Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Violet Axolotl said: I have like no idea what's going on and I'm gonna have to leave soon, who should I lurch??? Given where everyone is... Man y'all gonna hate hearing me say this but. Beagle. If you feel slightly spicy, Flam. If (and don't reply to this part) you for some reason lied and didn't actually Lurch me last Night, you can consider one now (you can't retarget anymore) because I'm eating Meerkat tonight to get the Seeker role.
Violet Axolotl Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Mint Heron said: Given where everyone is... Man y'all gonna hate hearing me say this but. Beagle. If you feel slightly spicy, Flam. If (and don't reply to this part) you for some reason lied and didn't actually Lurch me last Night, you can consider one now (you can't retarget anymore) because I'm eating Meerkat tonight to get the Seeker role. Got it
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Given where everyone is... Man y'all gonna hate hearing me say this but. Beagle. If you feel slightly spicy, Flam. If (and don't reply to this part) you for some reason lied and didn't actually Lurch me last Night, you can consider one now (you can't retarget anymore) because I'm eating Meerkat tonight to get the Seeker role. I think it might have gone unnoticed, but I did say earlier that I rolled Lurcher this cycle, so I think Axolotl can protect someone else
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Oxblood Beagle said: I think it might have gone unnoticed, but I did say earlier that I rolled Lurcher this cycle, so I think Axolotl can protect someone else Axl's someone else has to be Flam or Dragonfly thereabouts but I think you should be protected regardless because you've been anchoring the rollover crew and I personally consider that more valuable than raw roles at this stage. Reasoning that people will hate: Dingo and Flam are Seekers and that's valuable but given the connectives and the problem at hand, if we lose either of them, we get confirmation of the chain. Conversely if they aren't shot at, it's also telling. Similar RE: trying to make sure the Lurchers and CS cross-protect - like kind of maybe but we are starting to think something is wrong with that cluster and the Elims hitting in that cluster actually helps us, so that's not the worst thing. Fundamentally we have a numerical advantage as long as the CS-es don't shoot too wildly and we show up and keep doing the work and voting. We are Villagers before we are roles. We always need to remember this. Edited to add: 3 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: True, and I think what we know of the elim team is that they were to some extent being risk-averse by trying to prevent both Kangaroo and Meerkat to be viable counterwagons, so I feel that this would be inconsistent with their prior behavior Fair. But also they don't know what we do know - I do feel an Elim team with 2 Seekers probably expects a decent amount of roles but also Smokers Village-side. It's the natural balance at least, meaning they had to weigh 'hostile counter-Smoking' into their calculations when trying to decide if Croc should Riot. 4 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Acknowledged, but if I'm remembering correctly, at this point only Axolotl, Toucan, Zebra, Lion, and Chameleon have not ended a day voting a flipped elim. Toucan and Zebra only have a chance of being elims if the person vouching them is also elim, and I can't see how Axolotl is elim based on the elim's behavior at that point. So I guess if it's not any of the three lower in my PoE, then there has to be a weaker point somewhere. Fair point. It being both Lion and Cham would be so incredibly convenient that I'm refusing to believe it as a starting proposition. It does mean that the remaining Elim(s) have likely bussed at least once. IDK man that's more the thing the SE people who moonlight on MU here are better at than me, I do not like to go after people who do Villagery things until I have gone through the tier of people who haven't done Villagery things.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Reasoning that people will hate: Dingo and Flam are Seekers and that's valuable but given the connectives and the problem at hand, if we lose either of them, we get confirmation of the chain. Conversely if they aren't shot at, it's also telling. Similar RE: trying to make sure the Lurchers and CS cross-protect - like kind of maybe but we are starting to think something is wrong with that cluster and the Elims hitting in that cluster actually helps us, so that's not the worst thing. True, if they die as villagers, then they both resolve themselves and also the person that they are vouching for 7 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Fair. But also they don't know what we do know - I do feel an Elim team with 2 Seekers probably expects a decent amount of roles but also Smokers Village-side. It's the natural balance at least, meaning they had to weigh 'hostile counter-Smoking' into their calculations when trying to decide if Croc should Riot. Fair point. On there being 2 Seekers, it does make me feel like it's a 6 elim team with another Kandra and a Lurcher. I feel like 2 Seekers is a bit much for just 1 Kandra and Seeker is an elim role that I feel diminishes in value the longer the game goes (since there will come a point where people will just outright reveal their roles; ex: D3). Lurcher makes the most sense in a 2 V!Coinshot world and 4 V!Mistborn where very lucky rolls could lead to all of them being Coinshot early on 11 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Fair point. It being both Lion and Cham would be so incredibly convenient that I'm refusing to believe it as a starting proposition. It does mean that the remaining Elim(s) have likely bussed at least once. IDK man that's more the thing the SE people who moonlight on MU here are better at than me, I do not like to go after people who do Villagery things until I have gone through the tier of people who haven't done Villagery things. Agreed, hence why I'm also not trying to think through it deeply until the next day begins because the results of this night should be quite informative that it would be a lot easier to make the best decision for tomorrow
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 DF said they were protecting Flam. Beagle is self-protecting. Yeah, we need a protect on Heron now.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: DF said they were protecting Flam. Beagle is self-protecting. Yeah, we need a protect on Heron now. Neither Axolotl nor Zebra can protect Heron due to double targeting rules, so it's basically @Indigo Weasel to ask for this. I can also redirect to protecting him if we don't get confirmation from Weasel
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 16 minutes ago, Sunburst Toucan said: So do I send in a non-public coinshot kill? My vote is for no kill but if you're looking to kill someone, I would probably suggest sticking to the <Cham, Lion> set (sorry Cham, Lion...) 8 minutes ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Yeah, we need a protect on Heron now. Tbh I'm fine dying lol.
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 31 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Neither Axolotl nor Zebra can protect Heron due to double targeting rules, so it's basically @Indigo Weasel to ask for this. I can also redirect to protecting him if we don't get confirmation from Weasel 25 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: My vote is for no kill but if you're looking to kill someone, I would probably suggest sticking to the <Cham, Lion> set (sorry Cham, Lion...) Tbh I'm fine dying lol. I already got him, I put it in an hour or two ago, I just thought we weren’t coordinating lurches
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Indigo Weasel said: I just thought we weren’t coordinating lurches Axl started it! (Axl wanted recommendations, that kind of started the whole conversation.) Dude, you still think we look at Ocho, or where's your view of the Elims/starting point tomorrow?
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 14 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Axl started it! (Axl wanted recommendations, that kind of started the whole conversation.) Dude, you still think we look at Ocho, or where's your view of the Elims/starting point tomorrow? Yeah tomorrow that’s my plan, probably at Toucan as well, but definitely one of those two. Unless they like, hit Elims or something
Pearl Chameleon Posted January 13 Posted January 13 9 hours ago, Opal Lion said: To put it in simple terms: You're telling me the Saboteurs have zero firepower and that the Loyalists have likely >3 Seeker/Coinshot/Mistborn roles, along with at least 1 Kandra role to backup one of these? On top of that, the Loyalists have at least 3 Lurchers? Let's say we assume the Saboteurs have exactly a Smoker. That is not a very strong role by itself, and in that case, Loyalists have... extreme firepower, multiple roles that can save others, multiple roles that can be one of these for a cycle, and backups? And the Saboteurs have 2 Seekers, a Rioter, a Smoker, and a Kandra. If this is the case, there should absolutely be another Saboteur missing who has a stronger role, specifically a firepower role (Mistborn/Coinshot). I find it very difficult to believe the last 1-2 Saboteur roles does not include a Mistborn or Coinshot. If anything, I'm hesitant to believe there is a Smoker Saboteur. It's more likely that the potential Smoker is a Mistborn who rolled Smoker already, unless I have missed evidence that points against this. In cases where there are at least 4 Loyalist Lurchers, it would make sense for the Saboteurs to have a Coinshot or Mistborn who will roll Coinshot. Coinshot is technically a stronger role than Mistborn specifically for the Saboteurs, so I honestly am concerned we are missing a Saboteur Coinshot here. A point of evidence for this would be 2 Saboteur Seekers. What use is a Seeker to the Saboteurs if they cannot use it to identify strong Loyalist roles and then take those roles out? Remember that currently there has to be 3+ Loyalist Lurchers, according to claims and my inferences on Saboteur numbers (at most 2 Saboteurs in the pool of 5 Lurcher claims). If the Loyalists have that much potential to stop the Saboteurs from murdering anyone and the Saboteurs do not have an extra role that can kill, then something is extremely wrong with the distro. I would like to believe that will never be the case. The one thing I cannot take into account is if a Loyalist is lying about their role, which I honestly believe there is a pretty good possibility of, given that otherwise there are literally two vanilla Loyalists in a sea of fairly strong roles. I'm not going to dictate your choices here. If you are a Loyalist fakeclaiming a role, I hope you know what you're doing. CONCLUSION I cannot create a distro here that makes any sense because the Loyalist roles that would have to be true to an extent would imply strong roles that have yet to be found from the Saboteurs, because the current known deceased Saboteur roles are not very strong when compared to the minimum of what the Loyalists would have in the case where all Loyalists are being truthful about their roles. The Saboteurs should have a role with firepower here that we have yet to identify. A Saboteur Lurcher and Smoker combo as the last 2 Saboteurs would make no sense next to the Loyalist roles. That does not even take into account that there may only be a single Saboteur left. Please tell me someone has stopped to think about this more than I have. "Hot take incoming: callsign:Opal Lion has produced the most sensible and trustworthy human correspondence of the night," CRANK buzzed. "Inability to count Lurchers notwithstanding. Hot take dispensed. Please enjoy responsibly." "Claim: this unit is a Saboteur Vanilla."
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Indigo Weasel said: Yeah tomorrow that’s my plan, probably at Toucan as well, but definitely one of those two. Unless they like, hit Elims or something I feel like if they both hit Elims, the game ends man... I refuse to believe they started with a 7 man team, and given 4 Elims down now, if they both hit, we're just done with the game. 2 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said: The Saboteurs should have a role with firepower here that we have yet to identify. A Saboteur Lurcher and Smoker combo as the last 2 Saboteurs would make no sense next to the Loyalist roles. That does not even take into account that there may only be a single Saboteur left. Interesting catch from Cham. I saw this, wanted to say something about it, and forgot again, and kind of got there with Lion earlier in that strictly speaking by Lion's definition of firepower it just cannot be a Mistborn. But all E!Toucan worlds are also E!Flam worlds, and well, we've been through the Ocho problem already. I don't disagree with the logic, but I think there's almost no room for a Smoker here if so? Which creates extra weirdness with Dingo. It's less about whether I think Lion is suss and more that I think there is an inherent instability in this worldview that points to something being wrong with some of the anchoring priors. ...And yes sorry Beagle I am staring at the same old problem we have not been able to solve which is why I pointed to what I was saying and referred to it as reasoning people will hate because technically a flip in either cluster is in fact informative. I just hope we'll find the correct cleavage point again to crack it wide open. Edited to add: Tbh I think there's some value to tracking who wants the Coinshots exed and who wants the Lurchers exed in that I strongly feel that the surviving Elims are probably shoving us towards the clean set. @Indigo Weasel Apologies if you've addressed this before - if the Elims had a Coinshot from the start, why does the immortal Lurcher rule need changing since doubletaps ensure the target dies anyway?
Pearl Chameleon Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: ...And yes sorry Beagle I am staring at the same old problem we have not been able to solve which is why I pointed to what I was saying and referred to it as reasoning people will hate because technically a flip in either cluster is in fact informative. I just hope we'll find the correct cleavage point again to crack it wide open. "And yet you do not advocate flipping those clusters proactively. Weak." "Claim: this unit is a Saboteur Smoker."
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Pearl Chameleon said: "And yet you do not advocate flipping those clusters proactively. Weak." Yeah. I don't like killing innocent Villagers even if we learn from it, so prefer to try to find the best possible solve to reduce unnecessary casualties. I also believe in flipping people who do less Villagery things over those who do more Villagery things. This puts me right in the "clear PoE" problem wrt you and Lion. Since both of you just came in/came back, if you're Village, you have less preconceptions than us because you've not been grinding through the game. How do you propose to solve the cluster? Kill Ocho, who shot Croc N1? Kill Toucan, who was supposedly scanned by Flam, meaning a Flam-Toucan solve? Kill Axl, who some people sus but was also the C1 CW to DF? Kill DF, who was the C1 Lurcher claim and the main train for a decent chunk of the cycle and also helped exe Elims from D1 to D3? Kill Weasel, who hardcased Kanga on D1 and was third Kanga voter but also has been hellbent on flipping Ocho? Kill Zebra, who Dingo and Meerkat claimed to have scanned as a Village Lurcher, meaning a Dingo-Zebra solve? Kill Rhino? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited to add: I agree it's clear there's some assumption that's wrong, or that we're just ramming repeatedly into this wall, I'm minded of what Araris said about the last Elims clearly doing something unexpected to slip past us ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Increasingly confident of 2 v!CS Gut says it is Dingo + Zebra. 13 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Kill Toucan, who was supposedly scanned by Flam, meaning a Flam-Toucan solve? e!Toucan also does not holster in N2 imo Agreed, the elims might have been scared that Croc's Riot might have failed due to presumed high number of v!Smoker as their team had 2 e!Seekers, which does give credence to v!Axo. Could argue that they always knew Croc's vote on Axo was going to self-cancel and they did not expect DF train to fall off, but need to re-look at D1 for that.
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 33 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: I feel like if they both hit Elims, the game ends man... I refuse to believe they started with a 7 man team, and given 4 Elims down now, if they both hit, we're just done with the game. Interesting catch from Cham. I saw this, wanted to say something about it, and forgot again, and kind of got there with Lion earlier in that strictly speaking by Lion's definition of firepower it just cannot be a Mistborn. But all E!Toucan worlds are also E!Flam worlds, and well, we've been through the Ocho problem already. I don't disagree with the logic, but I think there's almost no room for a Smoker here if so? Which creates extra weirdness with Dingo. It's less about whether I think Lion is suss and more that I think there is an inherent instability in this worldview that points to something being wrong with some of the anchoring priors. ...And yes sorry Beagle I am staring at the same old problem we have not been able to solve which is why I pointed to what I was saying and referred to it as reasoning people will hate because technically a flip in either cluster is in fact informative. I just hope we'll find the correct cleavage point again to crack it wide open. Edited to add: Tbh I think there's some value to tracking who wants the Coinshots exed and who wants the Lurchers exed in that I strongly feel that the surviving Elims are probably shoving us towards the clean set. @Indigo Weasel Apologies if you've addressed this before - if the Elims had a Coinshot from the start, why does the immortal Lurcher rule need changing since doubletaps ensure the target dies anyway? I don’t believe I have. But I don’t see how having a coinshot is any different from the original kill they get. So I’m not sure it matters to much I’m not sure why the Lurcher rule changed, as the only reason I can think of for its existence is if the Elims outnumbered the Lurchers, so that after everyone else was dead they still had a way to win, and so that Lurchers weren’t pretty much immortal, which leads me to believe: #ofElims > #ofLurchers.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2026 at 12:06 PM, Salmon Meerkat said: Holy crap Octo I just looked at your profile picture and I'm horrified. At least mine is adorable. Lurcher is probably easiest, because you can just pretend that you Lurched the wrong person. Come to think of it, we do have a lot of Lurchers. I dunno. EDIT: THIS THREAD IS TOO CRAZY I CAN'T EVEN WRITE A POST WITHOUT 5 OTHERS SHOWING UO!!! 37 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Tbh I think there's some value to tracking who wants the Coinshots exed and who wants the Lurchers exed in that I strongly feel that the surviving Elims are probably shoving us towards the clean set. @Indigo Weasel At least from Meerkat's perspective, he did suggest that Lurcher is the easiest to fakeclaim
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Indigo Weasel said: I don’t believe I have. But I don’t see how having a coinshot is any different from the original kill they get. So I’m not sure it matters to much Coinshot + Elim kill = Lurcher dies. It's not the difference, it's that reliably having both gets rid of the Lurchers so they wouldn't be immortal. A setting where the Elims only have access to an Elim kill and would need to also acquire a Coinshot kill via kandra to deal with Lurchers would be one possible reason the Lurcher rule was decided to be too restrictive. Edited to add: 1 minute ago, Oxblood Beagle said: At least from Meerkat's perspective, he did suggest that Lurcher is the easiest to fakeclaim ........I'll do a viz chart at some point ._.
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Name Role Action Violet Axolotl Lurcher ? Taupe Gecko Mistborn - Sunburst Toucan Coinshot Shoot Cham/Lion Scarlet Octopus Coinshot ? Sapphire Elephant Salmon Meerkat Sage Kangaroo Saffron Iguana Quartz Zebra Lurcher ? Plum Rhinoceros Mistborn - Pearl Chameleon ? ? Oxblood Beagle Mistborn Lurch Self Opal Lion Vanilla ? Onyx Flamingo Kandra-Seeker Seek Dingo? Mint Heron Kandra Eat Meerkat Melon Dingo Seeker ? Mauve Crocodile Magenta Albatross Vanilla - Ivory Dragonfly Lurcher Lurch Flamingo Indigo Weasel Lurcher Lurch Heron
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Coinshot + Elim kill = Lurcher dies. It's not the difference, it's that reliably having both gets rid of the Lurchers so they wouldn't be immortal. A setting where the Elims only have access to an Elim kill and would need to also acquire a Coinshot kill via kandra to deal with Lurchers would be one possible reason the Lurcher rule was decided to be too restrictive. Edited to add: ........I'll do a viz chart at some point ._. Ah, okay that makes sense, I did not know that. However, I doubt they made the Distro to push the Elim team into doing a specific thing. However, that’s all based on adjusting to the amount of Lurcher ms we have, and it doesn’t explain why we have so many in the first place, which is why I’m leaning E!coinshot. Edit: I have to go to sleep, I’ve lurched Heron, and I’ll see you after rollover Edited January 13 by Indigo Weasel
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Indigo Weasel said: However, that’s all based on adjusting to the amount of Lurcher ms we have, and it doesn’t explain why we have so many in the first place, which is why I’m leaning E!coinshot. My argument is that usually Coinshot hit rates are very low and we would need Lurchers to protect us from friendly fires.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2026 at 12:09 PM, Melon Dingo said: Can also claim to have lurched someone hit. Either actual lurcher doesnt take credit or they do and claim that they were double protected But that hasnt seemed to happen unless it did this cycle 6 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: ........I'll do a viz chart at some point ._. And then Dingo quoted Meerkat's post and backed it up. I did find it a little odd that Dingo just willingly accepted that there can be 2 V!Seekers, like is that more common an occurrence than I am thinking of? At least in the other AG games I had looked at, a few of them didn't even have a single V!Seeker and usually, balance-wise, you never really put 2 alignment checkers on the village team (that's even with consideration of a Smoker, who can only cover so much)
Recommended Posts