Apologies to add to the growing number of these types of threads, but I wanted to clarify something with the existing owners of the game that I haven't been able to ascertain from my research on this game.
I'm considering HH as my next purchase (probably for Christmas) to add to our growing collection of FFG games. The missus and I love our long complicated boardgames but we don't really have much in the way of a good 2-player only game for when we fancy a game just between the two of us.
We're quite big into 40k anyway and the 'fiddly' side of HH won't be much of a turn off. We actually consider Arkham Horror (the only game we currently play 2 player) quite a short game at 3-4 hours long and don't see that as particularly fiddly in terms of the amount of pieces involved (but then again, we are TI3 players). My main concern however is that across the vast majority of reviews, one thing most have in common is that they say the game "isn't fun".
Now this is quite a big concern considering the price tag! What I wanted to know is what people mean exactly by the fact that the game isn't fun. What is it exactly that makes the game so serious, and 'not fun'. Surely if it was that bad people wouldn't return to it? Maybe it's down to personal taste but there seems to be quite a lot of reviews (both good and bad) that state this. To give you an example of what I would consider 'not fun' in a boardgame is playing the Hunters in Fury of Dracula. That's probably the only FFG game in my collection I would not play again as it's a really bland, dull game in my personal opinion. The 'thrill of the hunt' just doesn't translate well into a board game.
I'm interested to hear the thoughts of people from both sides of the love/hate relation of this game!