Which is the better Game Shadows or Battlestar... I don't think my wife would let me buy both...

I'm a fan of Battlestar and so is my wife and immediate friends.. Therefore I think Battlestar would get many plays in my group of friends... But I hear so many good things about Shadows over Camelot

SOC Is a really good game, however BSG imho is a more evolved version of the core mechanics, and therefore a better game imho.

On the plus side if you love the show then this game will not disapoint even if SOC was better. It really captures the feel and tention of the show, and its one of the nicest board games I have in presentation.

mgrace said:

That's the key right there. No mater how good a game is, if you have no one to play it with, it's still gona suck. I know from experiance

I really hate Shadows over Camelot. The traitor is too weak, can't really do anything on either side except play badly. With any reasonable number of players the game is incredibly easy and it's optimal to simply not worry about the traitor. And I feel mostly there's very little interaction between players. You just draw some cards and then play them.

I had to make this same choice some time ago. I owned SoC and had played it quite a few times, but BSG sounded very similar. I don't care to buy games that I feel are similar since that usually means one of them sits on the shelf gathering dust. I sold off SoC and waited for BSG. I'm happy to say I made the right choice! BSG drips with theme and is such a good time. SoC is a very abstract game that should get recognition for really opening up the co-op genre, but I can't see myself ever choosing to play it again. One other worry I had had was that BSG was going to be too insider and non-fans wouldn't really like it. I'm happy to report that this has not been the case. Fans and non-fans alike have enjoyed themselves.

Battlestar Galactica, without a doubt.

I find SOC to be nowhere as much fun as the aforementioned game.

While I haven't played Shadows over Camelot, I can say that BSG has some great things going for it. For one thing, players never seem to go away unhappy, win or lose. That's hard to do in a game where someone is almost certainly going to be backstabbery, lies and accusations (false or otherwise). I can't say I've ever not enjoyed a game of BSG. Furthermore, the mechanics are clean, and there's very little in the way of rules-doubt.

This is a total no brainer.

BSG is superior to SoC in every way shape and form. The simple addition of the sleeper phase alone totally changes the dynamics of the game which is key to a game with a traitor mechanic.

Don't waste your money on SoC. I did it for you.

timonkey said:

and that's exactly how I think about BSG. You should try both before making a decision.

EDIT : Duplicate message deleted.

Vincent_V said:

Huh? You'll have to explain this one to me. Many points were made in that section you quoted and you can't feel the reverse is true about all of them.

Battlestar. I have played SoC were much, and it is way too easy. Even if you add a second traitor card to the deck, the knights have very good chances to win the game if they just use the right strategy (which is rather obvious).

Vincent_V said:

I have tried both. I've actually probably played SoC more than BSG. I hated it before I even heard of BSG. The only reason I played it as much as I did is for social reasons, but it got to the point the last time or two that I played that I decided I didn't want any part of it anymore, because it just wasn't fun.

And you think the traitor is weak in BSG? Have your humans been winning?

First off, I would ask on BoardGameGeek: there's less "home field advantage" there. There are also a few threads on this exact subject, though, which it might make sense to check for those too. My apologies if you posted one of the BGG threads to begin with...

I prefer BSG, for many of the reasons others have mentioned. My main concern would be balance. I've found Shadows Over Camelot to be better balanced than some: I'm not sure if we don't play it enough, or we're just naturally suspicious, but we don't find a traitor-less game to be a slam-dunk. But the key is, most of the players will win, most of the time. BSG is not like that: I've only played three times, and the Cylons walked away with it every time. Now, as far as I could tell everyone had fun, which takes some of the sting out of losing. But if your playing group is all about winning, SoC might see more play: the majority are much more likely to win than with BSG.

Competitiveness might also be a problem, for either game. The single traitor of SoC ends up being a scapegoat reasonably often: people seem to take the betrayal more personally in that game. Whether it's the diffusion of betrayal into two players (making it a team competition, rather than the group vs. one person), or the different theme, or just the people I've played each game with, BSG Cylons don't engender the same feelings. On the other hand, there is no requirement that there be a traitor in SoC. So if you don't want to deal with betrayal at all, SoC might be more popular. (Of course, there are other cooperative games out there that never have a traitor, which might be more appropriate for this case.)

But in general, I'm a fan of BSG. I prefer the theme, which the game evokes quite well. The mechanics are more polished, as you might expect from a second-generation design. Perhaps because it is standing on the shoulders of giants, BSG comes out on top.

Tarota said:

As I mentioned in another thread, the fact that your early games are all Cylon victories is meaningless. I would EXPECT that. It is a lot easier to learn to play a Cylon than it is to play a human. If you keep playing with experienced players, you'll see the win/loss ratio even out a bit.

Even if your group is all about winning, I don't see a problem. Do you really feel a sting from losing? Do you walk away with your head hung low? If BSG's difficulty was too extreme then sure, people would get tired of butting their heads against a wall, but that's not the case here. I always see humans who want to play again immediately, feeling certain that they could win the next time because it was so close. And eventually they will win. And they'll feel a REAL victory. The fact that this all feeds right into the theme of the TV series is just gravy on top.

Battlestar > Shadows.

McRae said:

Win.

Trump said:

I mentioned it as a concern, not a deal-breaker. BSG has a higher learning curve than SoC. Some groups, that'll be irrelevant; some groups, they'll never bother playing after the first game. I figured I'd mention it, and let the reader decide which category their group falls in.

Thanks guys I will buy..

Battlestar galactica