DeTess

I feel like again pointing out again why I believe that is exactly what your move on Archer would achieve (whether or not that was intentional is a different discussion) would just be beating a dead horse at this point, so let's, for now, assume this was a mutual misunderstanding/disagreement and move on?

No, sorry. The role is purely defensive, which is why I'm playing my cards close to my chest right now. Sharing the flavor might lead to some fairly accurate guesses as to how many actions I can dodge in total. If I'm already out, I'd rather the elims assume I'm still capable of taking hits, and if I can still take hits, I'd rather the elims waste another attempt to kill me. I can share a bit more in a couple more cycles once I believe it should be clear my ability has run out.

It seems I might have been the one to have stopped the kill from going through. I have a role that blocks the first X actions taken against me (for obvious reasons I won't be telling you how much of this defense is still left). I got it confirmed that any actions blocked this way won't show up in the writeup, so that would explain the lack of kill mentioned in the writeup. I don't get told what exact actions were taken against me though, so I can't be 100% sure I was the kill target, but it does seem likely at this point.

@Experiencewould the following be mentioned in the write-up? Someone getting attacked but surviving thanks to an extra life? Someone getting attacked but surviving due to some form of protection? @The Known NovelI really don't like how you repeatedly tried to play off my suspicion of you and Araris as an attempt to kill discussion/deny information while it should have been clear I was running it as a standard D1, acting on any reasonable suspicion I could find rather than jumping on a mechanics-based exe with little discussion behind it. This felt like you were trying to push a narrative rather than try and get reads.

Or maybe we're just really good at distancing

My vote is on Araris right now. As for information, we get a flip of someone, and we get to see arguments beyond 'well, he was red' for why people wanted to see that person executed. A couple cycles from now we can even analyse what might have happened based on any elim and village flips. In other words, the current situation, where people are looking at everyone, with a number of different suspicions being aired is pretty ideal as far as I am concerned, as it gives us things to look back on later, where a focus on just Archer and Lab just for their position on that list would not really have done so. As for whether Archer flips red, if the list remains unchanged next cycle I am willing to take a shot at Archer or Lab, but when it is unclear yet how the list evolves I think voting purely based on the list is very counterproductive. After all, if the list changes ext. cycle then that would heavily suggest that whatever is going on with it is not tied to people's actual alignments. And I'd much rather wait a cycle to see what happens than waste an execution on someone whose only real source of suspicion was a game mechanic we don't understand at all yet.

Given that you both made those votes very early, before it became clear that your opinion wasn't shared by the thread: yes, I do think I can still make that argument. Just because time has passed sine then doesn't mean I can't still suspect that as the motive when you posted. As for holding up under pressure, I think we both know that if you backed off when challenged like this, without a good alternative to move too, it would look more suspicious, not less. So, hypothetical scenario: C2 the list shifts and two other people are shown as red. And this happens independently of Archer getting executed or not. What kind of additional information would the archer exe give us?

edit: oops, pressed enter too soon. Actual post will be edited in in a bit. I am not against Archer getting executed. What I am against is Archer (or labyrinth) getting executed for the sole reason that their name is red in that list. The reason for that has to do with the fact that, even though D1 exe is often a miss, it cans till give us information alter in the game, especially if several people were up for the exe. You can often look back at what happened that day and if elims got involved find motives. However, if we simply dog-pile on one of the reds then the only thing we can get from it is a hint to the meaning of the list, which, we could get C2 as well if the list changes. The reason I am saying that would be the only thing we gain is because everyone else can simply say 'wel they were red, I don't like reds' when pressed on their D1 vote, which makes me very suspicious of anyone jumping on a vote with a built-in alibi like that and no further reasons for doing so. It's perfect cover for elims, and I'd expect slightly more digging from villagers D1. Agree with Mat that this is a very odd thing to suggest for someone currently red... @Aeoryi, let's go with Archer's hypothesis of two elims with 1 thug for a moment. How much protection would you think the village has in that case? Protection being both extra lives and protect type roles?

So are you saying that vote was purely because you wanted to get a vote out, no matter how baseless it might be?

So for the record, I am not village reading archer off of his appearance in that list. Just like you I think it is completely NAI, so people basing their votes on it looks like picking low-hanging fruit to me, which causes my suspicion.

Right, so experience got the full ruleset from me, but that doesn't mean this game is in anyway similar, besides having similar fluff. I agree it seems the whole subset mechanic from that game is not present, but that's about all I can say for now. Some more thoughts: The alignment list is presented as the 'cycle 1' alignment list, suggesting the list might change per cycle. I am disinclined to use that list for anything until I see what the 'cycle 2' list looks like. If the same people are once again marked as evil on the cycle 2 list I might be inclined to execute one of the, just to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if the list is essentially random. I don't like Araris and TKN jumping on using that list even though it makes no sense for it to be an accurate representation of alignments. Though TKN's response to my poke regarding win-con does feel more village-y. For now, going to put a vote on Araris.

Kill all infiltrators. The reason I poked TKN on that the way I did was to see whether a potential elim!tkn would backtrack when confronted with the implication the village wincon might be something different.

@Araris Valerian @The Known Novel, why vote Archer instead of Labyrinth? Your reasoning for Archer seems to be 'because he is red', so why Archer over Labyrinth if the reasoning applies to both? Also, TKN, what is the wincon you are claiming? Do you merely need to execute Archer? @Archerthe reason you can't find the LG63 rules doc is because I never shared it. This was partly because the original doc actually contained another variant that I wanted to keep secret in case I ever reran it. Honestly, that variant would play nicely with what I see so far of this game, and if I still think it fits C2 I'll talk more about it, and what it could mean for this game. Edit: I have more thoughts, but those will have to wait for a bit as I want a response from Araris and/or TKN first.

Also, should be noted that there can be a number of different reasons to run a blackout. Sometimes it's to go really crazy, like LG92, sometimes it can also be partly as flavor to spice up a more traditional game, see for example LG63: Though given that we haven't even been given a definitive call on the factions yet, this one will proably be on the crazy side.

@Experience, am I allowed to play this game? Given that I designed LG63 and you seem to be taking some inspiration from there (It was you that asked for the full ruleset a while back, right?). If I am allowed in I'd be happy to play as Muriel Fendre.

I mean, the me sacrifice could have been a very useful late game tool if it wasn't a clean sweep for the rest of the game, plus I actually would have been out of it for a cycle or two due to health issues. Anyway, well done TJ and Mat!

Because I'm having a hard time figuring out how someone without superior knowledge of the alignments would feel the need to apologize for an execution at all, especially one that is flipless. @Archer, if Aman had self-pressed, he'd have been up for the execution again today. letting it come down to chance would have made him look better if he'd won the flip, and increased his odds of getting brought back if he hadn't. So why can't the logic you present here for Alpha not be applied to Aman as well? For now, putting my vote on Wonko. Both Archer and Wonko are giving me real odd vibes on their reaction to the Aman execution, so I'm fine with either. Also, just a heads-up, yesterday's headache cleared, but I'm still not at a 100%, so don't expect too much in the way of engagement this cycle.

So, first things first, I woke up with a bad headache, so unless it clears quickly this'll be my only post for the next 24 hours or so. Also, point of order, I'll likely won't be around for the last 10-12 hours of every cycle, so if you're waiting for a response from me in that period you'll have to wait till the next cycle. Regarding Aman brining up the MR63 gambit, it doesn't really look like the same action to me. Quite aside from me looking at and remembering a game quite differently if I am an elim compared to when I am village, asking to get converted by the pseudo-village group is not the same as asking to be attacked by the elims. This reads really oddly. Why would someone be apologizing for an execution outcome like this? E!wonko knowing V!aman just got executed, Edit: or E!Wonko trying to drum up indirect support for E!aman being brought back? DeTess. I think an Aman flip would be quite valuable given all the chaos surrounding it, so the sooner someone with a silver knife is sent out there, the better our odds of actually getting it, and since I'm the only one to have publicly claimed a knife I'm pretty much the only option. Obviously, I do hope tog et brought back in after my knife triggers. @Szeth_Pancakeswhat is the order of actions exactly? If I get banished, would the shades be able to attacked me that same cycle, or only the cycle after that? And when does the survivalist come in? Before or after the shade attack? To give the full context to this: I'd been wondering why Archer brought up the Dawnshard holder as a potential mayor (not advocating for it, just wondering why I didn't bring them up when I mentioned a mayor) when they don't have any self protection and it isn't guaranteed the village has a bodyguard. two reasons I could see this being were: Archer is an elim and trying to subtly encourage the dawnshard holder to out themselves Archer is a v!bodyguard and knows they can keep the holder safe I reached out to them in PM to get a better idea of what was going on, as I didn't want to force a v!bodyguard out in the open. Archer, why bring this up now? We discussed this middle of the last cycle, so you could have brought it up then if it triggered suspicion. edit: and also getting the same odd vibe from Archer being all 'Oh no, not aman!' that I got from Wonko. I really don't see why people suddenly seem so certain Aman was village.

So, just to avoid any confusion, can you confirm the exact amount of knifes in this game?

So, first things first, I don't really buy the Alpha evil claim. I just don't see any reason why e!alpha would do that while being serious (though I could theoretically seeing e!alpha do this to troll and confuse). I don't really agree with you that elims would seek to target any claimed silver knives. The reason for that is precisely because of the stealing mechanic. If the holders of the knives claim, and then one or both of them get NK'd, and then at a later point someone gets executed and a silver knife pops up again in redistribution, it means that that execution was almost guaranteed to be a hit. In fact, knowing where the knives are could make it harder for elims to select their kills. Killing a knife-holder means that if the one that did the kills gets executed the village could figure out their alignment pretty much immediately, and the opposite is true too. If someone was executed after a knife-holder is night-killed and they don't drop a knife we know that at the very least they weren't the elim to submit the kill. Of course, if the elims don't kill the knife-holders then the above tracking doesn't work, but if it is publicly known who the knife-holders are then any village bodyguard can focus on others, further narrowing the field of people the elims can safely kill off. Of course, it's not guaranteed that all knife-holders are village and anyone claiming a knife shouldn't be seen as guaranteed good, but just generally being able to track the knives could help later on if any of the knife-holders gets night-killed. Anyway, I've basically convinced myself at this point that claiming knives is in the village's interest, so, you know... *brandishes Silver knife menacingly* I really don't like this at all. Whether or not you get killed means basically nothing after this challenge. If Alpha is evil there is no reason to think their comment was serious and that an evil Alpha team might follow up on it, but also no reason to think they wouldn't. And the same goes if Alpha is village. This is just deep IKYK territory and you know this as well as anyone. If anything, the apparent willingness to get night-killed in this post seems like it is designed to make you look more village, and stuff like that makes me more suspicious. Moving my vote from Mat to Aman.

Ah, I meant to refer to the leader role there that can banish people there, not the meta-role if a mayor that leads the village. Out of curiosity, how did you imagine the dawnshard holder could fulfill either role?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by saying I mentioned a mayor?

I just did some rereading, and this is indeed pretty much how it works. In addition, there is no way to transfer knives around so there is no way to ensure that a person people are okay with banishing also holds a knife. Then again, if you have a survivalist and mayor working together there would be less risk to that. Question, do we want the silver knives to claim? That way if a situation comes up when we really want to get a flip we can coordinate based on where the knives are, and since they pass on death being able to keep an eye on knives (for example someone banished fighting off a shade with a knife they didn't start with could indicate they killed a previous holder) could be useful. On the other hand though, an elim homesteader leader could sue that info to better plan who they send out, though that would be a pretty clear pattern to spot and act on. edit: Though killing shades also block the resurrection mechanic. I'd say the extra info is still worth it most of the time, but it is something to keep in mind. Also something to note, without flips analysis becomes both more difficult, but also more important as looking at what everyone is saying and doing is our only real way of getting info. This also means people participating in the votes is more important. Speaking of which... Mat. The last two games we've played together have established something of a pattern, don't you agree edit2: I've been thinking more on the whole shade thing, but basically every kill ends up in the shade-doc, so assuming only execution+ elim kill there is only a 50% chance of clearing an execution shade with silver. However, the ressurection is actually far more powerful than I thought, because it can bring back the elim kill. In practice this will probably only serve to slow down the elim kill (unless there is a village bodyguard), but if the elims don't kill people brought back that way again it would result in a growing group of 'very likely village' people. In theory the elims could kill one of their own in the hope they are brought back as an extended WGG, but that feels like a long-shot. Not impossible, especially if one of the elims gets read as a village power-player (say Aman, Archer or Devotary if memory serves), but it's not something I would consider super likely. edit3: @Szeth_Pancakesfighter and assassin kills aren't differentiated. Is the ghost-blood kill differentiated from those two? If the ghost-blood kill isn't differentiated then I think the village is almost guaranteed to have an assassin, just to make what I said above about bringing back elim kills a less sure bet to get likely villagers back. edit4: in which case, village killers might want to refrain from random shots to make targeting resurrections easier? edit5: @Szeth_Pancakes, are bodyguard protections announced in thread?

Might as well take a shot at this one as well. If the KKC game is anything like the ones I'm used to from way back when (get off my lawn, young whippersnappers) I might not actually have enough time and energy to take part in that one anyway.

True, but it has the issue that if you can't get a Shard, you simply can't win, and have fewer ways to affect the game state as traditional analysis would also not be encouraged. One way you could fix that, especially with the smaller game sizes is to have everyone except (some of the) members of the factions start with Shards.