Author Topic: Shadows over Camelot  (Read 7119 times)

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Shadows over Camelot
« on: May 30, 2013, 02:15:15 pm »
Overall, it was an interesting and good game.  The mechanics seem sound.  I did have a few "weird patches" with the theme match-ups though:

1) It is possible that a player will be a traitor.  Since King Arthur is one of the players, then it is possible that *he* is the traitor (to himself?).  That was a bit jarring (luckily he wasn't the traitor in the game I actually played).

2) The game can only end in victory for the non-traitors if all 12 sword positions are filled and the majority of them are white swords.  One way to lose is independently of the swords, by having too many catapults on the game.  This leads to the odd situation in our game where, to avoid being overwhelmed by catapults, and confident that we would have a majority of swords that were white, we wanted to finish side quests *even if it meant deliberately losing them*, just to fill up the remaining spaces for the 12 swords.  So we won the game by losing the grail (or excalibur, I can't remember which).  Again, that was a bit jarring.

3) Oh, and GitS was the traitor in the game I played.  Which I kinda figured out early, except for the possibility that GitS was acting suspiciously just to mess with us independently of whether he was the traitor or not.  But the thing is that revealing GitS as the traitor actually was a power-up for GitS!  Instead of just farting around, pretending to help, now he could actively do bad stuff to us (or maybe it just slightly expanded the "negative" part of every knights turn, as each knight had to have something bad happen before something good could happen).

4) Actually, that is a little weird too (although I am used to it in other games like Lord of the Rings).  Each knight effectively chooses a bad thing to happen before doing a good thing.  Presumably the non-traitors try to minimize the bad things while the traitor secretly tries to maximize the bad things.  I guess one could rationalize it as "each knight has bad luck/doom, what is your doom?" sorta thing, but it is a bit like playing against oneself.

5) Oddly, one of the quests was for Lancelot's armour.  I think Lancelot was a player in the game.  So, like, how did he lose his armour, and why doesn't the knight who finds it give it back to him?  Oddly, event he traitor can find (and use!) Lancelot's armour (although he can't find it after being revealed, he could use it after being revealed if he found it previously).

But those are thematic quibbles.  The game itself plays well mechanically, kinda like Pandemic/Battlestar Galactica but with a little more hope.

Oh, and it seems that historically GitS is the traitor if anyone is.  There is no rational reason for this, it just seems to be the case.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 03:41:53 pm by Particle_Man »
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

GitS

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2013, 05:04:34 am »
if it helps any.  partially because the rules are fuzzy.  as i have played it once before. we were playing the "easy version" because of not reading the rules as well. because..


we arent suppose to retroactively use merlins.  For any of the special it must be Read, decide to 3x merlin, effects applied.
a merlin cant stop the pict/saxon from showing up. it can remove the last one played.   

when you lose a fight against a siege engine, you lose a hp.
also we cant discuss our hands.  so our "I got a 3 of a kind, send me a X" is according to the rules. not allowed.

oh and all ties. are ruled in favour of evil.  and for evil as soon as the 7th black sword goes down the game is over.

I'd say we should play it again. only with real rules ;)  i'll print up the summary sheet and the beginner tips.  I hate the fact that the rules are split into two.
Things die.  People burn.  This is the way of all things.   This is my way *cackle*
    "I have defied gods and demons.
    I am your shield, I am your sword.
    I know you; your past, your future.
    This is the way the world ends."

Fayth

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 2012
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2013, 05:29:54 am »
We didnt retroactively use merlins. I didn't at least.

We also did the loss of hp when losing vs siege engines.

The only one we broke was the hands one but quite honestly we coulda just worked around that.

GitS

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2013, 12:45:05 pm »
well the trading of cards was a big thing.  because the king could just force the trade apparently. 

as for arthur being traitor. why not? perhaps he realizes that merlin is an evil alien intelligence manipulating him. 

i think they said the only thing you can tell people is how many merlins.


we did retroactively use a merlin for picts and saxons.  or should i say reactively

NB: i'm not complaining because i lost as the traitor.   i'm just pointing out apparently we made it slightly easier by giving out hand information so its easier for us to win. and by us  i mean you non-traitors
Things die.  People burn.  This is the way of all things.   This is my way *cackle*
    "I have defied gods and demons.
    I am your shield, I am your sword.
    I know you; your past, your future.
    This is the way the world ends."

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2013, 01:22:35 pm »
I would be interested to see what happened if people went "Everyone on Grail duty (if you have a grail - otherwise draw cards), then Everyone on Excalibur duty (if you have cards)".  It would seem that a (non traitor) player strategy at first would be, when choosing bad stuff, to take life point damage unless that brings you down to 1, then choose a catapult unless that brings them up to 7 (say), then and only then choose black cards.  That way it is possible to have "Breathing room" to complete some side quests (like grail, excalibur) quickly, and get the benefits of those two items (as well as bank some white swords on the table).
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2013, 03:47:10 pm »
Wait, how does ARthur's trade power work if he doesn't konw what is in another knihgt's hand?  Seems pretty useless.
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

GitS

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2013, 01:15:18 am »
the trade power is "give me a card. you dont want to.   YOUR KING SAYS I GIVE YOU THIS CARD YOU GIVE ME A CARD"  facedown

so arthur can be a total dick and give you crap.  the hand is suppose to be secret so you arent suppose to go "i'll give you a grail you give me whatever"   
Things die.  People burn.  This is the way of all things.   This is my way *cackle*
    "I have defied gods and demons.
    I am your shield, I am your sword.
    I know you; your past, your future.
    This is the way the world ends."

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2013, 09:15:44 am »
So "good guy" Arthur might use it to give grails to people in the grail quest area, or the "next number" to people in the Saxon/Picts areas, or "big numbers" to people on catapult-killing duty?  Since he doesn't know others' hands, he can't help people in the tournament/lancelot's armour/dragon areas (how would he know what numbers others need?).  I suppose he could give crap to whoever is in the Excalibur area, hoping to get not-crap back. 

If Arthur himself is in the grail quest area or saxon/picts area or catapult-killing area, can others signal to Arthur "hey trade with me!" or would that violate the rules?

I suppose "traitor" Arthur could hurt people in the latter areas but that would be a little obvious.
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

GitS

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2013, 08:58:01 pm »
just because the game is too easy.  we have gotten a copy of the expansion for this game for the club.  now relish the futility of trying to save camelot
Things die.  People burn.  This is the way of all things.   This is my way *cackle*
    "I have defied gods and demons.
    I am your shield, I am your sword.
    I know you; your past, your future.
    This is the way the world ends."

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2013, 02:56:55 pm »
It should be tried once without a traitor, to see if it is possible to win that way.  Maybe not!
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

GitS

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2013, 06:06:28 pm »
randomly dealt man we never know
Things die.  People burn.  This is the way of all things.   This is my way *cackle*
    "I have defied gods and demons.
    I am your shield, I am your sword.
    I know you; your past, your future.
    This is the way the world ends."

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2013, 10:52:15 pm »
I meant forget the random deal and treat everyone as loyal for one game, and see if it can be won even without traitors (or the threat of traitors).
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

GitS

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2013, 12:31:44 pm »
since we are playing the game enough.   its time to start sleeving to protect the cards.


Number of Cards: 168
Arcane Tinmen Sleeve Size: Mini (AT-10101)
Fantasy Flight Sleeve Size: Standard American 2 1/4" x 3 1/2" (56x87 MM)
Mayday Sleeve Size: Standard USA Game 56 x 87 mm
Swan Panasia Sleeve Size: SWN-020
Ultra Pro Sleeve Size: Small Size 62 x 89 mm
Bridge and Yu-Gi-Oh Card Size


Expansions

Shadows over Camelot: Merlin's Company
Number of Cards: 63


TOTAL Number of Cards: 231    <--- there you go.

NB:  we also lost this week.  that travel deck.  its pretty brutal.   i wonder if we just ignored the travel deck. what would happen and by we lost i mean alex b and j lai won.  good job traitorious scum knights.

also we learned that all cards are placed down 1 at a time.  so if you want to complete the black knight's quest.  it will take you 5 turn.  4 if you cut.       i remember talking about how the dragon is suppose to go.  i'll read the faq again later.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 12:34:45 pm by GitS »
Things die.  People burn.  This is the way of all things.   This is my way *cackle*
    "I have defied gods and demons.
    I am your shield, I am your sword.
    I know you; your past, your future.
    This is the way the world ends."

Particle_Man

  • Legendary
  • ****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Cut my teeth on 1st ed AD&D
    • http://particle-man6.livejournal.com/
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2013, 06:19:06 pm »
Maybe we should give a re-read on individual quests (lancelot, dragon, black knight) and whether some cards can remain when one leaves (like if one has put down a pair already).  Otherwise it is very hard to get all the right cards on one knight.

I think I have to reevaluate how to accuse people, as I was *totally* convinced that steve was the other traitor (he wasn't - it is just that I disagreed with his game strategy so much that I thought he was being deliberately subversive (and to be fair, he is better at the game than I am so the fault is in my eyes, not in his play)) and the true identity of the other traitor floored me as much as anyone else.  I mean I knew that with 8 players the odds greatly favoured there being a second traitor somewhere, but wow.  If I had been loyal that game I would have accused steve as soon as possible and that would have been the wrong move. 

On the other hand, one could (as traitor) be "Captain Obvious" and just place catapults every turn, and when one is revealed, still place catapults - it pretty much mandates that someone has to be on catapult duty and one doesn't have to help the other knights in the early game because one is not trying to maintain any cover.  Not sure how well that strategy would work, mind you.  But with two traitors doing that I think it would be hard on the other knights.

I think the odds of there being no traitor in an 8 player game is 1/45, and given that I was a traitor I think the odds were 7 to 2 that there was another one somewhere.  But in a 3 player game the odds are slightly in favour of their being no traitor (and if there is one, a Captain Obvious Traitor would probably doom the good guys).
Game MASter that is comPLETEly unfair!

Fayth

  • Administrator
  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 2012
Re: Shadows over Camelot
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2013, 04:55:30 am »
I'm pretty sure that all the solo quests (lancelot/black knight) lose their cards when the player leaves the quest. I don't have the book on me but theres a clause in the FAQ that pretty much says the same information.

Q: Are all the white cards played thus far on a quest removed when the last knight present leaves that quest?
A: No, all the white (not black) cards are only removed from a quest if that quest is a solo quest, ie lancelot or the black knight's quest.

Thus we can see that you only removes cards if the person on the solo quest leaves. It is exactly as we've been playing it.

Also we've been missing the Trading part of the very beginning of the game.

"At the start of the game, in a gesture of the collaboration to come, each player must select one White card
from his hand and place it, face up, on the Round Table. A discussion should ensue about how to best
share those cards among all the Knights.
A Knight, in a noble gesture, may voluntarily take none of the shared cards, while others may pick up
several. If there is disagreement (not a good omen of things to come!), the offered cards are shuffled and
redistributed randomly to each player.
You are now ready to begin."

Also for the solo quests, the fight cards are played face up.

Rule book page 10:
"Throughout the game, discard all cards face down, regardless of their color or who played it. Cards played on the board are usually placed face up, unless indicated otherwise."
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 04:57:15 am by Fayth »