Werewolf CXII - Dueling Wizards III - The Living Thread

[Mithalwen]

He was one of the most vocal and was seriously gunning for Loslote. Can't fauLt him for that. Also anti no lynch. Ditto.

Oh look, stone me (don't actually stone me! I am being rhetorical). Kuru was right. Clever Kuru.
2 am... very sleepy. Unless someone has said something a2akening while I typed this...laters

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

He was one of the most vocal and was seriously gunning for Loslote. Can't fauLt him for that. Also anti no lynch. Ditto.

Are you putting those as reasons for his being killed? Not buying it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I must be cursed.

Put on a coonskin hat, take a lit sparkler in each hand, and sing this backwards while walking the shore of Lake Erie. That'll take care of it.

[Nerwen]

Okay... I will look at Morsul's posts to see if I can glean anything.

Meanwhile- Boro, what was all that about? It looks like you believed you were breaking the tie and thus nilping yourself. Is that right?

Another thing- a number of voters yesterDay (including, I admit, both people who voted me) strike me as using the existence of the Dead Thread as an excuse for not really "owning" their votes- "no, I don't really suspect this person, but who cares? Dead Thread!" And yes, I know it was Day One, when reasons for voting tend to be flimsy, but still...

[satansaloser2005]

So what I'm gathering here is that no one was lynched and we don't know why, and Morsul was killed and we don't know why. Lovely.

The night kill tells us nothing right now, I believe, which is to say that I think it was a pretty standard first kill rather than a stab at a perceived gifted, and thus I'm not interested. I'm far more keen on looking into the Day One shenanigans and how on earth that happened. I think folks could do with a rehash of their vote explanations.

Also, my prince, I demand an explanation. You can't leave me so soon!

[satansaloser2005]

Just an FYI that I am headed to bed shortly. I will attempt to check the thread prior to work and will be in and out thereafter until my evening.

Let's not have chaos again, shall we?

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Morsul

I honestly think the bads have a lot more to lose than us. Not going to lie... gifteds to me, anyway, are less than helpful. You get reveals and counter reveals and a seer in a game where characters can change roles? I'm just not convinced losing them is entirely game breaking. Getting the evil wizard though destroys the baddies chances. Especially if we get lucky and get him day one.

I do agree with him to an extent on this. While Gifteds definitely have their usefulness, we don't necessarily need to rely on them to win the game. Anyway, I wonder if the baddies picked up on this quote and suspected a gifted Morsul was attempting to play down his own role. Then again, finding a gifted is such a shot in the dark so early in the game, I'm not sure that the baddies would factor giftedness at all when selecting last Night's pick.

Boro's self vote at the end of yesterDay would be an awfully big risk if he were a baddie. I'm inclined to think he was innocent when he made that vote. But then that was yesterDay. There's a very real possibility that a new wolf is among us. Which means we can't use any of the previous Day's behavior as a grounds for innocence. That's always the tricky part about these Dueling Wizard games.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Sally

So what I'm gathering here is that no one was lynched and we don't know why

No one was lynched because there was a tie.

I do agree that what went down during those last minutes deserves another look.

But for now, I will be retiring for the night too as it is late and I am tired.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Are you putting those as reasons for his being killed? Not buying it.

Not really. More pointing out that he doesn't fit the profile of a typical first kill of someone who has showed up but really not participated. Morsul posted a lot and offered strong opinions so frankly it seems a bit odd and aggressive to make out he isn't worth looking at the moment the day starts dismissing his death as something for us to obsess over. His death is all we have as concrete information and we ignore it? Really...?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I must be cursed.

Okay, first thing: let's make this clear. I absolutely didn't get what was that you were doing in the last minute there, because your post sounded first like you were saying in one sentence "goodbye, I am dying" and in the next "I have always wanted to die, but I am not dying yet". So what was it? What was your vote supposed to accomplish, a tie, or a break?

Otherwise, as for Morsul's death: I think it would obviously be a helpful thing for the Wolves to try to get a Gifted like in every normal game, especially since the Good Wizard would then lose them. The question is, with all the roles being unknown and all, how much of an important thing it would be for them. (What makes this worse to analyse now is also that since we didn't get to hear what his role was, there is no way telling whether he actually was a Gifted or not.)

That said, Morsul mentioned several times that the special roles confused him. By all logic, that would be a sign pointing to him not being a Gifted, unless the baddies would interpret it as a bluff from him. That's the same like what Brinniel said about him downplaying the role of Gifteds.

I tend to agree with Mith that he was certainly not a non-participating player, question is what does it mean in practice. There are many "participating players" (although again, I think Morsul was more active than he was usually, and so maybe that was again a reason for him to stand out as a target).

Of course, "all of the above" is also a reasonable explanation. I mean the more reasons the Wolves have to kill somebody, the more likely they would be to target him, obviously.

[Nerwen]

Okay, I intended to have this done much sooner, but things got in the way.

Morsul, His First and Last Day.

#6.(Replying to Lottie at #5.)

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Certainly a good thought process, but the other side of the coin is a no lynch vote is in itself a bandwagon to easily hide in. It discourages suspicions and allegations and other information that can be dissected Day two.

#9.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Chance of getting a baddie with no lynch 0/16

Don't get me wrong mathematically I get the logic.

Then again I'm not entirely sure I get the whole wizard deal.

#10.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

*old man voice
Back in my day we had wolves and gifted not these new fangled wizards

#14.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I've certainly never played a game with them. But time to pretend to be serious since my posts are mostly banter.

1. My last thought on lynch no lynch. If my math is correct we have a 6.25% of getting bad wizard today. If we forego lynching and lose a friend overnight that leaves 1/15. 6.66666% not going to lie seems to me we could easily have the same exact debate tomorrow which is one reason I'm not a fan of the policy.

2. The dead thread. Even if we make a few mistakes the dead thread could be a little Kharmic power to help us later on.

3. For clarification since the dead thread gives a voter a double vote does that change victory parameters for wolves? Usually it's wolves=innocents but in theory if it got to 1/1 the dead thread could break that tie?

4. I'm going to sleep.

#24. (Replying to Zil at #22.)

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Perhaps I wasn't clear. In a 1/1 situation in theory the dead could swing a win in either direction. I'm just wondering if a tie is still an automatic win.

#26.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

To be fair with the mechanic of wolves being created at random times by the evil wizard we have no real knowledge of how many wolves we have at any given time plus people who were once considered iron clad innocent could be evil the next day. While I understand looking for sudden changes in behavior it seems to me we'll never have a clear grasp on who the bad guys really are because we won't even know how many.

Every day will be day one with a lot of information from the previous day being suspect at best. In my opinion in this type of game no lynch for the sake of information gathering isn't the most helpful strategy. And as Boro said we're straight out of the gate saying do nothing...

#35.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Ok. So I'm voting.

Now it's time for me to say that weird thing no one likes.

I honestly think the bads have a lot more to lose than us. Not going to lie... gifteds to me, anyway, are less than helpful. You get reveals and counter reveals and a seer in a game where characters can change roles? I'm just not convinced losing them is entirely game breaking. Getting the evil wizard though destroys the baddies chances. Especially if we get lucky and get him day one.

#39.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

So... yeah I just reread the whole Wizard doohickey. I'm slightly less confused. But still think having a confirmed identity of the EW would be good. Then there are the visitors... oy I'm so confused.

But I stand by my statements.

#45.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

We've got only a couple hours to deadline and a lot of folks not here. I'm worried we're they're not present because they didn't realize we had started? If anyone can reach out on social media perhaps?

I wouldn't vote anyone not here. The biggest issue of the day is to vote or not, that being said while I'm all for voting I'm not sure I can do it in good conscience with so many absent...

#92. Votes Lottie (Boro 1, Nerwen, Lottie 1)

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

++Lottie

Right out the gate she was giving strategies for wolves and wizards. I'm also interested in her mentioning wolf and wizard not being in contact. So the wolf has to find the wizard? If that's the case another reason to go for a wolf right? Keep the wizard isolated.

Edit X'ed since Boro vote

#105. (Replying to Eonwe’s suggestions for communicating with the Dead at #98)

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

sure thing

Xed a bunch

Thoughts: He had a lot to say generally, and doesn’t seem to have been suspected by anyone– but then that last was true of many players yesterDay, to the point that I think it can be discounted as a factor.

Talked a lot about–

a. The vote-or-not question.
b. The mechanics of the Dead thread.
c. The Wizards, in particular the desirability of catching the Evil Wizard.

I’d say that c. may have been what did for him– preoccupation with a particular rôle is very often a gifted tell (from the wolfish point of view). Claimed to be confused by the rules, but that could have been seen as an “obvious” blind (to answer Legate).

The other notable thing he did was, of course, vote Lottie. Apparently he thought her a possible wolf? But that oughtn’t to have been enough in itself to get him killed, even if she is one. Was not suspicious of anyone else.

One more thing we can say now– I think– is that a wolf was definitely created Night One– according to the rules, the Evil Wizard couldn’t have started off with a solo kill. Not that there was much reason to doubt it, but every bit of information helps.

[Lalaith]

I was using the Night break to read back over the posts of Day One and I was thinking Morsul's contributions were helpful and sensible, and thus he was probably innocent.
Perhaps the baddies thought this too - in that lots of us might decide to trust him toDay.

I'm sorry I was such a berk with my highlighting etc last Day - the deadline is so late and I get confused when I'm tired, and I'm not nearly so clever at posting stuff via my phone as some of you young folk. I must say that last minute flurry of insanity was hilarious to read when I woke up. I will almost always be in bed at actual deadline and will thus nearly always be voting early and missing the fun.

So we can assume probably two baddies yesterday and perhaps up to three baddies amongst us today?

[Nerwen]

Since it is strictly against the rules for us to cite post counts from the Dead Thread, I will definitely not mention the fact that it has seventeen posts as of now in support of any theory that poor Morsul is just babbling away to himself in there à la Gollum.:smoking:

EDIT: x’d with Lalaith.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

One more thing we can say now– I think– is that a wolf was definitely created Night One– according to the rules, the Evil Wizard couldn’t have started off with a solo kill. Not that there was much reason to doubt it, but every bit of information helps.

I'm getting a bit muddled with these rules so can we double-check this? Is it possible that no wolf was created on Night 1; first wolf created on Night 2; and also first kill made that same night?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I was using the Night break to read back over the posts of Day One and I was thinking Morsul's contributions were helpful and sensible, and thus he was probably innocent.
Perhaps the baddies thought this too - in that lots of us might decide to trust him toDay.

I'm sorry I was such a berk with my highlighting etc last Day - the deadline is so late and I get confused when I'm tired, and I'm not nearly so clever at posting stuff via my phone as some of you young folk. I must say that last minute flurry of insanity was hilarious to read when I woke up. I will almost always be in bed at actual deadline and will thus nearly always be voting early and missing the fun.

So we can assume probably two baddies yesterday and perhaps up to three baddies amongst us today?

According to my reading of the rules, yes. Unless the Evil Wizard is able to turn someone and start killing the same Night, which I suppose is possible.
EDIT:x’d with Eomer.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I'm getting a bit muddled with these rules so can we double-check this? Is it possible that no wolf was created on Night 1; first wolf created on Night 2; and also first kill made that same night?

Yes, that didn’t occur to me until after I’d posted. So scratch what I said, basically.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I agree with much of the Morsul analysis so far, and it seems to me likely that he was killed because he posted quite a lot, and because there was quite a bit of meat to those posts. It would be sure to get us all talking, especially about Loslote (whom he suspected).

I don't get the Boro situation: dunno why he became a suspect, and dunno why he's embracing it. Could be a noble sacrifice? Drawing attention away?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, that didn’t occur to me until after I’d posted. So scratch what I said, basically.

I'm really not sure, there seems to be some leeway in the rules. In any case, there's an excellent chance that there are 2 wolves going about now so I don't think we'd get blamed for thinking that.

[Lalaith]

I don't get the Boro situation: dunno why he became a suspect, and dunno why he's embracing it. Could be a noble sacrifice? Drawing attention away?

Yes I'm puzzled too. Maybe a kamikaze wolf who wants to go into the Dead Thread to cause trouble? Or maybe just a playful Ordo and the reason he gave is genuine?

[Mithalwen]

I can't quote for some reason but to answer Legate's philosophical question about what participating really means. Think of this as a multi car road trip. Some people have a compulsion to be one of the drivers, if deprived they will insist on querying the route and changing all the settings on the dashboard. Other people are prepared to take their turn as requested but don't have to be at the forefront but may be useful in other ways - spotting roadsigns, handing over drinks and sweets and holding the map. Some just sit and gawp out of the window saying Ooh look pretty flowers. A few clearly missed the pick up...

Morsul wasn't just along for the ride. He didn't make airyfairy statements saying x seems a bit odd without developing it. He backed up his suspicions and opinions. So while it would be a n unsophisticated villain who killed somone who suspected them (unless it was a very sophisticated double bluff) it is still worth considering the victim's behaviour. If I umderstand correctly he has to be innocent? Because if he were a wizard he couldn't be dead and if he were a wolf he wouldn't kill himself. Or have I got that wrong.

[Lalaith]

Is it possible that no wolf was created on Night 1; first wolf created on Night 2; and also first kill made that same night?

Hmmm...I'm thinking its unlikely as to delay too much on wolf creation would be a very risky policy for EW for a number of reasons.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

I really need to spend a few minutes thinking about the Dead Thread because I'm unsure how much impact it will actually have - maybe I've been overthinking its importance.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

I really need to spend a few minutes thinking about the Dead Thread because I'm unsure how much impact it will actually have - maybe I've been overthinking its importance.

I doubt very much that the wolves would consider it important enough to be worth that.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Since it is strictly against the rules for us to cite post counts from the Dead Thread, I will definitely not mention the fact that it has seventeen posts as of now in support of any theory that poor Morsul is just babbling away to himself in there à la Gollum.

I had to stop myself just after the Day began, because I'm so used to seeing the bolding on the thread title indicating a new post, and that tells me to read it. But the Dead Thread is verboten to me at the moment.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

I thought the Wizard passed along the kills, but the wolves could make their own decision. Though whether the Wizard can (or would) override them I don't know.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Another thing- a number of voters yesterDay (including, I admit, both people who voted me) strike me as using the existence of the Dead Thread as an excuse for not really "owning" their votes- "no, I don't really suspect this person, but who cares? Dead Thread!" And yes, I know it was Day One, when reasons for voting tend to be flimsy, but still...

A vote is a vote, and 'ownership' is beyond dispute. Knowing the Dead Thread awaits is also a bit of a balm for a guilty conscience.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I can't quote for some reason but to answer Legate's philosophical question about what participating really means. Think of this as a multi car road trip. Some people have a compulsion to be one of the drivers, if deprived they will insist on querying the route and changing all the settings on the dashboard. Other people are prepared to take their turn as requested but don't have to be at the forefront but may be useful in other ways - spotting roadsigns, handing over drinks and sweets and holding the map. Some just sit and gawp out of the window saying Ooh look pretty flowers. A few clearly missed the pick up...

Morsul wasn't just along for the ride. He didn't make airyfairy statements saying x seems a bit odd without developing it. He backed up his suspicions and opinions. So while it would be a n unsophisticated villain who killed somone who suspected them (unless it was a very sophisticated double bluff) it is still worth considering the victim's behaviour. If I umderstand correctly he has to be innocent? Because if he were a wizard he couldn't be dead and if he were a wolf he wouldn't kill himself. Or have I got that wrong.

It is technically possibly for him to be a wolf (I think) but I don't think the possibility is worth bothering about unless something *really* strange comes up in the future.

Anyway, I've talked about his behaviour and how I believe he may have been killed as a possible gifted/wizard. Obviously if his death points to anyone at all, it points to Lottie, but I can't imagine he was killed just for voting her, unless the evil side thought he had dreamed her- i.e. was the GW using his "Seer" ability. (I need to check the rules regarding how that works... but I have an awful headache right now, and I'm blaming it entirely on this game.)

EDIT: x'd with 2 Zils.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

I really need to spend a few minutes thinking about the Dead Thread because I'm unsure how much impact it will actually have - maybe I've been overthinking its importance.

Depends on perhaps how significant the vote empowerment thing is? Which will be on a case by case basis as far as I can see. And voting is not always easy to predict and can suprise... so quite a big gamble, to sacrifice a wolf though it seems not theoretically impossible.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Obviously if his death points to anyone at all, it points to Lottie, but I can't imagine he was killed just for voting her, unless the evil side thought he had dreamed her- i.e. was the GW using his "Seer" ability.

Was it ever clarified what happens if the wolves target the Good Wizard? They can't kill him that way, but could they get his identity?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Was it ever clarified what happens if the wolves target the Good Wizard? They can't kill him that way, but could they get his identity?

Let me check the rules...

[Nerwen]

Here we go:

Originally Posted by The Rules

If the Evil Wizard scrys or attempts to convert the Good Wizard, the Evil Wizard is informed of the identity of the Good Wizard. This opens the door for the Evil Wizard to challeng

Edit: sorry, you meant specifically "target for a kill"? No, it doesn't say.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Inzil

Was it ever clarified what happens if the wolves target the Good Wizard? They can't kill him that way, but could they get his identity?

You know, I was assuming yes, but unless I missed something, I actually can't find anything that says it in the rules. So if the kill fails, the EW might not know whether the target was ranger protected or the GW.

Originally Posted by Eomer

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

That seems like an awfully big gamble, especially considering that with yesterDay's no-lynch, Morsul was the very first kill of the game.

FYI, I'm off to work, so aside from maybe another brief post, I won't really be able to participate again until the last hour or two.

[Nogrod]

I feel the rust jamming my brains after such a long time - it's like the neurons try to get moving but the whole machinery just cracks and screeches.

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

First things first though.

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

Let's remember that the Dead are a lot wiser than we the living are - and the gap between their understanding and ours widens everyday.

Also, having complicated - or in the worst situation - conflicting "rules of interpretation" for the Dead-vote is only going to muddy the waters and give the baddies a justification for their voting based on some interpretations of what the Dead might have wanted to say.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

It's good to have you back, sir!

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so.

It just seems a little complicated, and a bit too rigid for my taste. But if the majority want to do that, I won't be a rogue.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I thought the Dead just did two majority-votes: one to give one of the Living one extra vote, and to determine of of their number for role-reveal. Hopefully I'm not missing something.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I feel the rust jamming my brains after such a long time - it's like the neurons try to get moving but the whole machinery just cracks and screeches.

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

First things first though.

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

Let's remember that the Dead are a lot wiser than we the living are - and the gap between their understanding and ours widens everyday.

Also, having complicated - or in the worst situation - conflicting "rules of interpretation" for the Dead-vote is only going to muddy the waters and give the baddies a justification for their voting based on some interpretations of what the Dead might have wanted to say.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I can't find this, but are you sure it wasn't a question of doubling the vote *of* someone rather than the vote *for* someone?

That said, I am not nearly as confident in this plan to communicate with the Dead as some people seem to be. I think it did more or less work last game with a Dead thread, but this time there are so many other variables... I mean it's clear most of us still haven't got our heads around the rules properly yet.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I was using the Night break to read back over the posts of Day One and I was thinking Morsul's contributions were helpful and sensible, and thus he was probably innocent.
Perhaps the baddies thought this too - in that lots of us might decide to trust him toDay.

That would be quite a likely one, too. Or just one of the reasons.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

So we can assume probably two baddies yesterday and perhaps up to three baddies amongst us today?

Which we should pay attention to, btw - because while yesterDay it was either one or two baddies (presumably two), which gets easily lost in a village like this, if it's three now and four (!) toMorrow (or potentially, at least), this can get off the rails very fast.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

I really need to spend a few minutes thinking about the Dead Thread because I'm unsure how much impact it will actually have - maybe I've been overthinking its importance.

I think intentionally sacrificing a Wolf to populate the Dead Thread sounds like a scheme the phantom could come up with, but objectively, it does not make much sense.

Okay, now that I started thinking about it, I *could* imagine a scheme where the EW would just intentionally sacrifice all Wolves and try to completely misinform the village by making them think there are Wolves among them so they would just lynch each other, but really, it does not sound like a very logical strategy.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Obviously if his death points to anyone at all, it points to Lottie, but I can't imagine he was killed just for voting her, unless the evil side thought he had dreamed her- i.e. was the GW using his "Seer" ability.

Yes, I find it somehow difficult to believe that the Wolves would go for such a straightforward connetion. Even though if Lottie is evil, maybe the fact that Morsul was insistent on lynching even though many people were against it might have made the WWs think he knew something? But personally, I think that if you put it that way, it would make more sense if it was an attempt to frame an innocent Lottie.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Depends on perhaps how significant the vote empowerment thing is? Which will be on a case by case basis as far as I can see. And voting is not always easy to predict and can suprise... so quite a big gamble, to sacrifice a wolf though it seems not theoretically impossible.

At least based on experience from previous game, there would need to be significantly large presence of the Wolves on the Dead thread to accomplish anything.

EDIT: ah, Nogrod is back. Great! Let's have something to read...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

There are also rules at the beginning of this thread, which I believe are the same, an in any case those should be up-to-date, since they were posted here with the game itself.

Originally Posted by Nog

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

I remember the horrors of the previous Dead thread well, but I think that was what setting up some rules beforehand might be helpful for. Of course, you are right about this being different situation in the amount of uncertainity, different roles etc. Also, and that is perhaps more relevant point, we possibly should not "set" the rules in stone in case there comes some situation in the Dead thread we didn't think of, and then the Dead would have no way of communicating it back.

Originally Posted by Nog

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I think it was just some sort of example? In any case, I think the rules are just giving a "+1" vote.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Was it ever clarified what happens if the wolves target the Good Wizard? They can't kill him that way, but could they get his identity?

With a few exceptions, which I will list, any action against either Wizard will expose that Wizard to their enemy. So, yes, if the wolves attempt to target the Good Wizard for a kill/scry/anything the Good Wizard's identity is exposed to the Evil Wizard.

Likewise, any action against the person of the Evil Wizard, scry/gifting, will expose the identity of the Evil Wizard to the Good Wizard.

Exceptions:

If the party attempts to lynch either Wizard, they will fail and it will be obvious that they fail. I won't reveal the alignment of the Wizard in the narration, but their opposite number will know who they are, so for all intents and purposes that acts as a reveal.

Rule Clarification: The Ranger can deflect probes/attacks on the person of the Good Wizard. So let's say the Evil Wizard and Wolves try to kill the Good Wizard but the Ranger is protecting the Good Wizard. The Evil Wizard will receive the same message they would in any other circumstances of a Ranger save, which will be, and I quote:

"*Doink* Missed."

I had always had this in mind as part of the Ranger abilities, but I realized that I never actually spelled that out for everyone. Sorry about that.

My thinking was that, yes the Ranger could just endlessly protect the Good Wizard but then they are just leaving the entire rest of the playing field open for the Evil Wizard and Wolves to have a field day. It seemed like a good tactical problem to place before the Ranger...and in a way in front of the Bad Team as well.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

The rules at the start of this thread are the most authoritative ones. I will update the rules in the first post as needed, including the clarification I just outlined above.

They seem a bit shorter because I streamlined the text a bit and shed some of the explanations and things that seemed redundant by the time we started the game.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

While accurate in a way, "doubling" is probably a poor way to phrase it.

One individual has their vote raised from one to two. That's all that happens. The entire vote total for an individual is not raised. So let's say that Bob the Tomato has five votes and the Dead Thread votes to empower Larry the Cucumber who is one of the people voting against Bob. Bob's total only goes up to six, not ten.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Obviously if his death points to anyone at all, it points to Lottie, but I can't imagine he was killed just for voting her, unless the evil side thought he had dreamed her- i.e. was the GW using his "Seer" ability. (I need to check the rules regarding how that works... but I have an awful headache right now, and I'm blaming it entirely on this game.)

I can't believe he was targeted as a potential Good Wizard. From the evil point of view, would the Good Wizard really go so far on a limb Day 1 to cast a vote on a wolf he'd scryed? And how likely would it have been that the GW would forego a Gifted creation on Night 1, lacking any data on anyone, just to randomly pick someone for a role-reveal?

x/d with the Mod- so the EW and wolves might have had some benefit to going after a possible GW Morsul- except they didn't have this clarification at that time.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I can't find this, but are you sure it wasn't a question of doubling the vote *of* someone rather than the vote *for* someone?

It could be - at least it would make sense.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean it's clear most of us still haven't got our heads around the rules properly yet.

Indeed.


Just a few thoughts.

I believe we can assume there was a wolf among us on D1. The EW might have fancy strategies including not making herself a wolf the pre-game Night but yet there was a Night-kill last Night. Now that could happen if the rules allowed signing a wolf and make her to kill the very same Night, but I somehow doubt that - Kuru?

Besides just my personal doubt (feeling) there is the actual stated rule that the EW can only make a solo Night-kill after she has created at least one wolf - which kind of suggests the interpretation that the EW needs a wolf to start killing people off.

And anyway, besides the ability to kill in the first place, the EW needs numbers. It might be, she's not going to rush with bringing forwards her full pack immediately (to do that as fast as possible), but she'd need at least one, rather immediately.

Therefore I'd assume we had one already on D1.

But with no pack to defend or to plot with there probably are no clear wolftracks we could infer something from. Unless that late sequence of events which led to the no-kill decision involved the improbable - but possible - scenario where one wolf needed to cover for the EW herself - or vice versa.

That's not much, but probably the best be we have thus far.

I'll be back a little later with hopefully some better ideas.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Now that could happen if the rules allowed signing a wolf and make her to kill the very same Night, but I somehow doubt that - Kuru?

This would not be possible. The Evil Wizard couldn't create and then kill that wolf in the same NIGHT. If the Evil Wizard tried something like this the victim would go to the Dead Thread as an Ordo.

That wouldn't preclude killing that wolf on a subsequent NIGHT, but it wouldn't work to do it on the same NIGHT.

Besides just my personal doubt (feeling) there is the actual stated rule that the EW can only make a solo Night-kill after she has created at least one wolf - which kind of suggests the interpretation that the EW needs a wolf to start killing people off.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Da Rules

The Evil Wizard may make kills solo once they have created a wolf (in a scenario where the Evil Wizard has lost all their wolves). This rule applies even if the Evil Wizard has wolf picks in reserve that have not been used yet but is for some reason on his/her own.

EDIT: So I guess, theoretically, and I didn't fully appreciate it until this moment, the Evil Wizard could turn this into the most diabolical solo were-bear role ever!

Not that I'm suggesting anything to anyone.