I'm fully in agreement with Trotsky on this (both in respect of HQ2 being very good, and in terms of the absence of statistics requiring more work at the table during play).
When I read (an earlier draft than the continuum release of) the playtest rules, I came away with the impression that the pass/fail cycle and relative resistances were an option. A way the game *could* be played, not the way it *must*. Not only were there stats for the troublesome griffin, but a section beforehand that talks about assigning stats when creating creatures. There was also a section of "standard" resistances for people who were not happy with the idea of relative resistances.
I could see it was an interesting idea, and with the right GM and Players it could indeed provide a great game. For the less experienced GM it provides great advice, and an explicit description of how and why you might want to set a resistance not related to the numbers written down in the scenario.
The main problem is, though, that you can do all of this already with HQ1. There is nothing about the current ruleset (or the Hero Wars ruleset come to that) that prevents you from going through all the steps that Matthew talks about. The current rules, however also support other, equally valid styles of play, which appear to be being invalidated in the name of doctrinal purity. I'd prefer the published rules (and support materials) to appeal to a wide cross-section of the (gaming) public, rather than those with a specific taste.
I suspect in the end, just as the release of RQ3 lead to many people playing RQ2.5, HQ2 will lead to many people playing HQ1.5 - Running games in the "style" of HQ1, but using some or all of the rule changes from HQ2
Powered by hypermail