Jump to content

Long Game (3)2: Pulling on Strings


Recommended Posts

@Kipper Is it LG24 you're salty about? I forget.

 

9 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

I'm not quite sure how your vote follows from Ecthelion's centrality to the current discussion.

Drake wasing the voting of Ecth. DK apparently ising the believing of Ecth, so he ising the voting of Drake.

 

Ising the voting of Yitzi2. Wasing the saying he wanted to have his vote on the most "likely target", meaning he ising the using of little to no opinion of his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

There are a lot of people who were substantially more active than me last cycle, who did not submit votes. In the span of maybe five minutes you confidently conclude that somehow I was definitely the rioter, once you are asked if you rioted someone. You understand why I call you out perhaps?

I'm not necessarily saying you are the rioter... But it just seems very odd to pin this on me.

And anyway. You want to accuse me of not voting? Perhaps I can remedy that, Ecthelion. Lets see if this one counts.

 

ANYWAYS... Aman seems to have died. That's kind of lame to be honest. I mean, I understand why the inquisitor might not want to play Aman's game, but... Still.

Honestly, if I were inquisitor I probably woulda just killed someone other than the three people Aman listed. No reason to let the enemy dictate the options. Especially since he could have secretly arranged to actually have a lurcher protect him, which actually would have been a pretty good way to waste an eliminator kill.

Drake, you're dodging the question. You consistently pushed for a lynch, yet you didn't vote. In order for there to be a lynch, someone has to have at least two votes on them. However, people pushing for a lynch don't just happily sit back once there's two votes on someone. They vote and maybe push other people to vote. Your lack of a vote when you advocated for a lynch signals a lack of consistency, as Wilson says below.

2 hours ago, little wilson said:

I'm curious about this too, because Drake was very adamant about lynching. He made multiple posts about how we needed to have a lynch, but I found it strange that he never voted at all, despite so much pressure for everyone else to vote to lynch. Not that I find this suspicious. I just think it's indicative of Drake being the Rioter, but he vehemently denied that. So why didn't you vote, Drake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arraenae said:

Drake, you're dodging the question. You consistently pushed for a lynch, yet you didn't vote. In order for there to be a lynch, someone has to have at least two votes on them. However, people pushing for a lynch don't just happily sit back once there's two votes on someone. They vote and maybe push other people to vote. Your lack of a vote when you advocated for a lynch signals a lack of consistency, as Wilson says below.

I'm dodging the question? I suspect the question is somewhat irrelevant, if everyone is so sure the rioter is a villager.

But fine. Perhaps I can answer this question.

To no fault of Wilson's or your own, it appears you've ignored the original post I made last night on that matter. So I'll reiterate:

It was apparent last cycle that there was going to be a lynch. The voting requirements were fulfilled. At that point, what bearing does my advocating a lynch have on my voting?

Honestly, I could probably just stop there. But I don't feel like stopping, so, onwards.

So, beyond that, my vote would have only mattered to steer the lynch one way or another.

And yet. I had read basically none of the many posts in that cycle. I really wasn't informed enough to cast a vote, so why should I be steering the vote?

So I made comments on the posts I saw right in front of me in the last few hours of the cycle, and let that be that.

Honestly... If I'd thrown a vote on someone last second in the previous cycle, without proper reasoning that comes from actually reading the thread, do you seriously think I wouldn't have gotten called out for that by someone? It seems now that when I exercise restraint, I am still called out... Doesn't much matter what I do then.

Which, I suppose is fine. Maybe after a few more mislynches, y'alls will realize you can't read me. Which, independent of my alignment in any particular game, is useful.

Want to call my bluff? Lynch me. I dare you. I may be dead, but I'll also be proven right. And trust me, that matters much more to me :P:P:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Elenion said:

Drake wasing the voting of Ecth. DK apparently ising the believing of Ecth, so he ising the voting of Drake.

Doesn't follow; false suspicions are not particularly indicative of the Inquisitor, particularly so early and if they have real basis.

39 minutes ago, Elenion said:

Ising the voting of Yitzi2. Wasing the saying he wanted to have his vote on the most "likely target", meaning he ising the using of little to no opinion of his own.

No, it means that my opinion is based on considering the reasoning of others.  But then, your poor reasoning is what got you my vote in the first place, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if you continue in that pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

I'm dodging the question? I suspect the question is somewhat irrelevant, if everyone is so sure the rioter is a villager.

But fine. Perhaps I can answer this question.

To no fault of Wilson's or your own, it appears you've ignored the original post I made last night on that matter. So I'll reiterate:

It was apparent last cycle that there was going to be a lynch. The voting requirements were fulfilled. At that point, what bearing does my advocating a lynch have on my voting?

Honestly, I could probably just stop there. But I don't feel like stopping, so, onwards.

So, beyond that, my vote would have only mattered to steer the lynch one way or another.

And yet. I had read basically none of the many posts in that cycle. I really wasn't informed enough to cast a vote, so why should I be steering the vote?

So I made comments on the posts I saw right in front of me in the last few hours of the cycle, and let that be that.

Honestly... If I'd thrown a vote on someone last second in the previous cycle, without proper reasoning that comes from actually reading the thread, do you seriously think I wouldn't have gotten called out for that by someone? It seems now that when I exercise restraint, I am still called out... Doesn't much matter what I do then.

Which, I suppose is fine. Maybe after a few more mislynches, y'alls will realize you can't read me. Which, independent of my alignment in any particular game, is useful.

Want to call my bluff? Lynch me. I dare you. I may be dead, but I'll also be proven right. And trust me, that matters much more to me :P:P:P

You do know that ties result in a no-lynch, correct? Sart only had a one vote lead over Mark. Vote manipulation could've easily flipped it. One soothe and it would've been tied. Not with the Riot, but it was by means apparent that there would be a lynch. And yet for the last about two hours of the cycle, you kept making posts about percentages and probability and how it was important to lynch and people should vote. Yet you never voted. That's inconsistent. And had you voted the first time you talked about how important a lynch was, it wouldn't have been suspicious at all. I don't even think it would've been a big deal if you'd voted in the last couple minutes of the cycle. Plenty of people have been known to vote in the last couple minutes to solidify a lynch against vote manip.

I don't think you're evil, because if you are the Rioter, you're clearly not the Inquisitor. But at the same time, I don't get why you're fixated on Ecth. He noticed exactly what a number of people noticed (Aman and I both thought it was pretty likely you were the Rioter, based on what happened, and it looks like Rae did as well): You wanted a lynch, but you never voted. Why would someone who wants a lynch not vote? Perhaps because they know their vote will be negated because they're planning on Rioting to secure a lynch. His logic makes sense. Might not have been best to put in the thread, since if the Inquisitor didn't have a guess about the Rioter, now he does, but at the same time, he himself was being accused of being the Rioter, and Ecth has a bad habit of dying in Cycle 1, so I can understand why he'd mention the obvious second option. He's trying to keep himself from dying. Yet you're voting on him, not for putting that in the thread, but for him not thinking it was someone else? Why does that make him suspicious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Doesn't follow; false suspicions are not particularly indicative of the Inquisitor, particularly so early and if they have real basis.

No, it means that my opinion is based on considering the reasoning of others.  But then, your poor reasoning is what got you my vote in the first place, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if you continue in that pattern.

Ising the doing of the rest of this post without the speaking of High Imperial.

Okay, let's look at this objectively. You say that your opinion is based on the reasoning of others. What others, specifically? Araris put a tentative vote on me for being aggressive, so that could be one of them. I can't think of any others who have expressed any suspicion of me except Kipper, who is just salty from some previous game, possibly LG24. So has someone told you they are suspicious of me in PM but neglected to tell me the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elenion said:

Ising the doing of the rest of this post without the speaking of High Imperial.

Okay, let's look at this objectively. You say that your opinion is based on the reasoning of others. What others, specifically? Araris put a tentative vote on me for being aggressive, so that could be one of them. I can't think of any others who have expressed any suspicion of me except Kipper, who is just salty from some previous game, possibly LG24. So has someone told you they are suspicious of me in PM but neglected to tell me the same?

No, but someone else might later come up with a better reason to be suspicious of someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to put this there for now, I have an exam right now. So, yeah. I'll be replying to the relevant people after about 6 hours. Don't ask me why did, but six. So, if anyone wants to say anything, just put it before then, and I'll respond to it. 

Wish me luck! Or don't! I don't exactly need it for this exam, because the Ja guides my hand. 

Praise the Ja!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2017 at 5:37 PM, Jondesu said:

Unfortunately, I don't know that it narrows the possibilities down to experienced vs newer players, as long as they understood Aman was a threat and didn't want to go for a battle of wits (there wasn't even any iocaine powder!). However, there could be a conversion tonight since Aman was a Smoker (he said he was a misting, so no surprise there). Is there anything that can block the Inquisitor's conversion ability, btw?

I don't believe there's any way to block the conversions, no.

On 3/29/2017 at 8:53 PM, Drake Marshall said:

To speak bluntly. Neither am I.

I mean, there's already good evidence to point to the fact that our rioter is a villager. So why on earth would I bother lying about that? And, if I were lying, maybe to protect myself against eliminators, wouldn't that already indicate that I'm village?

I mean, vote on me, I guess, but... Please just clarify, what are your actual reasons to be voting on me? God knows, there are likely solid reasons to think I'm suspicious, but I'm not seeing any of them.

Half of the votes this cycle have had maybe 1 sentence of vague reasoning behind them. I'm noticing Randuir is reliably asking people to elaborate when they do that, for which I applaud him.

Rand seemed helpful in LG30 as well. Just saying. :P

23 hours ago, Silverblade5 said:

Just reading write up. Given that the inquisitor didn't take Aman's challenge, this tells me two things:

S/he's lazy.

S/he's smart. As if someone would directly engage Aman if they had a choice :P   This is telling me it's someone who is generally a lurker. 

I've attacked Aman on Night 1 a lot of times(not this time though I swear :ph34r:). And I'm not a lurker. So I'm not sure that conclusion is too solid. If you were correct though, who do you think that points to?

Edit: Praise the Ja.

Edited by TheMightyLopen
within 24 hours at least >>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yitzi2 said:

No, but someone else might later come up with a better reason to be suspicious of someone else.

Ising the missing of something. You said that your opinion was based on "considering the reasoning of others" but you just barely said that there aren't any others that you are considering the reasoning of other than Araris? I'm sleep-deprived so that might be part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheMightyLopen said:

I don't believe there's any way to block the conversions, no.

Rand seemed helpful in LG30 as well. Just saying. :P

I've attacked Aman on Night 1 a lot of times(not this time though I swear :ph34r:). And I'm not a lurker. So I'm not sure that conclusion is too solid. If you were correct though, who do you think that points to?

I'd also assume he generally has some for of protection whenever possible, which also leads me to conclude a double tap was was somehow done. I'm going to vote Dalinar, as I'm unfamiliar with him and can therefor assign any arbitrary pattern of behavior to him. He has until the end of the day to convince me otherwise.

EDIT: Meant Dalinar

Edited by Silverblade5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, little wilson said:

You do know that ties result in a no-lynch, correct? Sart only had a one vote lead over Mark. Vote manipulation could've easily flipped it. One soothe and it would've been tied. Not with the Riot, but it was by means apparent that there would be a lynch. And yet for the last about two hours of the cycle, you kept making posts about percentages and probability and how it was important to lynch and people should vote. Yet you never voted. That's inconsistent. And had you voted the first time you talked about how important a lynch was, it wouldn't have been suspicious at all. I don't even think it would've been a big deal if you'd voted in the last couple minutes of the cycle. Plenty of people have been known to vote in the last couple minutes to solidify a lynch against vote manip.

I don't think you're evil, because if you are the Rioter, you're clearly not the Inquisitor. But at the same time, I don't get why you're fixated on Ecth. He noticed exactly what a number of people noticed (Aman and I both thought it was pretty likely you were the Rioter, based on what happened, and it looks like Rae did as well): You wanted a lynch, but you never voted. Why would someone who wants a lynch not vote? Perhaps because they know their vote will be negated because they're planning on Rioting to secure a lynch. His logic makes sense. Might not have been best to put in the thread, since if the Inquisitor didn't have a guess about the Rioter, now he does, but at the same time, he himself was being accused of being the Rioter, and Ecth has a bad habit of dying in Cycle 1, so I can understand why he'd mention the obvious second option. He's trying to keep himself from dying. Yet you're voting on him, not for putting that in the thread, but for him not thinking it was someone else? Why does that make him suspicious?

Hm... So you are saying I'm being inconsistent? Guilty as charged. :P People are not consistent. Particularly villagers who aren't thinking very hard about how their actions may look to other people.

Still not a rioter, and you'd think at this point if I were I'd have PMed one of you people. This is kind of silly.

I'm not "fixated" on Ecth, either... I simply find something odd in Ecth's pinning it on me, and I've also been called out for not voting. Two birds with one stone and all that. Unless you care to give me a better voting option?

13 minutes ago, TheMightyLopen said:

Rand seemed helpful in LG30 as well. Just saying. :P

I wasn't going to say it, but trust me, I was thinking it :P

Edited by Drake Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Elenion said:

Ising the missing of something. You said that your opinion was based on "considering the reasoning of others" but you just barely said that there aren't any others that you are considering the reasoning of other than Araris? I'm sleep-deprived so that might be part of the problem.

There aren't any others yet; that post you're quoting was about what might happen in the future.

However, your discussion suggests that what's going on is more sleep-deprived posting than Inquisitorness; while I still would frown on it (that's no way to play a game that requires decision-making), I am retracting my vote for Elenion.

 

Edited by Yitzi2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

As Garshin wandered away from the rambling Keeper (whom, he noticed, had not actually answered the question he'd been asked), he came across another argument.  "You know, your accusation of that strange watcher fellow actually was fairly suspicious, seeing as it made no sense whatsoever.  The way I see it, you're currently our number one candidate for the culprit.  And now that a Smoker is dead, we need to act, as the Inquisitor probably charged a Hemalurgic...oh right, Hemalurgy isn't well known in this age.  Suffice it to say that the Inquisitor is likely to have an ally soon, who will be a Smoker as well."

-----------------------

That's a vote for Elenion, though it is highly tentative and subject to change if someone suggests a more likely target.

Here, you're stating, without providing a reason, that Elenion is the "number one candidate culprit".

11 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

No, it means that my opinion is based on considering the reasoning of others.  But then, your poor reasoning is what got you my vote in the first place, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if you continue in that pattern.

Here, you're stating that your opinion is based on the reasoning of others, without paraphrasing or quoting said reasoning. Also, you provide an ad Hominem as if it was reasoning.

3 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

However, your discussion suggests that what's going on is more sleep-deprived posting than Inquisitorness; while I still would frown on it (that's no way to play a game that requires decision-making), I am retracting my vote for Elenion.

And again, you're making it sound like somehow you've been providing solid reasoning for a vote on Elenion, while actually you have done nothing of the sort (if someone has done poor reasoning, quote said reasoning and explain why it is poor). Elenion, on the other hand, has been calling you out constantly to actually provide reasoning, to state on whose opinion you're basing your vote and you've yet to properly answer those questions. If this game had started with an elim team, I would be voting on you right now, as this kind of deflecting questions and pretending to be providing reasoning is pretty suspicious. I don't expect the inquisitor to play this aggressive this early, though.

Edit: Also, Iamspartacus ( @Iamspartacus) I'd appreciate it if you could make your intention to participate in this game known.

Edited by randuir
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, randuir said:

Here, you're stating, without providing a reason, that Elenion is the "number one candidate culprit".

Here, you're stating that your opinion is based on the reasoning of others, without paraphrasing or quoting said reasoning. Also, you provide an ad Hominem as if it was reasoning.

And again, you're making it sound like somehow you've been providing solid reasoning for a vote on Elenion, while actually you have done nothing of the sort (if someone has done poor reasooning, quote said reasoning and explain why it is poor). Elenion, on the other hand, has been calling you out constantly to actually provide reasoning, to state on whose opinion you're basing your vote and you've yet to properly answer those questions. If this game had started with an elim team, I would be voting on you right now, as this kind of deflecting questions and pretending to be providing reasoning is pretty suspicious. I don't expect the inquisitor to play this aggressive this early, though.

Edit: Also, Iamspartacus ( @Iamspartacus) I'd appreciate it if you could make your intention to participate in this game known.

I see I wasn't clear.  So let me clarify:

-Elenion's accusation of Ecthelion last night made no sense, since Ecthelion was not the only person whose vote was negated.

-There are a few potential reasons for this, but Elenion being the Inquisitor was one of them.  Since the village definitely wants to have a lynching today (both because an enemy smoker means "follow the cop" is now definitely a no-go and because even if we accidentally lynch a misting, it doesn't give the Inquisitor another opportunity to convert), even that fairly minor added amount was enough to vote for him.  (Now I've reconsidered, since his general posting makes other explanations much more likely). 

However, this is still a fairly weak reason, and therefore I am ready to change my opinion based on the future reasoning of others, should I see any that is good.

As for "provide an ad Hominem as if it was reasoning": When discussing the role of a given individual, an ad Hominem regarding that individual is addressing the topic at hand and therefore not fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

I see I wasn't clear.  So let me clarify:

-Elenion's accusation of Ecthelion last night made no sense, since Ecthelion was not the only person whose vote was negated.

-There are a few potential reasons for this, but Elenion being the Inquisitor was one of them.  Since the village definitely wants to have a lynching today (both because an enemy smoker means "follow the cop" is now definitely a no-go and because even if we accidentally lynch a misting, it doesn't give the Inquisitor another opportunity to convert), even that fairly minor added amount was enough to vote for him.  (Now I've reconsidered, since his general posting makes other explanations much more likely). 

Okay, thank you. This makes a lot more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Herowannabe

14 hours ago, Herowannabe said:

Going to go ahead and cast a vote for Mark IV for the reasons I listed last night. 

To post what I think is the relevant quote.

Quote

I thought I made it clear, but apparently not. Regardless of what the village wanted for day 1, the Inquisitor certainly wanted a lynch. The Inquisitor gains nothing from a no-lynch situation Day 1. So whether it vote-manipped or simply cast a vote, it probably would have wanted to do something to help ensure that a lynch went through. Maybe it was amanuensis or Drought and cast a vote on Sart to help see it through. Maybe it has some sort of uber-Brass that automatically soothes whoever it votes for, and it was @Mark IV voting on Ecthelion to sooth his vote away from him and make it more likely one of the other lynch candidates would die. 

You seem quite sure that the elim possesses that kind of Uber-Brass, the specifics of the power and that it even exists. To me, such a power seems slightly imbalanced in this context. But, that's just my opinion. 

Randuir puts it quite succinctly.

14 hours ago, randuir said:

Could you maybe repeat that reasoning? Looking back through the night-thread I can only find you mentioning a theory regarding a rather specific possible functioning of uber-brass, and a tenuous link with Mark IV. As I pointed out, however, the attack on Aman was most likely done by the inquisitor, and given that the elim only gets 1 standard action this would make his involvement in the vote manipulation incredibly unlikely.

(Is it just me or does anyone else find it funny that Hero's Picture is that of an inquisitor? He's literally hiding in plain sight! :P)

 

Secondly, I may not have thought this out, but why did the inquisitor not want to convert aman? Wouldn't that have been better to do? If they weren't going to listen to his deal anyways... 

One of the possible answers I can see is that they had confirmation from Aman that he was a misting. So, they didn't want to waste anymore time trying to acquire a spike. 

If this explanation is true, then the inquisitor wouldn't have had a hand in lynching Sart, for Sart had already declared he was a non-misting. Sure, he could be lying, but why take the chance?

But, I would like to hear you guys' explanations/ theories on this.

 

Lastly, @Arraenae

13 hours ago, Arraenae said:

Mark, N1 you made a comment about initially thinking that this game would be "completely roleless". Why would you have thought that?

Well, I was recently in the spec doc for the last QF (was it QF21? The one with the partners), and I guess that that kind of had an effect on me because I had assumed that there were roles in the game. Sure, there were, but most of them were smokers. So, essentially useless. 

Now, I hadn't assumed the game was roleless, I just pointed out that this game doesn't seem to be roleless. 

However, in retrospect, it doesn't make much sense to have a roleless game where the only method for conversion is by killing non-roleless people. So, yeah. That. 

 

For those of you that ask why this post came later than I had earlier said, know that I was busy in my service of the Ja. And, for those of you who believe that I was simply wasting time, know that the Almighty has rewarded me with a jar of nutella. (Yes, I am eating nutella as I type this :P)

 

Praise the Ja!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mark IV said:

Secondly, I may not have thought this out, but why did the inquisitor not want to convert aman? Wouldn't that have been better to do? If they weren't going to listen to his deal anyways... 

One of the possible answers I can see is that they had confirmation from Aman that he was a misting. So, they didn't want to waste anymore time trying to acquire a spike. 

If this explanation is true, then the inquisitor wouldn't have had a hand in lynching Sart, for Sart had already declared he was a non-misting. Sure, he could be lying, but why take the chance?

But, I would like to hear you guys' explanations/ theories on this.

One of the possible reasons he hit Aman was that Aman had asked for seekers to keep an eye on him, so converting him could quite easily have ended up as being a waste of a conversion.

Kipper's comment that he thinks it wasn't the elim that killed Aman did get me thinking. In a 30-man game, there probably is at least one coinshot, so if the coin shot killed Aman isntead of the inquisitor it would explain why Aman got killed while he made for an interesting conversion target. This would also mean the inquisitor could have been part of the vote maniuplation we've seen. So if it was in fact a coinshot who did it, I'd like it if he could get that information mentioned in the thread. I don't want a public roleclaim or anything (so just PM someone you trust to keep your role secret), but we're making a number of assumptions based on the Aman kill that could result in us looking into the wrong actions if Aman's death wasn't actually an elim kill.

Regarding Sart, I don't think many people had spotted the claim in his RP. I'd seen it, but interpreted it as a thug claim, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions about those who voted on him one way or another.

I'll try to get a bigger post up sometime this cycle in which I do some analysis. However, I've been rather busy with my study, so It probably will only be put up near the end of the day turn or at the start of the night turn if no one decides to lynch me.

Edited by randuir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The magister had properly regained his composure when he returned to the common room the next morning. He’d used the previous day productively, exploring the mansion they were all locked up in. He had encountered a number of interesting rooms, including a room one floor down that felt like a crypt. It was remarkably colder than the rest of the building, and it contained 29 man-shaped stone slabs.

Now, he let his gaze wander around the room, taking in the chaos. Several people had started arguing loudly among themselves, accusations of murder flying across the room. The reason for the heated debate became clear rather quickly. The body of a noblewoman was lying in one corner, the Terrisman stood next to it, obliviously lecturing to an absent audience.

Agemtsar quickly crossed the room and walked up to the Terrisman. “Ah, my good steward. Though your knowledge of 5th century ciphers is no doubt incredibly interesting, I’m sure we have more need of your knowledge regarding contemporary funeral rites right now.” The Magister bend down, then lifted the woman’s body up in his arms. Luckily for him, her blood had already dried and did not stain his clothing. “Follow me. We might have been denied basic human liberties, but that doesn't mean we have to descend to the level of animals and show no respect for the dead."

@Herowannabe, and everyone else that wants to join the funeral procession. I'm not sure how soon I can post a follow up RP, but the Magister's intention is to bring the body down to the crypt (where Sart's body has also been laid to rest at this point).

Edited by randuir
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, randuir said:

One of the possible reasons he hit Aman was that Aman had asked for seekers to keep an eye on him, so converting him could quite easily have ended up as being a waste of a conversion.Kipper's comment that he thinks it wasn't the elim that killed Aman did get me thinking. In a 30-man game, there probably is at least one coinshot, so if the coin shot killed Aman isntead of the inquisitor it would explain why Aman got killed while he made for an interesting conversion target.

But why would a coinshot kill Aman after a challenge like that?  Sure, it's possible that he's using it to hide his Inquisitor-ness, but it would seem too big a risk this early.  Kipper's "as I've been saying in PMs, but I'm too lazy and busy to post the reasoning publicly right now" isn't very convincing until he posts it.

Now that I think of it...by posing that challenge, Aman pretty much ensured that the Inquisitor would kill him and thereby show that he wasn't responsible for the rioting/soothing (if the inquisitor is indeed limited to one action per cycle)...which may have been his intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

But why would a coinshot kill Aman after a challenge like that?  Sure, it's possible that he's using it to hide his Inquisitor-ness, but it would seem too big a risk this early.  Kipper's "as I've been saying in PMs, but I'm too lazy and busy to post the reasoning publicly right now" isn't very convincing until he posts it.

I mostly agree, and unless @Kipper posts his reasoning, or someone steps forward to claim coinshotting Aman, I'm going to take the logical (according to Occam's razor) conclusion, being that the elim killed Aman. 

I would like to point out that, If Aman had survived this night, I'd have been somewhat suspicious of him, as his grand challenge could have just been cover. If the coinshot had followed my reasoning, and was particularly trigger-happy, it might explain him killing Aman.

Quote

Now that I think of it...by posing that challenge, Aman pretty much ensured that the Inquisitor would kill him and thereby show that he wasn't responsible for the rioting/soothing (if the inquisitor is indeed limited to one action per cycle)...which may have been his intent.

I'm not so sure. If the inquisitor still had an action, he was almost guaranteed to take a shot at someone. I personally think Aman was genuine in his challenge. and was just unlucky in dealing with an inquisitor who didn't share his flair for the dramatic.

Edited by randuir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Now that I think of it...by posing that challenge, Aman pretty much ensured that the Inquisitor would kill him and thereby show that he wasn't responsible for the rioting/soothing (if the inquisitor is indeed limited to one action per cycle)...which may have been his intent.

 

6 minutes ago, randuir said:

I'm not so sure. If the inquisitor still had an action, he was almost guaranteed to take a shot at someone. I personally think Aman was genuine in his challenge. and was just unlucky in dealing with an inquisitor who didn't share his flair for the dramatic.

 

I don't think Aman would have gotten himself killed just to prove that the inquisitor wasn't vote manipulating (if the inquisitor is indeed limited to one action per cycle).

I'm not sure it would make much sense for Aman to make his challenge a trick unless he was also able to secretly arrange for a lurcher to protect him.

All evidence seems to indicate that Aman was being 100% honest in his challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, randuir said:

I mostly agree, and unless @Kipper posts his reasoning, or someone steps forward to claim coinshotting Aman, I'm going to take the logical (according to Occam's razor) conclusion, being that the elim killed Aman. 

I would like to point out that, If Aman had survived this night, I'd have been somewhat suspicious of him, as his grand challenge could have just been cover. If the coinshot had followed my reasoning, and was particularly trigger-happy, it might explain him killing Aman.

I'm not so sure. If the inquisitor still had an action, he was almost guaranteed to take a shot at someone. I personally think Aman was genuine in his challenge. and was just unlucky in dealing with an inquisitor who didn't share his flair for the dramatic.

Both of those conclusions seem fairly possible to me. @OrlokTsubodai, would the writeup reveal if there were two different attacks on the same person, or only show that there was a successful attack?  I.E. if both the Inquisitor and a Coinshot attacked Aman last night, would there be any way for us to know?


Remart sobered as he watched the crowd gathering around, and then dispersing from, Elosa's body.  The poor girl had barely made any impact on the rest of the group before her life was cut short, but she certainly hadn't deserved death.  Her grand challenge had been brave, he heard, though he'd slept through it himself.  Apparently whoever had killed her (an Inquisitor? surely not) was not the sporting type, nor honorable, but Remart couldn't fault their practicality.  Who would want to match wits with someone who so openly declared their intentions?  Even if Elosa was merely bluffing, it was too blatant to ignore.  Perhaps someone else would have taken her up on the challenge, maybe even Remart himself (though he doubted it), but had he known what she was planning, he would have probably tried to discourage her.  Whispers were that she had been a Smoker, too, since copper vials were found in her possessions, and that could have been a valuable skill to have in this strange test.

Were more people going to die?  Considering the two deaths already, it seemed likely.  Remart could only hope to not be among them.

He eyed the group as he quietly chewed on a piece of candy he'd found (that was a rarity!), and tried to pick out some of those who might be potential assets.  The Agemtsar family, odd name as it was, might be helpful, as both the Magister and his son were present.  He knew Roger Elariel by reputation, and while he didn't fully trust him, the man was sly and smart, and would be a helpful source of information. The Terrisman keeper, Herwybe, was a windbag, but one with a great deal of information.  As a Keeper, though, he might be a target for an Inquisitor if there was one around, so Remart wouldn't count on him staying around.

He debated sidling up to some of the others, trying to size up the "competition" in this test, though he wasn't feeling as much competitive as self-preserving, but didn't feel up to it. Instead, he silently picked up a shovel and went to help with the burial of the two bodies.  There wasn't a lot left to do, but he wanted to be useful if he could.  With a low burn of pewter, he was able to do work that others would have struggled with, fake leg or not, and it was good to use his hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

I don't think Aman would have gotten himself killed just to prove that the inquisitor wasn't vote manipulating (if the inquisitor is indeed limited to one action per cycle).

(emphasis mine) The GM confirmation regarding that that I quoted earlier is on page 7 of the combined thread, if you want to see it for yourself. It could of course be that some uber-metals get as bonus that they are a free action, but I don't think the GM's would mess with our ability to estimate the inquisitor's power quite this badly. Plus, having an Uber-metal be a free action would discourage giving it away to convert someone, as it is an actual loss of power, rather than just a loss of versatility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...