Jump to content

Devotary of Spontaneity

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2184

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Devotary of Spontaneity

  1. Devotary of Spontaneity
    The journalist had very little reason to support the elims, unless it seemed plausible all the elims would all be dead before the end of N3. The bounty hunter and the criminal just want the game to go on for a while, and would support whichever side is losing if possible. Those two favour the village in that they can win by killing elims so long as they've failed their win condition. ViaC does have that 20% failure chance. I expected Founder vote manipulation for elims wanting to mess with the lynch regardless of CadCom's alignment, either to save him or frame him, but it doesn't appear we saw that either. Enough vote manipulation is out there that 4-3 isn't assured survival. Even if CadCom was the Deep One and didn't die, having to claim silver bones wouldn't be particularly helpful for long term survival. That brings us back to the Founder's 20% action failure chance.
  2. Devotary of Spontaneity
    I looked for any way to become insane D1, and then forgot to check that the Necronomicon could be used D1. Still, there will likely only be one person claiming Necronomicon D2. We won't get an obvious Deep One reveal, but everyone working together might be more helpful in deciphering the clue than one person working alone. That does make insanity less beneficial if it can happen multiple times over the course of a game. The information gained from the Necromocicon and Discover the Hidden are still worth it, but Mists of Releh just to prove one's ability to go insane is costlier.
  3. Devotary of Spontaneity
    The owner of the Necronomicon wouldn't be able to send any PMs of their results until D2 due to insanity. However, since we would know who the user is(as the Necronomicon is the only way I can see for someone to go insane D1), there's no reason the holder shouldn't publicly reveal the clue in that case. A public clue removes any need for the Gravedigger to claim. The one turn inability to vote or submit actions could be debilitating if everyone breaks at once, though it's more likely that insanity will occur gradually. I think it's better off if that happens closer to the beginning of the game when there's still lots of votes flying around. Although, @Elandera and @Snipexe, can an insane player be rendered insane again, with the ensuing inability to vote, PM, or submit actions? Specifically, do things like the Deep One's reveal and Broken Survivors work on those already insane?
  4. Devotary of Spontaneity
    The pallid mask seemed like a good way for PM contacts to establish a code to limit the harm of future PM spying abilities, but being double targeted by Listen at the Door/Hidden Transcripts during the day and then Altar of Dagon at night can reveal parts of messages sent under the mask's protection, so that item isn't as valuable as it could be. The Founder's ability doesn't mention that it cancels the Founder's vote, so it probably doesn't. Insanity only has the PM/action/vote block for one turn, and has the 10% action failure chance + 5% PM spy chance forever. Insanity is kind of inconvenient, but it's also a highly effective alignment scanner as 2/3 of the evil roles cannot go insane. Anyone announced in the writeup as being insane is thus far less likely to be evil. Any Dagon's will members may still go insane though. Still, this definitely means we should try our best to achieve insanity.
  5. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Joining as a figure who insists on being addressed as Lord Ghent, even though nobody has ever heard of the lands supposedly owned by the Ghent family.
  6. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Conclude
  7. Devotary of Spontaneity
    I'm not sure how you survived if Rath didn't soothe a vote off you. There were three votes on you, and Drake only removed one. We do need to kill Stick, and CadCom can decide whether or not to prolong the game.
  8. Devotary of Spontaneity
    If Fura is dead, we'll probably lose if we allow a convert to go through. If Fura is alive, we would still have a chance. With dead Fura: D4: 6-1(2 lives) lynch I N4 6-1(1 life) kill shane, convert Rath/Drake w/iron D5: 4-2(1 life + 2 lives) lynch I N5: 4-1(2 lives) kill CadCom D6: 3-1(2 lives) lynch C N6: 3-1(1 life) kill Cicada D7: 2-1(1 life) 50/50% chance, village wins if Cicada's redirect goes through, village loses if it doesn't
  9. Devotary of Spontaneity
    While It seems that my erroneous vote tallies and late vote provoked Rath to also Soothe a vote, we ended up hitting the correct person. We will need either Sart or shane to protect CadCom, but so long as CadCom survives today we win by the end of D5.
  10. Devotary of Spontaneity
    The conversion cannot go through while CadCom is alive. CadCom cannot die so long as at least one village Lurcher is alive. If the Inquisitor loses a life while at least one village Lurcher is alive, we win. Fura I missed Stick's vote. It should be tied now.
  11. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Stick(3): Drake, Fura, Rath Fura(2): Sart, CadCom, Devotary Unless Drake specifically says otherwise, I will assume that Drake will carry out his promise to Soothe a vote off of Fura, which is reflected in my new vote tally. Since Sart had a vote on Fura when Drake last posted, I shall assume that Sart's vote will be removed. Since a tied lynch improves our chances of catching the Inquisitor I will put a vote on Fura. We're dead if shane is the Inquisitor and we don't lynch them or if we lynch shane but not the Inquisitor. I don't think a 3-way tie is feasible, as that allows the Inquisitor to hammer one of the other two.
  12. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Double lynches are difficult to pull off as they're subject to last minute vote swings, but since two candidates are voting for each other it would be easier to accomplish. Drake has said he'd be Soothing a vote off of Fura, which would need to be confirmed. Fura(2): Sart, CadComStick(2): Fura, Rath If anyone targeted Aman N1 or Cicada N2, now is the time to speak up. D3: 8-1(3 lives) lynch I, mislynch N3: 7-1(2 lives) kill Sart, no convert D4: 6-1(2 lives) lynch I N4: 6-1(1 life) kill shane, no convert D5: 5-1(1 life) kill Inquisitor, win or if Shane is the Inquisitor and we double-lynch Stick and Fura D3: 8-1(3 lives) double mislynch N3: 6-1(3 lives) kill Sart, no convert D4: 5-1(3 lives) lynch I N4: 5-1(2 lives) kill CadCom, no convert D5: 4-1(2 lives) lynch I N5: 4-1(1 life) kill, convert D6: 2-2, lose
  13. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Did you protect Sart from conversion, or from an attack? I'm pretty sure a Lurcher can only do one or the other, so if you protected from an attack that confirms Sart's innocence.
  14. Devotary of Spontaneity
    I did not take a night action C2, so was not informed of being roleblocked. I was really hoping that Sart would have claimed by now, because he is not mechanically cleared, and there are only two non-Inquisitor roles he could possibly be. The Inquisitor kill is not an action, so Sart could not have received a notification that he was roleblocked N1 unless he has an Allomantic role with an active ability. I am very confident that Sart is not a Coinshot or a Smoker, as he would have counterclaimed if those were true. Sart has said that he cannot prove his role, which eliminates Seer, and Tineye somewhat, though I'm still including Tineye as possible. That leaves Lurcher, which would mean that either the Inquisitor attempted to convert someone who was relatively high on the suspect list, or more likely, Sart protected somebody else. That leaves: 1. Furamirionind, as A Character -Smoker? 5. Stick 8. Shanerockes 12. Sart, as Sari -Lurcher? We know that there is a Lurcher, so I'd say if the Lurcher is someone other than Sart they should probably claim. Originally, I was fairly sure that Inquisitor!Fura would be too proud to say that the Inquisitor had one extra life for each uncharged spike, but it is possible that the doc simply didn't announce this fact. Claiming to have Smoked D1 when Smoker is a night action is very much not helping.
  15. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Wow, I really wan't thinking very hard here. If you didn't Smoke last night, you can't prove anything until D4, by which point we'll have super lost if we haven't found the Inquisitor. In games where Smokers can be of either alignment and Seekers reveal alignment, an unobstructed scan tends to be better than being able to prove your role to a vote manipulator. Village smokers tend to be used for blocking elim vote manipulation, though there doesn't have to be a reason for them to exist.
  16. Devotary of Spontaneity
    It's generally frowned upon for Smokers to target themselves as it prevents Seekers from targeting them, though that's less relevant in this game where allomancy is inherently village to begin with. If you didn't smoke yourself last night then it should work for Drake to Soothe your vote today, as Smoking is of course a night-only action. Since Drake is confirmed village, it probably isn't necessary for you to be the only vote on someone.
  17. Devotary of Spontaneity
    It's nice to know that we have a Seer, unless of course you're the Inquisitor and are hoping there isn't a Seer. That seems a bit too risky for an Inquisitor to do. @Furamirionind, who have you Smoked? @Sart, what is your actual role? Do you know anything that could narrow down the suspect list?
  18. Devotary of Spontaneity
    The Lurcher is our main defense against it being game over; we've burned through our mislynches so the game essentially ends once a conversion goes through and attacks are guaranteed to be fatal. I'd rather have the Lurcher remain anonymous except as an all-out mass claim to lynch the Inquisitor today and have a Seer roleblock them to prevent conversion. Since we know we have a Lurcher, we can have them protect the Seer tonight if the Seer ends up claiming and the Inquisitor gets lynched. I'm not sure how you cleared Sart and I, can you explain that further? A mass roleclaim is useful if we have a Seer and if we can lynch the Inquisitor. I have doubts that a mass claim will assure a successful lynch, but there's a fair chance that we could end up with two players claiming the same role and lynching one of them in the hopes of finding the Inquisitor. I believe it was helpful that the Lurcher blocked the conversion, because it means the Inquisitor can still lose if they're uncovered. Say two people claim Lurcher, and we lynch an actual Lurcher. Tonight, a Seer would be able to roleblock the other claimant and have a good chance of blocking the conversion.
  19. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Cicada and Rath really should be cleared, as nobody else has bothered to claim Coinshot or take responsibility for Soothing Drake's vote D1. Why would it be a waste to lynch Xino or shane if either of them is the Inquisitor? We know the Inquisitor was active enough to submit a kill N1. Given that lynching Aman is essentially game over unless we get lucky with Seer/Lurcher/Thug powers, I tend to think the Inquisitor would have supported lynching Aman. That does make me feel better about CadCom than I did last cycle, as CadCom defended Aman when that lynch was far from secure.
  20. Devotary of Spontaneity
    So it looks like we're betting everything on the assumption that there is no Seeker. If that's true and Aman is evil, we probably win here. If Aman is the Seeker, lynching him is essentially game over unless the Seer can consistently roleblock the Inquisitor without knowing who it is. I am willing to believe that Inquisitor!Aman would false-claim Seeker on the hopes that there aren't any, though in LG56 Aman was expendable and the Inquisitor very much is not until they make a conversion. I am not willing to believe that a Seeker would willingly throw the game by not counterclaiming. Every single player has had the opportunity to claim Seeker and nobody has done so. Is this a gamble we're willing to take? Drake can't be evil, and we have not received a Coinshot counterclaim so Cicada should be village(While Coinshot is useful for preventing e.g. convert!Drake from winning at 2-1, I would still claim Coinshot if I was one). If Aman flips village Seeker, any of the other votes are valid Seer targets.
  21. Devotary of Spontaneity
    If Aman is evil, then we don't have any Seekers, is the big point. Since we do essentially win by lynching the Inquisitor today, any other Seekers really should have claimed by now.
  22. Devotary of Spontaneity
    That would give a Seer a 50% chance of preventing a conversion entirely if true by blocking one of the people we don't lynch. I don't believe we're informed if a conversion occurs, so we won't know if a roleblock is successful, but I still think it's worth it for any Seers to take the chance and risk hitting a Lurcher. CadCom saying the game is probably not role madness makes it sound less likely that he has an allomantic role. We've had half the village prove an allomantic role, and I can say that I have an allomantic role as well without specifying what it is. We're pretty much at game over if we mislynch today and don't stop the convert, though it's close enough to rollover that even a mass claim might not find the Inquisitor. If it could, and we have a Lurcher/Seer team, it would be worth it. It in't impossible that roled!CadCom would claim not role madness though. I initially ruled Stick out for asking about how the Inquisitor gets scanned, which is more suspicious knowing she isn't a Seeker. I'm still somewhat leaning towards CadCom, but I would support either being roleblocked if the other flips village.
  23. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Eh, fine. Everybody's had a chance to see Aman's Seeker claim and should have counterclaimed by now. The only one who might not have is @shanerockes I wrote convert+kill, but evidently didn't believe it. In either case, a mislynch after today is fatal while we can still survive by somehow having perfect lynches from D3 onwards. The convert lives increases by one because of the second spike, though since I was doing worst case potentially survivable scenario there was no chance that a D3 or D4 lynch would destroy a life granting spike.
  24. Devotary of Spontaneity
    Aman Let's see. D2: 10-1(3 lives) mislynch N2: 9-1(3 lives) convert, kill D3: 8-2(3 lives + 2 lives) lynch I N3: 8-2(2 lives + 2 lives) kill D4: 7-2(2 lives + 2 lives) lynch I N4: 7-2(1 life + 2 lives) kill + spike C D5: 6-2(1 life + 3 lives) lynch I N5: 6-1(3 lives) kill D6: 5-1(3 lives) mislynch N6: 4-1(3 lives) kill D7: 3-1(3 lives) lynch C N7: 3-1(2 lives) kill D8: 2-1(2 lives) lynch C N8: 2-1(1 life) kill D9: 1-1 game over unless the two vote minimum is retracted or we somehow have a rioter around. So in the absolute worst case, if Drake is for some reason lying when it would be fairly easy for an Inquisitor to just go with it, we can't survive any mislynches after today. In practice, it's actually far better than this so long as we have a Seer. A Seer can block spike charging and conversion by targeting the Inquisitor, and since we'll know who that is after today, we would be able to win once the Inquisitor is dead. It would be nice to get Lurcher protection on the Seer, but as we cannot be sure that there is a Lurcher, I can't advocate for a Seer to claim.
  25. Devotary of Spontaneity
    I would say there's a decent chance the Inquisitor saw Aman's post about the Inquisitor having voted and decided to kill someone outside that group. If that was true, other candidates would be Cicada, Shanerockes, and Amanuensis. Venture claiming a role probably didn't help. It had previously seemed that CadCom was considering/hoping for a role madness game, but it's not definitive and CadCom is now supporting the theory that roleless villagers exist. Seekers aren't as powerful as in some other games, but I still wouldn't expect there to be more than one. Drake being a rioter would mean three vote manipulators, and that Drake didn't bother to use his ability. Iron can only protect against killing or spiking, so the two of you will be difficult to protect.
×
×
  • Create New...