$30.00
Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower» Forums » General

Subject: So much better than the original. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Simon Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I purchased a pritine copy (still in cellophane) of the original WHQ (along with the Catacomb of Terror expansion and some extra characters) about 3 years ago, convinced i had aquired the holy grail of dungeon crawling awesomeness. I put several hundred hours of painting in before playing as i wanted it to look perfect, as i felt the game deserved it. After my first game i knew i had made an expensive mistake. The mechanics were clunky and it was way to swingy for my tastes. Feeling a bit dejected i sold the game off knowing that Descent 2e was so superior it would always be the go to choice if i want a dungeon crawler.
I bought this on release, started painting it, but then got distracted by other games. I got my first game in last week and absolutely loved it. The mechanics felt slick and modern, and it had the right amount of luck with means to negate/manage it. I really hope GW support the game and add more monsters, tiles, additional adventures etc in the future as i will definately be buying everything for it!
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ghorron
Germany
flag msg tools
mb
I can confirm that Silver Tower is miles ahead of the original Warhammer Quest!

Hope they come out with add-ons for it soon, as I already bought most of the additional heroes and also got the Exotic Adversaries.
A "bigger" campaign would be great, new tileset, more bosses, with more or different rewards (items/skills).
And maybe some cool companion mechanics, as there are already the necromancer and the warpriest with their pet.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Outlaw
United Kingdom
Devizes
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
badge
The Wing Warrior - learn more at www.facebook.com/thelegendriders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're not wrong. The original Warhammer Quest was an important part of my childhood, but it doesn't hold up well in today's market. Silver Tower is a fantastic update that creates really fun stories.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Completely agree. WHQ and Lair of the Orc Lord were a big part of my child hood. Also had the Witch Hunter, Chaos Warrior, and Warrior Priest packs. Silver Tower is a much better game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
United States
Unspecified
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Silver Tower is far superior game, I just hope they bring back a campaign system and between mission events/minigames.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Outlaw
United Kingdom
Devizes
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
badge
The Wing Warrior - learn more at www.facebook.com/thelegendriders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpoDaddy wrote:
Silver Tower is far superior game, I just hope they bring back a campaign system and between mission events/minigames.


I worry about their commitment to a proper campaign. They actually said in a White Dwarf that the original had "too much sitting around in taverns between adventures". Still, if this game has done well, and they do eventually make another base set that does well, and we keep asking them for a campaign... Well... Maybe it will happen.

I hope it does.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claudio Hornblower
Italy
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never played the original WHQ, but when I purchased Silver Tower, I heard lot of vilifications in the mood of "a step down compared to the original/oh, the old better days".

I played the game. Finished it. Replayed it. Upgraded with skavens (home rules). Replayed again and again.

Still playing it, and having fun.

I really don't know if it compares up or down re. the original, BUT... it's so, so much fun to play right now.

Best fantasy crawler game that we play and have fun doing so, by a mile.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
United States
Unspecified
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The original was great for 1995 but is only worthwhile for nostalgia nowadays. The gameplay was entirely random and devoid of meaningful choices.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
gary gee
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
going by relativity of the time...back then,WHQ was a unique game.but come up to date today,and the new WHQ isn't that different to a load of Dungeon crawler games that are out there at the moment..plus there are arguably much better games of this type on the market...back then,you had just that game more or less.
and unless your a GM Warhammer fan..there are a few very good Dungeon crawlers coming out over the next few months that will probably kick this newer version further back into the pack.

good game,but there are better around and more to come soon methinks!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James M Hewitt
United Kingdom
Nottingham
Nottinghamshire
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Mythologem wrote:
Finished it.


Oooh, you're the first person I've seen on here who actually finished it! How did you get along with the final trial?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Outlaw
United Kingdom
Devizes
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
badge
The Wing Warrior - learn more at www.facebook.com/thelegendriders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tootz wrote:


good game,but there are better around and more to come soon methinks!!


Definitely don't agree. Silver tower is an incredible experience with no clunky rules, no fiddly tokens and abilities, and a really lovely story that emerges in a very natural way.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff White
United States
Kyle
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RedMonkeyBoy wrote:
tootz wrote:


good game,but there are better around and more to come soon methinks!!


Definitely don't agree. Silver tower is an incredible experience with no clunky rules, no fiddly tokens and abilities, and a really lovely story that emerges in a very natural way.


I very much agree. Silver Tower is devoid of all the little useless tokens, chits, cards, etc that so many other modern dungeoncrawlers are choked with. A lot of these games are more component management than I care for. Silver Tower is perfect! That said...I'd like to see one or two more setting boxes eventually. ;)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
United States
Unspecified
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tootz wrote:
going by relativity of the time...back then,WHQ was a unique game.but come up to date today,and the new WHQ isn't that different to a load of Dungeon crawler games that are out there at the moment..plus there are arguably much better games of this type on the market...back then,you had just that game more or less.
and unless your a GM Warhammer fan..there are a few very good Dungeon crawlers coming out over the next few months that will probably kick this newer version further back into the pack.

good game,but there are better around and more to come soon methinks!!


What are these "much better" dungeon crawlers you speak of? I've played just about every dungeon crawler ever released, and none are better at playing co-op in an hour. Descent with co-op app comes close, but it's very fiddly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JD Snider
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem with all of these 'better' games is that they're just so clunky. I'm really impressed with how Games Workshop has been producing some incredibly streamlined games that very effectively capture theme.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
matthew mclaughlin
United States
Kingston
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmb
I'll be a dissenting voice and say that while I enjoy/ed Silver Tower, I much prefer the original for a few reasons.

I'll be the first to admit my reasons are almost 100 percent taste:

1. I prefer the vibe of the original game. It was grimly wacky with a huge dose of black humor, whereas Silver Tower is mostly humorless grimdark.

2. I prefer the aesthetics of the original. I liked the old world, I like the design of the miniatures (again, more humorous or cartoon-like in some cases). Although I like the Age of Sigmar tabletop rules system, I don't like the design of the new miniatures or the post-catacylsmic world itself.

3. The in-between adventure role-play-lite rules in original were fantastic. I am a role-player first, so this aspect of the original game appealed to me tremendously (and is a big part of why I like Shadows of Brimstone so much as well). Silver Tower - as it stands right now - is very limited in style of gameplay because it's so self-contained.

4. The original was extremely customizable. While the Silver Tower does indeed offer tons of different kinds of heroes you can take adventuring, the original game could incorporate ANY and ALL miniatures into the game. ST, being soooooo thematic, doesn't work as well with bringing in other minis.

5. The core rules - that's a draw for me. The original's rules could be clunky for sure, but ST is really fiddly in places.

I don't quite get why the original's rules are slagged the way they are. It's a strong rules set with some flaws, but look no further to see what they could have been with Shadows of Brimstone, which is basically a refined WHQ rules set. SoB is vastly superior for me than ST.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Outlaw
United Kingdom
Devizes
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
badge
The Wing Warrior - learn more at www.facebook.com/thelegendriders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
locustofdeath wrote:
I'll be a dissenting voice and say that while I enjoy/ed Silver Tower, I much prefer the original for a few reasons.

I'll be the first to admit my reasons are almost 100 percent taste:

1. I prefer the vibe of the original game. It was grimly wacky with a huge dose of black humor, whereas Silver Tower is mostly humorless grimdark.

2. I prefer the aesthetics of the original. I liked the old world, I like the design of the miniatures (again, more humorous or cartoon-like in some cases). Although I like the Age of Sigmar tabletop rules system, I don't like the design of the new miniatures or the post-catacylsmic world itself.

3. The in-between adventure role-play-lite rules in original were fantastic. I am a role-player first, so this aspect of the original game appealed to me tremendously (and is a big part of why I like Shadows of Brimstone so much as well). Silver Tower - as it stands right now - is very limited in style of gameplay because it's so self-contained.

4. The original was extremely customizable. While the Silver Tower does indeed offer tons of different kinds of heroes you can take adventuring, the original game could incorporate ANY and ALL miniatures into the game. ST, being soooooo thematic, doesn't work as well with bringing in other minis.

5. The core rules - that's a draw for me. The original's rules could be clunky for sure, but ST is really fiddly in places.

I don't quite get why the original's rules are slagged the way they are. It's a strong rules set with some flaws, but look no further to see what they could have been with Shadows of Brimstone, which is basically a refined WHQ rules set. SoB is vastly superior for me than ST.


Interesting. I think Silver Tower has some really funny stuff in it - characters being vomited into existence, the heroes breaking the fourth wall and actively defying the players. I admit, it does deliver it all in a very straight-faced way, but I find it pretty amusing.

I don't dislike the Age of Sigmar setting, and the Silver Tower setting is cool; but I also miss the Old World.

I also miss the "in-between" bit. I don't think GW ever intend to bring that back - they even said in a White Dwarf that the original had "too much hanging around in taverns between adventures." But I'm tinkering with some ideas, while also hoping for another base set in the New Year to expand some campaign-style shenanigans.

I do disagree strongly about Silver Tower being fiddly. It's the smoothest-playing adventure game I know of, with hardly any tokens, status effects, or exceptions to the rules. I think it's an absolute joy. The original game is creaky, and I stayed away from Shadows of Brimstone exactly because it's a homage to the original rules set.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Massuoli
Italy
Terni
Umbria
flag msg tools
They await the King
badge
The Snarky Sloth
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my opinion, silver tower rules are extremely good. I can appreciate treasures not being game changers forever, the scenarios are great and fully coop, where whq without a matter reduced even the best adventure book to grinding. And these are the points that ST had over classic WHQ. Kudos to the designers, it's actually great.

Old WHQ, however, had some unique strong suits:
1. You actually liked to find settlements between dungeons. It was great, interesting, and settlement generation is actually the best system for dungeon crawlers, and in all these years no other crawler had reached that level, in this fashion. The old world was incredibly silly, but I still think is exponentially better than AoS as a setting. Finally, leveling was a thing, and this specific aspect is lacking in ST.

And this is what WHQ has over ST. Guess what, it's fine: two different games, two good games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
United States
Unspecified
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
locustofdeath wrote:
I'll be a dissenting voice and say that while I enjoy/ed Silver Tower, I much prefer the original for a few reasons.

I'll be the first to admit my reasons are almost 100 percent taste:

1. I prefer the vibe of the original game. It was grimly wacky with a huge dose of black humor, whereas Silver Tower is mostly humorless grimdark.

2. I prefer the aesthetics of the original. I liked the old world, I like the design of the miniatures (again, more humorous or cartoon-like in some cases). Although I like the Age of Sigmar tabletop rules system, I don't like the design of the new miniatures or the post-catacylsmic world itself.

3. The in-between adventure role-play-lite rules in original were fantastic. I am a role-player first, so this aspect of the original game appealed to me tremendously (and is a big part of why I like Shadows of Brimstone so much as well). Silver Tower - as it stands right now - is very limited in style of gameplay because it's so self-contained.

4. The original was extremely customizable. While the Silver Tower does indeed offer tons of different kinds of heroes you can take adventuring, the original game could incorporate ANY and ALL miniatures into the game. ST, being soooooo thematic, doesn't work as well with bringing in other minis.

5. The core rules - that's a draw for me. The original's rules could be clunky for sure, but ST is really fiddly in places.

I don't quite get why the original's rules are slagged the way they are. It's a strong rules set with some flaws, but look no further to see what they could have been with Shadows of Brimstone, which is basically a refined WHQ rules set. SoB is vastly superior for me than ST.


I do miss the between adventures roleplaying stuff from the original, and the Old World setting, but that's about it. The original rules, and Shadows of Brimstone's rules (which are a complete ripoff/retheme of WHQ), are mindless dicefests with zero meaningful decisions. Silver Tower, as super streamlined as it is, still has plenty of meaningful decisions. I don't have time to set up fiddly 3 hour+ games that play themselves anymore. If I'm going to play a game that fiddly and long, I'll play something deep like Mage Knight that rewards smart play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
matthew mclaughlin
United States
Kingston
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmb
For me, while I enjoyed playing ST, the original is more FUN. Same with SoB.

ST is limited to the one setting with the same small group of creatures/enemies. Once you've played through once, that's pretty much it. Sure the Tower will change, but the adventure won't significantly change.

Anyway, I like them both. They both have pros and cons, but I happen to prefer the original more - my group just played it last weekend and had a good time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
United States
Unspecified
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The idea that you've seen everything in ST after one game is completely false. Each of the challenges is meaningfully different, especially compared to the neverending random sameness of WRQ and SoB.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tristan Brunet
Japan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpoDaddy wrote:
tootz wrote:
going by relativity of the time...back then,WHQ was a unique game.but come up to date today,and the new WHQ isn't that different to a load of Dungeon crawler games that are out there at the moment..plus there are arguably much better games of this type on the market...back then,you had just that game more or less.
and unless your a GM Warhammer fan..there are a few very good Dungeon crawlers coming out over the next few months that will probably kick this newer version further back into the pack.

good game,but there are better around and more to come soon methinks!!


What are these "much better" dungeon crawlers you speak of? I've played just about every dungeon crawler ever released, and none are better at playing co-op in an hour. Descent with co-op app comes close, but it's very fiddly.


I think if you look at the "most sought after games of 2017", you'll find this game called Gloomhaven at the top. Not to say it will be better than the new Warhammer Quest, but it seems to be gathering a lof of steam (for now). And it is built around a full fledged campaign system.
In the same list, you'll find other expected coop dungeon crawlers like Sword & Sorcery or Massive Darkness. Perdition's Mouth: Abyssal Rift is also a very tactically interesting cooperative dungeoncrawler.

I haven't played the new Warhammer Quest. It seems to be quite a good game (though the Age of Sigmar setting is a minus for me). It just truly misses the point of what made WHQ memorable in the beginning.

Many people are wanting to compare both Warhammer Quests based on what was the weakest part of the old version : its hack'n slash part.

What made WHQ memorable, for many people including me, is the very granularity of its encounter system, its completely asymmetric and non standard character progression patterns, its settlement phase and all the crazy things that could happen then, the awesome narrative it could make emerge, its very unbalance... The dungeon part was a funny ride, not because of its (lowish) tactical value, but because you could see all the new things your character could do (their new powers or weaknesses) unfold in somewhat unexpected ways.

In this regard, Kindom Death, with its crazy event and table rolls, seems to be a much truer heir to WHQ than Silver Tower.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
matthew mclaughlin
United States
Kingston
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmb
SpoDaddy wrote:
The idea that you've seen everything in ST after one game is completely false. Each of the challenges is meaningfully different, especially compared to the neverending random sameness of WRQ and SoB.


What I meant is - same monsters, limited expandability (besides the heroes).

The original WHQ could incorporate the entire line of Citadel Minis. SoB's expansions have done wonders for the game with some neat new enemies with real solid AI.

I hope no one is mistaking that I'm saying ST is no good or that I don't like it. I actually bought two sets to create super-sized towers, that's how much I enjoyed it out the gate. I simply prefer the original (and SoB).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
United States
Unspecified
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
locustofdeath wrote:
SpoDaddy wrote:
The idea that you've seen everything in ST after one game is completely false. Each of the challenges is meaningfully different, especially compared to the neverending random sameness of WRQ and SoB.


What I meant is - same monsters, limited expandability (besides the heroes).

The original WHQ could incorporate the entire line of Citadel Minis. SoB's expansions have done wonders for the game with some neat new enemies with real solid AI.

I hope no one is mistaking that I'm saying ST is no good or that I don't like it. I actually bought two sets to create super-sized towers, that's how much I enjoyed it out the gate. I simply prefer the original (and SoB).


It sounds like meaningful decisions in a dungeon crawl aren't important to you, which is fine (there's no wrong way to have fun with games). I'd personally sacrifice lots of variety and random tables for a game that makes me think and make tough choices, which is why I prefer ST over those games. Hopefully we'll get ST expansions/companion games that will fill out the roster of enemies and bring back between-mission activities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
matthew mclaughlin
United States
Kingston
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmb
SpoDaddy wrote:
locustofdeath wrote:
SpoDaddy wrote:
The idea that you've seen everything in ST after one game is completely false. Each of the challenges is meaningfully different, especially compared to the neverending random sameness of WRQ and SoB.


What I meant is - same monsters, limited expandability (besides the heroes).

The original WHQ could incorporate the entire line of Citadel Minis. SoB's expansions have done wonders for the game with some neat new enemies with real solid AI.

I hope no one is mistaking that I'm saying ST is no good or that I don't like it. I actually bought two sets to create super-sized towers, that's how much I enjoyed it out the gate. I simply prefer the original (and SoB).


It sounds like meaningful decisions in a dungeon crawl aren't important to you, which is fine.


That's a pretty condescending comment.

I happen to think three things about your argument: 1. You're underestimating the meaningful decisions in the original WHQ (many of which happen in between adventures), 2. You're over-estimating how many meaningful decisions there are in ST, and 3. I've mentioned exactly three dungeon crawlers that I've played, and you've come to your conclusion about what I like and don't like in gaming overall.

We feel slightly different about WHQ versus ST. Too bad you feel the need to be so condescending. It sounds like meaningful discussions about dungeon crawlers aren't important to you, which sucks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Massuoli
Italy
Terni
Umbria
flag msg tools
They await the King
badge
The Snarky Sloth
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can't actually be compared. WHQ played plain was a no-brainer game of random drawing cards. It actually shone in campaign mode (all the roleplaying options like climbing walls, picking locks, etc.), but you needed a master/arbiter for it.

So, while ST mechanics are undoubtedly superior, can't actually compare the complexity of a full (albeit tabletop) RPG with a dungeon crawler.

We already knew that ST will never have had campaign rules, so it's not fair to compare it with "meaningful decisions" or else.

WHQ stays my favorite campaign-mode dungeon crawler of all times. ST is (arguably) the best dungeon crawler there is (funny, the best scenarios around, lightweight ruleset, a bit too easy).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.