Werewolf CXII - Dueling Wizards III - The Living Thread

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Inzil

Was it ever clarified what happens if the wolves target the Good Wizard? They can't kill him that way, but could they get his identity?

You know, I was assuming yes, but unless I missed something, I actually can't find anything that says it in the rules. So if the kill fails, the EW might not know whether the target was ranger protected or the GW.

Originally Posted by Eomer

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

That seems like an awfully big gamble, especially considering that with yesterDay's no-lynch, Morsul was the very first kill of the game.

FYI, I'm off to work, so aside from maybe another brief post, I won't really be able to participate again until the last hour or two.

[Nogrod]

I feel the rust jamming my brains after such a long time - it's like the neurons try to get moving but the whole machinery just cracks and screeches.

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

First things first though.

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

Let's remember that the Dead are a lot wiser than we the living are - and the gap between their understanding and ours widens everyday.

Also, having complicated - or in the worst situation - conflicting "rules of interpretation" for the Dead-vote is only going to muddy the waters and give the baddies a justification for their voting based on some interpretations of what the Dead might have wanted to say.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

It's good to have you back, sir!

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so.

It just seems a little complicated, and a bit too rigid for my taste. But if the majority want to do that, I won't be a rogue.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I thought the Dead just did two majority-votes: one to give one of the Living one extra vote, and to determine of of their number for role-reveal. Hopefully I'm not missing something.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I can't find this, but are you sure it wasn't a question of doubling the vote *of* someone rather than the vote *for* someone?

It could be - at least it would make sense.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean it's clear most of us still haven't got our heads around the rules properly yet.

Indeed.


Just a few thoughts.

I believe we can assume there was a wolf among us on D1. The EW might have fancy strategies including not making herself a wolf the pre-game Night but yet there was a Night-kill last Night. Now that could happen if the rules allowed signing a wolf and make her to kill the very same Night, but I somehow doubt that - Kuru?

Besides just my personal doubt (feeling) there is the actual stated rule that the EW can only make a solo Night-kill after she has created at least one wolf - which kind of suggests the interpretation that the EW needs a wolf to start killing people off.

And anyway, besides the ability to kill in the first place, the EW needs numbers. It might be, she's not going to rush with bringing forwards her full pack immediately (to do that as fast as possible), but she'd need at least one, rather immediately.

Therefore I'd assume we had one already on D1.

But with no pack to defend or to plot with there probably are no clear wolftracks we could infer something from. Unless that late sequence of events which led to the no-kill decision involved the improbable - but possible - scenario where one wolf needed to cover for the EW herself - or vice versa.

That's not much, but probably the best be we have thus far.

I'll be back a little later with hopefully some better ideas.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Now that could happen if the rules allowed signing a wolf and make her to kill the very same Night, but I somehow doubt that - Kuru?

This would not be possible. The Evil Wizard couldn't create and then kill that wolf in the same NIGHT. If the Evil Wizard tried something like this the victim would go to the Dead Thread as an Ordo.

That wouldn't preclude killing that wolf on a subsequent NIGHT, but it wouldn't work to do it on the same NIGHT.

Besides just my personal doubt (feeling) there is the actual stated rule that the EW can only make a solo Night-kill after she has created at least one wolf - which kind of suggests the interpretation that the EW needs a wolf to start killing people off.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Da Rules

The Evil Wizard may make kills solo once they have created a wolf (in a scenario where the Evil Wizard has lost all their wolves). This rule applies even if the Evil Wizard has wolf picks in reserve that have not been used yet but is for some reason on his/her own.

EDIT: So I guess, theoretically, and I didn't fully appreciate it until this moment, the Evil Wizard could turn this into the most diabolical solo were-bear role ever!

Not that I'm suggesting anything to anyone.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

This would not be possible. The Evil Wizard couldn't create and then kill that wolf in the same NIGHT. If the Evil Wizard tried something like this the victim would go to the Dead Thread as an Ordo.

That wouldn't preclude killing that wolf on a subsequent NIGHT, but it wouldn't work to do it on the same NIGHT.

I wasn't actually talking about the EW killing her wolf the very same Night the wolf was created. Sorry if I phrased it badly.

My concern was, whether the "evil side" could have killed Morsul last Night if there was no wolf turned already on the pre-game Night (whether there was not a wolf among us on D1)?

Aka. if the EW didn't turn anyone into a wolf before D1 started, could she have turned someone into a wolf last Night and then have Morsul killed the very same Night she turned her first wolf into being?

Looking at it from the other POV. If there would be no wolf now, then no-one would have died last Night because there a) is no wolf to do the killing, and b) the EW has not turned anyone a wolf aka. (by rules) can't kill anyone solo either?

So it concerns the speculation about whehter there was a wolf among us yesterDay, not whether the EW killed her puppy just to send her into the Dead-thread (which would be quite insane - or phantomish)...

[Loslote]

As far as the Dead Thread communication goes, I think it is better to have a consistent plan than it is to try to wing it. Sure, something may go wrong, but that can be addressed by putting in a failsafe - say, empower the first or last people alphabetically if something has gone terribly wrong, and we can work out a new plan to draw out what, exactly, has gone wrong the next Day. If we don't have a plan at all, getting any information from the Dead Thread becomes much more difficult, and the possibility of confusion increases drastically. I am honestly side-eying Nog for, as far as I can tell, dismissing the idea of *having a plan at all*. Sure, it can get messy, but if we don't have a solid plan, communication would be almost impossible. I'm less wary of Mith, who doesn't like the plan but is suggesting alternatives rather than effectively saying "communicating with the Dead Thread is hard, we shouldn't even try". All but one of us is in the living thread *right now*, now is the time to hash this out, when everyone can make sure they're comfortable with the plan in the case that they are the ones who end up in the Dead Thread.

As far as Morsul goes, I wonder if the EW killed him in part as a way to shield the rest of the last minute voters from scrutiny. Morsul was one of the earlier and more bold voters, and by focusing attention on his vote, maybe the EW was hoping to draw our attention away from a vote like Zil's for Nerwen, or the votes for me, or even the votes for Boro meant to tie it up. At any rate, I think we, as a village, haven't spent much time looking at those, and I do want to take a closer look.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I feel the rust jamming my brains after such a long time - it's like the neurons try to get moving but the whole machinery just cracks and screeches.

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

First things first though.

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

Let's remember that the Dead are a lot wiser than we the living are - and the gap between their understanding and ours widens everyday.

Also, having complicated - or in the worst situation - conflicting "rules of interpretation" for the Dead-vote is only going to muddy the waters and give the baddies a justification for their voting based on some interpretations of what the Dead might have wanted to say.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I can't find this, but are you sure it wasn't a question of doubling the vote *of* someone rather than the vote *for* someone?

That said, I am not nearly as confident in this plan to communicate with the Dead as some people seem to be. I think it did more or less work last game with a Dead thread, but this time there are so many other variables... I mean it's clear most of us still haven't got our heads around the rules properly yet.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I was using the Night break to read back over the posts of Day One and I was thinking Morsul's contributions were helpful and sensible, and thus he was probably innocent.
Perhaps the baddies thought this too - in that lots of us might decide to trust him toDay.

That would be quite a likely one, too. Or just one of the reasons.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

So we can assume probably two baddies yesterday and perhaps up to three baddies amongst us today?

Which we should pay attention to, btw - because while yesterDay it was either one or two baddies (presumably two), which gets easily lost in a village like this, if it's three now and four (!) toMorrow (or potentially, at least), this can get off the rails very fast.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

But it's the EW who decides the kill, right? So maybe Morsul was a wolf, got sacrificed, and now will be running the Dead Thread because everyone thinks he's innocent? How devious.

I really need to spend a few minutes thinking about the Dead Thread because I'm unsure how much impact it will actually have - maybe I've been overthinking its importance.

I think intentionally sacrificing a Wolf to populate the Dead Thread sounds like a scheme the phantom could come up with, but objectively, it does not make much sense.

Okay, now that I started thinking about it, I *could* imagine a scheme where the EW would just intentionally sacrifice all Wolves and try to completely misinform the village by making them think there are Wolves among them so they would just lynch each other, but really, it does not sound like a very logical strategy.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Obviously if his death points to anyone at all, it points to Lottie, but I can't imagine he was killed just for voting her, unless the evil side thought he had dreamed her- i.e. was the GW using his "Seer" ability.

Yes, I find it somehow difficult to believe that the Wolves would go for such a straightforward connetion. Even though if Lottie is evil, maybe the fact that Morsul was insistent on lynching even though many people were against it might have made the WWs think he knew something? But personally, I think that if you put it that way, it would make more sense if it was an attempt to frame an innocent Lottie.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Depends on perhaps how significant the vote empowerment thing is? Which will be on a case by case basis as far as I can see. And voting is not always easy to predict and can suprise... so quite a big gamble, to sacrifice a wolf though it seems not theoretically impossible.

At least based on experience from previous game, there would need to be significantly large presence of the Wolves on the Dead thread to accomplish anything.

EDIT: ah, Nogrod is back. Great! Let's have something to read...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

There are also rules at the beginning of this thread, which I believe are the same, an in any case those should be up-to-date, since they were posted here with the game itself.

Originally Posted by Nog

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

I remember the horrors of the previous Dead thread well, but I think that was what setting up some rules beforehand might be helpful for. Of course, you are right about this being different situation in the amount of uncertainity, different roles etc. Also, and that is perhaps more relevant point, we possibly should not "set" the rules in stone in case there comes some situation in the Dead thread we didn't think of, and then the Dead would have no way of communicating it back.

Originally Posted by Nog

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I think it was just some sort of example? In any case, I think the rules are just giving a "+1" vote.

[Mithalwen]

I don't think that we necessarily need to have a default request system in place early as long as we give the dead sensible options which are adhered to and not changed midstream. Spending too much time now exploring various permutations really would be an unnecessary displacement activity at this point.
Don't want to end up like this again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Was it ever clarified what happens if the wolves target the Good Wizard? They can't kill him that way, but could they get his identity?

With a few exceptions, which I will list, any action against either Wizard will expose that Wizard to their enemy. So, yes, if the wolves attempt to target the Good Wizard for a kill/scry/anything the Good Wizard's identity is exposed to the Evil Wizard.

Likewise, any action against the person of the Evil Wizard, scry/gifting, will expose the identity of the Evil Wizard to the Good Wizard.

Exceptions:

If the party attempts to lynch either Wizard, they will fail and it will be obvious that they fail. I won't reveal the alignment of the Wizard in the narration, but their opposite number will know who they are, so for all intents and purposes that acts as a reveal.

Rule Clarification: The Ranger can deflect probes/attacks on the person of the Good Wizard. So let's say the Evil Wizard and Wolves try to kill the Good Wizard but the Ranger is protecting the Good Wizard. The Evil Wizard will receive the same message they would in any other circumstances of a Ranger save, which will be, and I quote:

"*Doink* Missed."

I had always had this in mind as part of the Ranger abilities, but I realized that I never actually spelled that out for everyone. Sorry about that.

My thinking was that, yes the Ranger could just endlessly protect the Good Wizard but then they are just leaving the entire rest of the playing field open for the Evil Wizard and Wolves to have a field day. It seemed like a good tactical problem to place before the Ranger...and in a way in front of the Bad Team as well.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

The rules at the start of this thread are the most authoritative ones. I will update the rules in the first post as needed, including the clarification I just outlined above.

They seem a bit shorter because I streamlined the text a bit and shed some of the explanations and things that seemed redundant by the time we started the game.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

While accurate in a way, "doubling" is probably a poor way to phrase it.

One individual has their vote raised from one to two. That's all that happens. The entire vote total for an individual is not raised. So let's say that Bob the Tomato has five votes and the Dead Thread votes to empower Larry the Cucumber who is one of the people voting against Bob. Bob's total only goes up to six, not ten.

[Brinniel]

Attempting to catch up. You guys post too much.

[Lalaith]

Do I have to give a reason for my vote?

No, not if you don't want to. Most of us do though. Think of it like being on a jury!