery tokens in 3 games.. so I think people will make use of those as well.

This probably needs a bit more tinkering, it could become overpowered quickly. Basically the way my group plays it is that combat against PvE encounters will be a fight to the death/until cancellation. I'd agree about allowing people who are in cities to do more actions in that space though--maybe allowing them to use two resources, so that someone could AH without wasting their turn and getting an item they dislike. (or giving them the choice between 2 items for AH)

2. If all you do is fight on your turn, you get a free re-roll of your energy dice. Several times now, I myself and other have been stuck on a level up spot, and because of low attack (namely hunter) I would have to roll like a 5 or 6 just to have a shot winning the fight. One time I actually did.. and the encounter rolled a sword.. canceling combat (ARRRGGG). Meanwhile I have a grand total of 1 energy to work with... and only 2-3 energy cards. I just think if all your doing is fighting.. you should have a better shot at having more energy.

More energy isn't the problem so much as more reroll. My group and I play with PvE battles to death (including boss level-ups) and also ranged characters get 1 free re-roll, since they have much suckier chances of winning in combat compared to melee characters (and generally less health too). So far we haven't run into any balance problems, though I anticipate that in some cases it'll be wise not to give ranged characters free re-roll. But forcing PvE battles to go until the end means ranged characters still have to watch their health, so I think that's pretty balanced.

3. The global quest idea posted here. I find that whoever gets the quests that are like.. go here.. do this.. or the +1 attack quest.. basically pulls away very quickly. I think making quests global would make it more of a race... and add something to the game.

With this I'd keep several global quests.. and maybe 1 private quest per player. I'd probly do the draw 2 to start.. pick one. Which would be the same on picking up a quest.

Yeap, keep players nearby to each other so there's more chance for PvP conflict and more uncertainty as to what each player will do. Best house rule my group ever played with. Now the game is faster, more fun, and full of PvP (which is the most dynamic aspect of the game so far anyway). :D

4. To the death battles. I find it unbelievable that a character can travel, learn skills and win a combat in one round.. but a character that only chooses to fight.. gets only one shot. I'd like to play where a character can CHOOSE before combat starts if its to the death. If so, the run away option would be there.. but they would have to roll a 5 or 6 and give up their attack if they don't succeed. More then likely I'd incorporate this into pvp fighting as well. However I would require energy be rerolled each round of combat. Also skills would be one round only.

I would limit the energy to one die roll for balance, but I would allow the battle to go until death in PvE. That seems fair.

5. Can only turn items your currently using to potions. Basically I hate the idea of being able to eat a sword for mana or health. I find it silly.. and they should have just made more potion rewards.. BUT in some cases it makes sense in the game I suppose. However I am a fan of the "kill the mage with the badass armor I want" tactic. And in the current rules.. if a pvp fight, they can drag you around the board.. only to swallow the armor at the last second.. and screw you. This is lame. If your going to swallow a sword mid combat.. you should have to at least be wearing it.. and suffer the other consequences (aka less armor now, or less atk).

Gotta disagree with you here. I think having items that can be used as potions or for the regular ability broadens the tactical and strategic options of the game. Otherwise everyone could anticipate how you'd use your items, making the game more boring and (in PvE) unbalanced. Loot distribution isn't always even, and being able to discard useless loot as potions really helps poor spellcasters who only have 1 default attack for the first 2-3 levels.

6. Valor points for pvp. There are quests where you get rewarded for killing stuff near level up areas.. accomplishing two birds with one stone.. why not make pvp the same way. If you get a pvp quest.. you can do double dutie as well. I'd do 1 point per kill. With the "to the death" method.. you wouldn't have to worry about kill stealing that much either.

Heartily agreed. With the house rule allowing PvE combats to end in one turn, it would make sense to allow PvP to be worth more points.

Good thoughts! Keep it up! We'll make this game faster and more fun yet.

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Variant Ideas.. need thoughts on keeping it not ridiculous

Soldinar — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:47:36 +0000

by Soldinar

Ok so I have only had this game for a few weeks now.. and I've played 3 times. I've been stuck with the rogue twice and the hunter once. I generally enjoy the game.. but playing with people that are new to it.. I've noticed a few things that generally irk both me and them.. and I'm considering taking on some house rules to hopefully avoid that in the future. If anyone has tried anything like what I'm going to suggest, or has any general thoughts on them.. I'd love the advice prior to actually doing it. Right now I just have the rogue expansion.. but in next play I'll have the pally, druid and shaman as well.

Anyway, this is what I was thinking:

1. 3 actions per turn. You would not be able to do the same action twice per turn, but if your just standing in a city.. you could make use of more then one resource (grab a quest, Auction house something, heal.. on your turn.. for example). The reason I would want to go with this one, is cause my friends loath going back to town.. and we almost never do it, simply cause you have to watch 3 people go.. and work on their quests.. get loot, level up etc.. while all you get to is pick up a card.. that you might not even want. We almost NEVER auction house anything. I think this will make towns a lot more useful. Also, we have used about 2 of the discovery tokens in 3 games.. so I think people will make use of those as well.

2. If all you do is fight on your turn, you get a free re-roll of your energy dice. Several times now, I myself and other have been stuck on a level up spot, and because of low attack (namely hunter) I would have to roll like a 5 or 6 just to have a shot winning the fight. One time I actually did.. and the encounter rolled a sword.. canceling combat (ARRRGGG). Meanwhile I have a grand total of 1 energy to work with... and only 2-3 energy cards. I just think if all your doing is fighting.. you should have a better shot at having more energy.

3. The global quest idea posted here. I find that whoever gets the quests that are like.. go here.. do this.. or the +1 attack quest.. basically pulls away very quickly. I think making quests global would make it more of a race... and add something to the game.

With this I'd keep several global quests.. and maybe 1 private quest per player. I'd probly do the draw 2 to start.. pick one. Which would be the same on picking up a quest.

4. To the death battles. I find it unbelievable that a character can travel, learn skills and win a combat in one round.. but a character that only chooses to fight.. gets only one shot. I'd like to play where a character can CHOOSE before combat starts if its to the death. If so, the run away option would be there.. but they would have to roll a 5 or 6 and give up their attack if they don't succeed. More then likely I'd incorporate this into pvp fighting as well. However I would require energy be rerolled each round of combat. Also skills would be one round only.

5. Can only turn items your currently using to potions. Basically I hate the idea of being able to eat a sword for mana or health. I find it silly.. and they should have just made more potion rewards.. BUT in some cases it makes sense in the game I suppose. However I am a fan of the "kill the mage with the badass armor I want" tactic. And in the current rules.. if a pvp fight, they can drag you around the board.. only to swallow the armor at the last second.. and screw you. This is lame. If your going to swallow a sword mid combat.. you should have to at least be wearing it.. and suffer the other consequences (aka less armor now, or less atk).

6. Valor points for pvp. There are quests where you get rewarded for killing stuff near level up areas.. accomplishing two birds with one stone.. why not make pvp the same way. If you get a pvp quest.. you can do double dutie as well. I'd do 1 point per kill. With the "to the death" method.. you wouldn't have to worry about kill stealing that much either.

I'm very used to Runebound.. which you can probably tell based on my rules.. but I find the 3 phases in that game to be really annoying.. and very slanted to the monsters/defender. I like the combat in this game much better.. and how it plays fast and the loot is scaled on the thing you fight. The overlords having 1 health baffles me though.. if anyone has a variant for creatures having actual hp amounts.. I'd love to play with that as well.

All input is valued, thanks

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Levelling up, Turn order, PvP and other questions

elfrododumbo — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:33:20 +0000

by elfrododumbo

JP, that is the way I interpreted the rules you posted .

Thumbs up.

Regards.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Re: Levelling up, Turn order, PvP and other questions

jp_creationschaos — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:55:34 +0000

by jp_creationschaos

Mythdracon wrote:
1. If you kill a boss and he would kill you as you kill him (i.e. if you're both melee), do you still level up (fully heal, draw ability cards, etc)?

Yes.

***let me really doubt about it... the rules seems to pretend the exact opposite, if BOTH opponent in a combat are defeated, no reward is allowed... Unless a RANGED attack defeat a MELEE attack.

Quote:
4. Let's say I'm on an Overlord/level up boss space, which has an aggro marker on it (I moved a creature there using some ability). If I use Portal of Summoning on an enemy character to summon him to that spot, what creature does he fight first? Can I choose to fight him and not the aggro marker? (All this presuming aggro markers can be moved onto boss spaces)?

Can't recall, but I think you get to choose.
You can't exit the space while the agro is there though, so someone has to hit him eventually.

***in the rules again, the player must fight the AGGRO first...

7. Do level up bosses and/or Overlords count as encounters (for the purpose of quests, i.e. if I beat the level-up boss near Booty Bay, would I get quest credit for "Pirate Hats Ahoy!"?)

I play no, but im not sure if its the official answer (I just like to make the quests slightly harder).

the official reply from FFG support comfirm that they count as encounters(so er can use CHARGE for example.)

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: General:: Re: Should I bother with World of Warcraft: The Adventure Game?

Mythdracon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:14:18 +0000

by Mythdracon

Part of what made the WoW BG combat so much better than the adventure game combat was that it would occur, and then end. There was no "well you have to fight them next turn thanks to that unlucky roll I guess!" delay. In the AG, ranged characters have a tough time killing mobs because they cannot, by default, reroll. This means lots of sitting on one's butt and doing nothing while melee characters kill Overlords. *snore* So my gaming group and I implemented a house rule that had all ranged characters given one free reroll, and melee characters could reroll for the cost of an energy. The problem is that the pally kinda gets shanked, as his uber ability was reroll (Sanctity Aura). -_-

Another issue is that no one uses ability cards on the AG mobs.

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Variants:: Re: Solitary Rules

Mythdracon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:45:11 +0000

by Mythdracon

Rather tough to win with all the rules as they are, anyone tried these rules and won before? If so, do tell us the story of how you did it. :)

Thread: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: Rules:: Levelling up, Turn order, PvP and other questions

Mythdracon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:25:29 +0000

by Mythdracon

1. If you kill a boss and he would kill you as you kill him (i.e. if you're both melee), do you still level up (fully heal, draw ability cards, etc)?

2. If I kill an opponent with Seed of Corruption on his turn, would I get quest credit for PvP quests that say "defeat an enemy character"? Would I get to loot that opponent? (I presume not)

3. In a given turn, let's say I'm on a space with a discovery and a location event. I resolve the discovery instead of using resources, then do the event, right? Do I then draw a challenge after resolving the event (presume it doesn't move me from the spot), or no?

4. Let's say I'm on an Overlord/level up boss space, which has an aggro marker on it (I moved a creature there using some ability). If I use Portal of Summoning on an enemy character to summon him to that spot, what creature does he fight first? Can I choose to fight him and not the aggro marker? (All this presuming aggro markers can be moved onto boss spaces)?

5. In PvP, this is the correct order right?
-Use any "before rolling the dice" events. (Play secretly ALL abilities to be used, then reveal. Defender resolves his cards first)
-Roll dice
-Resolve ranged, then melee combat. Defender resolves his cards first if he plans to use events.
What if, as during ranged or melee combat, I want to use more abilities? What determines the order/resolution for those? Do both players secret cards in secret, then reveal?

6. Can a character defending in PvP use up mana potions during combat to get more than 1 energy? There's a red level wand that says during combat it gives the defending character 2 energy to use "for that combat", so does that mean 1 energy is the normal limit (and thus, that mana potions cannot be used)?

7. Do level up bosses and/or Overlords count as encounters (for the purpose of quests, i.e. if I beat the level-up boss near Booty Bay, would I get quest credit for "Pirate Hats Ahoy!"?)

8.Do you have to fight undefeated encounters on your space, whether they are aggro or not? I'm guessing the only difference between a non aggro and an aggro is that aggro stops you moving beyond that space until you fight it? But if you end movement in a space with an undefeated encounter, you still HAVE TO fight it? (and you can't then initiate combat with a character on that space after killing the mob, right?)

Reply: World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game:: General:: Re: I now own the FULL game! YAHOO ?????

Mythdracon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:15:58 +0000

by Mythdracon

The problem is that most of the interaction comes through PvP. Sure, you can slow down enemies with spells or discovery tokens, but ultimately I find PvP the most dynamic aspect of the game. I didn't really use many abilities to take down normal mobs, and my gaming group and I found that implementing house rules that make PvP more common made the game a lot more fun.

So, what do people think about the second wave of expansion characters? Are they as unique as the first wave shaman? Is the tauren hunter substantially different in play style from the Dwarf Hunter? I presume the fire mage has lots of abilities which are different from the ice mage?