WW22 Lurker Thread - A Psychologist's Report

[Rowain]

Even without the wording (which fits the victory condition proclaimed by thestick in his first post

4. The village wins when all threats have been eliminated, or nothing can prevent this.

I think his move is rather a protown move. Of course if both Qg & Ryan are scum this move might be a desperate Gambit to get them both good Standing.

[Mattimeo]

Scum victory condition is the same:

You win when all threats have been eliminated, or nothing can prevent this.

Yeah. But I tried to leave some "I'm the seer" tells out there so that I'd be a night target. IE: when I said lets wait for the seer to sort out matt and novice.

It worked

[Bigger]

thats a little sloppy for a village win condition.. because there is never a time when threats to the village are still alive, but nothing can prevent it.

[Rowain]

thats a little sloppy for a village win condition.. because there is never a time when threats to the village are still alive, but nothing can prevent it.

1 dayvig-villager + 1 wolf for example. Or one village-mayor + 1 wolf.
Do note that there is no direct "wolves win as soon as there are as many wolves as villagers" condition.

[Bigger]

thats a little sloppy for a village win condition.. because there is never a time when threats to the village are still alive, but nothing can prevent it.

1 dayvig-villager + 1 wolf for example. Or one village-mayor + 1 wolf.
Do note that there is no direct "wolves win as soon as there are as many wolves as villagers" condition.

no, day vig can always miss and hit a villager. night vigs too. my statement is correct, villagers have to eliminate all threats to win and their win condition should be worded as such.

[Gaspar]

@thestick: it's too early to tell of course, but the sense I get from your game is that you haven't played a lot of WW. . There's a reason everyone just sort of parrots the same rules posts, etc, it's because we've learned over the course of time ways the GM can unfairly influence lynch votes by including, leaving out things. Anyway, might all still work out fine in the long run, just mentioning it.

Definitely way too much role pm quoting in the thread.

I don't have a good read atm. If Ryan is telling the truth then Azza's could definitely be scum as the vote reduction was a way to balance too many wolves. Jkaen's claimed actions are fairly consistent with his play, though typically he doesn't protest this much when he's on the block, which leaves me skeptical, I think if Jkaen is scum, it's probably Azza's too and that's it. I can see thhe zak/Gazglum argument, but I'm not convinced.

[Rowain]

thats a little sloppy for a village win condition.. because there is never a time when threats to the village are still alive, but nothing can prevent it.

1 dayvig-villager + 1 wolf for example. Or one village-mayor + 1 wolf.
Do note that there is no direct "wolves win as soon as there are as many wolves as villagers" condition.

no, day vig can always miss and hit a villager. night vigs too. my statement is correct, villagers have to eliminate all threats to win and their win condition should be worded as such.

Tell me my smart friend how do you believe that a village-dayvig might kill a villager if there is only a wolf left beside him.
Do you think he commits suicide? The same goes for village-mayor + wolf. I highly doubt any village-mayor will suddenly vote to lynch himself.
In case the wolf doesn't have any extras to prevent it (but then the "nothing can prevent it"-conduition is not fulfilled) the win condition is fulfilled.

(In previous games we had the "if there are as many wolves as villagers then wolves win"-condition. Sometime combined with "Nothing can prevent this" And surprisingly not even you claimed that the wolves might start to eat themself /lynch themself )

[Bigger]

thats a little sloppy for a village win condition.. because there is never a time when threats to the village are still alive, but nothing can prevent it.

1 dayvig-villager + 1 wolf for example. Or one village-mayor + 1 wolf.
Do note that there is no direct "wolves win as soon as there are as many wolves as villagers" condition.

no, day vig can always miss and hit a villager. night vigs too. my statement is correct, villagers have to eliminate all threats to win and their win condition should be worded as such.

Tell me my smart friend how do you believe that a village-dayvig might kill a villager if there is only a wolf left beside him.
Do you think he commits suicide? The same goes for village-mayor + wolf. I highly doubt any village-mayor will suddenly vote to lynch himself.
In case the wolf doesn't have any extras to prevent it (but then the "nothing can prevent it"-conduition is not fulfilled) the win condition is fulfilled.

(In previous games we had the "if there are as many wolves as villagers then wolves win"-condition. Sometime combined with "Nothing can prevent this" And surprisingly not even you claimed that the wolves might start to eat themself /lynch themself )

are you intentionally being dense? If there is one wolf and one villager then the wolves automatically win. I don't think thestick meant to change this regardless of how it is worded (and if he did, that would be terribly unfair for scum).

[Mattimeo]

The rules, as stated, do not imply that a 1-1 situation is an automatic wolf win.

If, as Rowain is suggesting, it's down to a dayvig and a wolf during a day phase, the dayvig shoots, and wins.
Same with mayor. 1-1 tie at end of day is broken by the mayor, therefore you can skip the final day and have the mayor win.

The only way I can see this being "terribly unfair for scum" is if, after killing the mayor the night before, there is a 1-1 vote for mayor decided by a coin flip. And that's easily solved by just not having a mayor vote if there are only two people left.

[NobleHelium]

But then the lynch vote would be a coin flip anyway, no?