WW 18 Siege of the Dragon! (Game Thread)

[Serdoa]

We know:
Wolf seer (Bigger)
Wolf ? (Ichabod)
Hunter vig (Lewwyn)
Hunter ? (Qgqqqqq)

Just saying you don't know if Bigger is the seer of the wolves. If they are indeed 3 wolves, the seer of them could have told him.
Also Lewwyns role is not a Vigilante. It is a different role. Just saying.

Therefore, assume need wolf vig, hunter seer.
Only one kill from Lewwyn, only one kill from waterbat -> waterbat wolf vig (rather than Rowain)
Selrahc hunter seer

Problem:
Day kill is worrisome. Significantly more worrisome than night kill. Even if it can be used at the same time as death, since there's a good chance it'll still be around tomorrow if it's scum aligned.
Existence of day kill seems to point to a faction that is not wolf or hunter, given apparent uniqueness (and re-usability).
Use of day kill does not look town-aligned at all.

Your second to last sentence Mattimeo: You state it points to another faction than wolf or hunter, but we know there are only 3 scum-factions (Tasunke clearly stated it). And Rowain claims the day kills. So in that case he has to be the Dragon, by your own logic. Please think that stuff through and don't lynch me just because you don't like me.

[Azza]

I can't get over Rowain's admission of killing novice. I can't see how that's anything but an admission of guilt.

[Mattimeo]

Your second to last sentence Mattimeo: You state it points to another faction than wolf or hunter, but we know there are only 3 scum-factions (Tasunke clearly stated it). And Rowain claims the day kills. So in that case he has to be the Dragon, by your own logic. Please think that stuff through and don't lynch me just because you don't like me.

Sorry, should have been clearer with that point. Was meant to indicate that Rowain's role seems more town than anything, though the way he's used it points scum.

[waterbat]

I can't get over Rowain's admission of killing novice. I can't see how that's anything but an admission of guilt.

Agreed- that's what makes option #2 in Mattimeo's quote so appealing:

Favoured scenarios at this point:
5-1, Serdoa dragon
3-1-1-1, Serdoa dragon, waterbat / Rowain hunter, Selrahc wolf
3-1-1-1, Serdoa dragon, waterbat wolf, Selrahc hunter

I don't mind my inclusion in #2, but I think Rowain has taken credit for that slot. It has been my fear since it was revealed there were hunters that an archer with poison arrow(s) doesnt fit elsewhere, but as I said - i suspect Tasunke threw MJW and myself in like he did for confusion. That puts the light-dark stuff that Selrahc revealed even more over the top.

[waterbat]

also easy enough to read Qgqqqq and Lewwyn's posts ( i just did via my thread scraper (http://www.cassidyweb.com/ww18) ) and see that I am not on their team. Between the D1 fiasco and Lewwyn buttering me up the whole time, that seems quite unlikely.

I've been looking at Tasunke's posts as well - looking for more setup clues, but that has been fruitless. Serdoa's done a great job at that , BUT its so obviously in his favor to interpret them in the way that he has done.

[waterbat]

Ichabod posted this just before night deadline:

Well, a 1-2-2-11 setup would explain why Zakalwe would defend Qgqqqq so much, if he is indeed his teammate. Assuming Zak and Qgqqqq knew there were other bad factions (at least the SK was obvious, since it was in the rules), losing Qgqqqq would mean a likely defeat, because Zak is often targetted by nightkills and role scans. So, saving Qgqqqq was very important, almost an absolute for their team to win.

Lot of shaky premises in this thought, but I think is easier to justify a big defense by a scum buddy with a 2-men team setup than with a larger team. Especially considering Zakalwe's situation.

We now know he was a member of the Wolf scum pack. So he knew for a fact what the setup was. We also know that he was as interested in hunting the other pack of scum as villager. If that's so he is possibly setting up going after Zak whom he apparently suspects or is trying to set up to be mislynched.

I went into this post trying to figure out what Ichabod's motivations were for posting it and I think I'm coming out of it just as confused. Possibly because Ichabod doesn't know for sure whether Zak is scum or not. The one thing I am sure of is that Ichabod is being very vague about where he thinks the current thoughts on the setup is right or not. Which supports Ichabod's scum MO of being vaguer than normal. I also think he might be trying to leave it open in case Qg's scumbuddy is caught. Doing so allows him to try and point out others who might be connected to Qg.

Crap, I suddenly don't think there's anything to learn here. It's just Ichabod sowing confusion.

I keep getting back to this post - by two of the people who knew how many teammates they had. Unfortunately keep coming to same conclusion as Lewwyn faked here. Is there anything to learn?

in any event, it matters little that we are at 5-1 or 3-1-1-1, IF we take the track that solves both puzzles - let's kill the dragon.

[Rowain]

I can't get over Rowain's admission of killing novice. I can't see how that's anything but an admission of guilt.

Again. IMO the best thing a village can have are surefire villagers. You will find me saying that through out the games.
At that time of novice reveal you were silent and Mattimeo was also silent. novice was only talking that he could elaborate but he did not and he was voting for a different target then you. For me it was the best way to make sure wiith what we deal here.

And since you can't overcome me lynching novice what do you make out from me not lynching you or slowcheetah?. You realise that if I'm scum I only need to kill SC and the game is already lost for the village?

I really don't know that would necessarily change anyone's mind about the need for you to be lynched. Whether you're town or scum, I don't know you're that likely to be the target of whatever scum we have tonight, so you'd be around tomorrow to kill someone anyway, if you're not lynched here.

Plain simply if there are 3 scums left and you lynch me the game is over tomorrow. As a matter of fact if there are 3 scums left we need to hit 2 today or the village is gone.

Azza I don't know how I can convince you aside from offering you my Daggers. In short I will write my Assassination command here and not contact Tasunke in any other form or way. But please don't throw the game to scum just because I killed novice.

[Serdoa]

Mattimeo, is there anything I can explain in more detail that would help you to believe me? I can't tell anything more than I did about what others have done or what the setup I believe is, but if you have questions about my play (see above my hint at my play with/against zak) please ask them. I know you are certain by now that I am the Dragon, but please, ask yourself if my play makes sense as the Dragon.

Also on last point to think about Mattimeo: I claim that I do have protection against wolves. Why would I claim something like that? It would be much better to tell that I am a Baner, plain simple. I would not be attacked in the night (protects himself anyway), would not be lynched probably and therefore would achieve the goal everyone tries to put forth I would have (get a villager lynched, get not nightkilled, win in some inexplicable way that is not possible).

But I only do have protection against wolves and so that is what I claim. I assume that you Masons should know that this makes sense, as you probably have protection against some of the other kill types (out of all villagers having died we only don't know the role for uberfish and novice and for novice I assume you know his role). But if I would not have this role and lie, how would I know to lie in that way, to only claim protection against one kill-type? It is no where indicated that the protection is split up between different villagers. Only by having this role, I can have the knowledge about protection-roles to get to the assumption that the protection is split up.

[Serdoa]

I can't get over Rowain's admission of killing novice. I can't see how that's anything but an admission of guilt.

Again. IMO the best thing a village can have are surefire villagers. You will find me saying that through out the games.
At that time of novice reveal you were silent and Mattimeo was also silent. novice was only talking that he could elaborate but he did not and he was voting for a different target then you. For me it was the best way to make sure wiith what we deal here.

And since you can't overcome me lynching novice what do you make out from me not lynching you or slowcheetah?. You realise that if I'm scum I only need to kill SC and the game is already lost for the village?

But you don't play as scum to make the village lose, you play to win for your faction. Logical fallacy.

I really don't know that would necessarily change anyone's mind about the need for you to be lynched. Whether you're town or scum, I don't know you're that likely to be the target of whatever scum we have tonight, so you'd be around tomorrow to kill someone anyway, if you're not lynched here.

Plain simply if there are 3 scums left and you lynch me the game is over tomorrow. As a matter of fact if there are 3 scums left we need to hit 2 today or the village is gone.

Not true Rowain. If you are not scum, I would be (by 3 remaining scum). You will hit one of those with your dagger, making it 2-1-1 at the night. Scum would have to agree AND work together AND not betray each other to actually kill both villagers IF they both don't have any kind of protection. If they do not they might either kill each other (village win) or kill one of them and one villager (if Azza lives through, he will have double-vote and therefore lynch the scum, village win or Mattimeo and scum have a draw).

[Serdoa]

And to add, if scum works together, they still only have a draw. Betrayal seems inevitable.