don reiter
United States
Iowa
-
Tonight my game group played 3 four player games. The first 2 games we played with no Traitor. It was hard going at first because we underestimated the power of teamwork and the power of black cards. We also over protected our life points and picked siege engines over losing a life point. If we would have played by the letter, we would have lost since we ended up mulliganing a few plays instead of accepting the punishment. We should have lost to the black knight from a player placing the last black knight card before he got to use his white card. And I think we did way to much "table talk". We didn't come right out and say "I don't have any grail cards" but I think we may as well have.
The second game we played without the traitor again. This time we dominated the game. We all spent a life point on the first turn to stop the progress of evil and drew cards. Then we all moved to the grail and completed the quest on the next 7 turns buy moving and paying a life to use a second heroic action. We also had the Knight that can make one free move away from Camelot. Once we finished that quest, We were at 3 siege engines and 3 players at 3 life and 1 player at 4. After that 2 players ganged up on Excalibur. I was the Knight who can use an extra card after a battle, so I just took out siege engines every turn and the last knight took down the Lancelot quest with the Hero card to gain an extra sword for victory. After that the game was a little blah as we tried to lose quests just to end the game.
The 3rd game we played with 1 guaranteed traitor and 3 loyal knights. This was the most uneventful worthless game ever. We identified the traitor on our second guess before any white swords could be flipped for being wrong. We thought this was a good thing. It was awful. The evil traitor made it impossible to complete any quest by stealing cards. Every turn marked a new siege engine so the game ended in the next 6 turns. I think you have to leave the traitor alone until you need the white sword for finding him. Identifying him to early gave him so much power that 3 players couldn't compete against the board and a player. I think we need to pick from 4 or 5 loyal and 1 traitor card to leave the possibility that we may all be loyal.
the best parts of the game are:
1.coop play is refreshing
2.the balance of power between the black and white cards seems fair
3.While the game is coop, you still make your own choices.
The down side,
1. once you win the grail, The game seems pretty easy
2. The traitor effect isn't equal between 4 player and 7 player games. If you play a 4 player game the traitor get's a 1 to 3 ratio of actions while if you played a 7 player game he would only get a 1 to 6 ratio. An entire quest like the wars and Excalibur could be completed before the traitor has a chance to manipulate the game in a 6 or 7 player game.
3. After only 3 games, I think the secrets of the game are pretty obvious.
4. While the cards add some randomness to the game, it seemed to play about the same.
Our group much more analytical that most (game of thrones takes us 7 hours), so I think we broke the game by over analyzing and calculating every outcome and made the best choice possible almost every time.
When we play again, we will do better with the traitor. After only 3 games and only 1 with the traitor, I'm sure there is more to the game than I actually got to see. I have only played one other coop game so my measuring stick is a little short. The other coop game was pandemic, and we dominated that game as well.I would say SoC is better than Pandemic because of the added traitor wrinkle.
As we play more games of SoC I will update this review.
-
Joël Simard
Canada
Montréal
Québec
-
You can try the expansionShadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company it adds a second possible traitor for 7+ players and "travel cards"(each time you travel to a new quest, you have to pick a travel card, most of them are negative to the players). The expansion also adds several new black cards (7 standards and 7 specials). All of this make this game more challenging...
-
ackmondual
United States
Virginia
-
donnyrides wrote:
The down side,
1. once you win the grail, The game seems pretty easy
Reminder that when you finish a non-perpetual quest like the Holy Grail, then any black cards for those that get flipped up (e.g. Despair for the HG quest) will put out a Seige Engine instead. Once the Seige Engines hit critical levels, then you're doomed. IIRC, In the Merlin's Company expansion, while those such black cards still yield SE, they do NOT go back into the deck if a reshuffle occurs.
donnyrides wrote: 2. The traitor effect isn't equal between 4 player and 7 player games. If you play a 4 player game the traitor get's a 1 to 3 ratio of actions while if you played a 7 player game he would only get a 1 to 6 ratio. An entire quest like the wars and Excalibur could be completed before the traitor has a chance to manipulate the game in a 6 or 7 player game. That's spot on. In MC exp, 7p games can have 1 or 2 traitors, and ditto with an 8p game that's officially possible.... I'm sure for that very reason.
donnyrides wrote: 3. After only 3 games, I think the secrets of the game are pretty obvious.
4. While the cards add some randomness to the game, it seemed to play about the same. I'd say try out the MC expansion. You may want to leave out that Captured travel card, as it can get nasty.
donnyrides wrote: Our group much more analytical that most (game of thrones takes us 7 hours), so I think we broke the game by over analyzing and calculating every outcome and made the best choice possible almost every time.
When we play again, we will do better with the traitor. After only 3 games and only 1 with the traitor, I'm sure there is more to the game than I actually got to see. I have only played one other coop game so my measuring stick is a little short. The other coop game was pandemic, and we dominated that game as well.I would say SoC is better than Pandemic because of the added traitor wrinkle. Yeah, a mix is important. Too analytical and not much gets done, or you're overscrutinuized and it doesn't become fun. The opposite is no1 really talks or chimes in, and it is those people who do bring some level down for the rest of the players who are active.
-
Mika Porkka
Finland
Tampere
Finland
-
Shadows over Camelot is quite an easy game ruleswise, but it is quite easy to miss some of the rules. For example:
1) You can't make an accusation (as your heroic action, which can be done just once per player) unless there are at least six siege engines or swords on the board.
2) If you use a life point to make a second action on your turn, it must be a different one (for example, you can't play two grail cards on your turn at the Grail Quest).
3) If a knight leaves a solo quest before the quest is completed, all the white cards on that quest are discarded.
4) What ackmondual said about black cards that are converted into siege engines.
-
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
-
donnyrides wrote: The 3rd game we played with 1 guaranteed traitor and 3 loyal knights. This was the most uneventful worthless game ever. We identified the traitor on our second guess before any white swords could be flipped for being wrong.
This cannot happen unless you are in incredibly deep trouble before you even start guessing. As someone else has pointed out, you cannot make an accusation unless there are six siege engines besieging Camelot or six swords on the Round Table. If there are six siege engines on the Round Table when you first start accusing people, and you aren't yet up to six swords, you are in deep trouble. If there are six swords, and you incorrectly accuse someone but don't flip a sword, that means all six of those swords are black, which, again, is incredibly deep trouble.
Methinks you misplayed this.
donnyrides wrote: 3. After only 3 games, I think the secrets of the game are pretty obvious.
Really? I'm pretty sure you haven't played the full game correctly even once. (Or if you did, you dumped six siege engines out before completing any quests, failing to recognise how bad that is.) Are you so sure there aren't strategies you are yet to learn?
-
Wade Nelson
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
-
It sounds (like the poster above note) that you may have missed a couple rules. I'll jump on board and also recommend Merlin's Company.
I think this game shines brightest when everyone's into character a bit, like the manual recommends. If you approach it with an analytic beating-the-system mindset it just isn't as fun as if you approach it with the "honorable knights doing what honorable knights would do" mindset.
Also, a good traitor can do a lot of damage while remaining hidden. Hoarding the "5" value and special white cards, taking damage "for the team", and then discarding the good cards and gaining life points. I think SoC gives the traitor ample tools for sabotage, but they aren't easy to do well and it's rewarding when you are a successful traitor or successfully identify a skilled traitor.
-
LSU LSU
United States
Virginia Beach
Virginia
-
I will echo some of the other posters here. From your description, I suspect you got at least two key rules wrong.
1) You cannot accuse a knight of being a traitor until 6 swords or siege engines are down.
2) Once you finish either excalibur, the grail, or the dragon quest, win or lose, any additional cards for that quest add siege engines.
-
Paul Imboden
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
a) Try with the squire rules.
b) Merlin's Company easily triples the difficulty.
-
don reiter
United States
Iowa
-
First, I would like to thank all of you for your input. I always enjoy reading what the people on the best board game forum on the web have to say.
Let me explain about the siege engines. We had 6 siege engines very early in the game. This was part of our strategy (which probably lead to the bad game). We didn't worry about SEs because we had one knight in charge of taking them out. This worked well in the games that we knew their was no traitor.
My reasoning behind saying that the game is much easier after the grail is won is that, we didn't chose cards if we didn't have to. We would take life points or put out a SE and let the knight(s) at Camelot take it out or we would crush them with Merlin cards
I know I'm no expert as I have only played 3 games, but I followed the rules to the letter (after the first game anyway) and I objectively reported my gaming experience.
I appreciate your comments and I will have to pick up the Merlin expansion and try to play with more players.
-
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
-
donnyrides wrote: We had 6 siege engines very early in the game. This was part of our strategy (which probably lead to the bad game).
Okay, so you played correctly but incompetently. Again, not exactly an indicator that you have the game all figured out.
carlsbad wrote: We didn't worry about SEs because we had one knight in charge of taking them out. This worked well in the games that we knew their was no traitor.
Playing without possibility of a traitor is only presented as a learning game. Play the full game from now on. You will find it more challenging than the learning game.
carlsbad wrote: My reasoning behind saying that the game is much easier after the grail is won is that, we didn't chose cards if we didn't have to. We would take life points or put out a SE and let the knight(s) at Camelot take it out or we would crush them with Merlin cards
But you do have to. You simply don't have enough resources (cards, life points, siege engine spaces) to make this easy. At least, not when there is a traitor in play and the continual placement of siege engines hands him the game.
carlsbad wrote: I know I'm no expert as I have only played 3 games,
1 game. You have only played the full game once, and you played badly and got your butt handed to you.
And even without adding the expansion, expert players can still be challenged by using the suggestions for increased difficulty. Until you are able to win consistently with increased difficulty, you don't have the expertise you have claimed.
-
don reiter
United States
Iowa
-
sorry Travis...
I know you are the game designer and all, but stop me when I start to lie
1. playing siege engines or using life early to ensure you don't waste time by having to remove bad grail cards is smart if you want the quest completed.
2. leaving somebody behind to fight off siege engines is good.
3. finding the traitor on the 8th total turn (P4 turn 2) of the game, is bad.
Nowhere did i ever claim to be an "expert". As a matter of fact I actually say "I know I'm no expert...". So it sounds like you are a little too defensive. Sorry if this is your favorite game. All I did was supply my review for other new comers to the game to read over. If only a smidge of what I posted in my review can help guide somebody to a better play experience, then I have done something good for somebody.
I am thankful that you exposed yourself as nothing more that a common message forum troll with your "Okay, so you played correctly but incompetently." comment. I really shouldn't have even dignified your post with a response.
-
mateen
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
Raks Raks Raks
-
Pretty sure that he was just pointing out that if you have 6 siege engines and no white swords, you really aren't giving yourselves a chance, especially with a traitor in your midst.
-
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
-
donnyrides wrote: but stop me when I start to lie
How about I just stop you when you are wrong? Lying would require you to know the truth.
carlsbad wrote: 1. playing siege engines or using life early to ensure you don't waste time by having to remove bad grail cards is smart if you want the quest completed.
No, it isn't. The black cards near the top of the deck are going to be played, for one effect or another, regardless of how early the Grail quest is completed (as you just don't have enough lives and spaces for siege engines to avoid drawing far more than a dozen or so cards). So any Despair cards in those cards at the top of the deck will either make the Grail quest a little harder or place a siege engine. The cost of negating a Despair on the Grail quest is one action and one Grail card (or one action and one Merlin card, if you are too short of Grail cards to finish the quest if you use any to negate Despairs). The cost of destroying a siege engine is at least one action and one Fight card, but on the average will cost more than one Fight card (or an action and a Merlin, just like a Despair on the Grail), even when it is Sir Kay doing the fighting. Thus, the resources required to counter a siege engine are greater, on the average, than the resources required to negate a Despair on the Grail, which means that allowing a certain number of Despairs to be played on the Grail is actually cheaper for the loyal knights in the long run.
And remember, the uses for white Grail cards are very limited. Once the Grail and Excalibur quests are completed, they can only be used for healing and forced discards. (And since every life point is effectively one action, spending an action healing means you are just paying cards to affect timing by banking an action for later.)
carlsbad wrote: 2. leaving somebody behind to fight off siege engines is good.
Generally, no, not when that person is just going to be fighting siege engines all game. As above, fighting siege engines is a resource-intensive activity. If you deal with siege engines by fighting them continuously, it will slowly drain your resources and you will often be overcome by them as a result. You are better off controlling the rate at which siege engines appear to prevent you from having to fight as many of them. The only time when fighting siege engines becomes good is either when you have gotten into big trouble or when the situation is such that one or more knights cannot apply their resources effectively in other ways. (The latter sometimes happens very late in the game for example, when you have 11 swords on the Round Table and one knight on the Black Knight quest - often, if the other knights attempted to complete a different quest, the game would end before they could do so, so making an attempt would be wasteful and they are better off ensuring that a sudden influx of siege engines does not overwhelm Camelot.)
carlsbad wrote: 3. finding the traitor on the 8th total turn (P4 turn 2) of the game, is bad.
Well, yes, because placing 6 siege engines within 8 turns is bad. The loss of a white card each round is simply icing on a very untasty cake.
carlsbad wrote: Nowhere did i ever claim to be an "expert". As a matter of fact I actually say "I know I'm no expert...".
But you did claim that the secrets of the game are (to you after three games, two of which were Traitor-less learning games) obvious.
carlsbad wrote: 3. After only 3 games, I think the secrets of the game are pretty obvious.
See?
But it obviously isn't true. Two out of three of your pieces of strategic advice here are wrong.
carlsbad wrote: So it sounds like you are a little too defensive. Sorry if this is your favorite game.
That has nothing to do with it. I despise poor analysis, and your analysis has been very poor.
carlsbad wrote: All I did was supply my review for other new comers to the game to read over. If only a smidge of what I posted in my review can help guide somebody to a better play experience, then I have done something good for somebody.
Unfortunately, with the poor advice that you have given, I think that, were you not corrected, you would actually have harmed the play experience of new players more often, not made it better. You didn't enjoy the game in which you played badly and took a hiding ("uneventful worthless", you said), and yet you advise players to make some of the same mistakes you did.
carlsbad wrote: I am thankful that you exposed yourself as nothing more that a common message forum troll with your "Okay, so you played correctly but incompetently." comment.
Mateen is right, I was referring to your play of six siege engines in the first two rounds of the game, which is quite obviously incompetent play. Earlier I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had enough strategic skill to recognise that this is terrible play and had simply overlooked a small piece of the rules, as many have in the past.
-
|
|
