Game: Castle

Thread: Re: Why move cards?

FlyingArrow — 2008-07-22T05:47:51+00:00

In other words, placement does not have to be 'legal' when you move a card. It just has to be in the same area of the castle, but other restrictions (such as being next to the King) can be ignored when moving a card.

Image

Brian Schubert — 2008-07-04T05:55:06+00:00

Castle - Closeup

Thread: Re: Why move cards?

GaryP — 2008-06-12T05:04:45+00:00

Oddly enough, placement rules apply only during placement.

There is no "domino effect" if the board changes after placement.

Thread: Re: Why move cards?

ebridge — 2008-06-11T03:06:10+00:00

One final question then. Say something must be played adjacent to the king. If the king is later moved or returned to hand, could that create a "domino effect" where other cards have to subsequently return to their owners too? Or, instead, do placement rules only apply when placed, and not permanently?

Thanks again.

Thread: Re: Why move cards?

GaryP — 2008-06-10T18:01:22+00:00

Unless specified otherwise, yes, the placement must still be legal. The rules specifically state that the card must remain in the same area, except when using the Fairy (which moves a card outside the castle). The Big Castle expansion also has a Recruiter card, which moves a Court card onto the Ramparts.

Thread: Re: Why move cards?

ebridge — 2008-06-10T13:01:18+00:00

And does where you move it to have to stil be a legal placement for that character?

Thread: Re: Why move cards?

Mike A — 2008-06-10T04:15:30+00:00

There are cards that affect the cards bordering them, so it can be useful to move them out of the way at times. You can stop other cards from affecting yours, open needed space near cards to improve your own placements, weaken opponent cards because they are in a sub-optimal position, etc.

Thread: Why move cards?

ebridge — 2008-06-10T03:15:50+00:00

Total newbie question here, not having played the game yet. Why is it beneficial to have the ability to "move" some other card instead of send one back to the owner's hand? Can you move a card so that it is no longer where it must be, thereby sending it back? I'm just trying to understand all of the things you could do by moving a card. Thanks for your help everyone.

Thread: Re: Trying to find the expansion?

ebridge — 2008-06-01T20:49:10+00:00

Then I guess what I am asking is if anyone has their home-made version of the expansion that they do not want anymore.

Thread: Re: Trying to find the expansion?

Der Das — 2008-06-01T13:42:09+00:00

ebridge wrote:
Hi everyone,

I don't have a second copy of the game to use nor a printer very capable of doing this, but I would love to purchase the expansion. Does anyone have a copy in good condition that they do not want anymore and would be willing to sell?
Hi Eric, what are you asking for exactly? There is no official "pre-printed" expansion available, there are just rules, paste-ups and optionally a board to print for use in Big-Castle. You will need a second copy of the original to be able to play by the expanded ruleset.

Thread: Trying to find the expansion?

ebridge — 2008-06-01T04:08:05+00:00

Hi everyone,

I don't have a second copy of the game to use nor a printer very capable of doing this, but I would love to purchase the expansion. Does anyone have a copy in good condition that they do not want anymore and would be willing to sell?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: A New Review of an Old Favorite

Flix — 2008-04-14T20:47:56+00:00

Gearhead wrote:
All of it fits neatly in the gamebox which was part of Alea's Bluebox series (Fantasy Business, Dragon's Gold and Democrazy are all the same series)..

This is an absolute gem that deserves the same kind of appreciation Dragon's Gold gets from the Alea Bluebox series.

The only Alea Bluebox I know is Louis XIV.
But maybe you were misled by the idea that "The Sun King" himself has built a quite attractive Castle:

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

Lou-Dawg — 2008-04-06T00:23:13+00:00

The mistress sending back the king and vice versa is awesome!

Thread: Crónica en español de una partida

Schroinger — 2008-02-29T17:03:33+00:00

De casualidad andaba el "Castle" por ahí, por lo que resultó elegido para jugar y nos pusimos a acomodar personajes en un castillo fantástico con plazas limitadas.

]]>

El objetivo del juego es descartarse de tus cartas, tanto las que se tienen en mano como en un mazo personalizado. Para hacerlo hay que jugarlas en las diferentes locaciones de un castillo medieval: claustro, murallas (la Mirella, pué), torres y exteriores.

Cada carta tiene requisitos de colocación y un efecto que se produce al ser jugada, normalmente regresar las cartas a las manos de los jugadores rivales, aunque los hay de otros muchos tipos.

Así, sin ser un "quiebracocos", lograr las mejores combinaciones de cartas, con el fin de beneficiarse al tiempo de frustrar los planes de los rivales, puede resultar bastante estratégico.

A todo esto, pese a que el juego indica que es para cinco jugadores, jugamos seis sin ningún tipo de trastorno, salvo que un jugador utilizó como contadores las fichas de un "Bootleggers" que andaba por ahí.

Repartimos cuatro cartas en mano y cuatro en mazo, con una pila común abierta ("exchange" para que nos entendamos) de ocho cartas. El experimento resultó placentero y lo recomendaría sin dudar.

"Castle" conforma, junto con "Ciudadelas" y "Fist of Dragonstones" una trilogía de juegos con personajes y locaciones medieval-fantásticas que tienen como vértice al diseñador francés Bruno Faidutti. "La Trilogía de Ciudadelas", podríamos titularla.

Él mismo autor cuenta cómo de una idea común nacieron los dos primeros. Mientras que "Ciudadelas" se compone de la combinación de unos pocos personajes y bastantes locaciones ("distritos"), "Castle" tiene muchísimos personajes que conviven en poquísimos aposentos (como se dijo, claustro, torres, murallas y exteriores de un castillo), teniendo ambos como común denominador su ambientación, quizás un tanto más oscura en el caso de aquel.

Por su parte, "Fist of Dragonstones" nace con la intención de aprovechar el tirón del éxito de "Ciudadelas", aunque con resultados discretos. De hecho, la trilogía podría ser una tetralogía si incluímos dentro de ella al "Mission: Red Planet", que utiliza también el mecanismo de selección de roles de "Ciudadelas", aunque quizás sería mucho jalarle el rabo a la chancha.

Así, luego de luchas e intrigas en palacio, el resultado de la partida fue el siguiente:

1er. lugar: Jeffrey, quien se descartó de todas sus cartas. Una acotación sin embargo: De todos es sabido, especialmente de la esposa de Roberto que siempre recuerda una anécdota de "La Furia de Drácula", que este jugador ya tiene algunos antecedentes, digamos que opacos, por llamarlos de alguna manera, en su historial...

Luego de sus tres condenas por violación, abusos deshonestos e irrespeto a la autoridad, parece que en el recreo de "La Reforma" este individuo aprendió algunas mañas difíciles de olvidar.

En esta ocasión, ante pregunta de Roberto de cuántas cartas le quedaban, pues las escondía, respondió que tres, cuando lo cierto era que una. Eso le sirvió para no recibir ataques y al final ganar la partida. ¿Maniobra legal? ¿Manga ancha? ¿Técnica de camuflaje? ¿Zona nebulosa? Esto es tema para una encuesta y lo demás es cuento.

2o. lugar: Ernesto Jr. y José, con una carta cada uno.

4o. lugar: Colochos, Roberto y Luis Paulino, con dos cartas cada uno. Interesante ver cómo los dos que habían jugado anteriormente, terminaron de últimos.

Esta crónica puede verse también en http://juegosdemesacr.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&t...

Igualmente en http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/296860

Thread: Re: Strategic variant for two players

GaryP — 2008-02-14T18:23:37+00:00

Anyone tried this?

Thread: Re: Official Variant 1

GaryP — 2008-02-14T18:19:32+00:00

I have not tried this variant, although I probably will for my next game. Shrinking hand size may seem like a concern, but don't forget that your opponents will be sending cards back to your hand soon enough.

Image

cobalto — 2008-02-14T14:28:50+00:00

Full contents with rules

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

GaryP — 2008-02-12T15:54:08+00:00

Thanks much for the link!

I'm a bit surprised at the answer, but I think I prefer it that way. It help the Mistress get her benefit. I am amused that, as Bruno points out, she could turn around and remove the King. That could cause quite the lovers' quarrel. =)

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

nelf21 — 2008-02-12T15:30:16+00:00

Thanks for that! I'm sure it will come up again in future plays. The Mistress is only slightly less reviled than Prince Charming and The Ambassador, around these parts.

Knowing is half the battle!
Now we can battle better!

Have fun,
nelf21

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

LoneCleric — 2008-02-12T04:13:48+00:00

nelf21 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Lone Cleric,
I'm not sure that I am describing my question clearly enough:
You were. As Gary P. pointed out, I answered without having access to the cards, and dismissing the whole thing as a simple "newbie question".

I would also have agreed with him on how to handle the card. First the king sends back a card, then, if the mistress is around, its owner sends back a card.

But lo and behold, that's not how Mr. Faidutti saw it:
http://www.sergelaget.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1449

He has both effects resolving simultaneously.

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

GaryP — 2008-02-11T22:06:13+00:00

nelf21 wrote:
Yeah like that was clearer...
It was. (The original post is also perfectly clear if you have the King card in front of you.)

However, I am equally unclear what the correct result would be. If the entire text of the King's card is "activated" when the card is placed, then the Mistress owner should remove a card. If the King card's instructions are resolved in the specific order given, then the Mistress would not have been in play when the second instruction was followed.

I don't see any rule that specifically addresses the timing of this. Without any other reference or official ruling, I would say they resolve in sequence, but that's the way my mind works.

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

nelf21 — 2008-02-11T21:47:07+00:00

Thanks for the feedback Lone Cleric,

I'm not sure that I am describing my question clearly enough:

The King sends back any card when he comes into play. The card reads that the owner of The Mistress also gets to send back a card.

If The King's send back effect targets the Mistress card, does the owner of the Mistress card get to send a card back before The Mistress is sent back?

Yeah like that was clearer...

Thread: Re: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

LoneCleric — 2008-02-11T18:22:04+00:00

With some notable exceptions (like the "protection effect" and the Herald card), all the effects described on the cards are triggered when the card is put in play, and only then. If the king isn't already in play when the mistress shows up, then she won't have any effect, that's all.

Thread: Mistress effect on the King's card timing

nelf21 — 2008-02-11T16:19:49+00:00

Greetings fellow geeks!

My wife and I were playing 2P over the weekend. We were nearing the end game as many of the power cards had already been played. The Queen and The Mistress (mine) are already legally in play. My wife plays the King sending back the Mistress. Does the Mistress get to activate her ability printed on the King's card before she gets sent back to my hand?

I still probably would have been 1 turn behind as opposed to two so the game didn't hinge on the play. We were just wondering what the consensus was out there, as we thought it could be argued either way. We rolled a d6 to determine who got the favorable interpretation and I lost.

Thanks,
nelf 21

Thread: Re: Castel vs Citadels

B Weage — 2008-01-02T05:39:17+00:00

From the Citadels Rules PDF (see last sentence)

Warlord
You receive one gold for each military (red) district in your city. At the end of your turn, you may destroy one district of your choice by paying a number of gold equal to one less than the cost of the district. Thus, you may destroy a cost 1 district for free, a cost 2 district for 1 gold, or a cost 5 district for 4 gold. You may destroy one of your own districts. You may not, however, destroy a district in a city that is already completed by having eight districts.

To the OP - I enjoy both Castle and Citadels and as others have said they are not similar.

Also no real similarity between Castle and San Juan. It is true that in both you have to make the best of what you have in your hand but that is the extent of the similarity. Castle requires you to get rid of your cards by placing them into the same play areas as the opponents. The powers of the cards mostly involve restricting which other cards can be played in proximity, and bouncing other cards (neighboring or specific types) back to their owners so they have to play them again. Because everyone plays into the same layout you get a lot or direct player interaction. Not like San Juan where everyone has their own layout and the interaction is all in what role you pick when.

Thread: Re: Castel vs Citadels

FlyingArrow — 2008-01-02T05:15:54+00:00

Blackberry wrote:
There's not much that's similar between them. Citadels doesn't have the kind of direct take-that confrontation that Castle has.

Also, there are situations in Castle in which you could normally play your last card and win, except that it is actually unplayable due to the way the cards are arranged, so you watch everyone else go out and you lose.

Citadels fixes the only place that could happen -- when someone builds 8 districts and the Warlord destroys one -- by not allowing it.

Are you sure? I think it's still allowed - it's just that the game is over anyway and the person who built the 8th district still gets the bonus for reaching 8 first.

Thread: Re: Why is there a deck?

xavxav — 2007-12-29T18:20:17+00:00

Thanks for the answers, I guess we will add some sort of house rule to prevent us hoarding too much.

I have also asked the same question on Serge Laget's forum (the co-author with Bruno Faidutti), and Serge (if it's indeed him who is the administrator) had the following answer (translated below):

***
http://www.sergelaget.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2629

L'exemple le plus probant est sans doute celui de l'échange avec les cartes placées à cet effet: si tu attends trop, ton adversaire prendra les plus intéressantes... De la même façon, si tu laisses jouer l'autre tout seul, il risque fort pendant que tu pioches de créer des "blocs" quasi-innattaquables du genre cartes côte à côte à la cour puis le prêtre au milieu protégé par un chevalier...

Maintenant si tu trouves que c'est vraiment trop avantageux de piocher son deck systématiquement, tu peux interdire de faire 2 fois cette action dans le même tour...

Dernière chose on avait publié dans Jeux en boite, une variante sympa pour deux joueurs dans laquelle la pioche était commune et où chaque tour tu piochais une carte pour toi et en filait une à l'autre qu'il devait intégrer dans son jeu....

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
***

In English, it would more or less be translated this way (I am by no means a good English writer):

One of the most obvious example is to change cards with the exchange pile: if you wait too long your opponent will take the most interesting cards... And if you let your opponent play alone, he will probably create strong "blocks" that could be nearly unassailable, for example sided cards with the priest in the middle and a knight on it...

Now if you think it is too advantageous to systematically draw cards from your deck, you can forbid to do it twice in the same turn...

One last thing, we published in Jeux en Boîte a cool variant for two players where there was a unique drawing deck and each time you want to draw a card, you take one in your deck and give another one to your opponent who had to take in his hands...

I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts (never heard of this one before, but what a cool Latin expression!)

Thread: Re: Why is there a deck?

nelf21 — 2007-12-28T14:10:36+00:00

I never draw all my cards first. A) boring B) unecessary. My wife and I have played this one alot and she's a card hoarder. I think hoarding cards is a weakness because it allows me a lot more flexibility in playing. I can hold the Courtesan until right after she picks up, I can set up a Priest block in a corner, I can get my tower cards in play,I can dictate the Soilder/Catapult pace. I much rather perfer to play one and draw one.

I think that the record is pretty even. Played against each other I don't think either strategy dominates.

Just my 2 cents.

Thread: Re: Why is there a deck?

caradoc — 2007-12-28T13:41:06+00:00

It certainly becomes less chaotic with only two - though I have to admit, of my many plays, I've really only played it with 2 a couple of times - I like the chaotic element to Castle - it is a part of the appeal for me, an aspect of the gameplay I really enjoy! I'd rather play a 4 or 5 player game than a 2 or 3 player one

Cheers,

Giles.

Thread: Re: Why is there a deck?

Jormi_Boced — 2007-12-28T13:33:09+00:00

caradoc wrote:

It's not a long game, it certainly isn't chess

With two players it can be a little chess like.

Thread: Re: Why is there a deck?

caradoc — 2007-12-28T06:34:02+00:00

I've read people make the comment that they much prefer to hoarde their cards before they play any, if you want to you can adopt the house rule that your hand may never have more than your starting hand +1 card, or you may play so that you can draw all your cards and play. Personaly i don't really think it's the sort of game that rewards turtling (hoarding until you can't horde no-more) too much, although there are people who disagree with me on that one

It's not a long game, it certainly isn't chess - I just get on with the business of playing the gameand enjoy the zany fun that can arise. i think if you are playing with people who draw the whole deck before playing a card you are playing in a way that sucks a key part of the fun out of the game for me. Each to their own though - if you enjoy playing like that by all means do so!!

Cheers and good lcuk whatever you decide!

Giles.

Thread: Re: Why is there a deck?

Jormi_Boced — 2007-12-26T01:28:09+00:00

You are correct. I believe most people play that the draw action is limited to once per turn, and I believe that is what Bruno suggests on his Web site as well.

Thread: Why is there a deck?

xavxav — 2007-12-25T13:08:59+00:00

I think I'm missing something here: I have played twice this game (one 2-player and one 3-player) and each time, as we were afraid of having our cards sent back, we drew all our cards from our deck before playing our cards from our hands.

What I do not understand is that since I will have to play all the cards from my personal deck, why shouldn't I draw all these cards from my deck before playing? That way I can have a better view of all the cards I will need to play.

Would you have a clear example in mind showing that "draw all your cards first then start to play" is not a good strategy?

Thread: Bookshelf Games Video Review