In the beginner rules, one is encouraged to play without a Traitor. Under these conditions, does it make sense to wait until the knights have 12 swords in Camelot before determining the winner? It seems that with 7 white swords earned, the race to finish enough quests to end the game is anti-climactic.

The only situation I can think of where Evil could still win without a Traitor would be if the Holy Grail quest were lost when the sword count is 7 white to 4 black. Those 3 black swords would result in a 7:7 tie and spell defeat. In our group, the Grail gets attention early and is completed quickly, so this is unlikely.

Please help me understand this purpose of this rule.

  • 1
    Consistency? Guaranteeing the game last a certain number of turns, to make you balance the evil actions you take at the start of the turn? Although I guess once you have seven swords, you just draw black cards trying to lose quests faster. Yeah, maybe it is silly when you are playing without a traitor.
    – coolpapa
    Jun 12, 2014 at 0:59
  • Even when you are playing with a traitor, you oftenhave enough white swords that the end game is a race to fill the table with whatever color swords you can to prevent losing by other means. It is one of the flaws of this game in my opinion.
    – bwarner
    Jun 13, 2014 at 12:58

1 Answer 1


Remember the catapults

If there are 12 of them at any time you lose the game. So even with no traitor and 8 white swords, if you are too tight and lose the invasion quests (or simply draw the wrong black cards), you may lose because of catapults before completing the 12 swords on the table.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .