[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by Valamir

To what extent do you follow those rules when you play. It sounds from your "drop a card" example that you are pretty free about discussing things in game mechanics terms.

I suspect we weren't quite as mechanistic in our discussions. More something like: "Friends, if we each were to rush to the lake and cast our offering in at once, Excalibur would be ours, and our friend's clairvoyant talents have assured us that we will catch the forces of evil by surprise if we move with alacrity."

I actually struggle to keep as much game mechanics & specifics out of the talk as I can, but in most games I've played there's at least one player who tries to push the line.

Some discussions that have occurred around my board which I consider generally appropriate:

"The black knight currently appears weak" (as a black knight card is placed face-down).

"I could use the support of your military m'lord if I am to complete this quest" (to Arthur, while putting down cards on one of the wars or the black knight).

"I fear I must soon leave this battle, for my forces grow weary" (again, related to one of the wars)

"If you were to have detritus to cast into the lake, it would be most useful, m'lord" (again, to Arthur, from a knight questing for Excalibur)

Not appropriate:

"I wouldn't say the black knight is very weak, but he is weak" (because that pretty much identify that a "3" was played)

"In two years time I will no longer be able to fight this war" (because that says that the knight doesn't have the n+2 Fight card)

Pretty much, if it identifies a specific card, that's what I consider too much. But, like you, I find the entire rule a bit awkward.

My concern there is that there may well be mechanical ways to reduce the tension. After just a few games we've already hit on a couple of ideas that should make future games easier to win (like group rushing quests to win them with as little delay as possible, putting Sir Kay and the knight with Excalibur on early catapult duty. Ignoring the Black Knight Quest as a time waster which has little penalty for losing. And doing flybys on the invasion quests to keep them primed. To what extent can you come up with "standard operating procedures" that can largely defeat the automatic mechanical opponent and deflate some of the tension by making the game too easy?

I dunno; as I said in my review I've had some of these exact same concerns, but haven't seen them play out. It's entirely possible that this is a game that will fade out with too many plays, unlike LotR. On the other hand, for now, I like it better than Knizia's cooperative game which always seemed a bit sterile to me.

That's a pretty good way of viewing it, although I think the table talk rules discourage this sort of thing by making it difficult to really coordinate a killer combo like that. Technically your excalibur trick (a good one) is against the rules (at least how I read them). I think next time we play I'll suggest relaxing the table talk limit and see if that spices things up.

I wouldn't see it as such because the rules allow for the discussion of intentions, but not exact cards. We definitely didn't talk about exact cards, just a very specific course of action.

Of course we also won the game 9 swords to 3, and only that because we purposefully let quests quickly fail to get the last black swords on the board and complete our 12. But then we had an inexperienced traitor too.

All in all, lest I sound too down on the game, I'm loving it. I've been tempted to rate the game a 9 over at BGG. But I just have these niggling concerns that after 5 or 10 more plays it really won't be a 9 any more.

That's the difference between a 9 and a 10 at BGG. At a 9 you always want to play it, and at a 10 you're confident that'll always be the case. Which is why my rating there is a 9 too.

Shannon