Game: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

Cactusgod — 2008-12-02T18:50:13+00:00

They did it specifically because everyone always makes Monty Python jokes while playing this game. Therefore, I'd suggest that you're partially to blame ;p.

I would say though, that if you cant just pick up a travel card and read "Nothing Happens" then you've got a much bigger problem than anything we can address on this type of board.

Image

jacun — 2008-12-02T14:31:46+00:00

SoC Merlin - self painted by jac

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

Cactusgod — 2008-12-02T03:31:06+00:00

Now that I've read a few posts, i'm going to continue with a different post here that just comments on what was said.

The problem with my group is, a lot of them feel like BSG is just a better game. Not necessarily thematically, but the feeling of fear and dread and the rush involved with being the traitor.

With BSG, you can actively sabotage the game almost every turn, which really makes you feel the evil within. You have to actually watch very very carefully though because a card you put down might actually reveal you as a cylon if you do it without paying close attention to the other card colors people might have or the colors that have come out of the neutral deck.

With Camelot, its very different because everything you do is in the open. You really have limited opportunities to do evil things on quests if you're playing with people who really know what they're doing. You also have problems with playing style. Once you establish a playing style for yourself as a knight, and then become a traitor, you really cant do much that deviates from your original playing style or you'll be in trouble. This forces you to kind of play like a traitor during the games you're not, so that when you DO play as the traitor it wont look like you're doing things much differently.

So...to spice up Camelot wouldn't be too horrible of a thing. I actually think that not trying to win too many quests because you may turn traitor during the 2nd loyalty round actually might make the game a whole lot more interesting. People wouldnt suspect you as much for not doing things to the best of your ability.

Bottom line is, I love both games...but as far as the traitor aspect, it really seems like BSG lends itself to the traitor idea much better than Camelot for now. I have to test it some more and see though.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

Cactusgod — 2008-12-02T03:23:04+00:00

I was JUST making a post on the regular Shadows Over Camelot board on this very topic, so I'll post what I was saying here!

"So..I recently purchased BSG and I find it to be quite an enjoyable game (especially if you enjoy this game). There is one thing about BSG that I think might work well in this game, and I have no idea if its already been mentioned so I'll say it anyways.

In BSG, you dish out the loyalty cards like in shadows. However, in BSG you eventually dish out a SECOND set of loyalty cards, thus meaning that if you had been playing good the whole game you may now be a traitor.
I think this could work out really well in Camelot. Its thematic because you can suggest that the forces of evil slowly turned the knight to their side."

What you would do is, always put an even number of loyalty cards and one additional traitor in the first round. So, in a 6 player game you would add 7 loyal and 1 traitor. Then, after a certain amount of swords hit the table (lets say 6) you then dish out another set of loyalty cards with the same odds. This essentially will mean that there could be 0, 1, or 2 traitors every game you play.

Another way this could be done is, lets say there are 6 people again. You could combine all loyalty cards into one pool, and dish them out that way. So...there could be 1 traitor in the first round, or perhaps even both traitors. However, there's also the chance that originally there will be 0 traitors until the second set of loyalty cards go out.

It's still a work in progress and we certainly have to playtest all of these issues, but I feel like it potentially could be a very interesting camelot experience.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

kduke — 2008-12-01T06:25:59+00:00

With thanks to Seth for pointing out the facts and not accepting a "I'm right, let's drop the subject" response... when you aren't.

I do stand corrected, however. Clearly "personal creativity" is a strong suit for you.

But does that get in the way of analyzing a situation openly? You've stated your opinion that only the extreme ends of the scale are "good" for the traitor-- revealing himself early or doing ZERO traitorous acts, simply to get the 2 sword difference at the end...and anything else is-- your word-- "boring." Actually, both of those approaches seem pretty boring to me, but personal tastes do vary-- and that, my testy person, is not a "personal attack" but a difference of opinion.

My opinion is that the traitor can be the MOST interesting part of the game, as he dabbles and tests the waters with just how far he can go, how convincing he can be with his mildly evil actions--like playing a black card face down in order to gain a white card (and do damage later)-- and how much acting he may or may not try to do as he gently casts suspicion on other players.

Traitors certainly attract attention--

In another thread, one person's idea was that a traitor should look for justification to make an accusation against someone else, since being the accusing person might make him look clean himself. I think that's a bad idea for several reasons...and there are far more interesting tactics available than that. I thought of suggesting that the traitor be FORBIDDEN from making a false accusation, since that seems an unfair way to guarantee a result... but i'll let it pass until I see a lot more games.

Another person favored having everyone go around the table, before any swords are won, making traitor accusations until he is discovered, as though the central point of the game is "find the traitor." THAT seems the most boring direction at all, to me, and violates a spirit of the game. (If I were making a variant, I'd put a minimum penalty for false accusations, so that there is never a 'free' shot.)

And still another person favored playing the game a set number of turns-- six or seven as I recall-- and only THEN passing out the cards. I really didn't like that one-- I think the subtle traitor needs to be able to play "his game" from the start.

Seth pointed out that there is a lot of middle ground available-- without altering the rules with a major "variant." I agree, and think his example from BSG is an excellent way of pointing out that what seems "obvious" as the "best" plan to one person may be a case of that person just not evaluating all the options. He's also pointed out that "free accusations" is a major change of how the game works and, my opinion again, suggests that the subtle portions of this mechanic have not been understood. It's like removing a hangnail with a chain saw.

I do happen to agree with the idea of using both decks and making it possible to have 0, 1, or 2 traitors and liked the idea as soon as I saw the contents of Merlin and did the math.

But the double cards, free accusations and all the rest is making a very different game. It's a free country and all, and you can do anything creative with the parts that you want to...including renaming the game, which seems appropriate.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

sedjtroll — 2008-12-01T04:16:38+00:00

beri wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:

So as not to be completely off topic...
Why change the value of adding a siege engine to the board (as a traitor) by requiring skipping the Taunt Knights step?
Adding a siege engine is almost always the best choice for the traitor. A siege engine takes at least two heroic actions to eliminate - one to draw the cards, and one to battle the siege engine. And if you don't draw the right cards, it's going to take even more time.
I guess it depends on whether a quest is on the verge of ending, or if there are a lot of special black cards still in the deck.

In a game of BSG at BGG.con, I was a Cylon and the other Cylon (as soon as he found out he was a Cylon) revealed himself and went straight for the Cylon Fleet space because he was convinced that the "best" way for the Cylons to win is by charging Centurions forward. He begged and pleaded for the other Cylon to reveal himself and help so it would go faster. The problem was, we (Cylons) were already winning a different race (population was almost out), and I was disinclined to give up that race and help him start a new one from scratch.

Unlimited accusations is also a little crazy. The first 6 turns players could choose Siege engines, then they could each accuse the other (for no cost, since there are no swords to flip on the table), and then it'll be known who is a traitor (and as before, loyal cards could be passed to them).
I'm not sure I understand you here - the paragraph you just posted is how the rules as written work, except for passing cards to the traitor.
I think I jumbled 2 thoughts. If you have unlimited accusations, then as a traitor you could simply accuse every turn until everyone's revealed loyal or traitor.

If you want the sleeper agent phase feeling, why not simply wait until midgame to hand out loyalty cards, or if you REALLY want the sleeper agent feel of BSG pass out loyalty cards at the beginning then again midgame (or, just play BSG instead)?
That's the first part of the suggested rules I posted, which is why it'll take both loyalty decks, for the extra cards.
Yes, and my question is, why not stop there?

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

beri — 2008-12-01T02:42:23+00:00

sedjtroll wrote:

So as not to be completely off topic...
Why change the value of adding a siege engine to the board (as a traitor) by requiring skipping the Taunt Knights step?
Adding a siege engine is almost always the best choice for the traitor. A siege engine takes at least two heroic actions to eliminate - one to draw the cards, and one to battle the siege engine. And if you don't draw the right cards, it's going to take even more time. I've seen other variants to address this, and you could really use any of those, or not worry about it at all. It's not a big problem.

I think the passing of loyalty cards around is a little much, loyal players could just pass their loyalty cards to the revealed traitors (or to anyone they think might be a traitor) and then there's effectively no traitor and the game should be a cinch.
Well, the number is something to try out and balance, but there is a downside to passing their loyalty cards to revealed traitors: it takes time and actions, both of which are crucial commodities.
Hmm, maybe make it 'a number of Loyal cards equal to the number of players.'
Regardless, I want to try having a way to redeem a traitor. It was cool in our previous game when one of our traitors started playing loyally, even though it was the result of a botched shuffle. I'm open to other ideas along this line.

Unlimited accusations is also a little crazy. The first 6 turns players could choose Siege engines, then they could each accuse the other (for no cost, since there are no swords to flip on the table), and then it'll be known who is a traitor (and as before, loyal cards could be passed to them).
I'm not sure I understand you here - the paragraph you just posted is how the rules as written work, except for passing cards to the traitor.

I suppose the traitors could pass the loyalty cards away if they think the game is about to end badly for the knights, but that causes a silly sort of tug of war, doesn't it?
You've got a point there. A simple patch is to say that players shouldn't work towards changing sides - part of being loyal is attempting to remain loyal.

If you want the sleeper agent phase feeling, why not simply wait until midgame to hand out loyalty cards, or if you REALLY want the sleeper agent feel of BSG pass out loyalty cards at the beginning then again midgame (or, just play BSG instead)?
That's the first part of the suggested rules I posted, which is why it'll take both loyalty decks, for the extra cards.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

sedjtroll — 2008-12-01T01:53:24+00:00

beri wrote:
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
That wasn't a personal attack. You very specifically stated you saw the traitor as either "totally loyal" or "totally evil", he pointed out there very much is a middle ground.

It looks like you prefer programmed actions to personal creativity, so perhaps BSG really is better for you.
Personal attack. Now let's drop the subject and move on.
That's not a personal attack, it sounds like a criticism of BSG. You're an idiot. That's a personal attack.

So as not to be completely off topic...
Why change the value of adding a siege engine to the board (as a traitor) by requiring skipping the Taunt Knights step?

I think the passing of loyalty cards around is a little much, loyal players could just pass their loyalty cards to the revealed traitors (or to anyone they think might be a traitor) and then there's effectively no traitor and the game should be a cinch.

Unlimited accusations is also a little crazy. The first 6 turns players could choose Siege engines, then they could each accuse the other (for no cost, since there are no swords to flip on the table), and then it'll be known who is a traitor (and as before, loyal cards could be passed to them).

I suppose the traitors could pass the loyalty cards away if they think the game is about to end badly for the knights, but that causes a silly sort of tug of war, doesn't it?

If you want the sleeper agent phase feeling, why not simply wait until midgame to hand out loyalty cards, or if you REALLY want the sleeper agent feel of BSG pass out loyalty cards at the beginning then again midgame (or, just play BSG instead)?

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

beri — 2008-12-01T01:14:30+00:00

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
That wasn't a personal attack. You very specifically stated you saw the traitor as either "totally loyal" or "totally evil", he pointed out there very much is a middle ground.

It looks like you prefer programmed actions to personal creativity, so perhaps BSG really is better for you.
Personal attack. Now let's drop the subject and move on.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

beri — 2008-12-01T01:13:54+00:00

Bruno des Montagnes wrote:
Don't forget there is another way to play the traior in shadows oer camelot
Serge & me introduced it just after the game was published
It was a variant mainly for 3 or 4 players, but could also be used for more players...

Give one loyalty card to each player, as normal... but don't look at them !!
Player will only know if they are loyal or traitor when ths 6th sword or the 6th siege engine comes....

That's a cool idea, too. I think we may have done that once or twice, and I didn't know it had been introduced as a semi-official variant!

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

Bruno des Montagnes — 2008-12-01T00:37:44+00:00

Don't forget there is another way to play the traior in shadows oer camelot
Serge & me introduced it just after the game was published
It was a variant mainly for 3 or 4 players, but could also be used for more players...

Give one loyalty card to each player, as normal... but don't look at them !!
Player will only know if they are loyal or traitor when ths 6th sword or the 6th siege engine comes....

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-11-30T21:44:11+00:00

beri wrote:
Classy. Descending into personal attacks and calling me uncreative on your first post.

That wasn't a personal attack. You very specifically stated you saw the traitor as either "totally loyal" or "totally evil", he pointed out there very much is a middle ground.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

beri — 2008-11-30T20:09:11+00:00

kduke wrote:
I think you are missing the middle ground, where the traitor dabbles with less than "totally loyal" but not so flagrantly that he is an obvious pick. Since every knight has to do some evil, every turn, it's a matter of how much and at what times. It looks like you prefer programmed actions to personal creativity, so perhaps BSG really is better for you. But I suspect a lot of players can tell you the traitor is a much more interesting character when played deftly.

Classy. Descending into personal attacks and calling me uncreative on your first post.
You'll be happier in life if you assume the best about people, rather than the worst. Please take off, and don't continue sullying this thread with your insults.

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

beri — 2008-11-30T20:06:37+00:00

Here's my current thoughts. Like most of the variants you'll see on BGG, completely untested as of yet!

It'll require the expansion, because you need both decks of loyalty cards. Create a deck with 2x as many cards as players. With an even number, add one extra card, with an odd number, add two. This is to preserve the element of not knowing if there's a traitor, or how many traitors there are.
3p: 7 loyal, 1 traitor
4p: 8 loyal, 1 traitor
5p: 10 loyal, 2 traitor
6p: 11 loyal, 2 traitor
7p: 13 loyal, 3 traitor
8p: 14 loyal, 3 traitor

Start of game: Everyone gets dealt a loyalty card.
Once the 6th sword is placed: Everyone gets dealt another loyalty card. Morgan tightens a yet-unseen noose, and might tempt another knight away from the side of good.
If either card says you're a traitor, congratulations! You're evil!

Accusations: Require a heroic action, but they don't cause white swords to flip to black. You can start accusing at any time, and you may accuse as much as you want during the game. When making an accusation, you reveal one unseen loyalty card. If a player has two, you reveal one randomly.
If you successfully accuse a Traitor, you may look at their hand and take one card, then they discard their hand and become a revealed Traitor player.

Revealed Traitor: Remove the traitor from the board, but keep their life die at the same value.

Siege Engines: In order for a revealed traitor to place a siege engine as their 'progression of evil' action, they must skip their 'taunt the knights' phase.

New Action - Pass a Card: As an action, you can pass one of your unrevealed loyalty cards to another player, or take a random unrevealed loyalty card from another player. Players may have 0 loyalty cards, in which case they act as a loyal knight.

Redemption: If a knight has 2 more 'Loyal' cards than 'Traitor' cards, they immediately become loyal again. Place them back in Camelot, with their life die on the same value as when they became revealed as a Traitor. They draw two cards.

Secrecy: A player may never reveal, discuss, or hint at what their face-down loyalty cards are.

New Action - Reveal Yourself: As an action, a player with an unrevealed Traitor card may reveal one Traitor card, become a Traitor player, and take a special action.

Traitor Special Action: Here's the part I really want to balance, to make it appealing for Traitors to reveal themselves, but not overpowered. Here's what I'm thinking for special actions. I might even go the BSG route and mark the cards, so that each one is associated with a particular evil action. When judging these, remember that the traitor who is revealing himself just took a Progression of Evil action at the start of his turn. The goal isn't to have something so powerful that it's a huge strike against good, but something where the traitor will be watching and waiting for his chance to lay a decisive strike.
*Place a siege engine.
*Take a standard black card from the discard pile and immediately play it.
*Search through the white discard deck and remove two cards from the game.
*Look at the top card of the travel deck, the black deck, and the white deck, and choose to place each card on the top or the bottom of its deck.
*Each knight must discard one card or lose a life point.

End of the Game: Unrevealed traitors do not flip white swords to black. If they chose not to reveal themselves during the game, that's their own choice.

I think that covers most everything, in more detail than necessary. Let me know if anything looks interesting!

Thread: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

kduke — 2008-11-30T19:06:53+00:00

There are two good ways to play the traitor - totally loyally, so you get the 2-sword flip at the end, or totally evil, so the loyal knights have to deal with your dead weight with no benefit.

I think you are missing the middle ground, where the traitor dabbles with less than "totally loyal" but not so flagrantly that he is an obvious pick. Since every knight has to do some evil, every turn, it's a matter of how much and at what times. It looks like you prefer programmed actions to personal creativity, so perhaps BSG really is better for you. But I suspect a lot of players can tell you the traitor is a much more interesting character when played deftly.

Thread: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

beri — 2008-11-30T18:47:11+00:00

Yesterday, we had a game session where we played Battlestar Galactica, then Shadows over Camelot with Merlin's Company. It was interesting to see the changing dynamics between them.

I've always had a problem with the traitor in SoC. Not because it's strong, or weak, or anything, but because it's boring, I feel. There are two good ways to play the traitor - totally loyally, so you get the 2-sword flip at the end, or totally evil, so the loyal knights have to deal with your dead weight with no benefit. I don't think that the game supports traitors the way I think they should be played - constantly taking little jabs at the loyal characters, skating the edge of revelation and doing as much harm as possible without being obvious.

I felt that this worked much better in BSG. There were a few differences - more opportunities to harm the group, more ways to cover your tracks - but mostly, I think the difference was that getting revealed wasn't that bad. You didn't lose a potential 2-3 sword swing (which is like 33% of the heroes' win condition), you just got thrown in the brig and lost the opportunity to use the ability on your Cylon card.

I also liked the Sleeper Agent phase, just because it felt fun. We had an accidental sleeper agent phase in Shadows - I used the wrong deck, and dealt out the loyalty cards so that there were two traitors in a 5-player game. When the first traitor revealed himself, the second was like, 'wait, what?' After some noise, she decided to switch back to playing loyally (as 2 traitors in a 5-player game would have been brutal.) I actually kinda liked that.

So, I've been trying to think up a new system. I'll put it in the next post to break things up.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

beri — 2008-11-30T09:20:25+00:00

theconcerned wrote:
rydiafan wrote:
With the original, a gaming group had the option of joking around and quoting Holy Grail, or they could role play it seriously and treat the game as a thematic and dramatic Arthurian adventure.

Now we can't. Days of Wonder has shattered all the verisimilitude and theme in their game for the sake of a cheap and easy laugh. Why not have a black card where Arthur gets hit in the face with a custard pie?

I feel the same way -- I don't like them either.

It doesn't bother me much, but I don't like it. They're not even particularly good Python jokes. It's tempting to find a way to cover that up if I'm playing with the wrong group, because I do play with a few folks occasionally who will latch on to those Python quotes and never freakin' let them go.

Thread: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

beri — 2008-11-30T09:17:50+00:00

It's fun, and the travel deck is a nice touch. Overall, it feels a little skimpy, though. I would have thought that a new quest would be a given, even if it were something minor. I've seen some interesting stuff in the BGG Files section.

Thread: Re: [Video Review] Merlin's Company

anathemus — 2008-11-28T09:14:47+00:00

Yes more video reviews Tom!

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

GROGnads — 2008-11-24T05:32:57+00:00

It sounds to ME like that somebody has: "a 'case' of the 'Mondays'!"

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

Thanos — 2008-11-24T04:58:48+00:00

I agree as well. I'm not 'pissed' per se, but definitely disappointed.

We're a fun-loving group, and while we don't take our gaming too seriously, my wife actually likes the tone of Shadows, and if it got campy and goofy, I think she'd lose interest. As would I.

A shame, really... I've always liked what Days of Wonder has released up through this point.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

eskravitz — 2008-11-23T09:52:54+00:00

I agree with this and with Nathan's original sentiment. In fact, I buy expansions to enhance a base game that I like, but I like SOC well enough as is. The Monty Python additions are enough to cause me to forego buying the expansion and continue to enjoy the base game as is.

Image

Noaceyet — 2008-11-19T19:48:14+00:00

Another of my minis painted by echoota

Thread: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

Islay — 2008-11-17T19:14:06+00:00

You don't have to have the expansion for this aspect either but I really like that Arthur must be played in every game. I like his power and, hearkening back to my very first plays of Shadows, it just makes sense for him to be in the game.

Also - nice catch on the orange die. It's very nice to have that as well.

Thread: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

wytefang — 2008-11-15T19:39:35+00:00

Thanks guys, Thumbs Up all around..on me!

Thread: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

jtspecial — 2008-11-15T07:11:38+00:00

What I would really like to see, is some new quests, but that said, the expansion has some interesting additions. Apart from those mentioned, there´s also more variaton, when adding the new knights.
And to answer your question properly, there´s nothing in the expansion, except for the extra traitor card, that requires you to play with the new maximum of 8 players.

Thread: Re: Draw travel cards when you go back to Camelot?

Tradewinds Ted — 2008-11-15T06:52:43+00:00

You draw a travel card whenever you choose to change location as a heroic action.

so YES - When you choose to return to Camelot as your action, then you do indeed draw a travel card.

and NO - When the quest you are on is completed, you return to Camelot without drawing a travel card.

and NO - If Guenivere calls, you go directly to Camelot, do not pass go, do not collect a travel card....wait, that sounds familiar....

This has been discussed several times now, but might as well make it clear.

Thread: Re: Draw travel cards when you go back to Camelot?

beri — 2008-11-15T06:26:06+00:00

Wouldn't it have been shorter to just type 'yes' or 'no'?
I'd give you a straight answer, but I haven't played the expansion yet.

Thread: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

kduke — 2008-11-15T04:45:42+00:00

Merlin adds an extra touch too.

Thread: Re: Draw travel cards when you go back to Camelot?

kduke — 2008-11-15T04:43:25+00:00

You might want to travel back a short distance in the rules folder, where this question has been discussed several times.

Thread: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

Nordiska — 2008-11-15T04:15:50+00:00

I like the new special white and special black cards. They add more variety. As for the travel cards...they are alright. I would by the expansion for:
1. New black/white cards
2. Travel cards
3. Orange die
4. Adding the 8 player (never played with 8)

How that helps.

Thread: How does this expansion add to the base game?

wytefang — 2008-11-15T03:17:38+00:00

Per my subject line question, I was wondering how this expansion boosts or enhances the base game if you're not really worried about it allowing for more players than 7? Worded another way, I'm not so worried about the opportunity provided by the expansion to add another player as I am of the changes and enhancements this expansion would add.

Is it worth purchasing for the enhancements alone or do they only work with 8 players?

Thank you for any answers!

Thread: Draw travel cards when you go back to Camelot?

Xaykev — 2008-11-15T01:23:33+00:00

Are you supposed to draw travel cards when you travel back to Camelot?
Or shall you draw travel cards only when you travel from quest to quest and from Camelot to a quest?

Thread: Re: Translation of Bruno's FAQ

out4blood — 2008-11-05T03:39:44+00:00

I would play Gaheris as normal since we have yet to beat a traitor. (I have also never lost as a traitor.) So anything that makes a traitor a bit weaker is okay by me. On the flip side, this makes Gaheris a great character to have as traitor since you can then exclaim you know who the traitor was because of the cards someone discarded. You can then get others to accuse that character (saving your own accusation) or you can just accuse in a "righteous" manner and avoid being immediately caught yourself.

Thread: Re: Captured! too mean and not-fun

eurofabio — 2008-11-05T02:38:12+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
What's the point of a card that takes a knight out of play and eliminates his turn's evil action?

Yes.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/325760

Thread: Re: Captured! too mean and not-fun

reapersaurus — 2008-11-02T23:31:40+00:00

What's the point of a card that takes a knight out of play and eliminates his turn's evil action?

I would think the obvious card rule would be that the knight is trapped, but the evil still happens during his turn.
I'd think anything else would too obviously lead to the situation you describe.....

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

Vrooman — 2008-11-02T01:28:50+00:00

Seems a valid complaint to me. The original game is not presented in cartoony/comical fashion, why should the expansion introduce such? It's hardly a big deal, but neither is opining that one doesn't appreciate it.

Thread: Re: Captured! too mean and not-fun

GreedyAlgorithm — 2008-10-30T01:37:52+00:00

Our group threw it out.

Thread: Re: Gaheris against the 6nd witch

ElSoyokaze — 2008-10-24T19:52:46+00:00

Guys, y'all are forgetting about Gaheris's best role: fighting siege engines.

The guy can Merlin one away then discard a 1, a 2, and a Grail to recover it, thus "fighting" the siege engine with nothing! The Witch is still killer for him, but that's one I'm always keen on cancelling or dispelling.

I am curious, though, about the situation in which no Merlins have been discarded face up for his power, but there's still one in the discard pile thanks to a traitor at Excalibur.

--ElSoy

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

wytefang — 2008-10-24T00:53:30+00:00

galeninjapan wrote:
I actually thought the Monty Python jokes were funny...
back in the 1980s. They get old extremely fast.

So, SO very true. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (in particular) used to be mildly amusing to quote WAY back in the day. Since tons of years worth of unoriginal wanna-be average-joe comedians have basically run any of these jokes into the ground, they're really not so funny, at all, anymore. They literally put me to sleep nowadays.

That being said, I can agree that it probably shouldn't have to ruin your experience since it's mainly flavor text, after all, but by the same token, I can't say that you don't have any right to be really upset. Different strokes for different folks. There are some things that REALLY set me off which other people would laugh off as ludicrous and vice versa.

I certainly don't think it's worth any of you guys in this thread bashing each other, though. Play nice, life is short.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

DavidT — 2008-10-15T01:32:55+00:00

rydiafan wrote:
I'm glad to discover that you're the person who gets to decide what opinions are valid. Can I get your phone number so that I can run any possible emotions I might experience in the future past you first, to make sure it's not silly or unbalanced?

Just for clarity's sake:

I don't have a problem with your opinion. I personally like the Monty Python text, but I think your differing opinion is both valid and worthwhile. I was merely pointing out that your extremely strong reaction to the situation is difficult to take seriously. You wanted to know why someone might think you were joking, so I gave you the answer.

rydiafan wrote:
I honestly don't see where I've said anything "loony" prior to DavidT's post. I would appreciate it if you pointed it out.

I don't know about "loony"--I only accused you of reacting *very* strongly to a silly issue. Loony's a decent approximation, though. Here's a few examples of what comes off as a bit high strung:

rydiafan wrote:
I'm so pissed...

rydiafan wrote:
Days of Wonder has shattered all the verisimilitude and theme in their game for the sake of a cheap and easy laugh.

rydiafan wrote:
Okay, I choose to include the Travel cards without destroying the theme and making a mockery of Arthurian legends.

rydiafan wrote:
...breaking theme like this for a cheap laugh is asinine.

Whatever the merit of your opinion, your method of expressing it is overly harsh. Words like "shattered," "mockery," etc., are strong terms to throw around over the theme of a board game. We're talking about flavor text, here--text that never has to be read aloud unless you're inclined to do so.

As has already been pointed out, it's also text that is entirely consistent with the underlying Python-ish bent that has surrounded the game since the very beginning. The fact that you've ignored it up till now is proof that you can ignore it further.

Thread: Re: Captured! too mean and not-fun

Goldyn Gryphon — 2008-10-13T01:23:28+00:00

I love SOC it is my top game to get to the table right now. I am relly looking forward to getting Merlin's Company. That being said I think you did the right thing in taking that card out. Nobody wants to just sit and watch a game your right that is no fun. I think the mods you suggested sound good but I would have to see everything to be sure. Good luck with your future games and post if you get some play tests of those mods.

Thread: Re: specific questions about travel cards...some might have already been covered.

mvettemagred — 2008-10-11T00:29:22+00:00

lonadar wrote:
OKAY...

Here's the final word: You draw a travel card any time you choose to move, whether from or to a quest or to Camelot. (The key word here is Choose. You still don't draw if moved by an effect, or if sent home after completing a quest.)

YOU DO DRAW A TRAVEL CARD IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO TO CAMELOT.
Finally, a ruling that matches the rulebook. Just so y'all can feel comfortable with Eric and Bruno's ruling, I direct you to the Merlin's Company rulebook, "Travels & The Travel Deck" section, second paragraph, first line:

"Each time a Knight chooses to Move to a new Quest as a Heroic Action..."

Please note the phrase in italics, Move to a new Quest, with the capitalization. This is how it appears in the rulebook.

Now, pull out one of your coat of arms from the game. Look at the "Heroic Action" section. The first choice is "Move to a new Quest". This is the exact Heroic Action choice referenced in the "Travels & The Travel Deck" section.

In the game, how does one choose to travel to Camelot? By performing the Move to a new Quest Heroic Action. Therefore, when performing this action to travel to Camelot, you draw a Travel card.

There are a number of rules in this expansion that are ambiguous; this one, however, is not.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

rydiafan — 2008-10-09T04:09:45+00:00

It's also nice to see that attacking people for stating their opinion not only gets thumbs, but tips. Real faith-in-humanity stuff there.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

rydiafan — 2008-10-09T04:08:04+00:00

ibn_ul_khattab wrote:
However the way in which you express your points makes you seem rather "unhinged" or loony, I'm sure this isn't your intent, but if you go back and read your posts you might see this. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with anything you have said, but I can see why people are reacting the way they are. Overall though I think the point you have made is an important one.

I honestly don't see where I've said anything "loony" prior to DavidT's post. I would appreciate it if you pointed it out. I made a few examples of how destroying theme for easy laughs is a slippery slope (pies and MC Hammer) and made an analogy as to hew doing a dick thing is still a dick thing even if other people manage not to be hurt by it (not curbing your dog). I think these are valid points, and would be interested in how they appear "loony".

Gilby wrote:
You seem to mistake being an unbalanced loon for having an opinion. Might want to check that subtle distinction out.

You seem to mistake attacking people without instigation for being a worthwhile human being. Might want to check that subtle distinction out.

Thread: Captured! too mean and not-fun

StatSig — 2008-10-08T07:00:48+00:00

After two games with the expansion, our group has decided to just nix the Captured! card. It's simply cruel and not fun. The first time, the player who was captured had just done something strategically questionable, leading to suspicions that he was the traitor; this meant that we did not rush to release him from jail. He ended up checking his E-mail and Facebook for a half hour until someone finally decided that he should be let free to help with some of the quests. Our second game, tonight, an 8-player one, Machiavellian discussions of whether his absence would benefit us or not led to him getting up to wander over and watch other games, as it seemed clear he would be in the clink for awhile.

After a moment, I just put forth an idea my partner had mentioned a day or two before: we just take the card out. While I appreciate the strategic viability of its presence--both to add more bite to the Travel deck and to give Loyal knights a chance to trap possible Traitors without chancing a false accusation--it is simply a CRUEL card. It throws a person entirely out of the game for what could be a long time. It has absolutely NO incentive for the knight to be freed unless they happened to have good cards in hand when captured; since there is no Progression of Evil during the lost knight's turn, there really is little to no loss caused by their absence; fewer knights means greater consolidation of force, and if there's any suspicion at all that the captured knight is a traitor, it HELPS the others to keep them trapped. It's just a cruel and un-fun form of player elimination, and seems to be more likely to cause hurt feelings than any other part of the game.

Has anyone else run into this problem with this card? Any possible solutions other than throwing it out? I'm thinking about having the captured knight still have a Progression of Evil on their phase, so that there is a strong incentive for them to be set free. Also, possibly, my partner suggested giving the captured knight to ability to free themself either immediately or on the following turn using a Special White from their own hand, if they have it. Other ideas would be welcome; I don't want to overbalance the Travel deck toward good cards, but just the look on the player's face today when he realized he was going to be shunned from the game for a long period only reinforced my feelings about this card after my first game. We took it out and called him back to the table, letting him redraw a Travel card, and no-one questioned that this was a good decision. (Well, okay, my partner was a bit disappointed at the decision at the time, but that's because they were the traitor and wanted to 'waste' their turn freeing him. :P )

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-10-07T06:12:51+00:00

rydiafan wrote:
DavidT wrote:
rydiafan wrote:
StormKnight wrote:
This, um, is a joke. Right? It is, isn't it?
Its gotten so I really can't tell anymore.

Why would this be a joke?

Because normal, well-balanced people don't have such strong reactions to such silly things. The whole "ZOMG-I'M-PISSED-THE-GAME-IS-RUINED" thing is a bit much to take seriously.

I'm glad to discover that you're the person who gets to decide what opinions are valid. Can I get your phone number so that I can run any possible emotions I might experience in the future past you first, to make sure it's not silly or unbalanced?

Along those lines, would you deem it silly for me to be irritated that you put words in my mouth? I'm not sure if it would be unbalanced of me to point out that I never said the game was ruined (as you claim I did), only the THEME.

Also, I'm going to a wedding next week. Please contact me so I know what I'm allowed to think/feel. Thanks! I don't think anyone thinks that you shouldn't have an opinion. In fact you are probably right, it may have been better to leave the text off the cards and the jokes or theme to the players imagination. I get that. We are a pretty silly gaming group at times, but generally we don't make monty python jokes when playing SOC, we are more serious like your group. So yeah I get your point.

However the way in which you express your points makes you seem rather "unhinged" or loony, I'm sure this isn't your intent, but if you go back and read your posts you might see this. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with anything you have said, but I can see why people are reacting the way they are. Overall though I think the point you have made is an important one.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

Gilby — 2008-10-07T06:04:39+00:00

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

rydiafan — 2008-10-07T05:26:05+00:00

DavidT wrote:
rydiafan wrote:
StormKnight wrote:
This, um, is a joke. Right? It is, isn't it?
Its gotten so I really can't tell anymore.

Why would this be a joke?

Because normal, well-balanced people don't have such strong reactions to such silly things. The whole "ZOMG-I'M-PISSED-THE-GAME-IS-RUINED" thing is a bit much to take seriously.

I'm glad to discover that you're the person who gets to decide what opinions are valid. Can I get your phone number so that I can run any possible emotions I might experience in the future past you first, to make sure it's not silly or unbalanced?

Along those lines, would you deem it silly for me to be irritated that you put words in my mouth? I'm not sure if it would be unbalanced of me to point out that I never said the game was ruined (as you claim I did), only the THEME.

Also, I'm going to a wedding next week. Please contact me so I know what I'm allowed to think/feel. Thanks!

Thread: Things left unclarified by the FAQ

InfoCynic — 2008-10-03T13:47:24+00:00

Can Sir Lamorak activate his ability when losing 2 life at once, for example, from Morgan or from losing the Dragon Quest?

Is a knight who is captured affected by black cards or not? The FAQ says no, but Bruno says in this thread (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/317364) that he is affected by Morgan, a special black card.

------------

That's all I have for now. Feel free to add your own and maybe we can get an FAQ update.

My opinions would be that for Sir Lamorak, he can treat a loss of 2 life as 2 instances of losing one life. The special power is already highly situation, it doesn't need to be made worse.

For a captured knight, I'd say he either needs to be unaffected by everything, or affected by everything... if special black cards don't affect him, then neither should special whites. That said, I would lean toward "not affected by anything." He's captured... nothing worse can really happen.

Thread: Re: I'm so pissed about the Monty Python jokes on the Travel cards.

DavidT — 2008-10-02T15:16:37+00:00

rydiafan wrote:
StormKnight wrote:
This, um, is a joke. Right? It is, isn't it?
Its gotten so I really can't tell anymore.

Why would this be a joke?

Because normal, well-balanced people don't have such strong reactions to such silly things. The whole "ZOMG-I'M-PISSED-THE-GAME-IS-RUINED" thing is a bit much to take seriously.

Thread: Re: [Video Review] Merlin's Company

jtspecial — 2008-09-29T08:41:59+00:00

Hi Tom!
How about a hybrid format, starting with text, following your usual format, but reserving component review, and what you REALLY think about the game, the red text, and your closing comments, for a video?

Image

patchwerq — 2008-09-13T02:19:39+00:00

Box cover without white borders!

Image

stevey629 — 2008-08-07T20:51:14+00:00

Merlin has turned his back...

Image

stevey629 — 2008-08-07T01:58:43+00:00

Sir Bedivere's back

Image

stevey629 — 2008-08-07T01:57:51+00:00

Sir Bedivere

Image

stevey629 — 2008-08-07T01:57:13+00:00

Merlin, side angle

Image

stevey629 — 2008-08-07T01:55:59+00:00

Merlin!

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-08-01T14:05:32+00:00

Losing our first game with Merlin's Company!

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-08-01T14:01:50+00:00

Merlin helps bring forth Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake!