Shadows over Camelot | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Catapults: Numerical Analysis

ackmondual — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:11:11 +0000

tornspace wrote:
The math is irrelevant. Never fight a catapult with less than 9 points in your hand, unless you are forced to.

Not sure about the risk analysis, but it may be worth it to "go for broke" if it means being able to take out more catapults without the garuantee of automatic kill. Yes, this even for a loyal knight. If there are many catapults to be taken out, it may be that you need to tkae out at least 2, otherwise, you lose anyways.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

viper_1 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:20:33 +0000

by viper_1

]]>

all knight

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: Playing in the Shadows - a SAC review

alafter — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:27:44 +0000

by alafter

I bet you played solo and picked "Traitor". You fiend.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Placing facedown cards on combat quests

tornspace — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:44:26 +0000

by tornspace

Almost every one of our black cards are played face down. The white card is too valuable to pass up. Also, on the Dragon quest you might as well play it face down, because there's no way you're beating a hand full of 7's if it fills its hand!!

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Catapults: Numerical Analysis

tornspace — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:21:22 +0000

by tornspace

The math is irrelevant. Never fight a catapult with less than 9 points in your hand, unless you are forced to.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Why are the dudes I painted months ago still tacky?

Dodya — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:26:37 +0000

by Dodya

You can refer to http://www.geekdo.com/article/4177408 where I had a similar issue and how I overcomed it.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Sessions:: Re: Darkness covers Camelot.

Nicholas1024 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:05:38 +0000

by Nicholas1024

:shake: Drat.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Sessions:: Re: Darkness covers Camelot.

Wraith — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:25:43 +0000

by Wraith

Nicholas1024 wrote:
when you accuse the traitor, you flip a black sword to white, right?

No. You add a white sword. Page 16 of the rulebook.

If you misplayed this, then at the point where you had 7 white and 4 black swords, the counts should have been 7 and 5, and you would have won.

Session: Shadows over Camelot:: Darkness covers Camelot.

Nicholas1024 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:13:24 +0000

by Nicholas1024

A fun 5-player game of Shadows over Camelot was played today, here's how it turned out.

Players:
King Arthur, Sir Galahad, Sir Tristan, Sir Kay (me), and Sir Percival.

Part 1): Armor, despair, and war
Sir Percival proved to be slightly scatterbrained, traveling of to retrieve Lancelot's armor (despite having nearly NONE of the needed cards), and ended up being called home on the very next turn by Queen Guinivere. Whislt the rest of the knights prepared for the battles ahead, the forces of evil started piling up despair whilst trying to steal Excalibur. I left to fight the forces of despair, whilst Sir Percival went to keep Excalibur within reach. King Arthur and Sir Tristan went off to fight the Saxons and Picts, and clobbered them easily. More good news came in as Sir Galahad defeated the traitor lancelot and brought home his armor. However, not everything was bright, for the black knight had won unopposed, and Vivian had shown up, only to be defeated by Merlin.

Part 2): Dragonfire, treason and death
After barely drawing even with the forces of darkness over the fight with the grail (even after Merlin's help), I retreated to fight the dragon, whilst Sir Galahad went after the holy cup. The other knights went to draw Excalibur back from the brink of doom, before Sir Tristian withdrew to aid me in slaying the dragon. However, a Convocation was made, and plans were changed. The Saxons had run amok, winning a war over us, whilst the picts were well on their way to doing the same thing. In addition, the Mists of Avalon had arisen, and there was naught that Merlin could do to hold them back! Sir Tristian went to fight the Picts(again), whilst I gathered strength for another attempt on the dragon. However, my strength proved to be insuffucient, for although I had the means to defeat the dragon, I had not the time, and perished in a fiery blaze. Sir Tristan used his clairvoyance to arrange future events, but BEHOLD! King Arthur revealed that Sir Tristan was the traitor, and cast him out into the shadows.

Part 3): Dark Forests, Excalibur, and Ruin
Sir Galahad had been persistently fighting despair, and we were close to winning the cup, when the traitor's clairvoyance proved deadly, as we were blocked by the dark forest. After a change of plans and council, the knights decided to win excalibur, for that was the quest closest to victory. The traitor bided his time, and ramped up the siege, putting us at 10 engines before Sir Galahad used Heroism, and King Arthur won the sword. (At this point, there were 11 swords on the table, 7 white, 4 black.) The knights immediately went to fight the Picts, for thanks to our traitor (oh, the irony!), the war was nearly over. (1,2,3 cards played, but 3 picts on the table.) The traitor had one turn left, but then Sir Percival and Sir Galahad could finish the war, and win the game. The ex-knight Tristan drew a black card... NOOOOO!!!!! The Mercenaries entered play, and Camelot fell to the forces of evil.

Epilogue
There were a number of points that we could (and should have) played differently. First off, Vivian should have been ignored, as we were close to winning both wars at that point. Secondly, we should have sacrificed life more often, as (aside from myself and King Arthur), everyone was at 4 or more nearly the whole game. Thirdly, we forgot about excaliber (oops.) Had we discarded it to defeat the mercinaries, we could have won the game! Fourthly, there were a number of times we forgot about special abilities... Sir percival was the one who had drawn dark forests, so he could have ignored the card and sacrificed a life instead, letting Sir Galahad use Lancelot's armor to discard it. (double oops...) Finally, a rules question... when you accuse the traitor, you flip a black sword to white, right?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: Playing in the Shadows - a SAC review

danzuke — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:27:42 +0000

by danzuke

This game has been on my radar for awhile, and I think this might've just pushed me over the edge, THANKS!

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Sessions:: Re: Playing a game in which a ten year old knight is the traitor

judoka — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:40:45 +0000

by judoka

Thanks! My son (who was the traitor) had the Fate card in his hand . I should have made it clear in my report. And he was so eager to play it and eventually he did.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Sessions:: Re: Playing a game in which a ten year old knight is the traitor

Wraith — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:36:19 +0000

by Wraith

judoka wrote:
Sir Arthur revealed that he is the traitor and started putting siege engine on the battlefield! Oh my! .....

You do realise that the traitor is not permitted to actually reveal his loyalty card (unless he does so by playing Fate), right? He can certainly give himself away by playing obviously traitorous moves (such as placing siege engines when Camelot is in danger of being overrun), but he can't actually turn up his card (or start using his traitor abilities).

Which means that another knight would have the option to accuse him, thus placing an extra white sword on the Round Table.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Sessions:: Re: Playing a game in which a ten year old knight is the traitor

judoka — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:55:23 +0000

by judoka

Yes, that is so much true. Children are very clever.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Sessions:: Re: Playing a game in which a ten year old knight is the traitor

caltexn — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:50:36 +0000

by caltexn

I was very surprised when my eleven year old son who played the traitor with adults won the game at the end of a five player game. They are more capable than you think at disguising their intentions.

Session: Shadows over Camelot:: Playing a game in which a ten year old knight is the traitor

judoka — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:12:21 +0000

by judoka

Last Saturday afternoon and evening the seven of us (we as a family of four and three friends)played two Shadows over Camelot. This session report is about the second one. Our first game was an excellent introduction to a more exciting and more real second game. From all of us two of our friends new the game the best.
(The pictures I include are from earlier games at our house.)

]]>
(This was one of our first games of SoC. My ten year old sun.)

Right at the beginning all the brave nights gathered at Camelot to discuss the best possible strategy. We all learned from our previous battle in which we had such a bad combination of having a vicious traitor among us and too many dangerous elements that we knew: this time if we want to defend Camelot and our honour we must have a well thought out strategy. Accordingly, we all shared our strength and resources and the most clever knight spoke: "We must concentrate on the two major quests whith which we had the most difficulty; on the Holy Grail and on the Excalibur Quest." Of course, we willingly obeyed and started acting according to our brave and clever knight's advice. The four of us pursued the two major quests and three other knights fought two smaller quests.
We did not complain as although we suffered some setbacks at both big quests but we could finish both in a relatively short time. First we finished the Excalibur Quest and then the Holy Grail Quest. How happy and joyful we were! We proved to be brave and courageus!

But wait! Here came the big and unexpected surprise. Oh, you might say, "Dear Brave Knight, why is this a big and unexpected surprise for you ? You who have courageously fought many battles and did not run away cowardly, you should know that as soon as the brave knights have a victory the enemy will attack!" And probably you are right saying that, fellow knightmen. We just got carried away in the euphory of the victories. But we soon had to realize that the enemies started heavily and viciously attacking us , especially they started placing an awful lot of siege engines at a very fast pace! Wow! We immediately held a convocation and we all (yeah, almost all) agreed, that we have to concentrate on getting rid of the siege engines and should not pursue more quests but just let us get the black swords as we had enough white swords. However, one knight did not agree with us! He said that we could just win a quest and while we are winning the quest we will not get much more siege engine. Hearing him speaking "against" us, we got really suspicious. Is he the traitor? We did not accuse him officially, and, of course, he heavily objected. All in all, we concentrated on getting rid of the siege engines and we all worked hard on this and together till Sir arthur (who was my 10 year old sun) were adamant that he wants to reveal the traitor. We warned him of the dangers and our dooming fate if he does that but in vain. And I saw an evil smile on his face! For a short while we managed to convince him not to reveal the traitor . The battle was getting more and more heated as we knew we were very close to win but what if the traitor gets loose? And he did! Sir Arthur revealed that he is the traitor and started putting siege engine on the battlefield! Oh my! .....

]]>
(In this game my elder son was the traitor and he won.)

A sigh. In the last minute before the traitor could totally defeat us we won by losing the Dragon's Quest. To do this Sir Gawayn and Sir Tristan had had long and very sophisticated discussions as to how to win in the last minute before we were overwhelmed by the siege engines. By the end of the game we had eight white swords and four black ones.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: Playing in the Shadows - a SAC review

fbsfbs — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:12:02 +0000

by fbsfbs

Excellent review! We have played this many times and it is never dull.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: Playing in the Shadows - a SAC review

slate43 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:16:32 +0000

by slate43

Great review. Shadows, once introduced to new gamers is almost always requested. I am careful about introducing this game to non-gamers now since I know I will have to break it out at their request ad nauseum. However, it is always fun to play again after a month or so rest from it.

Review: Shadows over Camelot:: Playing in the Shadows - a SAC review

hend — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:10:44 +0000

by hend

Introduction
Your first questions upon reading the subject may be why I capitalized the word 'sac', and what a 'sac' review is. SAC is a cute acronym I decided to make for Short And Concise. I've chosen to write a SAC review because there are plenty of long reviews with details about the rules, quests, and pictures of components. You don't need another one of those. What I'm going to offer is a relatively quick summary of my thoughts and opinions of the game, with a short list of pros & cons at the end for even more concise viewing. Let the Shadows fall...

My Thoughts
If you meander over to my ratings, you'll see that I've given Shadows Over Camelot a 10. It didn't take this game long to get to the top of my favorites list, for a number of different reasons.

This game is scalable pretty much however you want it. It may not be 'officially supported', but I've played this game with success with 1, 2, and 5 players. I'd imagine it scales just fine up to 7 as well. I've played with and without the traitor, and while a smaller 2-3 player game isn't suitable for a traitor, a 5-player game works well with one. If you want a purely co-op game, go for it. If you want a little bit of confusion, deal all 8 loyalty cards. If you want some real tension, deal only as many cards as players, making sure the Traitor card is one of them, so you're guaranteed to have some conflict and table talk.

The artwork is very well done in this game. There are multiple well-illustrated boards, many cards, knight sheets, and some very nice plastic figures. You can see my thoughts on the downsides of some of these plastic figures below. Despite the downsides I think they are very nice and do add to the game experience. You're definitely not getting cheap chits and shoddy miniatures - you'll get your moneys-worth in this box!

The gameplay itself is very fun. Each player's turn is pretty short (one evil action and theoretical maximum of 5 good actions, though usually only one or two) so the game moves along nicely. Even with the small amount of downtime that exists, you'll be monitoring what evil is being done, and be formulating a plan based on your cards, assembling priorities, and analyzing other player's actions (especially with a Traitor in your midst!). This may not be the deepest game you'll have played, basically just being an assortment of Poker hands that you're required to play towards victory, with a few exceptions, but the way it is done and how most quests can be cooperatively won keeps it interesting.

With just the main rulebook and the Book of Quests, you'll be able to learn the game quite easily. You may miss a few things (two rules I missed were that when you leave a solo quest the white cards you played go away, and that you have to play the Picts/Saxon quests in sequence from 1 to 5), but you'll get the gist of the game and be able to play through it. Teaching it is pretty easy as well, which is nice because I've been able to get just about anyone I know to try this out, understand the game, and enjoy playing it on their first run through. While I've seen some complaints about the rulebook, I think that if you are truly a diligent game learner, you'll have no problems. Those people probably just skimmed through each book without really reading the details, and I pay very little merit to them.

As you can imagine with a cooperative game, player interaction is quite high. It's fun figuring out strategies, interweaving special cards to eliminate threats, heal knights, and share cards, to share victories in quests and to stave off siege engines. Especially when a traitor is involved, and distrust sets in amongst players, it helps to drive the table talk and cooperation. If you prefer games that are 'multiplayer solitaire'-esque, you aren't going to like this game.

Despite my high regards for this game, it has its imperfections too. Naturally with it being a card-driven game, you might be sitting at Camelot drawing cards and getting junk every turn. Or you may get a terrible sequence of evil cards that guarantees you to lose a quest. Also, in a bigger game, the solo quests become much harder, as multiple more evil cards may be drawn and placed on the quest you're working on.

Bigger games, despite more cooperation and manpower, tend to be more difficult to win. Introduce a traitor, and you'll have yourself quite a challenge to victory. This could be seen as a good thing, since you'll want to play again after losing, but can be disheartening for new players feeling like there is no way to ever win if you're Loyal.

The cost feels like it may have been artificially inflated a bit by unnecessary pieces. Take the twelve siege engines for example, as I've seen it suggested elsewhere those could just have easily been reduced to a cardboard chit that moves along a track with 12 numbers. Same goes for the Pict & Saxon figures. Also, while the health dice for the knights are pretty and well-crafted, they are wholly unnecessary. Some cardboard health markers would have worked just as well, and presumably been less expensive to produce. In this case, a health die really bears no addition to the theme, whereas you could argue the plastic figures do add to it. The game isn't that expensive, but it is a gripe that seems fairly common, and I cannot completely dismiss.

Overall, the few cons that I see in this game are far outweighed by the pros. I feel it has some strong similarities with Battlestar Galactica. Card-driven gameplay, a traitor mechanism, game ending mechanisms based on 'when x happens, lose immediately'. Both are very good, but this one is far shorter of a game, and has a lot more action and fun. I'd definitely recommend this to anyone, it's even fun for a fair amount of plays solo if you can't get a group to play this with.

Pros/Cons
Scalable to just about any number of players 1-7 with a traitor added if you want it a little less cooperative
Artwork is great, well-crafted bits and minis
Gameplay is quick, to the point, and very fun
Rules can be slightly finicky but for the most part are easily learned and taught
Heaps of player interaction via cooperation (or if traitor is involved - dissent!)
Being card-driven can have a huge sway on the flow of the game, in some cases in a horribly detrimental direction which may turn off newer players if this situation arises
If you add more people you might think the game gets easier with more manpower and cards, but it typically gets harder with more people
Some people may find it cheesy or you may realize cost was possibly artificially inflated by some unnecessary plastic pieces

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

BadgerWithAGun — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:04:33 +0000

by BadgerWithAGun

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Battlestar Galactica or shadows over camelot

kimerupooru — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:25:24 +0000

by kimerupooru

I bought Shadows Over Camelot because our group loves Battlestar Galactica, but I wanted a shorter, less complicated game. While it has some of the same elements, and is significantly shorter, it gets almost no play in our group. We would rather commit to a 3 hour session of BG than a game of SoC. The BG games have an intensity that is simply lacking in SoC, in my experience.

And while the gameplay in SoC certainly holds up just as well, the theme just doesn't feel as well integrated as it is with BG. It would be better if the game were entirely tongue-in-cheek, with a Monty Python and the Holy Grail theme. The quicker play would really benefit from a more light-hearted and humorous approach.

Also, while BG is largely a cooperative game, SoC feels less so. You discuss the quests you are going to undertake, but often there are so many challenges on the board that each one is being done individually.

I do enjoy SoC whenever our group plays it, but no one ever asks to play it, unlike BG.

I should point out that the majority of us enjoyed the series immensely, which certainly contributes to our love of BG. :D

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

BadgerWithAGun — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:20:31 +0000

by BadgerWithAGun

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Guinevere

apatheticexecutioner — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:05:34 +0000

by apatheticexecutioner

Thanks for the clarification.

Steve

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Guinevere

Luke the Flaming — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:02:42 +0000

by Luke the Flaming

The sentence is there just to clarify that it is NOT as "Convocation".

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Guinevere

Wraith — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:49:41 +0000

by Wraith

No, not correct. The card only says that players do not receive cards, meaning they get nothing as an effect of the Guinevere card. There is no ongoing prohibition against drawing cards. The card does not state that there is a prohibition against drawing cards.

The knights are permitted to take the Camelot quest action on subsequent turns (but obviously the knight who draws Guinevere cannot do so, because Guinevere ends his turn).

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Guinevere

apatheticexecutioner — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:40:02 +0000

by apatheticexecutioner

Played a game for the first time in about a year last night and Guinevere, amongst a plethora of evil, called the knights back to the Round Table.

Her card states that all the knights return to The Round Table and cannot draw cards.

I've always interpreted this as meaning that for one turn the knights are precluded from drawing two cards as one of their subsequent actions for one round.

They can move back out or fight a siege engine, but that's it.

Correct?

Brian

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

judoka — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:43:01 +0000

by judoka

]]>

the traitor has won

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Trading cards between knights

Tolle — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:54:09 +0000

by Tolle

Me either and it is a good point made by Mik. Can anyone give one example where this sentence could be used, even if you indeed allowed free speech in the game?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Help, help, I'm being repressed (Damn this game's hard!)

UnknownParkerBrother — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:25:13 +0000

by UnknownParkerBrother

Ok, that makes a bit more sense. Math still seems quite tight though. If the card is in the lower half of the draw deck, then each player has to take a life hit, just to gain it back and break even. And the person who draws it doesn't gain at all, so they lose ground. And once you've had three draws, you're excluded, so have to start playing the game normally. If it keeps coming up near the top of the draw deck, you gain.

Given 84 cards in the deck, 42 of them are initially dealt out, and 42 are drawn. So only with 7 players are you guaranteed for this to work. With 6, you could easily just all lower your life to 1 with 3 straight draws each not finding the 1 card, then have to head out and start the game.

And of course, this completely ignores the presence of traitors. All it takes is a traitor to be the one who was dealt or draws the Piety card, and he just holds on to it and lets everyone run through the entire deck taking life hits with zero gain.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Help, help, I'm being repressed (Damn this game's hard!)

Osuniev — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:20:37 +0000

by Osuniev

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
dcclark wrote:
Every player stays in Camelot and draws 2 (or 3) cards every turn, at the start. Very quickly, SOMEONE will draw Piety. They play it and discard it. Then, people keep drawing. By sheer volume of cards, the white deck will empty very quickly. Then, reshuffle and redraw. Someone will re-draw the Piety card. Play, rinse, repeat. With 7 players, running down the deck happens pretty fast, even though you can't draw if you have 12 or more cards.

Ok, still don't see how that's overly helpful in winning. :)

So you spend 30 turns or whatever building up a couple of extra life points each and some extra cards in hand. Meanwhile, bad stuff is happening all that time, grail is getting out of reach, Excalibur the same, armour filling up with who knows what.

Nope : nothing wrong happens during this time, since you just sacrifices Life Points as evil actions. And because you played no card but Piety, each time you reshuffle, you draw Piety again -and play it, etc. Once you are all at 6 Life points (except the last one who played Piety, who is at 5), you start the quests, without doing other evil actions that hitpoints.