Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Also, has Zebra been on during this Night? If not, I find it weird that they would not pop in to at least discuss Lurch targets.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Also, has Zebra been on during this Night? If not, I find it weird that they would not pop in to at least discuss Lurch targets. Last time they posted was to self-pres to Octo back when it was still between Zebra/Octo/Toucan
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Also, has Zebra been on during this Night? If not, I find it weird that they would not pop in to at least discuss Lurch targets. Zebra fakeclaimed Lurcher against me before man. I remember 1 minute ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Last time they posted was to self-pres to Octo back when it was still between Zebra/Octo/Toucan I will say this. I don't want to rely on player knowledge, but that self-pres post from Zebra was odd. 3 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: 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) I haven't played very many AGs (and I'm not lying ) I would say Jo games are the one game I'd hesitate (more so than TUM ones) to try to make an inference about multiple Seekers. I do remember one or two and I have a Tyrian distro in the back pocket with a Satanic number of Seekers but it would be the one time I'd be like about it. The issue here is really compounded by the number of Coinshots and the Elim kill because with 2KP and another 2 scans on Village side, assuming no overlap, that's a lot of players being cleared or terminally cleared, 1/5 the game. Yeah sure there will definitely be overlap and Seekers/CS dropping dead, but even so. I will say there is something from Dingo that gave me a bit of pause: (On Dingo as a V!Seeker being willing to draw flak with the joke Lurcher claim) On 1/12/2026 at 3:14 PM, Melon Dingo said: Oh... well... my bad... I thought everyone knew who I was at this point lol. but regardless I didnt really think itd draw that much attention as it was a joke. And then after I thought it'd deter attacks as I was an advocate for self protects. I'm willing to chalk it down to player personality but definitely would expect a Seeker to be more low-key on D1. Edited to add: Well, these two. There's always a more casual FAFO energy to Zebra when Elim. (Don't want to crutch on this which is kind of why I haven't really bothered guessing too many identities and have been very vote-centric this game, also because tired and votes are easier to do off-the-cuff.) and: This...is a very unusual post from Zebra. I have almost never seen it from v!Zebra, and in fact, I don't recall seeing it from e!Zebra as often either, which is why it just...puzzles me.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: I will say there is something from Dingo that gave me a bit of pause: (On Dingo as a V!Seeker being willing to draw flak with the joke Lurcher claim) I'm willing to chalk it down to player personality but definitely would expect a Seeker to be more low-key on D1. It's possible they are actually e!Lurcher, then saw that there's way too many Lurcher claims and chose to fakeclaim Seeker. Then again, in this world, it's either Zebra isn't elim or for some reason, they have 2 Lurchers
Opal Lion Posted January 13 Posted January 13 3 hours ago, Mint Heron said: Suppose Flam does turn out to be Village - what's your read of the situation then? Where do we go from there? (This assumes that v!Flam entails v!Toucan which I think is reasonable enough.) HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE TO "MINT HERON" [The writing is barely legible] 1. To answer your question, if "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan" are both Loyalists, then at minimum the distro contains 2 Mistborn, 1 Kandra, 1 Coinshot, 2 vanilla (I am working on the assumption "Oxblood Beagle", and by extension "Magenta Albatross" are Loyalists) for the Loyalists vs 1-2 Kandra (noticed some talk of this earlier), 1-2 Seekers, and 1 Rioter for the Saboteurs. 2. Designation "Taupe Gecko" is presumably confirmed Mistborn for the role change off of Tineye...? 3. There has been no counterclaim for the shot on "Mauve Crocodile" claimed by "Scarlet Octopus", a Coinshot. I think you don't start considering "Scarlet Octopus" for another cycle here. 4. If we take both "Taupe Gecko" (weak social reasons) and figure "Scarlet Octopus" as Loyalists, that means at minimum there are 3 Mistborn, 1 Kandra, 2 Coinshots, and 2 vanilla for the Loyalist side. That is a potential of 5 firepower and 3 scans. 5. In this case, both claimed Coinshots and 2 out of the 3 claimed Mistborn are Loyalists. I'd look at figure "Plum Rhinoceros" next, then the pool of four Lurcher claims. 6. "Pearl Chameleon" is a wildcard. Some part of me wants to believe if they are a Loyalist they should be vanilla. 7. I think there should generally be one Saboteur in the firepower claims and one in the Lurcher claims. I am currently working on a basis of 2 Saboteurs left for my own sanity. If there is only one left, they should be either Mistborn or Coinshot. 8. The 4 Lurcher claims should generally have a Saboteur, especially in cases where both Coinshots are Loyalists. Specifically in this case where "Onyx Flamingo" is a Loyalist, it almost seems as easy as one Lurcher claim + "Plum Rhinoceros"? 9. Somewhat conclusing here that I would look at whoever you do not clear who can be a potential firepower role + likely one in the Lurcher pool. I find it difficult to imagine four Loyalist Lurchers in one game. [A collection of crossed out sentences form a convenient line break] 10. I also noticed that designation "Melon Dingo" would clear "Quartz Zebra" if Loyalist, similar to "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan". 11. For figure "Melon Dingo", I am a little concerned at the claim of scanning "Mauve Crocodile" without having mentioned them at all. Potential consideration for "Melon Dingo" being a Saboteur and there being no Saboteur Smoker since their claim appears to be is the only evidence for a Smoker. 12. Keep in mind that deceased Saboteur Seeker "Salmon Meerkat" claimed a scan on "Quartz Zebra", the same target "Melon Dingo" did for night 2. "Melon Dingo" does not have a confirmed role at all and appears to be the most likely out of everyone to be a Saboteur lying about their role. This may get resolved tonight since "Melon Dingo" will be forced to either lie about a scan or genuinely scan someone. Perhaps be careful of the "scan" being lost to a target who dies in the night. 13. I am leaning towards the conclusion that "Melon Dingo" may be a Saboteur due to their claim appearing the most fake. 14. Very loosely, I believe "Melon Dingo", "Plum Rhinoceros", and "Onyx Flamingo" likely contain a Saboteur. Veeeeery loosely. PS. I will be unavailable for the remainder of the night. See you in the morning (if I'm alive). [A scrawled note fills the remaining space] If I'm being honest, this feels like it should already be mostly solved on a mechanical level. I struggle a lot with mechanics and mapping out all the possible situations so if it looks like I jump around a lot in my thoughts that is because I confuse myself more than I confuse you. Mechanics fry my last three brain cells. Seriously, I think you need to think about how all the claims work together a lot more than I am capable of. I am not sure if it was confirmed that Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role, since it says "One action per turn (two allowed per cycle)" and "each night one of them may use their action to kill a player" in the rules. In cases where Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role at night, you should be able to cross off certain pairs for simply having no one to have carried the night kill since they have proved night actions (mostly regarding Seeker claims). This possibly means "Onyx Flamingo" cannot be a Saboteur with "Salmon Meerkat" on night 2 and therefore is a Loyalist. I got stuck in a loop thinking about this. I know I'm doing a lot of mechanical solving but it is very challenging to focus on social aspects when the distro puzzle just seems Wrong no matter how I try to fit it together and it bothers me soooo much. [Tiny writing has been angrily crammed against the edge of the page. You can only make out a few words] never again wasting my time [???] losing sanity over [???] im going to [???] because they don't [You are unsure what the rest of the text says] SENT FROM TERMINAL A3801
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: It's possible they are actually e!Lurcher, then saw that there's way too many Lurcher claims and chose to fakeclaim Seeker. Then again, in this world, it's either Zebra isn't elim or for some reason, they have 2 Lurchers Us: "Let's not do this anymore nothing makes sense we just need the night to end." Also us: "HELL-O ROLLOVER EXE CREW, WHAT D'YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT TODAY?"
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Mint Heron said: Us: "Let's not do this anymore nothing makes sense we just need the night to end." Also us: "HELL-O ROLLOVER EXE CREW, WHAT D'YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT TODAY?" Lmaooo that's why you shouldn't be dying tonight need someone around who's just a tad little obsessed with this game and has a hard time putting it off
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Opal Lion said: I am not sure if it was confirmed that Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role, since it says "One action per turn (two allowed per cycle)" and "each night one of them may use their action to kill a player" in the rules. In cases where Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role at night, you should be able to cross off certain pairs for simply having no one to have carried the night kill since they have proved night actions (mostly regarding Seeker claims). FWIW, confirmed, re-asked regardless, and also is a staple element of Tyrian rules and why I said I don't care if a Seeker claims to encounter a Smoke tonight because in a two-Elim world, a night Smoker also isn't killing. Agreed about the mech being an issue and causing a great amount of consternation, hence appreciating what you and Cham can bring to the table if you're fresh. Edited to add: 3 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Lmaooo that's why you shouldn't be dying tonight need someone around who's just a tad little obsessed with this game and has a hard time putting it off Mfer you tell me then why you are poking at this puzzle as well! Spoiler Edited January 13 by Mint Heron
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 14 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Mfer you tell me then why you are poking at this puzzle as well! Hide contents It's just been that addictive anyways, I feel like I don't have any new ideas anymore for tonight, so I might just check the thread again after rollover (lie)
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: It's just been that addictive anyways, I feel like I don't have any new ideas anymore for tonight, so I might just check the thread again after rollover (lie) Spoiler Edited to add: 28 minutes ago, Opal Lion said: For figure "Melon Dingo", I am a little concerned at the claim of scanning "Mauve Crocodile" without having mentioned them at all. Tbh this is a good catch @Oxblood Beagle @Plum Rhinoceros (hi rollover crew!) The only issue is I am not so brave enough to ask for a random Coinshot smite without systematically going through, but yeah, Lion has a point here. Edited January 13 by Mint Heron
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Reveal hidden contents Edited to add: Tbh this is a good catch @Oxblood Beagle @Plum Rhinoceros (hi rollover crew!) The only issue is I am not so brave enough to ask for a random Coinshot smite without systematically going through, but yeah, Lion has a point here. https://imgflip.com/i/ah89qt I am also not so brave haha. By not mentioning them, do you mean during D2?
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 It's not an AG if some or the other sort of paranoia does not come true
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: I am also not so brave haha. By not mentioning them, do you mean during D2? No, rather: Quote Mauve Crocodile: I think the first to start breaking down voting patterns. Easy not to do in such an rp heavy game. Also i love the capitalizing words in your rp Dingo v!read Croc on D1. Not mentioning during D2 is understandable because Croc is dead by then regardless. Though I am looking through again and Dingo does mention sus of Croc by N1, so I think @Opal Lion might've missed this, but also anyway I am very in principle strongly opposed to skipping tiered PoE and hero shots. I'm curious about how Croc's vote ends up being sus here though because: Quote Crocodile off Meerkat on Axolotl (sus and counter dragonfly) Quote All in all based on what I'm seeing here I'm most suspicious right now of Mauve Crocodile and Mint Heron. ? How's he get to this though?
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2026 at 12:05 PM, Melon Dingo said: Wait Axolotl claimed the protect on Mint Heron? Without reading the thread I was thinking octo/Axl were e/e typing it out really quick I actually dont know if the reason why made sense. Quick reasoning in spoiler. I think it doesnt make sense but posting it cause I could be wrong about it not making sense and not realize it cause tired/hungry Hide contents Basically it started with if theres 4 lurchers in this game and theres no lies, then the CS being V would be pretty wild esp with earlier rules on Lurchers. E!coinshot then but if Octo is the CS my read before was that e!octo only makes sense if evil lurcher. With 4 claimed lurchers assume 1 is evil but theres a lot of assumptions in that analysis so I dont think its solid. I haven't eaten yet today so im going to go do that but im also going to try to skim the thread Edit: why 8 pages xD. I checked the thread earlier and it was only 3 lol On 1/12/2026 at 4:01 PM, Melon Dingo said: So everyone role claimed and theres too many of every role including 2 coinshots, 4 lurchers, 2 seekers, 2 Kandra ummm anything else? Idk Zebra is village lurcher though thats important. Rollover peeps have been good this game! Keep the streak alive! You got this! @Mint Heron Ahh, I thought you meant Dingo ever alluding to the presence of a Smoker after having checked Crocodile and they came up Smoked. I tried to look into it and there actually wasn't much to see, since they hardly made any assumptions/guesses regarding the distro. Only thing I found was some minor D3 stuff: - In the first quote, there's a soft allusion to an E!Coinshot or E!Lurcher, but never a mention of an E!Smoker (or E!Mistborn). This was before the claim - In the second quote, there's a recap of what exists plus their scan on Zebra, but not a mention of the possibility of E!Smoker or E!Mistborn 9 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: No, rather: Dingo v!read Croc on D1. In this same post, they also have a v!read on Kangaroo for odd reasons
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 @Mint Heron Us: Spiraling into whether or not Dingo makes the most sense as Elim Meanwhile: 9 hours ago, Scarlet Octopus said: Lion or Dingo. But I'm leaning toward Dingo, just based on activity He might just straight up be getting shot (was Octo's latest post)
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Compare this to how Flamingo gave their v!read of Toucan post-scan or even how Bea was quite firm with their v!read of Tross when I was asking for Tross CW in D2. Does this look like someone who has scanned Zebra village?
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: @Mint Heron Us: Spiraling into whether or not Dingo makes the most sense as Elim Meanwhile: He might just straight up be getting shot (was Octo's latest post) Listen My one concession to sanity is I still have tiered blocs in my head and I'm refusing to paranoid you, Dragonfly, and whoever tf I put in there which I need to recheck against my notes. At some point I'm sure I'll just paranoid everyone regardless, the key is to not overdo it and to not commit to it until I've cleared the lower tiers and the game hasn't ended or I'm somehow still not dead. I do think we have in general outlined...whatever is screwy with the CS-Lurcher bloc, since the Zebra solve always implicates Dingo and Toucan always implicates Flam. The real hope is just that tomorrow we get something useful and hopefully the Coinshots and Seekers don't collide (which is why I was asking potentially for a no shot but think they do want to shoot, so fairs.) I appreciate the effort Lion and Cham are putting in, I just cannot move past the fact I do not have much data for them at all, and as much as I like the posts, reading them at this point is like a D1 read. It feels ungrateful to still have them this low in PoE ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited to add: 16 minutes ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Compare this to how Flamingo gave their v!read of Toucan post-scan or even how Bea was quite firm with their v!read of Tross when I was asking for Tross CW in D2. Does this look like someone who has scanned Zebra village? Actual answer: I can kind of see that, but I would probably also be a lot more aggressive about it if Zebra was in danger, and arguably Zebra wasn't a lead train at that point. ...........I have been told that during a previous AG, I may have been hissing and snapping at anyone who remotely dared to side-eye my one (1) Villager scan who just happened to be the most suspicious person from D1
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Listen My one concession to sanity is I still have tiered blocs in my head and I'm refusing to paranoid you, Dragonfly, and whoever tf I put in there which I need to recheck against my notes. At some point I'm sure I'll just paranoid everyone regardless, the key is to not overdo it and to not commit to it until I've cleared the lower tiers and the game hasn't ended or I'm somehow still not dead. I do think we have in general outlined...whatever is screwy with the CS-Lurcher bloc, since the Zebra solve always implicates Dingo and Toucan always implicates Flam. The real hope is just that tomorrow we get something useful and hopefully the Coinshots and Seekers don't collide (which is why I was asking potentially for a no shot but think they do want to shoot, so fairs.) I appreciate the effort Lion and Cham are putting in, I just cannot move past the fact I do not have much data for them at all, and as much as I like the posts, reading them at this point is like a D1 read. It feels ungrateful to still have them this low in PoE ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Hahaha don't worry, I've paranoided everyone at some point, so I might be with you there. So, I guess it's just basically as you said, to commit to the ones in the lower tiers, since it's most likely there where things just don't add up And true, I hope the Coinshots and Seekers don't collide. I did recheck Octo's post and I was mistaken, it was in response to Flam asking who to scan. So, we're probably okay on that. I'm uncertain if Toucan and Octo are both shooting different targets. Yeah, I really love the effort they've been putting in from the amazing RP down to the analysis, but it's also hard to place a definite on them when we're at a point where most of the elims have been caught and it's basically just being careful to not fumble things at the end 20 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Actual answer: I can kind of see that, but I would probably also be a lot more aggressive about it if Zebra was in danger, and arguably Zebra wasn't a lead train at that point. ...........I have been told that during a previous AG, I may have been hissing and snapping at anyone who remotely dared to side-eye my one (1) Villager scan who just happened to be the most suspicious person from D1 Agree with this assessment Also, I was telling Alb during C2, "let's see who tries to mis-exe / suspect you" and that's how I was partially side-eyeing you, Gecko, and Rhino who had all doubted him, when in reality, it is valid that he would get some suspicion after v!reading Kanga for similar reasons as Croc
Pearl Chameleon Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Mint Heron said: 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)_/¯ "Meatbag, process of elimination is well and good but by your own admission, this unit's activation is recent. Lack of substantive contribution is expected in this case, making it a bland use of process of elimination." "If you acknowledge existing claims should not coexist, but prioritize pursuing unknowns instead of known contradictions, this is your right. I live to serve." "This unit has already outlined a two-step authentication protocol for the resolution of extant claims." "Step One entails the Seekers and Coinshots using their abilities tonight to gather insight on individuals that are neither Seekers nor Coinshots." "Step Two entails the Seekers and Coinshots using their abilities the following night to verify each other. Seekers verify other Seekers. Coinshots verify each other terminally." "This unit believes the proposed two-step authentication protocol is perfectly serviceable for resolving critical clusters while still reaping benefits from the involved roles." "This unit supposes Step Two will not be as necessary if Step One catches the Saboteurs, but would prefer to plan for the eventuality where it does not." "This unit prefers the prioritization of alleged Mistborn for investigation during Step One (this unit graciously grants Beagle the exemption), but this aspect is non-critical to the protocol." "Initiating tangent about Lurchers:" Spoiler "This unit is concerned by the presence of four alleged Lurchers, but prefers not to prioritize resolving this by investigation, for the following reasons:" "One: Confirmation of Loyalist Seekers and Loyalist Coinshots is deemed more useful than confirmation of Loyalist Lurchers. Saboteur Coinshots are deemed more immediately threatening than Saboteur Lurchers." "Two: The outlined two-step authentication protocol does not allocate a predetermined use for the vote. If investigations carried out at night produce no useable leads, this unit supposes the vote might be turned on the Lurchers to winnow them." "Three: This unit tempers the implausibility of four Loyalist Lurchers with the realization that three Loyalist Lurchers is similarly implausible. This unit has accepted the implausible premise at this point, and does not believe the marginal difference in plausibility between four Loyalist Lurchers and three Loyalist Lurchers necessarily demands that an alleged Lurcher must be lying. This unit doubts that more than one alleged Lurcher is lying, thus at least three Loyalist Lurchers is probable, however improbable. The inclusion of a fourth Lurcher when there is already three simply does not phase me as much as the inclusion of a second Coinshot or Seeker, which has a larger impact on the balance of power." "Meatbags, have a good night. This unit wishes you pleasant hallucinations while you lie helplessly asleep." "Claim: this unit is a Saboteur Kandra."
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Hahaha don't worry, I've paranoided everyone at some point, so I might be with you there. So, I guess it's just basically as you said, to commit to the ones in the lower tiers, since it's most likely there where things just don't add up I mean the only problem with chasing deepwolf worlds too early is you potentially end up helping the Elims kill through people who really should be cleared so yeah while I'm alive I'm trying to keep some PoE discipline. I just think there's a world where as Cham points out, chasing him and Lion is technically refusing to confront the problem, which is true, I just also think there's an escape hatch there I can't satisfactorily resolve. (And Dragonfly's crack theory kiiiiiind of doesn't sound too bad either.) 7 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: And true, I hope the Coinshots and Seekers don't collide. I did recheck Octo's post and I was mistaken, it was in response to Flam asking who to scan. So, we're probably okay on that. I'm uncertain if Toucan and Octo are both shooting different targets. I think if they do we're going to have a lot of paranoia tomorrow, true. It's maybe the worst world because it doesn't give us much more to go on, but that's kind of what's happening at this point and it's not something I can change apart from having pinged them all and asking them to try to avoid collision. Toucan and Octo shooting the same target is really not the worst world all things considered (compared to Seeker-Coinshot collision) because at least the GMs will tell us there were two separate shots fired.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: I mean the only problem with chasing deepwolf worlds too early is you potentially end up helping the Elims kill through people who really should be cleared so yeah while I'm alive I'm trying to keep some PoE discipline. I just think there's a world where as Cham points out, chasing him and Lion is technically refusing to confront the problem, which is true, I just also think there's an escape hatch there I can't satisfactorily resolve. (And Dragonfly's crack theory kiiiiiind of doesn't sound too bad either.) I think if they do we're going to have a lot of paranoia tomorrow, true. It's maybe the worst world because it doesn't give us much more to go on, but that's kind of what's happening at this point and it's not something I can change apart from having pinged them all and asking them to try to avoid collision. Toucan and Octo shooting the same target is really not the worst world all things considered (compared to Seeker-Coinshot collision) because at least the GMs will tell us there were two separate shots fired. What was DF's crack theory again? And oooh, I forgot about the two separate shots being announced by the GM
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 8 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said: This unit tempers the implausibility of four Loyalist Lurchers with the realization that three Loyalist Lurchers is similarly implausible. This unit has accepted the implausible premise at this point, and does not believe the marginal difference in plausibility between four Loyalist Lurchers and three Loyalist Lurchers necessarily demands that an alleged Lurcher must be lying. This unit doubts that more than one alleged Lurcher is lying, thus at least three Loyalist Lurchers is probable, however improbable. The inclusion of a fourth Lurcher when there is already three simply does not phase me as much as the inclusion of a second Coinshot or Seeker, which has a larger impact on the balance of power." Lmao. Not wrong though. Just now, Oxblood Beagle said: What was DF's crack theory again? DF's crack theory is that Cham might be the missing Smoker, or rather points to Cham's brief activity period before new Cham came along. I am not as sure about it but my thought is actually in the vicinity of "I agree with Rhino (uh-oh) slightly more than I agree with Weasel and so I am more inclined to search for an Evil or missing Lurcher before a Coinshot because I think it is plausible both are Village." My problem is my degree is in Thuganomics, not Distronomics. Edited to add: I guess I just think... like... I agree with Cham on the pragmatics of resolving the Coinshots first, I just also for whatever reason, perhaps because this is a Tyrian AG, feel like the Coinshots are the trap we're meant to fixate on and say is impossible and role-exe our way through and I'm not sure that's the correct take. Maybe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and the balance of power really doesn't work out. I don't know. I know people feel strongly about which way to slice this constellation but I still low-key think there's something we might not be seeing that makes it work.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 8 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: DF's crack theory is that Cham might be the missing Smoker, or rather points to Cham's brief activity period before new Cham came along. I am not as sure about it but my thought is actually in the vicinity of "I agree with Rhino (uh-oh) slightly more than I agree with Weasel and so I am more inclined to search for an Evil or missing Lurcher before a Coinshot because I think it is plausible both are Village." Ahh that would be real funny if true. And same, I'm very much leaning towards finding an e!Lurcher, which may not even necessarily be within the already claimed ones since it's quite likely the Coinshots are simply both v 8 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: I guess I just think... like... I agree with Cham on the pragmatics of resolving the Coinshots first, I just also for whatever reason, perhaps because this is a Tyrian AG, feel like the Coinshots are the trap we're meant to fixate on and say is impossible and role-exe our way through and I'm not sure that's the correct take. Maybe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and the balance of power really doesn't work out. True, yeah, and I guess, if being real, we're probably at enough of a lead that a Saboteur Coinshot isn't necessarily that huge of a threat at the moment
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: True, yeah, and I guess, if being real, we're probably at enough of a lead that a Saboteur Coinshot isn't necessarily that huge of a threat at the moment If it's a lone Sab CS, they kinda gotta choose between E!kill or CS!shot anyway. Actions economy. I struggle a little with a 6 Elim world with a Coinshot, but then again we feel like they gotta have a Lurcher no matter what, right? Hey weird question for you. Suppose you're an Elim. Your team has two Seekers and no Smokers. You learn there are no Tineyes because PMs are closed. What's your approach to the thread/D1?
Recommended Posts