Talk:Camelot (board game)

Reasonably Priced
"Because of its former popularity, reasonably-priced vintage copies remain easily available, on eBay and elsewhere."

At latest check from between $85 to $165.71.112.38.38 (talk)
 * I changed this to just "easily available". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Differences Between Chivalry and Camelot
"Camelot is an abstract strategy board game...originally published under the name of Chivalry...he game (reissued as Camelot in 1930) flourished through dozens of editions and numerous variants..."

There's more to this reissue than a name change. Camelot has a smaller board with fewer squares than Chivalry (160 instead of 176) and has fewer playing pieces as well (28 instead of 40).

http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Camelot.htm http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Chivalry.htm

71.112.38.38 (talk)

Applies here as well:

"Parker never lost his enthusiasm for the game (Chivalry), though, and in 1930 he made a few changes to the game, and Parker Brothers republished it under the name Camelot."

A few considerable changes that made the game a hit.

Shrunken official rules
I really think these rules in their entirety should be as external link to the WCF site, rather than be listed here in their entirety. (Argument: they are really intended for play conduct thru the WCF tournaments, so, anyone participating will obviously be going to the site, etc.) The complete Tournament Rules posted in the WP article is I think WP:UNDUE weight, and in fact that is why I shrunk them (to lessen the "load" so official match rules do not predominate the article). But the small font is really hard to read and not acc. WP policy, that is why I think the official rules should remain on the WCF site w/ ext link access. (Just IMO. But really I kind of like the "shrunken" rules too – the reduced size corrects their "weight" given to article, they look pretty cool, and it's more convenient than linking externally, for those interested. But in the end it might be a "turn-off" to have the complete match rules – they are extensive & essentially technical specifications – in the article.) What do others think? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: self-reverted (just too small to read!). But still feel may be counterproductive to include complete official rules here; though, they do convey complete piece move specifications. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)