Mafia Game 65: Threevil

[House Payne]

As long as you don't try to steal my chocolate like that sleepy lion.....

But hey, you know that you can actually change your sig. I can offer you three choices:

a) somewhere over the rainbow waits an ass

b) justice for all

c) dances with wolves

mmm...

signatures

[House Stokeworth]

I hardly think that that story would end there. I think the shopkeeper would probably have a word with the girl's parents about their daughter's language (assuming, of course, that her parents are there - if not, there is a whole new big can of worms to open) and they would realise that they should care a bit more about their daughter's upbringing. They'd probably blow it off though, and the girl would end up having loose morals and become a stripper who uses her python as part of her stage act. It's a sad story, and not that funny.

Actually, that's surprisingly insightful, since it's exactly how the story ended. Penny & Python tour the Oregon strip club scene performing a steaming hot show to the tune of Arcade Fire's "In the Backseat".

Since the guard should be able to block the SK and potential evil roles, he should act each night. The only useful innocent role he might block is the finder, and I think that's worth the risk. If there is an innocent healer, he shouldn't act at all. There's a big chance that he might save an FM instead of an innocent.

I'm not understanding your advice to roled players very well. Why should the guard try to block the SK but the healer hold his action? Isn't the SK as likely to target a FM as the healer is to heal them? Why would a roled player listen to you rather than taking his own counsel anyway? You might be evil.

That said, I think role revealing makes no sense in this game, unless you're a finder, a ninja or a friend/lover. All other roles could also belong to an evil faction or are not provable, so I won't hesitate to lynch a roled player.

Actually finder is only provable if you have found an evil player, we lynch him and the CF confirms it, and unless I missed it in the rules where it says there couldn't, there could probably be evil finders. And I'd only believe a friend/lover claim if one of the members of the partnership was dead and CF'd innocent and there were codes to prove the partnership.

[House Targaryen]

Time to ask some questions:

1) Will the CF tell us only evil/innocent or will we get the team name instead?

2) If several killers try to kill a bulletproof player at the same time, will he die?

CF will tell you team name.

If someone is bulletproof, that means they are TOTALLY bullet proof, unless also guarded.

[House Payne]

Actually, that's surprisingly insightful, since it's exactly how the story ended. Penny & Python tour the Oregon strip club scene performing a steaming hot show to the tune of Arcade Fire's "In the Backseat".

Surprisingly? You do me a disservice sir.

[House Clegane]

I'm not understanding your advice to roled players very well. Why should the guard try to block the SK but the healer hold his action? Isn't the SK as likely to target a FM as the healer is to heal them? Why would a roled player listen to you rather than taking his own counsel anyway? You might be evil.

You don't understand my advice but you assume I must be evil? "You might be more clever than me" should be the final conclusion here. :P

Since the SK might be able to convert someone, we obviously want him guarded. But then I guess an evil player might die if converted, so you probably have a point here.

Actually finder is only provable if you have found an evil player, we lynch him and the CF confirms it, and unless I missed it in the rules where it says there couldn't, there could probably be evil finders. And I'd only believe a friend/lover claim if one of the members of the partnership was dead and CF'd innocent and there were codes to prove the partnership.

Like I said, these roles are provable. And I don't expect an FM to claim friend, because he would have to reveal his partner, thus buying his team a ticket to hell when the other killers will eliminate them. :ninja:

[House Corbray]

Nice to see that the conversation is moving on. We also only have Arryn, Drox, Farman and Harclay still to check in.

[House Wythers]

I already tried to figure out some things about the setup, but I realize that it's not that easy. We know that we have to deal with three evil factions. At least one of them should be the usual FM faction and at least one should be a SK. The SK should either have a conversion or a symp. The FM faction should consist of two FM and maybe a symp. If the FM do have a symp, the SK should have some support, too. Most likely it's somewhat like this:

2 FM teams, consisting of 2 FM + symp

1 SK , who has either a single conversion or a symp

If the FM teams don't have a symp, they should have some strong roles instead (BP, guard or healer) to increase their chances. However, I have a hard time to believe a setup like this:

2 FM teams, consisting of 2 roled FM

1 SK , who has either a single conversion or a symp

-----------------------------------

Since the guard should be able to block the SK and potential evil roles, he should act each night. The only useful innocent role he might block is the finder, and I think that's worth the risk. If there is an innocent healer, he shouldn't act at all. There's a big chance that he might save an FM instead of an innocent.

That said, I think role revealing makes no sense in this game, unless you're a finder, a ninja or a friend/lover. All other roles could also belong to an evil faction or are not provable, so I won't hesitate to lynch a roled player.

Especially if he won't tell me about the gold in the village. :pirate:

You are assuming extreme conditions, the line up could be also

2FMs with no symp and no plus roles

Or

2FMs with no symp and one member with plus role.

Im not sure but we may have 2 SKs with one having a one-shot convert which is not usable on night 1.

I know SK will be a little bit stronger but we cant reject it too.

And why should we listen to a lover if he/she reveals? The lover maybe evil too so it wont make sense. As you yorself said

revealing doesnt make sense AT ALL with no exceptions.

Another thing is that a healer who doesnt heal is useless to innocent, I can agree to that he/she doesnt heal the first or

second night when the chance to heal an evil is high but more than that again is not a good idea.

[House Wythers]

On another note the game rules indicate that probably the roled ones have limitations to act so we must consider that one too.

ETA: Typo

[House Corbray]

I doubt lovers would be partnered if one was evil; so lovers with codes with one dead would be probably innocent. Gives us a "PI" to work with a narrow down the suspect pool.

I think 3 evils per team would be too many...2 is more likely. (just that to keep the balance among the evils they need the same number of (possible) killers each, and 3 would be 9 or half the players, so way too many)

[House Yronwood]

And why there can't be two teams of three killers each?

In 4-sided game, baddies are much more likely to kill each other, so usual evil/innocent ratio can be increased without ruining the balance.

Anyway, Clegane, your speculation isn't harmful for us, but it isn't useful either.

[House Corbray]

And why there can't be two teams of three killers each?

The game title is three evil (as in teams)? :dunno:

edit: clarification

[House Clegane]

And why there can't be two teams of three killers each?

In 4-sided game, baddies are much more likely to kill each other, so usual evil/innocent ratio can be increased without ruining the balance.

Anyway, Clegane, your speculation isn't harmful for us, but it isn't useful either.

Three FM? Sounds a bit too much. You are right that FM are more likely to kill each other, but with teams of three FM they would need a lot of kills to eliminate the other teams. And the SK would be without a chance in that scenario.

[House Tully]

Well, it seems that nobody wants to follow my awesome case on Ashemark, so....

*looks left*

*looks right*

I don't trust the square avatars. I think Knott is not right.

A pun on Knott. Terrible.

Well, Douglas Adams allusions are acceptable, but Batman allusions are Knott.

Quickly followed by another pun on Knott. Even worse.

House Knott is Knotty Naughty I say.

And, swiftly on the heals of the other two, is a third pun on Knott. Like them this one is also accompanied by a vote. Not only is this the worst pun of the three (i'm not sure what "Knotty Naughty" even means......), but it seems to me to be trying too hard to fit in with the crowd, copying what has been done before.

House Braken

[House Clegane]

Well, it seems that nobody wants to follow my awesome case on Ashemark, so....

A pun on Knott. Terrible.

Quickly followed by another pun on Knott. Even worse.

And, swiftly on the heals of the other two, is a third pun on Knott. Like them this one is also accompanied by a vote. Not only is this the worst pun of the three (i'm not sure what "Knotty Naughty" even means......), but it seems to me to be trying too hard to fit in with the crowd, copying what has been done before.

House Braken

I liked your case on Ashemark better, to be honest. :unsure:

[House Stokeworth]

I liked your case on Ashemark better, to be honest. :unsure:

I, on the other hand, quite like Vyrwel's point and would be happy to give it a little more "oomph".

Bracken

[House Tully]

I liked your case on Ashemark better, to be honest. :unsure:

Well yes, I could hardly beat that.

[House Clegane]

You are assuming extreme conditions, the line up could be also

2FMs with no symp and no plus roles

Or

2FMs with no symp and one member with plus role.

Im not sure but we may have 2 SKs with one having a one-shot convert which is not usable on night 1.

I know SK will be a little bit stronger but we cant reject it too.

And why should we listen to a lover if he/she reveals? The lover maybe evil too so it wont make sense. As you yorself said

revealing doesnt make sense AT ALL with no exceptions.

Another thing is that a healer who doesnt heal is useless to innocent, I can agree to that he/she doesnt heal the first or

second night when the chance to heal an evil is high but more than that again is not a good idea.

I don't believe there's such thing like a 2 FM team with no roles and no symp. That'd be terrible weak.

[House Stokeworth]

I don't believe there's such thing like a 2 FM team with no roles and no symp. That'd be terrible weak.

Compared to what?

[House Clegane]

Compared to what?

Compared to everything else?

[House Upcliff]

If there is an innocent healer, he shouldn't act at all. There's a big chance that he might save an FM instead of an innocent.

But even if there are two teams of three and one of two (the serial killer + the recruit) the healer has at least a 50% chance of saving an innocent. Never mind that killers are more likely to go after innocent players (at least in the beginning) and the healer is more likely to heal someone PI. Telling the healers not to heal anyone is really bad advice.

That said, I think role revealing makes no sense in this game, unless you're a finder, a ninja or a friend/lover. All other roles could also belong to an evil faction or are not provable, so I won't hesitate to lynch a roled player.

Also, friends/lovers claims aren't guarantees of innocence. It's happened before that a symp has been paired off with an innocent, or two symps have been paired together.

I agree with you that an FM team would have to be stupid to fakeclaim those roles, though.

I think 3 evils per team would be too many...2 is more likely. (just that to keep the balance among the evils they need the same number of (possible) killers each, and 3 would be 9 or half the players, so way too many)

Targaryen wouldn't be mean enough to make 50% of the players evil, would he? :unsure: :leaving:

Also, the teams might not be perfectly symmetrical. What I thought when I first saw the set-up post was that we'd have two full FM teams (two killers, one symp) who kill on alternating nights, and one SK who could kill nightly. But I hope I'm wrong, because that means we're basically screwed.