WW29: Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

[zakalwe]

It wouldn't change much, it just removes the silliness.

If there are two wolves and two villagers left, both wolves just vote together at the start of the day. Their target then becomes the first to teach two votes and the wolves can't lose the tie.

[zakalwe]

* reach

[MJW (ya that one)]

Oh, if the seer hits a wolf tonight he should totally roleclaim as it is very unlikely a wolf could get though the entire village. He should wait 4.5 hours before the lynch.

It's also possible for us to no-lynch. I cannot see how that is useful but it might be. Also the wolfs don't have to night kill so possible stalemate could happen. Google "happily ever after" and mafia to see how...

@ Zak's latest post about Rowain.

[BRickAstley]

Sorry, I just realized that wasn't there. It's actually on my planning sheet, but got left out of the copy paste over when I made some edits.

[MJW (ya that one)]

It wouldn't change much, it just removes the silliness.

If there are two wolves and two villagers left, both wolves just vote together at the start of the day. Their target then becomes the first to teach two votes and the wolves can't lose the tie.

Yes it would. A 1vs1 the first person to vote wins. Also the villagers can decide to vote together at the start of the day by coordinating at the night. You don't seem to really care about possible options for the village...

[MJW (ya that one)]

Sorry, I just realized that wasn't there. It's actually on my planning sheet, but got left out of the copy paste over when I made some edits.

Yep, Brick change to rules to when the wolfs and villagers are even. Maybe no-one would have noticed if I hadn't said anything.

So why does the wolf's victory condition in the PM contradict the rule brick? Was that just other mistake?

[zakalwe]

I care about the village, MJW, but I also care about fairness. And I don't want the game to come down to who can vote the fastest at the start of the day.

I don't understand why you would give me heat over this when you yourself said you didn't want to exploit Brick's mistake of not posting the village PM.

Sounds like Brick intended the scum to win with equal numbers, anyway. Or maybe not, given the phrasing in the PMs. Either way I'm fine with the amendment.

[BRickAstley]

I intended it to be with tie breaker. It was not originally posted that way because I got the paragraphs for each role off of the mafia scum wiki with some edits, and i copied over the victory conditions from those to the rules to make sure it was word for word consistent. in doing so, I accidentally overwrote the equal numbers provision.

and you DO know the role PMs are under the spoiler there in the first post right? It sounded like you realized that and then still say I forgot it so idk if you saw it or not.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I care about the village, MJW, but I also care about fairness. And I don't want the game to come down to who can vote the fastest at the start of the day.

I don't understand why you would give me heat over this when you yourself said you didn't want to exploit Brick's mistake of not posting the village PM.

Sounds like Brick intended the scum to win with equal numbers, anyway. Or maybe not, given the phrasing in the PMs. Either way I'm fine with the amendment.

I didn't want to exploit Brick's mistake not to be fair but because I did that last game and it was really boring for me. I didn't have to be worried about being voted for the entire game! Besides I said to Rowain that I did not do it on purpose and it would be asinine to do it because of it.

I know you would care about fairness but your lack of not being regretful at all about a possible rule-change is suspicious to me.

I'm pretty sure that this was a mistake by Brick because the village would have too much...

[Lewwyn]

MJW