Game: Shadows over Camelot

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Wraith — 2008-05-08T10:59:20+00:00

Beholm wrote:
Hehe Maybe that's why I like this game so well... It truly defies a set strategy.
So perhaps you should stop offering them. I had a look, and your previous strategy guide consisted of a scripted beginning also... one that does not match the rules of the game.

I will concede a draw in this discussion as your points, while different than mine, are valid.
A draw? Many of your points are not valid.

The corrections are welcome, and just wait till I tell the group we have been fearing the Dragon for naught! I must have missed the non-repeating part of the Quest book. But then I must post to the SoC a minor rules problem. What to do with the Lancelot/Dragon cards after the Dragon is defeated.... Are they just freebie progression of evil cards?
Max is correct in his answer to this. The answer can be found in the same paragraph that tells you that the Dragon quest is not a Perpetual Quest, which means that if you are asking, you still haven't taken a few minutes to read the rulebooks. I strongly suggest that you do, as you have been incorrect on several basic facts of the game, so it is quite likely that you have been playing the game incorrectly in other ways as well.

And my mistake on the wording of the Morgans... I didnt mean all 3 could be pulled at first, but that all 3 are potentially game-setback or losing cards,
None of them are any better if drawn after the first quest is completed. If they are going to be drawn, better that they be drawn early, so that the knights can compensate in their plans as early as possible.

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

mawiker — 2008-05-08T05:27:01+00:00

Beholm wrote:
What to do with the Lancelot/Dragon cards after the Dragon is defeated.... Are they just freebie progression of evil cards?

Like the other completed quests, these cards then become instant catapults to the demise of Camelot.

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Beholm — 2008-05-08T05:09:20+00:00

Hehe Maybe that's why I like this game so well... It truly defies a set strategy. I will concede a draw in this discussion as your points, while different than mine, are valid. The corrections are welcome, and just wait till I tell the group we have been fearing the Dragon for naught! I must have missed the non-repeating part of the Quest book. But then I must post to the SoC a minor rules problem. What to do with the Lancelot/Dragon cards after the Dragon is defeated.... Are they just freebie progression of evil cards? (I know, chances are that the game is over before you have to deal with that!)

And my mistake on the wording of the Morgans... I didnt mean all 3 could be pulled at first, but that all 3 are potentially game-setback or losing cards, and that is why I suggested keeping the Merlins for them. You are only guarenteed 3 Merlins to start, and being 1 short when Morgan comes out would be rough!

And the Lancelot armor correction, what was I thinking???? guess next time I post, I will open the box that sits behind me instead of relying on my 44 year old memory!

SALUTE!!!!

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-08T03:13:08+00:00

"Place 1 Saxon on the battlefield" (custom painted miniature and matching progress-of-evil Black card)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-08T01:22:12+00:00

The Saxons invade the beaches of Camelot! (custom-painted miniatures)

Thread: Re: Comparing Shadows Over Camelot to Candy Land Deluxe

baba44713 — 2008-05-08T10:23:46+00:00

This is the very reason I declined the review when I first saw it.. Funny? Yes. Informative as a review? Not by a long shot.

I beg to differ.

Too many Geek reviews are long rewrites of the rules of the game, followed by a short opinion which more often then not boils down to "I love the game, it's awesome". Just check out the 80-thumbs-up review right below this one - it's nice, colour-coded, accompanied by pretty pictures, but 95% of what it does is explain the rules in excruciating detail - is that review informative? For me - no, I can download rules for free from the DoW website, I don't need a review to re-explain them to me almost word by word.

In fact, nowadays if I am interested in a game, I'm more inclined to search for negative reviews, because those - even satiric ones like this - are usually much more helpful in deciding whether I'd like the game or not.

Everyone can copy/paste the rules, but I really don't need to read them again and again. It's much harder to be concise, funny and make a good point, regardless whether the others agree with your opinion or not.

-:goo::goo:--
--- -- ---
-- -- -
--

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Wraith — 2008-05-08T04:21:02+00:00

Beholm wrote:
As I said, I believe getting Excalibur to be important, especially when fighting catapults.. This gives you the least effect on the game board from random black cards. Least risk for maximum return on investment.(oh great! I am sounding like a broker). You could stretch things out another turn by not spending life, but spending 6 life and 3 catapults to return 3 life, get cards, get a sword, and get excalibur seems like a good investment.
I'm not saying that spending (nett) 3 lives and 3 siege engines for 2 white cards, two (not one) white swords and Excalibur is a bad investment. I'm just saying that spending 3 lives, 2 siege engines and one drawn black card for 2 white cards, 2 white swords and Excalibur is generally better, and very rarely worse (remembering that the same card will still be on top of the deck if you don't draw it, so you only delay the effect of the worst cards, not prevent them). And after seeing the effect of the first black card drawn, the players can decide whether the second would give a similar benefit, or whether the first has made it much more risky.

And I do think the benefits will usually continue through to replacing the third siege engine with a draw.

In my experience, Excalibur usually saves 1 number card per 2 battles against catapults. It is the equal to a (1) card and you don't have to use the card if you roll well.
Do the maths.

There's two cases: risky and non-risky. Risky first. If the roll for the fight is less than the total on the cards (not including Excalibur), Excalibur hasn't helped you, because you've won anyway. If the roll is greater than the total on the cards, Excalibur doesn't make it a win. So, Excalibur only gives a gain when you roll exactly equal to the card total on the dice - that's one time in eight (regardless of your strategy concerning the risks of fighting siege engines, unless you are foolish enough to play cards totalling greater than 8 while holding Excalibur and reduce your chance of gain to zero).

So you really need to fight eight siege engines to gain a single Fight 1 card, on average. Given the high cost of fighting siege engines, it's an advantage I'd really rather avoid cashing in.

Now non-risky. Playing non-risky, you ensure that you play cards totalling at least 9 when fighting a siege engine. Using Excalibur, that becomes at least 8, which means that any time you would be using a Fight-1 to make up your original 9, you have saved a card. But just how often will that be? It's hard to estimate this way.

But we know that it reduces the total on the cards played by one, and we know that the average value of the Fight cards is about 2.65. This means that with the non-risky strategy Excalibur should save, on average, one card for every 2.65 that it reduces the totals... Or one card every 2.65 siege engines fought.

But fighting those siege engines costs at least one action and two cards every time, so now you save one card every 2.65 actions and 5.3 cards spent fighting. And each action will allow drawing two cards, so around a one card saving every 10 or 11 spent.

Better, but I'd still much rather avoid having to fight siege engines in the first place.

The random black cards at the very beginning can totally hose the group when it is this small. 3-4 black Morgan cards can be a major setback.
Firstly, the probability of drawing 3 Morgans in 3 draws (replacing the 3 siege engine placements you suggest) is tiny. Secondly, those same 3 Morgans will hose you when you draw them after completing the Excalibur quest (unless you plan to immediate discard Excalibur to negate one). Thirdly, the probability of drawing those 3 Morgans becomes zero when you are prepared to adapt your play to the situation - if your first two draws are very bad, and you believe you can't handle a third bout of bad luck, you can then not draw a third black card. Switch to other options when you know that you need to.

It is about risk management, not about completely avoiding risk, because you simply cannot avoid the risk of drawing black cards.

Any Excalibur cards at all only stretch this quest out and put the group back a LOT.
Do the maths. Suppose the top card on the deck is an Excalibur. Using your approach, that card will be drawn at the start of turn 7. At that time, the knights have 3 life each, there are 4 siege engines on the Round Table, and the knights have, between them, 22 cards.

Using my approach, drawing that card at the start of turn 1, then (for the sake of argument) spending life and placing siege engines in place of further card draws right through to turn 7, immediately after Progression of Evil... Winning Excalibur will be delayed one turn (until turn 6), and will cost one extra card. The knights have 3 life each, there are 3 siege engines on the Round Table, and the knights have, between them, 19 cards.

Net change: 3 cards in exchange for 1 siege engine.

Now, can you really tell me that's not a profit? Remember, fighting a siege engine will cost a minimum of one action and one card (if you are Sir Kay with good cards, or willing to take a big risk). And two cards can be had for one action. I can't see how that's a loss.

Again, I am speaking on return on investment. The Saxons and Picts are repeatable quests that have NO downside for beating them. Same goes for the Black Knight.
Winning a war costs five actions and one card (nett) for one white sword. Defeating Lancelet costs five actions and one card (nett) for one white sword. Return on investment is exactly the same, before considering the artifact.

The Black Knight is slightly better value, but not much better.

Return on investment calculations don't favour your argument.

If you beat the Lancelot quest too early, 5 bad draws can destroy your game...
How? I'm not seeing this immense risk. So, you've beaten Lancelot early, and you draw 5 Dragons, and get two black swords, one of which you'd have gotten anyway if you ignored Lancelot. Sure, it's bad, but it's not game-destroying.

and the Dragon is repeating!
No, it's not. You need to read the quest book again.

Lancelot's armor at best will save 1 player.
Lancelot's Armor does not save a player. (Are you thinking of the Grail?) It allows card draws to be manipulated. Strategic usage will allow the holder to direct black cards to where they are harmless - effectively giving free turns - every few turns. The effect becomes more pronounced with less players, because it gets used more often.

The knight with the Armor should not use it as an excuse to hoard life, but rather use the life he isn't otherwise spending to take extra actions. Otherwise, he is simply becoming a resource sink, holding life that can never be used.

In a 3 player game, it is MUCH more important to manage resources and minimize risk.
Do bear in mind that while I tend to play other games with 3 players, my preferred group size for SOC is 4, or 5 if pushed. (I find larger games too easy.) I'm not exactly relying on the huge resource bank of a 7-player game when discussing strategy. I prefer to use strategies that should advantage me regardless of the number of players.

Lancelot requires 5 cards and so does the dragon. That means (theoretically) that 10 bad draws can finish the game.
No, that means that 10 draws of Lancelot/Dragon cards can add three black swords to the round table. Or, you can complete the Lancelot quest successfully when there are, say, three black cards on it, which means that a total of eight Lancelot/Dragon draws will add two black swords.

And I don't count Lancelot/Dragon draws as particularly bad until there are already several such cards on the board. (And really, if you are relying on fighting siege engines to prevent Camelot being overrun, you need to get some black swords to finish the game fast enough, so even the card that loses you the Dragon quest could well be a good draw.)

Lancelot/Dragon cards make up more of the black deck than black knight cards,
There are exactly the same number of each: 11. Lancelot has a 5 in place of a Black Knight 1, and the Dragon effectively has +4 per card, but otherwise the two sets of cards are identical.

and the black knight quest is 1 card and 1 turn easier to beat, also a big factor in a 3 player game.
The 1 turn extra I'll grant, but if you can't make up that extra cost using the Armor over the course of the game, you're doing something very wrong.

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Beholm — 2008-05-07T02:09:56+00:00

drat! forgot to do the quote thingy.. sorry for the mess.

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Beholm — 2008-05-07T02:09:02+00:00

Wraith wrote:
I'm no expert on the 3-player game specifically (as I've got some games that I find work better for three players). Even so, I'm pretty good with SOC overall, and some of your advice seems rather strange to me.

Why would you do this when you could save some life or keep some siege engines off the table and, by drawing some black cards, finish up your quest with an idea where to direct your efforts next? Since you need to start drawing cards after that anyway, you can always reach the same position, if you want to, by following up card draws with siege engine placements or life burn. (The exception is if one of those early draws is an Excalibur card, but that would become a siege engine if drawn later, which means by taking an extra turn on the quest you effectively spend one action and one card to negate a siege engine - much better value than fighting later.)

As I said, I believe getting Excalibur to be important, especially when fighting catapults.. This gives you the least effect on the game board from random black cards. Least risk for maximum return on investment.(oh great! I am sounding like a broker). You could stretch things out another turn by not spending life, but spending 6 life and 3 catapults to return 3 life, get cards, get a sword, and get excalibur seems like a good investment. In my experience, Excalibur usually saves 1 number card per 2 battles against catapults. It is the equal to a (1) card and you don't have to use the card if you roll well. The random black cards at the very beginning can totally hose the group when it is this small. 3-4 black Morgan cards can be a major setback. Any Excalibur cards at all only stretch this quest out and put the group back a LOT.

If there is a choice between using cards for Lancelot OR Black Knight, BK is the best choice. 1 less card to win AND no negatives for beating it.
Huh? Lancelot costs one extra card, but the reward for victory is one card extra too, neatly negating the extra cost. On top of that, you get Lancelot's Armor, which is very valuable in a smaller game as it will typically allow avoidance of several of the nastiest black cards over the course of play. What is the negative for beating Sir Lancelot? It does start the Dragon quest, but the Dragon quest doesn't often finish before the end of the game.

Again, I am speaking on return on investment. The Saxons and Picts are repeatable quests that have NO downside for beating them. Same goes for the Black Knight. If you beat the Lancelot quest too early, 5 bad draws can destroy your game... and the Dragon is repeating! Lancelot's armor at best will save 1 player. In a 3 player game, it is MUCH more important to manage resources and minimize risk. Lancelot requires 5 cards and so does the dragon. That means (theoretically) that 10 bad draws can finish the game. Lancelot/Dragon cards make up more of the black deck than black knight cards, and the black knight quest is 1 card and 1 turn easier to beat, also a big factor in a 3 player game.

Thread: Honor and Glory to the Fallen

mawiker — 2008-05-07T10:51:39+00:00
After the ignoble defeat of the Knights of the Round Table (see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/309499) when victory was (apparently) easily assured with 8 white swords, my game group decided to venture to Camelot once again, this time with a bit of trepidation, a little less do-gooder enthusiasm, and a dose of the reality of the evil they faced.

Beforehand, King Arthur advised the knights to be true to their nature and recommended a realistic portrayal of their characters. "Knights, there is no need to be so shining, valiant, and honorable in the performance of your most worthy deeds. As noble and trustworthy knights, I know you are human after all, and are sure to fall subject to despair, loss, and defeat from time to time. I also know that one of you may be tempted to betray the crown. So be it, now off and defend Camelot! Evil awaits us and there are quests to fulfill."

All seven knights proceeded forth and quickly started subjugating the evil of the land. King Arthur focused on the wars with the Saxons and Picts while Sir Kay used his knowledge of siege warfare to devastate the encircling armies. Sir Gawain and Sir Palamedes alternated between questing for the Holy Grail and seeking the legendary artifact, Excalibur. Sir Percival spent time in Camelot and then assisted with the Grail hunt as well as various wars with the Saxons. Sir Tristan had the most sincere heart for the Grail, but was thwarted again and again in his attempts to find it as he dealt with despair so dark. Sir Galahad spent much time in Camelot and dealt with many couriers sent to and fro King Arthur.

King Arthur informed the noble Knights that Lancelot was a worthless lickspittle and that if he found anyone bestowing worthless adoration to the scraps of armor Lancelot once wore, he would behead them as a vile traitor. The rumors and whisperings of the armor soon faded from memory … to be replaced by an even darker terror, a wyrm! And it was one of astounding power, quite readily avoided by every Knight of the Round Table, King Arthur included.

Sir Palamedes once attempted to best the Black Knight, but soon became known quite humorously as “Mighty Strike” by everyone at court. After jousting failed to unseat either combatant, Sir Palamedes delivered the most terrible blow to the Black Knight, expecting to mortally wound the Despicable One with a single, mighty strike! Everyone flinched, expecting a decapitation … except for his foe, who was undaunted, and remained with his head. The Black Knight then proceeded to pummel Sir Palamedes from his horse with a series of successive strikes, 19 to be exact. Dark tidings for the Round Table indeed!

Later, King Arthur was heard berating Sir Palamedes: “What is with you, man! Next time don’t sit there after you strike such a mighty blow! Finish him off! While I agree that the swipe was the most astonishing use of your sword that I have ever seen … and that it would have easily beheaded a score of Saxons with ease, the Black Knight was surely nonplussed! And you would have known this had you not turned your back on him and started to parade about the tilting grounds! Confound you, Sir Palamedes. Next time pay attention to whom with you duel!”

A week later, Sir Palamedes bested the Black Knight and erased just a smidgen of his shame.

Endless quests within forbidden swamps failed to bring even the faintest glimmer of hope and all feared the Grail was lost for good. Catapults began accumulating as the besieging armies prepared for a final assault upon the walls of Camelot. Sir Kay, bless his soul, remained true and thwarted many dastardly raids, but then realized he might have the key to finding the Holy Grail, heeded King Arthur’s commands, and quested.

As the wars came to a close, with Camelot soon to fall, King Arthur rallied his strength, expended his might, and dared to leave his throne to aid his mighty Knights on the quest for the Holy Grail. And then the dread and doom came forth …

Sir Kay, fearing for Camelot, lost his life in a noble act of self-sacrifice on his quest for the Grail so that Camelot would not fall. King Arthur wailed at the lost but exclaimed that such a mighty deed was the truest example for them all. Meanwhile, Sir Percival, who was back at Camelot, fell sway to Lady Avain and summoned all the Knights away from the quest for the Holy Grail … a calamity of inopportunity, for the Knights were but moments from claiming the prize! So stricken with the loss of Sir Kay and the hope of holding the Holy Grail within their hands, Sirs Gawain and Palamedes succumbed and died on the return trip to Camelot, following their lost brother to the bright halls of Heaven.

As all gathered at the Round Table to mourn over the loss of three noble knights, King Arthur praised their faithfulness and sacrifices for the protection of Camelot … but uttered that, while noble and indeed heroic, all was lost! There was no more time to search for the Holy Grail and the final battle was to begin. Secretly, then, Sir Tristan dared to defy the King and seek the Grail one final time … depart from Camelot he did with the swiftness and fleetness of a dove.

And behold! The Holy Grail was found! Victory was assured!

The battle was won, and Sir Kay, Sir Gawain, and Sir Palamedes were laid to rest with many honors. As the Black Knight presented his Black Sword to the tomb of Sir Palamedes in remembrance of mighty deeds, he spoke, “A finer lot of Knights I have never known. I am humbled to have fought and lost to Sir Palamedes, he being much nobler than I. And not a traitor amidst you, all of pure perfume and of sweet scent to the monarch. I am lost and undone and forsaken … and now turn-ed from my wicked ways. Accept me, King Arthur, as one of yours, but I know I will never be as great as any of these three fallen Knights! No matter, I offer my services to Camelot from hence forth!”

“I always found you to be of better company than Lancelot …” uttered Arthur.

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Wraith — 2008-05-07T04:21:11+00:00
I'm no expert on the 3-player game specifically (as I've got some games that I find work better for three players). Even so, I'm pretty good with SOC overall, and some of your advice seems rather strange to me.

Beholm wrote:
I wrote a "strategy guide for SoC" a while back and I will adjust it for 3 players... I believe that getting Excalibur is imperitive, especially to smaller games.

Player Evil Good Extra
1 -1 life Move to Excalibur -1 life to drop card
2 -1 life Move to Excalibur -1 life to drop card
3 -1 life Move to Excalibur -1 life to drop card

net effect: 2 life and halfway to excalibur - no negatives to deal with.
1 catapult drop card
2 catapult drop card
This returns everyone to the round table and returns 1 life each.
3 catapult draw 2 cards

net effect: 3 life, player 2 has excalibur, everyone is ready to quest.
Why would you do this when you could save some life or keep some siege engines off the table and, by drawing some black cards, finish up your quest with an idea where to direct your efforts next? Since you need to start drawing cards after that anyway, you can always reach the same position, if you want to, by following up card draws with siege engine placements or life burn. (The exception is if one of those early draws is an Excalibur card, but that would become a siege engine if drawn later, which means by taking an extra turn on the quest you effectively spend one action and one card to negate a siege engine - much better value than fighting later.)

If there is a choice between using cards for Lancelot OR Black Knight, BK is the best choice. 1 less card to win AND no negatives for beating it.
Huh? Lancelot costs one extra card, but the reward for victory is one card extra too, neatly negating the extra cost. On top of that, you get Lancelot's Armor, which is very valuable in a smaller game as it will typically allow avoidance of several of the nastiest black cards over the course of play. What is the negative for beating Sir Lancelot? It does start the Dragon quest, but the Dragon quest doesn't often finish before the end of the game.

These aren't the only dubious points you've made, just the most dubious.

Thread: Are Serge and Bruno of Saxon descent?

EndersGame — 2008-05-06T06:05:02+00:00
Are Serge and Bruno of Saxon descent? Somehow the game designers Serge Laget and Bruno Cathala seem to have made their way into my game box!

[imageid=329945 medium inline]

Caption: Saxons Serge & Bruno arrive on a big ship to threaten Camelot

(Note the designers' names on the box in the background)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-06T04:10:25+00:00
Saxons Serge & Bruno arrive on a big ship to threaten Camelot (custom painted miniatures - note designer names on box in background!)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-06T04:08:40+00:00
True DESPAIR: Camelot falls, as the last siege engine is added! (custom painted miniatures)

Thread: Re: Lancelot, Grail, Excalibur, and Dragon Quests Easily Completed ... But Catapults Destroy Camelot Without Mercy!

Beholm — 2008-05-06T01:30:45+00:00
I wrote a "strategy guide for SoC" a while back and I will adjust it for 3 players... I believe that getting Excalibur is imperitive, especially to smaller games.

Player Evil Good Extra
1 -1 life Move to Excalibur -1 life to drop card
2 -1 life Move to Excalibur -1 life to drop card
3 -1 life Move to Excalibur -1 life to drop card

net effect: 2 life and halfway to excalibur - no negatives to deal with.
1 catapult drop card
2 catapult drop card
This returns everyone to the round table and returns 1 life each.
3 catapult draw 2 cards

net effect: 3 life, player 2 has excalibur, everyone is ready to quest.

From this point on, player 2 draws cards at the table and fights as needed. They ONLY leave the table to help finish off quests or gain HP.
If there are more than 6 catapults at the table, P2 fights, if there are 6 or less he fights till a quest gets close and jumps to get rewards. P2 can spend HP instead of evil if the quests get out of hand, but should spend HP on drawing and fighting when needed.

P1 and P2 should concentrate on fighting picts and saxons together. The black knight should only be attempted if one of them has the hand to win that quest since it is a solo quest. The same strategy can be used on Lancelots quest, but shouldnt be attempted TOO soon. If there is a choice between using cards for Lancelot OR Black Knight, BK is the best choice. 1 less card to win AND no negatives for beating it.

In a 3 player game, the grail quest just should NOT be attempted.

Points of Interest... If King Arthur is being played, every attempt should be made to make sure he is P2... Swapping cards to fight with OR help with is almost imperative at the round table.

Once Excalibur has been won, chances are good that a black card drawn will add a catapult. If the choice for evil is a black card OR a catapult, pick the card... It burns TWO evil choices in one pick. Place a catapult still leaves the card in the pile. Pull a card can place a catapult AND burn the card. If you DO attempt and win the Grail, then the black card is a no-brainer. Excalibur cards and quest cards make up the majority of the deck. And keep those Merlins to stop any game-stopping Morgan cards! Merlins should never be used to take out catapults unless that would end the game.

Keep your swords dry and your shield high!

Thread: Re: Will my friends want to play SoC?

Beholm — 2008-05-06T01:08:35+00:00
Just my buck ninty-five (inflation, you know)

I bought this game 3 years ago, take it with me whenever there is a remote chance to play anything, even if there are people I do NOT know. This is the only game I own (and I own about 30) that has a 100% success rate for player approval. From 9 - 60, from hardcore gamer to gaming newbie, from bored to interested, everyone picks the game up fairly easy and enjoys themselves. The best mix in playing is to have 1 experienced to every 3 players, but I have taught this game to a totally new group and they had little trouble. Each year I go to my son's Boy Scout winter campout they request SoC. If they can play rummy, go fish, or poker they can figure out the mechanics of SoC.