Shadows over Camelot | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Wraith — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:14:02 +0000

David Anam wrote:
Wraith wrote:
In that case you have not made the approach to planning any less rigid than it is in the standard game. All your house rule does is give knights an extra action every time they go to a quest.

Actually, there are a variety of things you can do with the house rule that would be bad moves or risky moves in the regular game. For example, if you only hold one grail card, joining the grail quest is largely useless because it would require 2 turns for you to contribute anything and then have to move unless the quest was completed

All you have to do to make your one grail card useful is time your arrival at the quest appropriately. When the quest will finish within one round of play, you can move and pay a life point to play the card immediately. Before your turn comes around again, you will be sent back to Camelot for free, with your life point repaid. It's not that joining the Grail quest with only a single grail card is bad play, it's just that you have to apply some tactical thought to make it good play.

David Anam wrote:
(and you can't be sure of how many despair cards would come up between your move and action).

If you need to be sure of it, you can - if you have one grail card to play, you can move and then spend a life to play the card, so you know for sure that there will be zero despair cards played between your move and action. Your house rule doesn't introduce this possibility, it just eliminates the cost of making the move. You no longer have to weigh the benefit of immediate play against the value of a life point.

David Anam wrote:
With the house rule, contributing small amounts to a quest becomes a better strategy than in the regular game, where the "down payment" for entering a quest means that it's not worth it unless you can contribute significantly.

The cost of moving to a quest is always repaid upon successful completion of that quest - assuming you play with a little strategy so that you don't have to leave before it finishes.

David Anam wrote:
Incidentally, this seems to give the traitor more options as well, as providing "a little help but not much" would be a dead giveaway in the main game, but is a little more expected with the variant, leading to more suspicion.

And that helps the traitor precisely how? The whole point of contributing only a little to each quest is that in the intervening time, the traitor is wasting actions on movement.

David Anam wrote:
Wraith wrote:
Incidentally, that includes every time they go to a quest to which they cannot contribute. Got no Grail cards? Doesn't matter, go there anyway, just when it is about to finish, because that's a free life point.

That's true, but you could have also gone to a quest where you could contribute. So you are essentially losing your turn to gain a life point.

Not if you take another action first, and then move. (Draw white cards at Camelot, finish another quest and be returned to Camelot automatically, play a special white card.)

There might be times when you need to take an action at another quest right now. In those cases, you miss out on the free life point. Diddums. But what I said is still true - when you take advantage of it, the house rule gives life for free.

David Anam wrote:
And some balancing could be necessary. Possibly start by drawing one black card for every player before play begins or requiring more white swords to win. Hard to say exactly what would be needed until we try the game some more, with and without the house rule.

You grossly underestimate the power of your house rule. Also, the power of simple analysis.

David Anam wrote:
It also seems that you are assuming we are playing with experienced gamers. Some of our group simply aren't that good at playing games and so making the game easier isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I understand that some groups need an easier game, and that some groups might get discouraged with a tough game before learning the strategies they might need to win. However, your house rule simply adapts the game to allow bad strategies to win. As it makes every poor strategy you use a winning strategy, it doesn't help the group to improve at the game.

A good house rule for groups who are still learning would allow you to gradually increase the difficulty as the group improves, and would encourage you to learn better strategy in order to win the game. If you simply make your current strategies win by changing the game, you don't have that incentive to improve. Sooner or later the group will probably realise that they can't lose the game. Nor will the group have any chance of winning the standard game, as poor play has become so engrained. At that point, SOC goes on the shelf and stays there.

A better house rule for newbie groups would be to simply give everyone extra life and/or extra cards to start. Extra life means you can play somewhat inefficiently and still stave off defeat for a while longer. Extra cards means you can more easily find something to do with your starting hand (and you get to see more combinations of cards - helpful for learning) and don't have to worry about drawing cards for later in the game. As the group gets better, you gradually reduce the advantage (remember that one life point is worth about two white cards). The relative value of different strategies is unchanged, so you get to learn strategies which will remain applicable once you move on to the standard game.

David Anam wrote:
Yes, we go to quests in groups even without this rule, but what quest we can legitimately help feels very limited and predetermined in the base rules. You are given a hand and that hand dictates which quest you help. This is somewhat still true, but less so because having even one grail makes you a candidate for the grail group, rather than feeling like you need 3 to qualify, for example.

One grail is enough to attend the Grail quest. You just have to time your arrival correctly.

Though, really, if you are talking about starting hands, you usually should not be holding exactly one grail card when your first turn comes around. A singleton grail card is a top candidate for sharing with your fellows at the start of the game. If, for some reason, you don't put your grail card into the mix, somebody else usually should have, in which case you ask for it to make a pair. The sharing of cards at the start of the game is a very important part of Shadows Over Camelot, because it is there that you get your first opportunity to apply strategy. If your moves are being dictated solely by what you are dealt, you need to pay more attention to this.

(Come to that, sharing two cards each at this time is probably a much better house rule than yours. It gives your group much more opportunity to see how cards combine, and what good combinations you can come up with for the group rather than for the individual. Or just deal a certain number of white cards into the initial pot, for more fine-grained control over the difficulty of the game.)

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

timstellmach — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:34:15 +0000

by timstellmach

MasterDinadan wrote:
byronczimmer wrote:
Intentionally losing quests isn't a very good strategy.

Unless you know who the traitor is.

Or you have a very big lead in white swords.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

sightreader — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:56:08 +0000

by sightreader

A game for the detail oriented!

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

David Anam — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:38:46 +0000

by David Anam

Wraith wrote:
I think you may start to understand why people (including myself) have misinterpreted your house rule when you realise that Camelot is a quest.

You did provide a parenthesised further explanation, comparing the movement allowance to Tristan's standard power, but you have to admit that telling us that movement to a quest is free indicates that movement to Camelot is free, because Camelot is a quest.

Good point, I didn't realize that.

Wraith wrote:
In that case you have not made the approach to planning any less rigid than it is in the standard game. All your house rule does is give knights an extra action every time they go to a quest.

Actually, there are a variety of things you can do with the house rule that would be bad moves or risky moves in the regular game. For example, if you only hold one grail card, joining the grail quest is largely useless because it would require 2 turns for you to contribute anything and then have to move unless the quest was completed (and you can't be sure of how many despair cards would come up between your move and action).

With the house rule, contributing small amounts to a quest becomes a better strategy than in the regular game, where the "down payment" for entering a quest means that it's not worth it unless you can contribute significantly.

Incidentally, this seems to give the traitor more options as well, as providing "a little help but not much" would be a dead giveaway in the main game, but is a little more expected with the variant, leading to more suspicion.

Whether or not these are good changes could be debated, but to say that it is no less rigid is simply not true.

Wraith wrote:
Incidentally, that includes every time they go to a quest to which they cannot contribute. Got no Grail cards? Doesn't matter, go there anyway, just when it is about to finish, because that's a free life point.

That's true, but you could have also gone to a quest where you could contribute. So you are essentially losing your turn to gain a life point. It's better than discarding 3 cards, but not free.

Wraith wrote:
Anyway, three loyal knights between them should be able to generate 15 extra actions easily using that house rule over the course of a game. It'd be like giving the loyal knights a 3 white sword head start at the beginning of the game.

And some balancing could be necessary. Possibly start by drawing one black card for every player before play begins or requiring more white swords to win. Hard to say exactly what would be needed until we try the game some more, with and without the house rule.

It also seems that you are assuming we are playing with experienced gamers. Some of our group simply aren't that good at playing games and so making the game easier isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Wraith wrote:
A good group of players will be playing that way anyway. The standard mechanics of SOC very heavily favour working on quests (other than solo quests) as a group. It sounds to me like your group just hadn't worked that out before you instituted the house rule.

Yes, we go to quests in groups even without this rule, but what quest we can legitimately help feels very limited and predetermined in the base rules. You are given a hand and that hand dictates which quest you help. This is somewhat still true, but less so because having even one grail makes you a candidate for the grail group, rather than feeling like you need 3 to qualify, for example.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

ackmondual — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:59:35 +0000

by ackmondual

kduke wrote:
The soul of the game is multi-player interaction...

I'm well aware of that. However, when a game becomes very difficult to play due to ever so decreasing opportunities, then it's still a great enough game I'd like to try in computer format.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

kduke — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:44:02 +0000

by kduke

The soul of the game is multi-player interaction...

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

Cactusgod — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:48:58 +0000

by Cactusgod

Vassal seems to be the only, and best, implementation of this game. I realize it's not automated and doesn't necessarily help in that regard, but the game is faithfully represented. It definitely feels like you've got the board set up in front of you.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: News:: Re: Any word on the expansion?

Nordiska — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:22:09 +0000

by Nordiska

Any news on a new expansion? (Other than Merlin's Company)

Still could use one that adds more boards and quests. Heres to hoping.:whistle:

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Win or Lose?

BeanThere — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:01:47 +0000

by BeanThere

It actually answers this in their FAQ:
http://www.daysofwonder.com/shadowsovercamelot/en/content/fa...

Which Says:
"During a defeat against the Picts (or Saxons) where a 12th Siege Engine is laid simultaneously with a 12th sword, of which a majority are white, is the game won (because of the majority of White swords) or lost (because of the 12 Siege Engines)?

In this case the game is lost: It is lost the instant a 12th Siege Engine is laid around Camelot, before there is even a chance for the Knights to count the White swords!"

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Win or Lose?

elfrododumbo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:02:19 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Even though there are 12 swords, precedence is given to the 12th siege engine that is laid down, so the siege area wins. That is the way I interpret the rules.
If I am wrong then I must have won my last game, too :laugh:

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Win or Lose?

kduke — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:19:33 +0000

by kduke

No need to interpret-- rules say the instant the 12th siege engine goes down, the forces of good lose (no matter what else).

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Win or Lose?

Mr_Nuts — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:11:56 +0000

by Mr_Nuts

The game tends to break all ties to the disadvantage of the players, so in this event I'd call it a loss. Don't know an official ruling, but a loss would be in the spirit of the game.

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Win or Lose?

mestertolvaj — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:06:37 +0000

by mestertolvaj

Hi everyone!

I have a question:

victory rule:
- more White swords

loss rule:
- 12 siege engine

example:
The Round table : 8 White swords; 3 Black swords

The Siege Area: 10 Siege Engine

Loss a war of Pict, so add 1 black sword in camelot and put 2 siege engine in the siege area.

Now :
The Round table : 8 White swords; 3 Black swords + 1 Black = 12 (more white) game end and Win.

but

The Siege Area: 10 Siege Engine + 2 siege engine = 12, so game end too,but we lose.

Which one?
Lose or Win?
Thx any help.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

jtspecial — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:29:44 +0000

by jtspecial

Shadows over Camelot at Thursday game night.

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

slate43 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:30:00 +0000

by slate43

I have trained our group to begin to role play.

One of the ways to "train" a group is to appoint yourself (if it is your game of course) as King Arthur a few times. Set the ground rules about the King's role as one who can stop endless discussion having the final say in the problem solving/planning process. This will prevent too much group grope and AP. The King is also the ref about being too specific about cards. As a result of this regal appointment our group is learning to strategize openly without speaking specifically about the cards in hand. For example when there is a need to battle saxons or picts a knight may say " My men and I intend to engage the saxon dogs, but alas we only have the strength to endure until mid-day."

OR "I will take on the saxon dogs at once but your assistance will be required within the hour!"

OR "There is an outcry to resume the quest for the grail and I am quite prepared to do so!"

You get the drift...we are learning to get into the spirit of the game.

Make King Arthur more than just a board token, use him as the game facilitator. And, as more people become more familiar with the "spirit" of the game they will have a chance at being the King as well.

Remember after all, Arthur is the King of the knights of the round table, and it is good to be King. Of course if the King is the traitor that makes his role and personal strategy even more interesting.:ninja:

I must beg your leave now good sirs, as the Black Knight has challenged me to a joust, that heartless swine!

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

xxotaruxx — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:46:29 +0000

by xxotaruxx

I find that the game is difficult and much more fun when you do not discuss specifics of your hand with the other knights. We have a kind of running joke that in order to talk (about the game), you must talk in the third person [i.e. Sir Gallahad thinks that Sir Tristan is an asshat (This is said way to often haha)]. Telling the other players your hand just ruins the whole aspect of having any individual play in this game. Yes, you want to loyal knights to win if you are loyal, but if the other knights know your hand, why not just play in one big group on one knight with one large hand? Half the fun is not know what is going to happen next, even if you think you do.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Wraith — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:20:32 +0000

by Wraith

David Anam wrote:
There seems to be some misunderstanding of my house rule. You can only move from Camelot to a quest for free.

I think you may start to understand why people (including myself) have misinterpreted your house rule when you realise that Camelot is a quest.

You did provide a parenthesised further explanation, comparing the movement allowance to Tristan's standard power, but you have to admit that telling us that movement to a quest is free indicates that movement to Camelot is free, because Camelot is a quest.

David Anam wrote:
All other movement still takes your action (unless you are Sir Tristan, who can move about freely). It is still a bad strategy to constantly move around the board and once you pick a quest, you probably should stick with it.

In that case you have not made the approach to planning any less rigid than it is in the standard game. All your house rule does is give knights an extra action every time they go to a quest.

Incidentally, that includes every time they go to a quest to which they cannot contribute. Got no Grail cards? Doesn't matter, go there anyway, just when it is about to finish, because that's a free life point.

Anyway, three loyal knights between them should be able to generate 15 extra actions easily using that house rule over the course of a game. It'd be like giving the loyal knights a 3 white sword head start at the beginning of the game.

David Anam wrote:
But it helped the game move faster and because grouping up against quests is encouraged with this rule, it felt a little more like a team game, which we enjoyed.

A good group of players will be playing that way anyway. The standard mechanics of SOC very heavily favour working on quests (other than solo quests) as a group. It sounds to me like your group just hadn't worked that out before you instituted the house rule.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

David Anam — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:25:50 +0000

by David Anam

There seems to be some misunderstanding of my house rule. You can only move from Camelot to a quest for free. All other movement still takes your action (unless you are Sir Tristan, who can move about freely). It is still a bad strategy to constantly move around the board and once you pick a quest, you probably should stick with it.

It only really helps you directly after completing a quest (and reduces the penalty of losing a quest), allowing you a free move from Camelot to get back out there and start helping another quest. That means if you are completing quests alone, you will get a free move every 4 or 5 turns (normal time to complete a quest). However, this rule very much encourages ganging up on quests, where 5 people could spend one turn each to complete the Picts, for example, and then everyone would get a free move. So in an instance such as that you would be doubling your turns.

Sir Tristan is the only one who can ignore all commitments to a quest and every turn help out somewhere else if he wants. Of course, you are still limited by what cards you have and the fact that some quests only allow one knight.

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that this rule makes the game easier and if we see that we are winning every time, we will either modify it or throw it out. But it helped the game move faster and because grouping up against quests is encouraged with this rule, it felt a little more like a team game, which we enjoyed.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

ashman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:19:31 +0000

by ashman

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
But knowing I could do a task alone, and binding other players to me in a quest that in my experience can be done over several turns without problems, would make me feel stupid. Why waste actions for movement when the others could find the Grail or Excalibur in the meantime?

What waste of actions for movement? You need to check out the maths of the game. As every quest gives every knight on it at least one life point for victorious completion, and every life point is worth precisely one action, there is never any waste of actions for moving extra knights there.

That's a strategic decision. I tend to think concentrating the players on the Grail or Excalibur quests, where unfortunate black cards drawn early can make success almost impossible, more useful.

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
We will never agree on this point as what you call cheating falls into my category of information that clearly needs to be given.

What is and is not cheating is agreed upon by the group before the game starts. If you and I never agree on this point, we should never play SOC together. More to the point, if you encounter any group that plays with strict limits on table talk in order to give the game some challenge for them, you should not play with them. If you do, giving away information the way you describe is cheating when playing with that group.

This is a completely new issue. I thought we were comparing how our groups handled this differently, not coming to a common rules interpretation for our next game.
As with any game with "well known" house rules - like handling "Free Parking" in Monopoly (sorry for saying the word, but it's one example that springs to my mind) - or a rules set that leaves room for interpretation like this one, this interpretation has to be discussed or made known before playing.
I don't see where I said I wanted to force every gaming group in the world to succumb to my view, in fact I think I wrote the exact opposite in my previous post.

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
But yes, instead of leaving my hand full of cards that fit this quest and that I may not be able to use for something else soon, other players should work on other quests.

Don't give me that. I wouldn't be helping you with a quest if my hand did not also fit what I was doing there. The best thing to do is to finish the quest together, then share the cards that are part of the reward to retool both hands to fit the next task.

Again, a strategic decision. If another player came and said. "I'm in a fighting mood. Let me join you, my friend" this can be considered. But that does not have anything to do with the original argument, being able to do it alone and not telling.

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
What I'm saying (maybe in a too cynical way) is again that I find exactly this information vital. If I cannot give this information, I cannot think of anything really helpful to say. "Let's go find the Grail" - "Oh, you have grail cards, but not enough to finish the task. Please do not give away so much information".

Asking for assistance on the Grail quest does not indicate that the asker does not have enough cards to finish the Grail quest. It indicates that the Grail quest will be finished faster (generally much faster) by several knights. (In fact, with more than four players, there's a good chance that a solo knight will never finish the Grail quest, even with an unlimited supply of Grail cards. There's no such thing as "enough to finish the task".) It is legitimate information to give, and does not give away what you believe it does.

If you can't figure that out, it's no wonder you find giving more information vital.

OK, you took the example literal. I guess we might really not have much fun together if we met.

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
In the end, there is no "right" solution to this discussion. The rules are vague on purpose upon these points. If you find the game too hard, play with open cards. If you find it too easy, don't talk at all.

And the person to whom you gave advice finds the game too easy when the group says things like "I can solo the Saxons." Hence, his group should not do that. Context is important; you should try to bear it in mind.

He said the game was too easy for him and gave two examples. I found one of them to be perfectly valid. I think he already knew that not allowing both would make the game harder. I interpreted the question to be "are you allowing these kinds of statements in your games?".
But thanks for your kind advice, next time I see some context I will pay more attention.

Talking about context, my apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread: I really only wanted to tell you that one of your examples is OK in my opinion.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Kunz — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:49:25 +0000

by Kunz

Nessmk2 wrote:
I know some groups that don't speak at all while playing for an even greater challenge.

That sounds like real fun to me...

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

Peads — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:34:43 +0000

by Peads

I thought you meant 'Politically Correct' for PC. :D

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Wraith — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:43:17 +0000

by Wraith

ashman wrote:
But knowing I could do a task alone, and binding other players to me in a quest that in my experience can be done over several turns without problems, would make me feel stupid. Why waste actions for movement when the others could find the Grail or Excalibur in the meantime?

What waste of actions for movement? You need to check out the maths of the game. As every quest gives every knight on it at least one life point for victorious completion, and every life point is worth precisely one action, there is never any waste of actions for moving extra knights there.

ashman wrote:
Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
Why talk at all if this is not allowed?

Because there are plenty of useful things that can be said without giving away that information.

Again, what would you say in this situation?
EDIT: Just saw you gave some examples. But they do not really say more than just silently moving your knight to the quest would do

WTF? "I wish to go to the Saxons, but I do not think I can complete it fast enough on my own." How does that not give more information than just silently moving my knight? It points out the advisability of using certain tactics very explicitly, and attempts to coordinate my play with that of my partners.

Does it give away non-public information that other players can't get through reasoning it out themselves? No, it doesn't. Again, that's the point. Secret information remains secret, to keep the game enjoyable for skilled groups.

Also, saying something like that conveys the information without committing me to going to the war against the Saxons. I can negotiate with the other players, to figure out how many of us can go to that quest, and whether it is worth going there with that number. If I discover that I will be the only one going there, I might decide that it really isn't worth making the attempt and choose not to go there at all. That is coordinating my play with my partners, working with them.

There are ways to give your partners secret information without actually telling them. Figuring out those signals, and how to interpret the signals from your partners, is part of the challenge. Movement to a certain quest, as you point out, does convey a certain amount of information, but there are many more possible signals.

Wraith wrote:
We will never agree on this point as what you call cheating falls into my category of information that clearly needs to be given.

What is and is not cheating is agreed upon by the group before the game starts. If you and I never agree on this point, we should never play SOC together. More to the point, if you encounter any group that plays with strict limits on table talk in order to give the game some challenge for them, you should not play with them. If you do, giving away information the way you describe is cheating when playing with that group.

But yes, instead of leaving my hand full of cards that fit this quest and that I may not be able to use for something else soon, other players should work on other quests.

Don't give me that. I wouldn't be helping you with a quest if my hand did not also fit what I was doing there. The best thing to do is to finish the quest together, then share the cards that are part of the reward to retool both hands to fit the next task.

ashman wrote:
What I'm saying (maybe in a too cynical way) is again that I find exactly this information vital. If I cannot give this information, I cannot think of anything really helpful to say. "Let's go find the Grail" - "Oh, you have grail cards, but not enough to finish the task. Please do not give away so much information".

Asking for assistance on the Grail quest does not indicate that the asker does not have enough cards to finish the Grail quest. It indicates that the Grail quest will be finished faster (generally much faster) by several knights. (In fact, with more than four players, there's a good chance that a solo knight will never finish the Grail quest, even with an unlimited supply of Grail cards. There's no such thing as "enough to finish the task".) It is legitimate information to give, and does not give away what you believe it does.

If you can't figure that out, it's no wonder you find giving more information vital.

In the end, there is no "right" solution to this discussion. The rules are vague on purpose upon these points. If you find the game too hard, play with open cards. If you find it too easy, don't talk at all.

And the person to whom you gave advice finds the game too easy when the group says things like "I can solo the Saxons." Hence, his group should not do that. Context is important; you should try to bear it in mind.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

ashman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:53:41 +0000

by ashman

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
Being able to do a quest alone and not telling the others at all sounds totally stupid to me.

Giving any less information than what is permitted by the rules and your group's interpretation of the rules is stupid. Giving any more information than what is permitted by the rules and your group's interpretation of the rules is cheating. Refusing to cheat does not make a person stupid.

I did not intend to call any person stupid. But knowing I could do a task alone, and binding other players to me in a quest that in my experience can be done over several turns without problems, would make me feel stupid. Why waste actions for movement when the others could find the Grail or Excalibur in the meantime?

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
Why talk at all if this is not allowed?

Because there are plenty of useful things that can be said without giving away that information.

Again, what would you say in this situation?
EDIT: Just saw you gave some examples. But they do not really say more than just silently moving your knight to the quest would do

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
If you didn't tell and then solved the quest while someone tries to help you, I'd call you the traitor ...

And I'd call you an idiot for not checking how the group is playing the game before making an accusation on the basis of a player not cheating.
(Besides, there's not a single group quest that isn't won faster by several knights working on it at once. My completing a quest while somebody tries to help me does not harm the loyalist cause. What am I supposed to do instead? Find another action to take so that the other player can contribute? No thanks, I'll finish the quest so that both of us can more quickly move on to the next quest. That way we can work together more effectively.)

We will never agree on this point as what you call cheating falls into my category of information that clearly needs to be given. But yes, instead of leaving my hand full of cards that fit this quest and that I may not be able to use for something else soon, other players should work on other quests.

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
I totally agree on not saying things like "I need a 4" but unless you do some working together, it loses all the fun.

I'd like you to quote what I wrote in this thread that indicates that I believe players should not work together. I mean it. Find what I said, quote it, and tell me how you get your interpretation of it.

Because I do not believe I said anything r.emotely like that. Take a look at the three examples of things that I might say in a game of SOC that allow me to coordinate my play with that of my partners. How do you reconcile that with your assertion that I think players should not work together?

What I'm saying (maybe in a too cynical way) is again that I find exactly this information vital. If I cannot give this information, I cannot think of anything really helpful to say. "Let's go find the Grail" - "Oh, you have grail cards, but not enough to finish the task. Please do not give away so much information".

In the end, there is no "right" solution to this discussion. The rules are vague on purpose upon these points. If you find the game too hard, play with open cards. If you find it too easy, don't talk at all. If you're in the mood, use coconuts to make horse riding noises when changing locations. There's no "tournament rules" we have to agree upon.
With my play groups, we just about spread even between wins / losses against traitor plus the odd traitorless loss due to bad cards or bad judgement. So the level of communication seems good for us.
You can interpret the rules in the way you think brings the best experience with your group.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Are there consequences if no one is on the quest?

Wraith — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:35:50 +0000

by Wraith

GamerAtom wrote:
mrb88 wrote:
One of the consequences is future Lancelot/Dragon cards drawn become Siege Engines.
Check out the bottom of page 4 of The Book Of Quests.

Once the Dragon, Excalibur, or the Holy Grail's Quests have been completed (and won, or lost), any Black card associated with them (Lancelot/Dragon card, Excalibur, Despair, Desolation, Dark Forest) that is drawn later in the game adds a Siege Engine to Camelot instead.

I played this for the first time today, but for the Excalibur cards, unlike the Lancelot cards, it does not say to add a siege engine if it can not be played (quest has ended). Is this in the rules somewhere (add a siege engine for black excalibur cards if the quest is completed)?

Bottom of page 4 of the Book of Quests - exactly where mrb88 said. The last paragraph that you quoted is a direct quote of the relevant paragraph.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Are there consequences if no one is on the quest?

Werbaer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:58:17 +0000

by Werbaer

GamerAtom wrote:
I played this for the first time today, but for the Excalibur cards, unlike the Lancelot cards, it does not say to add a siege engine if it can not be played (quest has ended). Is this in the rules somewhere (add a siege engine for black excalibur cards if the quest is completed)?

IIRC you have to turn over the quest board when it's finished (failed or won), and it's there on it's back.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Are there consequences if no one is on the quest?

ackmondual — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:42:04 +0000

by ackmondual

GamerAtom wrote:
mrb88 wrote:
johnnyLikesGames wrote:
For example, we drew all black Lancelot and Dragon cards and the quest filled up with black cards. No one had undertaken that quest, however. Is the board just removed? No consequences? I looked on page 11 and couldn't tell and didn't see it in the book of quests. thanks.

One of the consequences is future Lancelot/Dragon cards drawn become Siege Engines.
Check out the bottom of page 4 of The Book Of Quests.

Once the Dragon, Excalibur, or the Holy Grail's Quests have been completed (and won, or lost), any Black card associated with them (Lancelot/Dragon card, Excalibur, Despair, Desolation, Dark Forest) that is drawn later in the game adds a Siege Engine to Camelot instead.

I played this for the first time today, but for the Excalibur cards, unlike the Lancelot cards, it does not say to add a siege engine if it can not be played (quest has ended). Is this in the rules somewhere (add a siege engine for black excalibur cards if the quest is completed)?

IIRC, the cards for Lancelot's Armor's quest are multi-use/dual-purpose for Lancelot and the Dragon's quest. If Lancelot is done, but Dragon isn't, it gets put on the Dragon's quest instead. If Dragon is done, THEN it adds a capapult.

It's been a while since I played the game, but I'm fairly certain of this.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Are there consequences if no one is on the quest?

GamerAtom — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:12:10 +0000

by GamerAtom

mrb88 wrote:
johnnyLikesGames wrote:
For example, we drew all black Lancelot and Dragon cards and the quest filled up with black cards. No one had undertaken that quest, however. Is the board just removed? No consequences? I looked on page 11 and couldn't tell and didn't see it in the book of quests. thanks.

One of the consequences is future Lancelot/Dragon cards drawn become Siege Engines.
Check out the bottom of page 4 of The Book Of Quests.

Once the Dragon, Excalibur, or the Holy Grail's Quests have been completed (and won, or lost), any Black card associated with them (Lancelot/Dragon card, Excalibur, Despair, Desolation, Dark Forest) that is drawn later in the game adds a Siege Engine to Camelot instead.

I played this for the first time today, but for the Excalibur cards, unlike the Lancelot cards, it does not say to add a siege engine if it can not be played (quest has ended). Is this in the rules somewhere (add a siege engine for black excalibur cards if the quest is completed)?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Wraith — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:46:53 +0000

by Wraith

ashman wrote:
Being able to do a quest alone and not telling the others at all sounds totally stupid to me.

Giving any less information than what is permitted by the rules and your group's interpretation of the rules is stupid. Giving any more information than what is permitted by the rules and your group's interpretation of the rules is cheating. Refusing to cheat does not make a person stupid.

ashman wrote:
Why talk at all if this is not allowed?

Because there are plenty of useful things that can be said without giving away that information.

ashman wrote:
If you didn't tell and then solved the quest while someone tries to help you, I'd call you the traitor ...

And I'd call you an idiot for not checking how the group is playing the game before making an accusation on the basis of a player not cheating.

(Besides, there's not a single group quest that isn't won faster by several knights working on it at once. My completing a quest while somebody tries to help me does not harm the loyalist cause. What am I supposed to do instead? Find another action to take so that the other player can contribute? No thanks, I'll finish the quest so that both of us can more quickly move on to the next quest. That way we can work together more effectively.)

ashman wrote:
I totally agree on not saying things like "I need a 4" but unless you do some working together, it loses all the fun.

I'd like you to quote what I wrote in this thread that indicates that I believe players should not work together. I mean it. Find what I said, quote it, and tell me how you get your interpretation of it.

Because I do not believe I said anything remotely like that. Take a look at the three examples of things that I might say in a game of SOC that allow me to coordinate my play with that of my partners. How do you reconcile that with your assertion that I think players should not work together?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Nessmk2 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:04:59 +0000

by Nessmk2

That rule can be sort of fast and loose. If you're constantly being rocked, you can loosen it up a bit and give away more information, then, once you have the game down and start winning more again, you tone it down. I know some groups that don't speak at all while playing for an even greater challenge.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

ashman — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:52:04 +0000

by ashman

Wraith wrote:
ashman wrote:
Huey182 wrote:
"I can solo the Saxons."

From my perspective, this is OK. How could you give the info in a less precise way?

That's the point of playing with stricter interpretations of the table talk rules. Giving the info makes the game too easy. It doesn't matter if the code is a little less precise - if the info is transmitted, the game becomes too easy for many of us.

Yes, but what is less precise in this case? Being able to do a quest alone and not telling the others at all sounds totally stupid to me. Why talk at all if this is not allowed?
If you didn't tell and then solved the quest while someone tries to help you, I'd call you the traitor ...

I totally agree on not saying things like "I need a 4" but unless you do some working together, it loses all the fun.

What would you say in this case?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Guantanamo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:50:59 +0000

by Guantanamo

Blott wrote:
"Constantly win"? Have you been playing with a traitor (or 2)?

Yeah, last time we played, we got our asses HANDED to us. Of course, King Arther insisted I was one of the traitors. And called me out on it even though I was loyal. The traitor didn't need to do much even though my son called him out fairly early. We needed up without the second being in play.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Blott — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:28:17 +0000

by Blott

"Constantly win"? Have you been playing with a traitor (or 2)?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Wraith — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:02:38 +0000

by Wraith

ashman wrote:
Huey182 wrote:
"I can solo the Saxons."

From my perspective, this is OK. How could you give the info in a less precise way?

That's the point of playing with stricter interpretations of the table talk rules. Giving the info makes the game too easy. It doesn't matter if the code is a little less precise - if the info is transmitted, the game becomes too easy for many of us.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

bikini — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:00:10 +0000

by bikini

I try to avoid talking numbers or other card specifics, but saying you need help or can do it alone is within the spirit of the game.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Wraith — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:59:29 +0000

by Wraith

Huey182 wrote:
Second, the collaboration is causing us to constantly win. We tend to share too much about what we can and can not do.

You don't actually ask a question here. I think the reason you don't ask a question here is because you already know how to deal with the problem. You share to much information. Stop doing that.

The game can be won without giving any secret information away at all (at least not with speech - there are ways to send legitimate signals just by taking certain actions on the game board). Figure out how. It's more of a challenge that way.

Huey182 wrote:
Also can we openly discuss strategy like what quest needs to be focused on?

Yes. Discussing strategies based on public information is quite acceptable (and is half the fun of the game).

So, it is fine to say, "I intend to go to the Saxons, regardless of whether anyone wishes to come and help." It is fine to say, "I intend to go to the Saxons, but victory will come faster if somebody else comes to help." It is even fine to say, "I wish to go to the Saxons, but I don't think it can be finished fast enough without assistance. Is anybody else willing to come with me?" All of these things are (or can be) true regardless of the cards in the speaker's hand.

But it is not fine to say, "I wish to go to the Saxons, but cannot finish the quest without aid." (Not by the very strict interpretations I prefer, anyway.) That gives away information about the speaker's hand, so I won't say it.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

ashman — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:43:39 +0000

by ashman

Huey182 wrote:
"I can solo the Saxons."

From my perspective, this is OK. How could you give the info in a less precise way?

"My fellow knights, brave Sir XYZ will take on these fiendish bastards alone"

might be more flavorful, though

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Some clarification please

Luke the Flaming — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:26:26 +0000

by Luke the Flaming

Without Arthur it is just a bit harder. But feel free to do so (I know I did :) ).
And try to enforce the "no precise info" rule... both your example should NOT be allowed. Discussing strategy on Quests is fine, while saying "I miss the 3 (or whatever name you use for it) to defeat the Saxons" is not.
Have fun! :meeple:

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Some clarification please

Huey182 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:15:47 +0000

by Huey182

I have recently purchased Shadows over Camelot and it's expansion Merlin's Company. Some questions have arisen after playing 5 games.

First, With the expansion is it necessary to always play with King Arthur. I know the rules state that he must always, but does it change the game if he is not?

Second, the collaboration is causing us to constantly win. We tend to share too much about what we can and can not do. Such as "I can solo the Saxons." or "I am in need of the middle fight card." Also can we openly discuss strategy like what quest needs to be focused on?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

ackmondual — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:47:33 +0000

by ackmondual

Grudunza wrote:
There is a Vassal module that works okay.

Keep forgetting about Vassal. I know beggars can't be choosers, but would like to hear if there are any programs that automate things and enforce rules as well. Will definitely check out Vassal in the meantime though.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

byronczimmer — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:00:26 +0000

by byronczimmer

One trap people fall into is thinking of the game in units of 'turns' and not 'quest completions'. Sure, moving OR playing a card seems like a limiting thing, but viewed as part of a larger sequence (move, play 3 cards), it is much more rewarding.

I concur that the traitor has absolutely no chance in this variant.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

Grudunza — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:27:20 +0000

by Grudunza

There is a Vassal module that works okay.

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Is there a PC implementation of this anywhere?

ackmondual — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:36:23 +0000

by ackmondual

Multiplayer ain't even necessary. I'm more interested in a game where a single player controls multiple knights. No traitor of course. Loosely subscribing to the theory that with no traitor element, or any players working on an opposing team, it's practically a one-man show in a manner of speaking.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Wraith — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:32:34 +0000

by Wraith

David Anam wrote:
Using base rules, it feels like you have to follow a very rigid plan if you want to win the game.

Depends on your definition of "very rigid plan". The cost for moving between quests means that once you decide what you are going to do, you really have to follow through with it. So, you might call it rigid, if what that means to you is that you can't change plans every turn.

But there is certainly variation in what plan you decide to enact. It isn't as if you set your plan before the game starts and just enact an algorithm in play. The game certainly doesn't require rigidity in the sense that you don't get to decide what to do.

A lot depends on whether you want the decisions you make to matter. With the standard rules, you need to make the right choices, because if you don't you will be stuck with consequences. With your change, the choice of which quest to work on really doesn't matter, because it involves no commitment. You might like the lack of commitment and consequences - after all, it does reduce the stress of decision-making.

(That's in addition to being given a whole lot of additional actions over the course of the game by your house rule. Between the two factors, I don't see how anybody could ever lose using that house rule, barring utter incompetence.)

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

byronczimmer — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:47:13 +0000

by byronczimmer

David Anam wrote:
byronczimmer wrote:
This is a bad idea. If leaving a quest has no action penalty, then you are making it too easy to flit around the board. Planning is required in order to maximize time spent at a given quest and minimize movement. Removing that element will make it far too easy.

Isn't it better to beat the game by the rules than win by a house rule, knowing you wouldn't have won properly?

While I certainly agree that it changes the focus of the game, "flitting around the board" seems to be more fun. The reason we implemented the house rule was not to make the game easier, but to allow the game to move a bit faster and to allow more variety in what we do while still having a chance at winning.

Using base rules, it feels like you have to follow a very rigid plan if you want to win the game. My group didn't find that particularly fun.

Whether or not it is a "bad idea," it did improve the game in my group's eyes, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

I admit to being a game rules purist.

Now that that's out there, the reason I have a fairly strong dislike of house rules is that they are usually introduced because the players have missed some critical purpose for the existing rules, are misplaying some important part of the game or otherwise have failed to hit upon whatever the house rule is trying to fix.

If it makes the game more fun for you, that's fine. But as I continually close with on house-rule threads: If any person at the table wants to play with the rules as written (RAW), the table should be obligated to abide by that request. This doesn't matter for house games, but is extremely important when cross pollenating at conventions or outside your primary group.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

KingDiamond — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:05:04 +0000

by KingDiamond

This is what makes Shadows over Camelot great!

I bought this game 2 years ago and played it a dozen of times and I believe I only won it once or twice... It's a tough game and when there's a traitor, it's almost hopeless.

The only thing that makes senses to me is to stick with your team and do all the quests together...

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

David Anam — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:16:31 +0000

by David Anam

byronczimmer wrote:
This is a bad idea. If leaving a quest has no action penalty, then you are making it too easy to flit around the board. Planning is required in order to maximize time spent at a given quest and minimize movement. Removing that element will make it far too easy.

Isn't it better to beat the game by the rules than win by a house rule, knowing you wouldn't have won properly?

While I certainly agree that it changes the focus of the game, "flitting around the board" seems to be more fun. The reason we implemented the house rule was not to make the game easier, but to allow the game to move a bit faster and to allow more variety in what we do while still having a chance at winning.

Using base rules, it feels like you have to follow a very rigid plan if you want to win the game. My group didn't find that particularly fun.

Whether or not it is a "bad idea," it did improve the game in my group's eyes, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Wraith — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:08:29 +0000

by Wraith

Maize wrote:
I see a lot of advice saying that you should almost never put siege engines out and you should rarely take life points but that instead you should draw black cards until you're just on the verge of having a quest fail because of it. What I'm curious about is how long / how common or rare that is for people. What we've run into, and perhaps we've just been unlucky, is that a quest will usually be in a "fail on one unlucky black card draw" state by at the very latest the second round of players drawing cards, and will be in that state almost continuously for the entire game.

If you really aren't exaggerating, you need to shuffle your deck better. The probability of things being as bad as you say (and especially with what you later imply, with the trouble coming with three consecutive cards) is very low.

If you are exaggerating, don't. Firstly, it makes analysis of your problems difficult here. Secondly, it leads to panic at the table, and panic will cause you to lose SOC almost every time.

We're now halfway around the table and we're in a state where one more black knight card loses the quest for us. So we all rush to complete the black knight quest and take life point hits to do so, but now everybody's at 3 life. [...] "OMG, we're going to lose but I have no useful cards to do anything about that, I guess I'll lose a life,"

Now, on the occasions when this isn't just histrionics, you need to be prepared to just buck up and take the hit. Keep your eye on the prize - 12 swords, 9 of them white, is your goal, not 12 white swords. So you take a single black sword when the Black Knight defeats you, and be thankful for the four free actions you have gotten over the course of that quest losing. Use those actions to get some white swords out.

The time to spend life is when a quest is about to be lost, but you (as a group) are in a position to do something about it. If you can't win that quest before you have to draw the next black card, spending life to avoid drawing the next black card is just delaying the inevitable and depriving yourselves of resources and information that you need to win the game. When the next black card could lose the quest and you can win the quest in five turns of play, though, you spend the five life points to give you those five turns of play free.

Don't forget your Merlins, either. You can afford to use a Merlin every now and then to pull a quest back from the brink (just enough to allow you to complete it successfully, of course - again, don't waste the resource if you can't turn it into an actual gain).

Incidentally, I strongly advise not drawing cards at Camelot until you have hefty hands. Twelve cards in hand just means you are looking for twelve actions to use your available resources. You only need the cards to do what you need to do, plus maybe one or two in case of forced discards, so draw only until you have identified your objective and have the cards to complete that objective. Winning a quest will give you back the cards you need to move onto the next quest, and if it doesn't, well, you haven't lost anything by having to draw then, because you saved the same number of actions by not drawing earlier.

I've gone entire games without ever drawing cards at Camelot. It sometimes just isn't necessary, and a white card in your hand at the end of the game is a resource that was wasted. Paraphrasing an actual conversation from a game:

"We need exactly two white swords to win. I propose that I lead the way to the Dragon."
"You've only got three cards in hand. You can't fight the dragon."
"I only need three cards, as long as they're the right cards! Me and two others, that's enough. Who's with me?"

We so kicked that dragon's butt.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

byronczimmer — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:46:45 +0000

by byronczimmer

Maize wrote:
Player 1 draws: "Oh, it's a black knight card."
Player 2 draws: "Black knight card for me too."
Player 3 draws: "Wow, that sucks. Black knight."

We're now halfway around the table and we're in a state where one more black knight card loses the quest for us.

So let him stand there unopposed. You lose a single sword to the table and have gotten 4 'free' life out of it (the life you didn't spend because you drew a card instead).

PLUS, if you put those cards face down, you got to draw white cards instead.

1 sword for 4 free white cards and a minimum of 4 life you didn't spend... Seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

MasterDinadan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:23:45 +0000

by MasterDinadan

First of all, someone should head to Lancelot as soon as they are able, particularly with a large number of players. It takes many ROUNDS to complete it because only one person can be there, and completing it is vital.

Otherwise, the Pict and Saxon wars are the most important quests. Losing them is very bad. The Black Knight is generally safe to ignore. It takes a fair amount of time to lose, and it isn't particularly rewarding. Go there if you have nothing better to do.

Most games I play, the Grail quest never finishes one way or the other. The Excalibur is good for an "end-game" rush to fill the table. Everyone just goes there and starts trashing cards and it is over in no time.

So, draw until you are on the brink of failure, meanwhile you should be drawing white cards in Camelot or heading to quests that have the most blacks and you can easily win. Once a quest is almost failed, everyone can lose some life and head to the quest and win it (or if it is Black Knight, ignoring it is alright). In the case of Excalibur or Grail, simply stalling it is okay.

Note that everyone on the quest gains a life when the quest is finished. This offsets the cost of travelling there. Also, every quest pays out almost as many white cards as were spent on the quest. Once you have a good hand (which you got from drawing until the brink of failure), you can bounce from quest to quest and pretty effectively knock them out quickly.

You'll be able to start drawing black cards again, but this time people will already be on quests because they have plenty of cards. Hopefully, the quests will be nearly finished by the time it is on the brink of failure, so next time around you won't have to spend as much time losing life or adding siege. Anyone in Camelot (or who wants to go back to Camelot) should go ahead and visit the quest that's about to be won (the "travel cost" is refunded due to the life point, and if any of the cards are particularly good for you, you get to share them). Tristan and Palamedes should try to be on the winning quest whether they are in Camelot or not, unless they are on a solo quest.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

MasterDinadan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:12:37 +0000

by MasterDinadan

byronczimmer wrote:
bkpihl wrote:
If you add cards more often you'll do better. Once you get to midgame you actually want to lose some less punishing quests to get a few black swords and end the game quicker. (aim for 8 white and 4 black)

Intentionally losing quests isn't a very good strategy.

Unless you know who the traitor is.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Maize — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:49:18 +0000

by Maize

We've only played SoC ... three times now, so it's heartening to hear from experienced players that the game gets easier once you've gained some skill at it. I think that the problem may be motivating our gaming group to keep playing it until we get to that point. It's already getting a bit of a reputation as being an unwinnable / hopeless game.

Each time we've played, we've lost, but usually not just by a little but incredible utter abject defeat. Also, we almost always have one or more knights die.

I see a lot of advice saying that you should almost never put siege engines out and you should rarely take life points but that instead you should draw black cards until you're just on the verge of having a quest fail because of it. What I'm curious about is how long / how common or rare that is for people. What we've run into, and perhaps we've just been unlucky, is that a quest will usually be in a "fail on one unlucky black card draw" state by at the very latest the second round of players drawing cards, and will be in that state almost continuously for the entire game. It may also be just that we take too long to complete quests, and I can definitely see that improving with skill, but seriously, what usually happens to us is this:

Player 1 draws: "Oh, it's a black knight card."
Player 2 draws: "Black knight card for me too."
Player 3 draws: "Wow, that sucks. Black knight."

We're now halfway around the table and we're in a state where one more black knight card loses the quest for us. So we all rush to complete the black knight quest and take life point hits to do so, but now everybody's at 3 life. Then we start drawing again and hit something like, "Pict," "Wow, pict too," "Holy, I also got a pict," and it's the same thing all over again. So we do default to drawing black cards but find that after about the first or second round it's just next to impossible to do so.

With so few games under our belt, it's hard to know if we just got really unlucky or the deck was poorly shuffled (although it's been shuffled about a billion times because we suspected after the first game that it was poorly shuffled), or what, but the *constant* "OMG, we're going to lose but I have no useful cards to do anything about that, I guess I'll lose a life," aspect really has our players feeling kind of depressed about the game.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company

Odin_Knight — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:49:51 +0000

by Odin_Knight

Expansion contents

]]>

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

da pyrate — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:33:11 +0000

by da pyrate

One Holy Grail.

]]>

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

da pyrate — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:29:08 +0000

by da pyrate

Lancelot's Armour - once size fits all.

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Wraith — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:27:07 +0000

by Wraith

There are quite a few strategy articles here on BGG. Read some of the long threads, too, because some of the best analysis is buried in the responses, often a couple of pages in.

There's also some really dodgy advice. If strategy advice isn't backed up with a rationale that shows you how and why it works, take it with a grain of salt. Use your brain.

Specific points relating to your post...

Don't accuse the traitor until you have a good reason for doing so. As you've noticed, the traitor is quite an effective foil once you have accused him, so don't increase his power by accusing just because you can. Often, you want to wait until near the end of the game, when the extra white sword is more valuable than losing a couple of white cards (one in each of the traitor's remaining turns).

Especially when playing with large groups, coordination is vital. Completing the Excalibur or Grail quest early is not a game-killer, but spending ages wrestling the quest (either one) back and forth before eventually barely winning it can be.

You can't try to lose a quest, generally. Quests are lost when you draw the black cards required to lose them, and you should be drawing black cards most of the time anyway. (If you don't know what to do in Progression of Evil, draw a black card, because it isn't until seeing what black cards are there that priorities will become clear. Spend life or, rarely, place siege engines only when you know exactly why the risk of drawing a black card is particularly bad - worse than usual - right now.) If you need the game to finish before you are overrun with siege engines, do something to make the game finish - that is, finish more quests. Formulate a plan that will let you finish quests to get the swords you need, or at least get closer.

When you say you "only went to quests we could finish", how did you know what you could finish? The game requires cooperation to succeed. If each player only heads to a quest once he has the cards to finish it alone, you aren't likely to win the game, so if that's your standard for heading to a quest, it is too strict. Figure out what the group can do (without giving away mandated secrets, of course) and act on that swiftly. I've managed to go entire games without drawing cards at Camelot.

And it sounds like you need to teach people more of the overall game before you start. People need to be aware of the end conditions and what may drive the game to those end conditions. Voluntarily placing 10 siege engines, for example, strikes me as something you would only do if you were utterly unaware of the ways that siege engines can appear. You need to know the consequences of accusing the traitor before you can decide whether you should do it at a particular point.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

pdclose — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:29:11 +0000

by pdclose

10 year old Matthew created a "Nara the Fang, Over Camelot" expansion,...

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

butsam — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:27:46 +0000

by butsam

If you are in a situation where losing quests is all that you think you need to do (which, I agree with others who posted here, is dangerous), then why not return all knights to Camelot and have them fight siege engines and/or recover life points?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Jeffjones20 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:12:32 +0000

by Jeffjones20

We were all fairly low most of the time, 1 or 2 life depending except one time the traitor had 5 or 6 life and it was painfully obvious who it was at least to me.

I just feel that playing the game after 5 plays, I feel like the knights are barely able to keep their heads out of water while, with a traitor it almost seems to easy for him to make everyone lose. I like the game. I will try some of the suggestions said, I think now excal is bad to get early as well as trying to do the grail early as its a huge time sink.But new players see the grail and for some reason feel they need to do it, And I hate to be the player that is saying if we are going to win we must do this and this and this, instead of allowing others to think for themseleves. I just get the feeling that you need to act in a certain way to win the game. Granted its still fun when we lose even though it may be a little anti climactic.

I am going to try the game out again in controlled conditions again and see how we fare.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

asmiles — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:37:01 +0000

by asmiles

The game should get easier with experience.

From the brief reports, I think you are putting out too many seige engines. Don't be too afraid of drawing cards. Typically we'll draw cards until we are right at the brink of losing an important quest, then we'll shift to giving up life or seige engines to buy time to get the quest won or at least under control (if it's grail or excalibur).

Also you don't want to win both the grail and excalibur too early, as the seige engines can get really out of control then.

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: This game seems hard if there is no traitor and impossible if there is one. (Feedback please)

Jeffjones20 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:21:43 +0000

by Jeffjones20

I have played this game 5 times now.

#1 The first time I played I played with 3 I didn't really understand the game so we lost as we piled up siege engines no traitor.

#2 This was about 1 year after the first game I played with 5 other people we did not really know the mechanics of the game and thought putting siege down was a good idea. We all told each other that we would not go over 10 siege engines because if anyone did we would know they were the traitor. We promptly got the add two siege engines card and lost. Revealing cards no one was the traitor even though everyone thought there was one.

#3 About a week later we played again with 7 players with a traitor card, this game we were doing fairly well but then we lost a quest and someone said ah man we lost, the person who was the traitor asked "we lost" and we all replied yes, he promptly turned over his traitor card and showed us even though the game was early on and we hadn't lost the game only the quest.

#4 Right after #3 we started over with one less player the one who screwed the game up last time didn't want to play anymore. This game was going well and me and another member playing had narrowed it down to two people being the traitor we soon accused the traitor and made it her play from the shadows. At this point we read what the traitor could still do, and she actually had to leave so we agreed to do what would hurt us the most on her turn. Seeing as we had about 8 siege engines we decided we would just add siege engines on her turn. We actually had about 7 white swords on the round table and only 1 black at this point, so we were trying to actually lose quests to win the game, we had gotten excalibur and thus any excal cards were adding siege engines. We eventually could not outpace the siege engines onslaught us and lost.

#5 The next morning we decided to see if we could beat the game without having any traitors and each playing 2 knights, we only had 2 players. We ended up with 6 white swords and 6 black losing the game. We waited in camelot and only went to quests we could finish we played fairly smartly and thought we were going to win but we still lost.

Are some games just going to be the knights lose no matter what happens, or are we just playing badly. I think with a traitor trying to go against everyone it is fairly easy for them to win. I dont know any thoughts from others? I would hate to make the game easier for the knights but we might have too.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

Galender — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:43:48 +0000

by Galender

Chaotic situation at the ending - swords AND siege engines

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: Reviews:: Re: Adding some spice to the game, or not?

cebalrai — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:40:01 +0000

by cebalrai

Lord_Baer wrote:

3) NO TABLE TALK. Game is way to easy otherwise. This way someone does something strange they arent allowed to make excuses. Other players need to figure out themselves. Really, I think everyone should try it this way. Talking just gives so much away especially with people you know well.

A huge part of the game IS table talk. I think the game would really lose a dimension without it.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: General:: Re: How does this expansion add to the base game?

Cactusgod — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:18:00 +0000

by Cactusgod

I would agree with most of the analysis two posts above me, however I feel like I have to add that I disagree about the more "beneficial" statement. While I do believe that you may get more cards that COULD benefit the knights, it doesn't mean they WILL. For instance, getting a Divine Favor card early, means that for most of the game you'll have no use for it, unless you want to use it for some other quest and hope that nothing ties before the game ends. Cards like Dispel are also sitting around in your hand without a use until a permanent special black comes out and stays out. So all in all I do think that more bad happens than good now, which is certainly a positive.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Shadows over Camelot

mahon — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:45:30 +0000

by mahon

Right, we also play that you draw 2 cards in Camelot unless you play Sir Gawain.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: General:: Re: [POLL] - BSG vs SOC + Merlin's Company expansion?

Cactusgod — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:15:17 +0000

by Cactusgod

To be honest....I think Merlin's Company is just a much harder game. Let me explain.

With BSG, you can perform many evil actions without too much fear. In SOC, it is much harder to do evil things without being suspicious. You actually have to change up your play style over the course of many games in order to actually make different moves as a traitor. For instance, my one friend ALWAYS goes down to 2 life before he starts pulling black cards. Last game he didn't, which led me to believe he was the traitor. I was one, of course, so I was sort of playing with the hopeful assumption that he was as well. With BSG there really aren't as many tells, as many of your actions are done in secret, which is a great mechanic.

So, I think that SOC is one of those games where you'll either have a great time with deceit and such abounding, or you'll have a terribly easy game where everyone completes everything 1-2-3. You certainly need more SKILLED traitors in SOC, in my opinion.

I would still pick BSG, simply because I like the way the traitor element works. To be honest, I wish that Bruno would come up with some sort of sleeper phase for this game as well. The beauty of it is that people try not to complete quests as quickly as possible due to the possibility of them turning traitor.

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Ideas for 2 player variant (with traitor and dummy 3rd player)

Driver 8 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:24:15 +0000

by Driver 8

I'm kicking around the idea of a 2 player variant for Shadows over Camelot that uses a traitor (since that's one of the key elements that makes the game exciting) and a dummy 3rd player. Here's what I've come up with so far:

Each player takes 1 knight. A 3rd knight is then set aside as a dummy player (which will be played alternately by both players).

Take 1 traitor and 3 loyalty cards and shuffle them. A loyalty card is dealt face down to each knight, including the dummy, but no one looks at it yet (until the 6th siege engine or 6th sword is placed). The remaining loyalty card is removed from the game. More on this later, as I might not follow this format.

At the beginning of the game, each player (including the dummy) is dealt 5 cards and 1 Merlin card. Each player places a card on the round table to be shared with the other knights.

Here's where I'm uncertain. Should both players get to see the dummy's hand and decide together which card the dummy places? Should it be done randomly?

Turn order is as follows: Player 1, Player 2, Player 1 (as the dummy), Player 1, Player 2, Player 2 (as the dummy), etc.

The game is played a normal. When 6 siege engines or 6 swords are placed, the players look at their own loyalty cards (but not the dummy's).

If the dummy is revealed as the traitor, continue in turn order with each player playing his own knight. If a player is revealed as the traitor, the loyal player plays both his knight and the dummy in turn order.

Now, another concern. On the traitor's turn, should he be allowed to discard a knight's white card AND perform an evil action? That seems like it would be very powerful and hard to overcome for the 2 loyal knights.

One huge difference between this variant and a normal 3 player game is that one of the players (the dummy) could be the traitor without even knowing it. This could add too much of a random factor to the game, since the loyal players couldn't 'read' the dummy player's intents since he wouldn't be 'acting evil'. An accusation could be a shot in the dark, unless a player strongly suspects the other player. After all, there's a 25% chance that there is no traitor in the game. Perhaps if only three loyalty cards were used (1 traitor and 2 loyal), it would ensure that one of the knights was a traitor. Then again, I like the uncertain possibility of all knights being loyal.

Another alternate would be to reveal ALL loyalty cards after an accusation is made, so there's only one accusation made in the game. That would eliminate the possibility of multiple incorrect accusations if all knights are loyal. Just an idea at this point.

So far, I like my ideas but still have some questions. Because I haven't played many 3 player games of Shadows over Camelot, I'm not sure how powerful a traitor is against only 2 loyal knights. Any thoughts on how you think this would work before I playtest it?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: A Company of Knights:: General:: Re: Getting a copy in the UK

laxnbakpakr — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:19:52 +0000

by laxnbakpakr

Sorry to hear you can't get them in the UK. I was unable to find them at a store near me here in the US too and had to order them online. Not sure if there are any mailrder firms in GB so you all don't get nailed on shipping from the states or mainland europe but that may be the last resort.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: A Company of Knights:: General:: Re: Getting a copy in the UK

Mild Seven — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:15:21 +0000

by Mild Seven

I have a set. And while they are nice, they aren`t amazing. Maybe you could pass the pieces from the original game to a paint service? I guess it would cost about the same as ordering from ebay etc. :)

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: A Company of Knights:: General:: Re: Getting a copy in the UK

elfrododumbo — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:54:45 +0000

by elfrododumbo

We made them Knights and we cannot stock them :angry: I tried everywhere I could think of to get a painted set of knights and all I can find is trashy ones or unpainted ! The pewter ones cost a bomb and do not look that good.
We should be ashamed since we brought knights as subjects of interest to the American screens, TV and RPG. Ha !:laugh:

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: Reviews:: Re: Adding some spice to the game, or not?

elfrododumbo — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:17:57 +0000

by elfrododumbo

The additions of some black cards have made the core game really, really difficult.
With a 5-player game, we found that two of our fellow knights were out of the game and it spoiled the fun 9 (it could be that we made mistakes, but I think not). The following day, we decided to lessen the possibility of the hard work knights have made in getting far enough into their quest as not to warrant being thrown out ....we substituted a white card for another black one.: tense but not aggravating.
Hey, maybe we are wimps. They don't make knights the way they were in those days !

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: What's your experience with 2 player games?

Ghool — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:18:45 +0000

by Ghool

The Lady and I also play with only 1 knight each, and no traitor. We also dole out 2 extra cards per player, as the first few rounds are really tough otherwise.
I find it works well as a 2 player co-op, it's just a bit on the tough side, but still one we both enjoy.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: What's your experience with 2 player games?

Hugin — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:03:16 +0000

by Hugin

Driver 8 wrote:
After giving this some thought, perhaps I should give playing 2 knights per player a shot. If for nothing else, to add some variety with the different knights powers.

The wife and I have played this game with just the two of us, each playing two knights, and it works out fairly well. Not our favourite game to play as a two-player though. We did that mostly before we were able to play it with other players, since that is where this game really shines.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Solo Shadows over Camelot

elfrododumbo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:37:16 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Thanks...now I can place an order for the game :)

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Shadows over Camelot Strategy?

fbsfbs — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:48:29 +0000

by fbsfbs

I would add that we have played with Merlin as well. We try to leave him on the Grail or Excalibur Quests after finished so that he can counter the black cards on that quest. Also, one knight, usually Owain, is dedicated to fighting the engines almost entirely.

Comments welcome. I think we are playing it correctly but we do dance closely with the seige engine numbers on some games.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: What's your experience with 2 player games?

elfrododumbo — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:47:13 +0000

by elfrododumbo

I was realy forward to buying this game until I found out it was for 3+ players. However, as suggested by Sharon, playing with one knight each and no traitor seems a good idea.
Will place an order for the game. The traitor role would obviously be a major miss, but I am so eager to get this game :)

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Re: Shadows over Camelot Strategy?

fixpix — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:01:45 +0000

by fixpix

Is there a possibility you're playing the game wrong? From my experience the strategy you suggested is a sure way to lose the game. In fact I would have suggested exactly the opposite of what you said:

- Don't finish the grail and Excalibur. Prolong them as much as possible without finishing, means that all those black cards will be played instead of adding catapults. Because many of the black cards are related to Excalibur and the Grail, finishing the two quests means catapults are going to pile up at light speed. It's better to keep those two in a state of balance and gaining white swords from "reseting"quests (the Picts, the Saxons, the Black Knight)

- Don't ever opt to place catapults. Never. Ever. Ok, maybe sometimes, if drawing a card could result in loosing a quest and the knight is near completion of his mission. But other than that, catapults are the last thing you're thinking about. Especially with the traitor, you're making his job really easy by helping him siege Camelot.

Again, I would check to see if you're playing the game right. What you just said seems to me like suggesting going in with the king is a good strategy to win a chess game.

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: Strategy:: Shadows over Camelot Strategy?

fbsfbs — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:42:35 +0000

by fbsfbs

My friend has devised a strategy that has proven very effective in Shadows. Basically it involves the inclusion of Lancelot, Galahad, and Owain at a minimum. The plan involves getting to the Grail and completing it ASAP. Then move to Excalibur. On each progression of evil, the plan is to take life point hits instead of drawing black cards. When down to two or less points, then the strategy is to place seige engines. The plan has mostly worked even with the traitor at this point.

Does anyone else have any strategies or could you critique this?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: What's your experience with 2 player games?

sa266 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:13:28 +0000

by sa266

Driver 8 wrote:
I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who play SoC with only 2 players. If you're one of them, how do you play?

I'd like to try playing with only 1 knight per player (so that we don't have to mess around with keeping 2 hand seperate) and no traitor. Is that too hard to win when played that way? I'm only guessing, but it seems that it'd be harder to spread around the evil and focus the good with only 2 knights.

Please tell me how you play. I'm trying to get some ideas of what to expect before trying it out with 2. Thanks!

We play with just one knight each, and no traitor, and it works fine. It's hard enough that you have to work to win, but not so easy that you always do.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: What's your experience with 2 player games?

Driver 8 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:32:01 +0000

by Driver 8

After giving this some thought, perhaps I should give playing 2 knights per player a shot. If for nothing else, to add some variety with the different knights powers.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: Re: What's your experience with 2 player games?

asmiles — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:25:57 +0000

by asmiles

Never played with 2. We've played a bunch with 3 players.

We also use the squires variant. It requires that you must complete a quest before you may use your special power.

Depending on the experience level of those playing, we'll sometimes start with the Mists of Avalon in play as well and/or start the game with less life.

Less players is often easier. Certainly the solo quests are easier, because you get more turns per evil action.

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: General:: What's your experience with 2 player games?

Driver 8 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:12:00 +0000

by Driver 8

I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who play SoC with only 2 players. If you're one of them, how do you play?

I'd like to try playing with only 1 knight per player (so that we don't have to mess around with keeping 2 hand seperate) and no traitor. Is that too hard to win when played that way? I'm only guessing, but it seems that it'd be harder to spread around the evil and focus the good with only 2 knights.

Please tell me how you play. I'm trying to get some ideas of what to expect before trying it out with 2. Thanks!

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Rules to make standard game more difficult

dcclark — Sun, 31 May 2009 00:03:50 +0000

by dcclark

It sounds like you're doing your best to remove the cooperative aspects of the game. I disagree with that -- of course, do what you like, but I prefer to modify the game in ways that keep cooperation (such as table talk). We usually do:

1. Squires -- nobody starts as a knight, you can only become a knight by winning a quest (multiple players on a quest means only the one playing the winning card gets knighted). Squires can't spend a life to do an extra action.

2. Encroaching Darkness -- play 1 or 2 rounds of black cards before beginning.

We find that these preserve the flavor of the game, while making it harder.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Rules to make standard game more difficult

WalkerRedEye — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:50:57 +0000

by WalkerRedEye

we have always played with no table talk and as such find the game devilishly hard even with only 3 people and no traitor!

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Rules to make standard game more difficult

Lord_Baer — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:33:18 +0000

by Lord_Baer

I am a HUGE shadows fan and am playing an all nighter tonight. But i agree the original rules are WAY too easy. For any seasoned veteren i strong recommend the following.

1) The game should be played with 4 or 5 players. More gets too easy with too many white cards around. You use X+1 loyalty cards with one traitor, so that there is still a good chance there will be a traitor. (4 of 5 four player games have a traitor)

2) You start with fewer white cards. We use 20 total rounded up. So a four player game gets 4 whites plus a merlin and five player gets 3 whites plus a merlin.

3) NO TABLE TALK. Game is way to easy otherwise. This way someone does something strange they arent allowed to make excuses. Other players need to figure out themselves. Really, I think everyone should try it this way. Talking just gives so much away especially with people you know well.

4) Never show shared cards. 1 player gets them and can distribute them as they see fit.

5) Cards with 2 options on them, the drawing player chooses which option without consensus and without explaining why he choose that option.

This makes the win rate closer to 50% (or even less) but starting cards can be adjusted as needed for skill levels. I really enjoy losing often and having my back up against the wall.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: Reviews:: Re: Adding some spice to the game, or not?

Lord_Baer — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:22:37 +0000

by Lord_Baer

Ok, good review. I am a HUGE shadows fan and am playing an all nighter tonight. But i agree the original rules are WAY too easy. For any seasoned veteren i strong recommend the following.

1) The game should be played with 4 or 5 players. More gets too easy. You use X+1 loyalty cards, so that there is still a good chance there will be a traitor.

2) You start with fewer white cards. We use 20 total rounded up. So a four player game gets 4 whites plus a merling and five player gets 3 whites plus a merlin.

3) NO TABLE TALK. Game is way to easy otherwise. This way someone does something strange they arent allowed to make excuses. Other players need to figure out themselves. Really, I think everyone should try it this way. Talking just gives so much away especially with people you know well.

4) Never show shared cards. 1 player gets them and can distribute them as they see fit.

This makes the win rate closer to 50% but starting cards can be adjusted as needed for skill levels. I really enjoy losing often and having my back up against the wall.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

Brisse — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:36:02 +0000

by Brisse

A closeup of the handsome Sir Kay

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Balancing Traitor vs Non-Traitor Games AND Number of Players

MasterDinadan — Sun, 24 May 2009 08:00:56 +0000

by MasterDinadan

Well, I haven't really considered how to apply any of this to the expansion. The possibility of a second traitor in the 8 player game kind of sets a new "baseline" for ideal balance.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Balancing Traitor vs Non-Traitor Games AND Number of Players

Blackfaer — Sun, 24 May 2009 07:33:45 +0000

by Blackfaer

Revelade wrote:
Well, coordinating then is an issue that has to be dealt with in larger games. This effectively makes larger games harder then. You can say, "use your merlins", but then they end up in the discard pile. However, once they are gone, you need to wait until the discard pile reshuffles.

I think for smaller games, either the game is too easy without a traitor, or too hard with a traitor.

For larger games, I believe the balance to be about right, with a traitor.

There just has to be some sort of additional difficulty when a traitor is not present.

One thing to note; you go through the white deck a heck of a lot faster with more players. That makes a big difference too; those Merlin's cycle back into your hand. Just watch out for the witch from the expansion!

I've played probably sixty or seventy games, (Mostly with the expansion, number of players would probably be a bell curve though I've only played once with 8) and I've found that the game is pretty balanced with or without traitors until you get to too few. 3 or 4, randomly can be too difficult or too easy, without a traitor. With a traitor, 3-4 players are pretty screwed. But even without, if you draw all the wrong cards (both black and white) you can end up losing pretty damn fast.

The only real unbalanced game with 6-8 players is when everyone trusts similar strategies and there's no traitor. Stick a couple of wild card players (newbies or those with a different strategy) into the mix, and you've got incorrect accusations changing the whole mess.

I would think too, that starting with fewer cards with more players would be a major problem if you're using the Travel deck from the expansion.

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

Paul Contway — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:30:59 +0000

by Paul Contway

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Healing is useless

Darius van Duyn — Sat, 23 May 2009 09:57:40 +0000

by Darius van Duyn

asmiles wrote:
Wraith wrote:
Darius van Duyn wrote:
As stated in the rules, traitor should try to defeat the loyal knights through deception and deviousness, not by a obvious string of evil moves:what:

Not to rain on your parade, but precisely where do the rules state that this is how the traitor should be played? I don't recall that passage.

That's because it's not in the rules.

Travis, Kevin: the sentence I mentioned is in the basic rulebook, page 19: "Any player dealt traitor card must place special emphasis on playing his role not only by the rules, but also in the spirit of the game. In SoC, the traitor´s challenge is to defeat the loyal knights through deception and deviousness, not to simply crush his opponents by openly flaunting his true nature through obvious string of overt, evil moves."

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory variant?

divinentd — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:45:47 +0000

by divinentd

I'd like to report a successful lunchtime game. It ran a full hour, and that's with teaching as we played, and eating as I taught.

We quit before the game technically ended, but had 7 white swords. Next time I'll see if I can convince the guys that the communication rules are worth following. Maybe a possible traitor would help. Either way, I think they might actually want to play it more since we didn't get to finish.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: Variants:: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

Quizoid — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:11:33 +0000

by Quizoid

Hugin wrote:
beri wrote:
...a player who immediately declares 'I am the traitor' at the start of the game and starts putting down siege engines is really hard to overcome.

:what: I'm pretty sure that is not allowed by the rules as written as well as against the spirit of the game.

It's just silly to say, "I'm the traitor." Though, laying down siege engines from the start is fine. More useful in a four player game than larger ones to do that though...

Reply: Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company:: Variants:: Re: Adding BSG-style traitors to Shadows

Quizoid — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:10:14 +0000

by Quizoid

kduke wrote:
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.

One interesting rule is that you can lie but not cheat, also, you NEVER show other players your black cards. So, it's totally ok to get a "Saxon or Picts," and say, "Oh shoot, I got a Pict." The other's don't need to know you had a choice. That and other subtle sabotage methods abound.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Convocation card- how does it work?

byronczimmer — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:08:47 +0000

by byronczimmer

kevintlee wrote:
correct. A++ 5-cards

the knights already in camelot were waiting around to convocate :D

with Guinevere?

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Rules:: Re: Convocation card- how does it work?

kevintlee — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:21:44 +0000

by kevintlee

correct. A++ 5-cards

the knights already in camelot were waiting around to convocate :D

byronczimmer — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:07:26 +0000

by byronczimmer

I've seen two solutions to this, both overkill:

1) Ask a passerby to, without commenting on the content of the cards, ascertain if the three cards are identical. Works well in public settings.

2) Get a digital camera (or a cell phone) and record the three cards discarded each time. Review afterwards. If there's any discrepancies, ostracize the player.

In the end, the game is about trust, and you have to trust the traitor enough to try to make the game fun for everyone.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Healing is useless

drummond13 — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:58:29 +0000

by drummond13

ackmondual wrote:
Another thing with healing, there's always some concern on how to handle it. Some groups want everyone to discard them face up to make sure no1 is discarding 3 different types of cards, or 3 fight cards all of NOT the same value. Others want to be able to do it face down to keep the traitor from being discovered too easily and give the benefit of the doubt that he'll be honest about that.

I think the discards have to be facedown, like all discards. If the traitor discards three non-matching cards he is clearly cheating. Will the other players ever know? Of course not, but there are ways to easily cheat in almost every game out there. You just need a group of people you trust won't. After all, what's the point of winning a game you had to cheat at to win?

Also, this is one of the few games I've seen where the rulebook specifically mentions that cheating is not allowed. It does so on a page describing the traitor, saying he/she may lie but may not cheat.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory varient?

divinentd — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:51:30 +0000

by divinentd

ackmondual wrote:
Even with a partial game, the cleanup/setup will take about 15minutes, so we're really looking at a 30 minute time frame.

And that's assuming the rules teach happens as we eat. But at least with a co-op it's easier to teach as we go. Well more fair anyway :devil:

ackmondual wrote:
Ahhhh, the board gamer equivalent of dealing dope :cool: Get them hooked with a sample, then have them coming back for more ;)

Exactly. Not trying play the full game, just getting a taste.

These lunchtime games actually started around teaching modern boardgame mechanics to aspiring game designers, stealing them away from their console games. Now I've got some experienced playtesters who have been helping me design Euro/Ameritrash hybrids that can be finished during a lunch break.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory varient?

geschichte — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:44:04 +0000

by geschichte

With the addition of the travel deck, my group has had no problem losing in less that 45 minutes.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory varient?

ackmondual — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:26:39 +0000

by ackmondual

Ahhhh, the board gamer equivalent of dealing dope :cool: Get them hooked with a sample, then have them coming back for more ;)

Even with a partial game, the cleanup/setup will take about 15minutes, so we're really looking at a 30 minute time frame.

Review: Shadows over Camelot:: Morningstar Review: Shadows over Camelot

Morningstar_81 — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:58:32 +0000

by Morningstar_81

Shadows over Camelot

Objective: (What you must do to win)
Your winning objective will be different depending on whether you are a loyal knight, or a traitor.
Loyal knights must work collaboratively to to ensure that at the end of the game a majority (7+) white swords dominate the round table.
Traitorous knights win at any time the loyal knights lose. This occurs when either all the knights die, any point when there is a majority (7+) of black swords on the round table, or when there are 12 catapaults outside Camelot.

Complexity: (How many rules to get your head around)
Shadows over Camelot is a collected group of miniquests that all tie in to the overarching game. On the whole of it, the rules are not that difficult to learn as the premise and how its executed is very easily observed from the layout of the board and the visual cues marked on the board.

Of course, the rules are complicated by the fact that each of these miniquests have their own subset of rules that must be learned. However, I've found that after about the second round everyone clicks into the game and has an understanding of what's going on. Even better, I can always refer players to the turn summaries on their character bios.

As a general rule, I usually play the first game with someone without a traitor and I play as King Arthur (who works really well as a support character), or with me playing openly as the traitor from the start. If there are three players, I never use a traitor.

Aesthetics: (How shiny I think it is)
This is a very pretty game. I deliberately went out of my way to get a copy after Days of Wonder stopped trading directly to Australia. The boards, the card illustrations, the miniatures, the character profiles all have very detailed artwork. It really does enhance the sense of indulging in a fantasy landscape.
I'd say that the aesthetics are one of the best selling points of this game.

Strategy: (How deep the strategy in the game seems to be)
Whenever teaching people the game, I make sure that they are aware of some of the very heinous nasty stuff that can occur from the black cards. I make note of Morgana and the Dark Forest.

I also tend to be a little bit lenient about table talk until I feel the players are confident about the game as a whole. After that, I tend to instigate a no table talk rule. For the most part I try to encourage people to stay in character. As long as players can be euphemistic about the stuff they're trying to share I let it slide. Half the fun comes from watching players develop their own internal language of references to the various needs and demands.

Now, as for overall strategy: go for Lancelot's Armour first. It is so critical. The ability to chose between two black cards could be the difference between royal victory and royally skewed!

The Grail and Excalibur tend to be second priority. However an equally valid tactic is to get them close to winning and then just let them slide away. The black card pile is going to waste a whole bunch of black cards whittling that away and it helps keep the catapaults in check.

I generally tend to ignore the central board quests. If you do it right, by recovering the three artifacts you'll usually be in a position where you have a majority of white swords. From that point (as long as you don't have a traitor) just push the game to pile up the white swords while fending off the catapaults.

If you have a potential traitor, use this time to route them out.

On the other hand... if you ARE the traitor. Go for Lancelot's Armour and look at all the wonderful ways you can subtly screw with the game.
I find the best way to be a traitor is simply to just play a sub par game. Never do as well as you can, and it will drag the whole game down while letting you fly under the radar.

I've never yet lost as the traitor.

Highlights: (What impressed me about the game the most)
You win or die together. The final act when the last sword falls into place and everyone shouts hurrah for collectively winning is definitely a choice moment.

Sticking Points: (What I think could be improved about the game)
Really not much in the way of sticking points. If anything, just getting people's heads around the idea of cooperative play can be a bit of a challenge in its own right.

Duet: (is it good for two players?)
I did make a two player variant of this game with limited success. You can't play with a traitor, and you give each player two knights to control. It does work, but it's a second rate choice compared to the proper game with traitors.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Shadows over Camelot

gh0ul — Sat, 16 May 2009 04:30:41 +0000

by gh0ul

Great/entertaining Review! Read the whole thing.
Btw, I thought you only pick up 2 cards when you're in camelot, not 3. unless youre sir gawain, of course.

:arrrh:

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Shadows over Camelot

games56 — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:27:32 +0000

by games56

Good Review. Remains one of my favorites. I have simply never had anything, but a great gaming experience with it.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Reviews:: Re: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Shadows over Camelot

Heliconia — Fri, 15 May 2009 23:47:32 +0000

by Heliconia

Nice report Leanne.

Review: Shadows over Camelot:: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Shadows over Camelot

cerenycus — Fri, 15 May 2009 23:41:45 +0000

by cerenycus

Between me and my boyfriend, my boyfriend is more of a boardgamer. He had a huge collection of games before we started to date. Shadow's over Camelot was one of the games. It has always looked interesting to play, but whenever I would suggest it, I was told it was not a 2 player game.

Contents

1 Master gameboard of Camelot and the Round Table, with its surrounding Quests;
3 additional Double-sided Quests (the Holy Grail, Excalibur, and Lancelot & the Dragon);
16 Swords of the Round Table;
168 cards;
7 Coat of Arms (one per Knight);
7 standard dice (one for each Knight) and 1 special 8-sided die for the Siege Engines;
a Rules Booklet and the Book of Quests;
30 Miniatures (7 Knights, 3 Relics, 12 Siege Engines, 4 Saxon and 4 Pict warriors).

Recommended Players

The game is easily played with 3-7 players. Though recommendaton would say to play it with 4-6.

My boyfriend and I did attempt to play it with 2 when we first bought it, as we were not able to find alot of people to play with. It works alright, but can be a little difficult.

Setup

You want to start off placing the main board in the center of the table, with the other quest boards around it.

]]>Photo taken by KANDANG
]]>Photo taken by victorywt

You will shuffle the player cards, and have each player draw a card to find out which knight they will be playing. Each knight has their own unique ability. Once you have chosen your knight, you will place your coloured knight around the round table. Each knight will receive a die in the colour of their knight indicating the number of health they have remaining. Your health will start at 4.

]]>Photo taken by kfritz

If you want to add a level of difficulty, you can add in the traitor cards. There are going to be 7 cards stating you are a loyal member of the knights table, and 1 stating you are the traitor. If you happen to draw the traitor card, you want the game to win, so you will play undercover, attempting to help the other knights win, but secretly sabtoaging the game in the process.

Next will will place the excalibur sword in the center of the excalibur board, and lancelot's armor, on the lancelot quest, and the Holy Grail on the holy grail quest.

How to Play

This game has 2 rounds per player. You are first going to take an evil action, and then a good action.

You have 3 choices in the evil action.

Draw a black card

]]> Photo taken by KANDANG

You can draw one black card, and immediately take the action. Some of the cards you may expect to receive are "move excalibur one step closer to doom", and a black knight card stating how strong the black knight is to defeat, put a "pict" on the board. Some of them may be a little more serious however. One will state to take the next 5 cards and immediately play them all, or an action will stay in effect until you complete a certain quest.

Put a Siege engine on the board

You can simply opt to put a siege engine on the board.

Lose a life point

You will lower your health by 1.

After you have taken your evil action, you will take an action of good.

If you are at the round table, you can opt to take white 3 cards, fight a siege engine, accuse someone of being the traitor or go on a quest. If you are already on a quest, you can play a white card on your current quest.

Take 3 white cards

]]> Photo taken by Shawn_Solo

The white cards allow you to complete quests. You will receive cards numbered 1-5 allowing you to "fight" certain quests. You may also receive Grail cards allowing you to attempt to retain the grail. There are also specialty cards in there. One being Merlin. If 3 Merlins are played, when a black card is revealed, you are able to cancel that black cards power out.

Fight a siege engine

Once the siege engine counts hits 12, the game is over, and the side of evil wins. You will want to control how many siege engines are on the board at a particular time. In order to fight the siege engines you need to be at the round table, and stae you are going fight the siege engines. You will choose the white cards you are going to fight with (the numbered cards that you draw). Let's say you play cards totalling the number 6, you will then take the 8 sided die and roll. If the number comes up 1-5, you win, defeating a siege engine. If it lands on 6-8, the siege engine wins, and you did nothing.

Quests

It does take one good action to move to a quest. Once here, you are able to take your good action to start working on the quest. There are going to be quests team based, and quests only 1 person is allowed to complete.

The Holy Grail

One of the quests you are able to complete is the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail quest is a multi-player quest. The goal of the quest is to fill the grail quest board with Holy Grail cards. If you are able to complete it, you will receive the Holy Grail. There are black cards that are able to be played to make this quest harder. There are cards to fill the grail quest with bad grails. In order to remove them, you need to play one grail card to remove it, and another to fill the spot.

Quest for Excalibur

]]>Photo taken by EndersGame

In my playing of the game, the quest for Excalibur has never been a high priority. I don't think we have ever received the sword.

This is a multiplayer quest as well. How you move the sword closer to victory, is to throw away a white card. Once you do so, the sword will move one place closer. There are black cards, however that move the sword to doom, and once the sword is gone, it's gone, never to come back.

Fight the Black Knight

The Black Knight is a solo quest. Once you place the marker there, you are going to want to play cards with a high enough value to beat the Black Knight's cards. You want to make sure you have your cards before you get there, however. The moment you leave this quest, all the cards are discarded on your side. You are going to need 2 pairs (which cannot be the same). You are able to play a pair 5's and a pair of 4's but not 2 pairs of 5's.

Fight Lancelot

]]>Photo taken by Gialmere

Fighting Lancelot is quite the same as fighting the Black Knight. It is a solo quest, and you will want to play cards high enough to defeat Lancelot's score. However, instead of 2 pairs, Lancelot requires you to have a full house.

Fight the Dragon

]]>Photo taken by Gialmere

Fighting the Dragon is similar to fighting the Black Knight and Lancelot. This quest, though, is a multiplayer quest, and if you were to leave, your cards will still remain. The Dragon requires you to have 3 sets of 3 of a kind, and they cannot be all the same card.

Fight the Picts/Saxons

]]>Photo taken by Toynan

Fighting both the picts and saxons work the same. It is a multiplayer quest you are able to go back and forth from and the cards will still remain. All you are required to do is play cards in the order from 1-5.

Accuse the Traitor

If you chose to play with the traitor cards, you may also use your good action, to accuse someone of being the traitor. If you are wrong, you will be penalized by turning 2 of your white swords to black swords. If you are right, you will receive white swords, and the traitor is no longer able to play.

How to Win

]]>Photo taken by flieger

To win the game you are going to want to complete quests. If you were to defeat a quest, you will receive a certain number of white swords, white cards, and life points. If you were to lose, however, you will receive black swords. The loyal players will win when the round table is full of more white swords. The traitor will win if there are more black swords. If the traitor makes it to the end of the game, without being accused, 2 of the white swords will turn black, and the outcome of the game may be very different than you thought.

The Good vs The Bad

Awesome multiplayer game working to defeat the board
Gets people trying to guess who among them is a traitor
Lots of team work required

Survey Says

I'm going to give this game . For people who are looking for a co-operation game, this is definitely it. There are lots of different ways to play the game. It will not be the same game everytime you play. There are different knights to be chosen with different powers.

It is especially good to play, when one person of your gaming group keeps winning all the games, to give it a break. We faced a similar situation a few weeks ago. We introduced some non-gamers to this game, along with our gaming group. One of the guys kept winning whatever new game we threw at him, so we decided to play Shadows over Camelot. We were going to play with the traitor cards, and it brought alot of fun accusing different players. Well, as luck would have it, at the end of the game no one was accused, and the Knights had won! The guy who won all the other games however, happened to be the traitor, and turned 2 swords to black. We were not very happy at that point, because at a co-op game, he had beaten all of us.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory varient?

byronczimmer — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:08:36 +0000

by byronczimmer

I would think that the game would be called 'Gin Rummy'.

This game really isn't suited to lunchtime constraints.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory varient?

dcclark — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:00:43 +0000

by dcclark

While I think that any significant modifications will probably make the game a lot less interesting, here's my suggestions:

- Play to 8 swords
- Reduce the number of siege engines required to lose to 8 as well
- No traitor (unless you REALLY want...)
- Get rid of ONE of the Saxons or Picts, but treat all Saxon/Pict cards as whichever one remains.

Those are my initial thoughts. Enjoy!

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: 45 minute lunchtime introductory varient?

Hyram Henry — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:05 +0000

by Hyram Henry

It's v a r i a n t... Sorry, but I'm a teacher... :D

Thread: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: 45 minute lunchtime introductory variant?

divinentd — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:15:50 +0000

by divinentd

During lunch at work I introduce the guys to new games. To fit a game into that short time we'll modify games, only play 1 or 2 of the Epoch of RA for example.

Any suggestions for an early end point for this game? Or maybe even ripping out a quest or two?

New Image for Shadows over Camelot

Ming — Fri, 15 May 2009 08:45:34 +0000

by Ming

Contents overview

]]>

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Healing is useless

asmiles — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:02:41 +0000

by asmiles

Wraith wrote:
Darius van Duyn wrote:
As stated in the rules, traitor should try to defeat the loyal knights through deception and deviousness, not by a obvious string of evil moves:what:

Not to rain on your parade, but precisely where do the rules state that this is how the traitor should be played? I don't recall that passage.

That's because it's not in the rules. It's in the Book of Quests, page 13. Appendix I - The Knights and The Traitor. Under the Traitor section, in italics, is the following paragraph:

SoC Book of Quests wrote:
During the game's early stages, the Traitor plays his role as any normal Knight would, while secretly working against his fellow Knights without raising their suspicion.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Healing is useless

kduke — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:21:02 +0000

by kduke

He didn't say it was illegal, he said it was against the "spirit" of the game.

A traitor is one who betrays, and, psychologically, it's not possible to feel "betrayal" unless there was a sense of trust to begin with.

A number of people have posted variants to give a revealed traitor "more to do" after he is revealed, and they, too, miss the spirit of the game. We have lots of games where people oppose each other, and this one can be hard to get into for some folks because it's hard to grasp that they are not trying to "win" the game themselves. Adding a POSSIBLE traitor element is one of the cleverest parts of the game.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Healing is useless

Wraith — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:20:35 +0000

by Wraith

Darius van Duyn wrote:
As stated in the rules, traitor should try to defeat the loyal knights through deception and deviousness, not by a obvious string of evil moves:what:

Not to rain on your parade, but precisely where do the rules state that this is how the traitor should be played? I don't recall that passage.

(Generally if there is a specific mechanic in the game devoted to allowing a certain play, that play is regarded as legal. The Fate card is such a mechanic. If open traitor play is illegal, why have the card?)

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Healing is useless

Hugin — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:47:32 +0000

by Hugin

I have to Agree with Adam here; an "obvious traitor strategy" is against the spirit of the game. An "obvious" traitor isn't a traitor, he's the villain - an enemy. A traitor (one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense) cannot be a traitor unless there is at least some amount of trust in him that he is on your side.

A so-called traitor that openly plays against you but is only untouchable because of game rules, is no traitor at all. An obvious traitor strategy strips much of the fun of the game away, from both sides of the loyal/traitor perspective.

Reply: Shadows over Camelot:: Variants:: Re: Traitor cycling cards in Castle

Darius van Duyn — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:59:08 +0000

by Darius van Duyn

Hey, no offense Brian. I think this is completely against the sense of the game. This game needs to be roleplayed a bit and that traitor´s behaviour you´ve described is anything but roleplaying. In spite of I admit it may be effective though...besides it ruins the gameplay, what fun is it for the traitor to dedicate his whole gametime just to sittin in the castle and trying to find a camelot nuke? As stated in the rules, traitor should try to defeat the loyal knights through deception and deviousness, not by a obvious string of evil moves:what: