I'm fine with no lynching; however, I'd prefer if those with creatures attacked now as opposed to later so a forced mislynch is avoided. There's the added benefit that Arrgh gets what he may need for later too.

I'm fine No Lynching. However, today I feel like we shouldn't go for attacks. KoD is wrong saying it avoids a forced mislynch to vote now: rather it gives (nearly) absolute power to the last person with a creature or who is able to play a creature to (mis)lynch as they please. Anyone who doesn't benefit from attacking, at the very least, should hold to react to any attempted steal.

The easy fix there is to have everyone attack with all their creatures to avoid that issue.

A lynch can happen even if it is just one vote. So yeah.

In case I wasn't abundantly clear much earlier, I do suspect Tevish the most out of everyone.

OK, KoD, what concerns me: Everyone attacks with all creatures currently on the board, leaving us (largely) open. A scum player who hasn't spent their mana yet could then drop a creature and attack (or vote without attacking, I have a card that would let me do that, though not in this scenario) and there would be nothing anyone could do about it since we'd already be committed. It would be the equivalent of opening us up to the classic Fast Hammer. Someone has to stand watch, and since no one should trust any particular watch-keeper absolutely, that means we need at least three (since there are two scum). That doesn't leave a lot of voters.

The amber thing was sus but largely because there wasn't a whole lot else to go on. Your interest in making everyone blow their wads and be unable to react to a steal is making me suspect you on what I feel are far more solid grounds.

The alternative, Tevish, is that no one attacks, then, at the last moment, one or both scum (since they can both coordinate per the rules) drop two votes near deadline and score a forced mislynch followed up by a kill in the night.

I will grant that attacking with everything is not a better solution, but since only one vote can be placed with a creature attacking (not multiple votes via multiple creatures) it's not as detrimental (if at all) as not attacking (having a vote placed).

By the by, Tevish, I said, at the very start, having people attack to place votes. I didn't say they had to attack with everything. You're the one that came forth with an issue to which I suggested a fix (which you again find issue with).

At the end of the day, placing a vote is better than not placing a vote least the lynch get stolen.

Unless I miss my mark, Aaarrrgh is the only player with "Everything" showing being more than a single creature. So the difference between "Everyone should attack" and "Everyone should attack out" is pretty close to being pure semantics.

You're the one that brought up the point about amount of creatures on board in the first place.

Either way it is a fact that everyone (regardless of number of creatures) has one vote (barring any special ability someone could have). As long as there is a vote on board, then it doesn't matter if someone plays a creature later and attacks. It'll only allow them to change or reapply their vote.

A change could be devastating if no one else can change.

Further, you and Rag are the ones who lack obvious votes. But! Rag said on page 1 that he could vote, we just don't know what sort of conditionals are on that. On my current working theory, you'd also be the scum team, and thus poised to benefit from everyone squandering their ability to react to whatever has been done.

EBWOP: I think I misgendered rag, sorry.

Again, pointing out issues to which I offer solutions.

If a change is devastating, that's why it is important for all those with creatures to attack with all of them then. Easy fix.

To which you'll respond as you did earlier with, "but then they'll play more creatures and attack."

So your only solution is to have no one vote and potentially have someone vote anyway to win (since one vote can claim victory).

Is that about right?

My solution is to have someone always able to counter-vote. Scum would be risking everything to attempt a steal if it could be stolen back. Making that play as hazardous and uncertain as possible seems the best way to ward it off, rather than keeping townies out of contention by having their potential choked away, locked to some other vote.

The more townies have resources up, the less sure scum can be that they'll be able to steal a win at the last second

Sooo, we're right back to what I suggested in the first place in that people vote.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting the situation, or just having toruble following.

People need to NOT vote if we are going to NL. Specifically, they need to hold their vote to threaten retaliation against a scum attempt to snipe.

If people vote now, some of those people will be locked out of the ability to unvote or revote. I guarantee none of those will be scum (as everyone but me has a possible 'out') because scum will act in bad faith. That gives scum free or at least freer rein to mess with things at the last minute, since fewer people will be able to retaliate.

Everyone who can already retaliate should keep themselves able to retaliate.

I think you're intentionally being misleading here.

The whole reason I suggested people attacking in the first place is to place a vote as opposed to no votes being placed and allowing for the possibility that scum could vote last moment to force a mislynch (burden would be on any town to react close to deadline to prevent a mislynch). Do take note that a mislynch today would essentially be the end of the game (as per the conversations already).

Literally right at the top of the page you raised a concern about other people attacking. I responded by saying an easy fix would be for everyoen to attack with what they have.

To which you raised another issue that people could just cast and attack anyway.

To which I pointed out that really the only point of all of this was to just place a vote as opposed to no votes at all (which is apparently what you're advocating).


That is quite accurate as far as what has occurred on just this page (which is the only topic of concern for us). Throughout all of this, you've thrown shade at me over it despite, quite clearly, how the rules state a lynch will happen on whoever has the most votes (which I'm sure includes just one vote on someone).


The benefit of forcing things out NOW as opposed to LATER is that people can respond to see how things happen now while time remains vs later when there will be little to no time left to respond (and that's not even taking into account RL for some people which may force them to not be around for deadline). That means if people feel the need to put a creature out now, they will in order to (surprise surprise) react to someone else possibly doing so. All while their ONE vote is already in place (if not blocked which in and of itself is a whole mess unto itself if that).



So yeah, I take issue with how you're representing things while also trying to advocate for a end of day state that is not at all advantageous to town.

Placing votes does NOTHING to disallow the possibility that scum could vote at last minute and force a mislynch. I don't see how that hasn't gotten across. If anything, it makes it easier for scum to shift the count at the last minute because the count is less able to shift in response to them.

Seems KoD's general idea is two competing wagons that would overshadow scum's ability to snipe on size alone. The problem with that is we'd have to run up both scum to keep them from just piling on or removing a vote to let the town wagon through. There's no reason for an all or nothing strategy though. If we let Aaarrrgh and one other player vote-tie again, scum has to coordinate a deadline vote and reveal both players to snipe the Lynch. That's not likely a gamble they will take.

Nevermind that last bit. Basically they can snipe regardless of what we do so we need to just run our own game and be ready to respond if they try something.

I agree with Tevish here. Stay alert, let scum make the first move. Everyone attacking means a lot of people will be without blockers (I think I'm the only one who could still block after attacking in the current board state), as well as unable to move their votes to react to shenanigans. By keeping creatures back we give scum fewer opportunities to attack and town now opportunities to counterattack.