Jade wrote: . . . The downside to WQ is that it is moderately linear when you're going coop and using the dungeon randomizer. This is the inherent weakness in randomized dungeons. However, you can play WQ with a Zargon-type player, in which case it has none of these problems, and I suspect would be a lot more interesting than HQ. I would love to play a curated campaign like that. . . .
Indeed, the role-playing version of WHQ offers a wide range of creative boardgaming. Unfortunately, I only got to scratch the surface of that aspect of the play experience with a bit of the first Roleplay Quest.
The Quest notes can get quite detailed, as the half-page format isn't used. That can be a big plus if you go for that kind of adventure. Also, the range of actions was a full page. Again, that's awesome if you don't mind the extra bother of remembering or referencing the list.
Jade wrote:. . . But even with the linear-ish quests, I still found Warhammer Quest (the board game) to be a blast. And it has so much variety! If you use the monster tables, there's something like 155 different monsters you could run into (spread out over 10 levels). . . .
I still haven't fully proxied WHQ, as my friend and I only played up to Battle Lvl 5. My beef was with the loads of Wounds that needed tracking. That and the overabundance of treasure cards/notes to track. And the overpowered Wizard. And that damn roll-a-one phase. That could
really drag the game. Despite the flaws, it was still had it's shining moments of pure fun.
All that said, HQ's sandbox rules allow for loads of variety as well. It a hobby that can extend in much the same scope (with work) as WHQ Roleplay . . . but in a more streamlined fasion. Playing WHQ has caused me to appreciate that economy in HQ.