Remove ads

CHESS MAFIA 2

Reader mode
hailcapital said:
On 99Lies though, I'm also concerned about whether scum!99Lies would really claim roleblocked if they were roleblocked carrying the scum kill, given that doing so would be tantamount to claiming scum in the event that people do claim if they were attacked.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If they don't claim roleblocked, then a bishop can claim to have blocked them and it's obvious they're scum. Claiming it at least gives them plausible deniability as long as other possibilities, like the redirect or protection, exist.
 
QTesseract said:
If they don't claim roleblocked, then a bishop can claim to have blocked them and it's obvious they're scum. Claiming it at least gives them plausible deniability as long as other possibilities, like the redirect or protection, exist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In that case they could just say "I guess a knight must have redirected it then idk."
 
QTesseract said:
Both the bishop (or in this case, knight) and the target would be aware, yes.

Hmm. I was about to say that there's no reason for the target not to reveal if that happened, because scum already know, but I'm not sure if it's clear to scum whether their kill was blocked by a bulletproof or heal so it might be worth keeping them in the dark in some circumstances. I feel intuitively like it would still be better to reveal if you got healed but I'll have to think on it to be sure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Per the full interaction clarification;

Terrabrand said:
Doctor is quiet unless the target was attacked; a target that was not attacked is not informed of the visit. They will be informed they were attacked and saved if such comes up, but not the pieces or players involved. The attacker is informed of their attack being foiled by another piece, but not which piece type or who. The bishop is informed if they actually block an attack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Terrabrand said:
Doctor functions identically to Bishop doctor; the target is not informed unless attacked, in which case they learn they were attacked and saved but not the pieces or players involved. The attacker likewise is informed of their attack being foiled, and the Knight will learn successful at blocking a kill.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Terrabrand said:
Rook

Rook bodyguarding always absorbs the kill, even if the kill is strongman, unless the Rook was roleblocked. Rook is injured in the process, using up bulletproof unless healed and dying if neither healed nor presently bulletproof.

If both Rooks are bodyguarding the same target, the Rook to take the hit will be determined randomly.

Deflected Watcher will see all who visit the new target, and not just those who were originally targeted at the targeted Knight.

Watcher is quiet; the target isn't informed of the Rook's visit to any extent.

Bodyguard is quiet for the target; the target is never informed of the Rook visiting. Any intercepted killers are informed they were intercepted by a Rook. The Rook is informed if they successfully intercept a killer.

If a Rook is killed in a single night by multiple kills, all flavors show.

If a Rook and a Heal target the same target, the Rook intercepts and the heal winds up wasted.

If a Rook bodyguards a target, they will continue to intercept kills even to the point of death and beyond; in the hypothetical world that the queen, both knights, and the scum bomb were all targeted at the Rook's bodyguard target, the rook would receive all of those kills.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While this is technically an oversight, in the sense that I didn't think to specifically address the point when first drafting the rules, killers receive no explanation if the target was bulletproof.

However, they know if a rook bodyguarded their target or they were roleblocked or their target was healed, and thus a killer who finds their kill failed with no feedback, they will know that, by definition, they either targeted a rook, or a knight who was deflecting to a rook, or they would have received some form of feedback.
 
Nictis said:
Again, Knight deflects actions, not redirect. If someone targets the Knight, they target who the Knight points at. Knight can't make me target you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah sorry. What I meant was that it's ambiguous in that case if 99Lies is scum or a town knight who redirected it away from himself, but I forgot that the bishop roleblock bypass the knight deflector.
 
Terrabrand said:
Per the full interaction clarification;





While this is technically an oversight, in the sense that I didn't think to specifically address the point when first drafting the rules, killers receive no explanation if the target was bulletproof.

However, they know if a rook bodyguarded their target or they were roleblocked or their target was healed, and thus a killer who finds their kill failed with no feedback, they will know that, by definition, they either targeted a rook, or a knight who was deflecting to a rook, or they would have received some form of feedback.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm.

In that case, I really see no reason why someone attacked shouldn't claim. @Nictis second check, but given that scum already know why their kill was blocked, be it deflecting knight + white queen, bulletproof, healed, bodyguard, is there any reason for someone who got healed not to claim?
 
QTesseract said:
Hmm.

In that case, I really see no reason why someone attacked shouldn't claim. @Nictis second check, but given that scum already know why their kill was blocked, be it deflecting knight + white queen, bulletproof, healed, bodyguard, is there any reason for someone who got healed not to claim?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not much. It gives them some info, that they didn't hit a rook, but overall it would be fine for them to reveal that.

Alternatively, not saying it means they have no particular explanation for why it failed. Probably would be worth revealing in that case, particularly since they'll know if a rook took the hit for their target.
 
Nictis said:
Not much. It gives them some info, that they didn't hit a rook, but overall it would be fine for them to reveal that.

Alternatively, not saying it means they have no particular explanation for why it failed. Probably would be worth revealing in that case, particularly since they'll know if a rook took the hit for their target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, scum would already know they didn't hit a rook. The people who would learn it is town.
 
Earlier I was in favor of Lynching Nictis for what seemed strange low energy for this day and partially for the joking bit from D1. Being reminded that game was in a limbo state of possible restart does hit. Meso was something of a gut read and how they initially went against kill-check.

At the moment I'm inclined to lynch 99 based off No attack claim and their roleblock claim.

[X] Lynch NinentyNineLies

I am however looking a bit sideways at shadell for how quickly they jumped to meso after my post and it makes me doubt what little I had but then again maybe I need read through again. I feel like I missed details from earlier in the day
 
mesonoxian said:
If there are other options, I think discussing them is fine, but giving concrete information like "I got roleblocked" or whatever helps scum know how to fake claim and might let them know how their ability failed. (If the target was bodyguarded, the target saying "nothing happened to me last night" confirms that for them, even though the target doesn't realize they are sharing sensitive info.)

Or that is how I see it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, seeing by Popular Demand I should talk, here's what I have to say.

Didn't really feel like I had anything important to add to the conversation today, so I just sat back and let the Pros do what they do best, talk and make arguments.


This comment by Meso makes me think that he's probably scum, as the post itself gives me an vibe that he failed an attack, but doesn't know how it failed. Which considering this is only the second game of this, is entirely plausible.


I personally believe that the current specials are atleast Odd Bishop and Knight, to restrict early game knowledge.

Feel like an Allied Queen just went for an kill on instinct for early game, and got lucky, and Scum got unlucky by either hitting an rook, or getting redirected into one either by Bodyguard or Redirect.

[x] vote Mesonoxian
 
Or there's a conflict between scum and knights/rooks, but okay, that sounds plausible.

Going to sleep in a few moments and might wake up as EoD approaches, so I'm going to vote somebody.

[X] Vote Shadell
 
Projject_Delta said:
Well, seeing by Popular Demand I should talk, here's what I have to say.

Didn't really feel like I had anything important to add to the conversation today, so I just sat back and let the Pros do what they do best, talk and make arguments.


This comment by Meso makes me think that he's probably scum, as the post itself gives me an vibe that he failed an attack, but doesn't know how it failed. Which considering this is only the second game of this, is entirely plausible.


I personally believe that the current specials are atleast Odd Bishop and Knight, to restrict early game knowledge.

Feel like an Allied Queen just went for an kill on instinct for early game, and got lucky, and Scum got unlucky by either hitting an rook, or getting redirected into one either by Bodyguard or Redirect.

[x] vote Mesonoxian
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If I were scum, I would want that information for targeting. I would'nt go out of my way to discourage other people from talking about it.
 
mesonoxian said:
If I were scum, I would want that information for targeting. I would'nt go out of my way to discourage other people from talking about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not necessarily, discouraging people from talking about it limits the flow of knowledge, which based on what Iv looked at so far, seems to be something people don't really support doing.

But in terms of Targetting, your point don't hold any ground, by discouraging others from talking about it, your giving scum an chance to frame someone else, and because no one talked about it, it would be harder to debate on it being false!
 
Okay, after considering it, I will reveal that I was the target of scum on N1, but survived purely b/c of the fact that I was a rook. With regards to what I did on N1, I went out to watch NinetyNineLies (I was flipping a coin between them and hailcapital for this), and can confirm that they were visited by someone (who I shall take as bishop role-wise).

NinetyNineLies said:
Or there's a conflict between scum and knights/rooks, but okay, that sounds plausible.

Going to sleep in a few moments and might wake up as EoD approaches, so I'm going to vote somebody.

[X] Vote Shadell
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This... is something of a head-scratcher of just picking a vote for someone, as like, if I was going to have to vote someone before I went to bed and not sure if I might make it by EoD, I'd probably pick one of the players who haven't really posted at all for D2 much as an activity vote (i.e. Project Delta), or who I felt most strongly about and explained why. This... does neither of those and leaves me wondering why NinetyNine voted Shadell, and would like a bit of info but I doubt I'll get it.
 
Okay, I think this clarifies a good deal. Usili could be lying, and be a white rook, but I think this is the most parsimonious world for the moment.

Scum hit Usili, Queen hit scum. Usili tracked 99L who got roleblocked by the bishop.

In general, my gut is that a black bishop is more likely to block 99L than a white bishop last night. OTOH, if the Queenside Bishop flips white, then 99L is very likely black (with redirect being the outside possibility).

[x] Vote Projject_Delta

Arbitrarily demanding Meso perform for my amusement hasn't worked, so you're up. Why should we think you're town? Who should we think is scum? Who, among those that jumped on the 99L wagon because of the roleblock claim seems sus?
 
Projject_Delta said:
Not necessarily, discouraging people from talking about it limits the flow of knowledge, which based on what Iv looked at so far, seems to be something people don't really support doing.

But in terms of Targetting, your point don't hold any ground, by discouraging others from talking about it, your giving scum an chance to frame someone else, and because no one talked about it, it would be harder to debate on it being false!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't make any sense. The flow of knowledge in this case would be directly beneficial to scum.

And I don't understand the second bit at all. How would someone coming forward to say they were attacked make it hard or easier to accuse someone?
 
Knowing 99 was actually roleblocked and an attack went out last night but failed reduces my suspicions on them considerably.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top