That's worth the risk surely? Quintuple lynching.Originally Posted by SvN
That's worth the risk surely? Quintuple lynching.
I don't see why it wouldn't favour us. It's basically just 5 nights' of lynching all at once.
Imagine if it was all the wolves nominated.
We have 5 wolves in 22 (1 wolf for every 3.4 "villagers"). If we lynch all 5 and, let's say, get 1 we are left with 4 wolves in 17 (1 wolf for every 3.25 villagers). Assuming we've got one wolf nominated, a 5 person lynch wouldn't be in our favour.
Wasn't your 'logic' just to pick an NPC and claim to be them?
Non-role-holding villagers are literally just in the game as collateral. Given how much we learn from voting, it makes sense to target them at these early stages. You basically put yourself forward as a willing sacrifice, whereas for all we know any of the other four could be Corbyn, Sturgeon or Murdoch who we want to keep alive.
lolwat
My logic was to name myself as a villager and let anyone contradict me if I'm claiming to be who they actually are. Nobody has done, last I checked.
But what did you really hope to achieve with it? There are a few scenarios that can play out:
a) Nobody counters your claim, we agree you're a villager and give you up as the low-risk lynching
b) Nobody counters your claim, we don't lynch you but the wolves kill you because it's a nice traceless kill
c) Nobody counters your claim and you stay in for a few days/nights until either side is a bit stuck for better ideas
d) Somebody counters your claim and then... what? We have to kill one of you to prove anything.
Pretty much whatever the case, it ends with you dying fairly early on. So why risk killing an important player for somebody who has given themselves as a willing sacrifice?
I hoped to get the girl that I like, get the job that I like and fulfil my wildest ambitions with it.
Either that or I just put it up without thinking too much about it.
I can't find a post where Hammer outed his role, which seems to be what he's suggesting, but whether he's done it or not, isn't that against the rules for precisely that reason.
Well we can't be having that. Death to the absent minded!
What?
I reckon we kill Hammer as he's making no sense.
Villagers do have a slight meaning - until there are less than 7 of them Corbyn can't be offed, right?
Surely the draw between everyone would be the most beneficial for you as if it is so that Burnham needs to vote for the lynchee to get lynched. That would mean that you'd be narrowing him to one out of four.
Re: the double/triple/etc. lynch that is impossible under the new rules
That's not how it works. Do we really have to go over that again?
OK I've found the post now. That's just fucking stupid though.
I must admit I only read the talk about the rules and thought that was how it worked. Nevermind me if that's not the case.
edit: Read the rules. Yeah, my advice in the post prior to this was the worst possible kind
Can't we lynch Toby? He's talking with too much authority.
I'm a natural leader of men.
Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt
Just came back home from football. I do not want to rely on someone who thinks the right way to start a game is by giving away his role.
Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt
So, are we going for Hammer cause he was being a twit/making sure there's no double lynch, or are we actually going for the triple lynch or whatever?
Is a triple lynch even possible, with Burnham having to vote for whoever gets lynched? I mean he can't vote for everybody, right? Or if there is a three-way tie, and Burnham voted for one of those three, does all three get lynched?
PS. when does voting close? I may change mine yet.
He also just noticed that black people are brown.
Vote closes at 8pm UK time (GMT+1) [I think].
Why on Earth would you want a triple lynch?
Burnham doesn't HAVE to vote for whoever gets lynched, but if he doesn't, then the "Wolves" lose their kill. So it's in his interest to do it. I'd assume if a Triple/Double happens and he voted for one of them, they would get their kill.
A double/triple is not in our interest. If 1 person dies then we've narrowed Burnham down to about 6 posters (or they lose their kill, which is a win for us too), where as if we do a triple we've probably narrowed it down to 12-15.
A triple lynch would be retarded, because it basically gives the wolf a free kill because they can hide Burnham within the voters of three nominees.
With 6 votes Hammmer must be at about saturation point as far as the vote spreading strategy is concerned.
You're all eejits.
Werewolf is shit anyway.
Burnham not voting for the lynchee is a very good outcome for the village if we play it properly.
Six is the lynching tally so ideally the remaining votes get spread among the other four.
I've no idea to be honest, but someone went on about it. Didn't you sprout a load of random numbers? Anyway, got it explained here.
OK, thanks for this explanation (!), I FINALLY understand how this actually works now. I thought I had it before, but, well.
Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt
He's just a bit shit.
Now that I think about it, it's probably not even such a big deal for the wolves to hide Burnham by not making him vote for the lynchee since the role gets transferred anyway should the first Burnham get discovered.
Correct, but we've still got a Wolf, which then allows us to analyse votes etc, and the new Burnham is still subject to the same rules so we SHOULD be able to find him again.
Precisely
I have thought through this shite. I just fucked up the members list.
Well, if Burnham knows he's about to be lynched, he'll probably change his vote to himself so that the wolves get the kill. He technically voted for the lynchee, bit a loophole I guess.
I wanna put this out there: I've played this game in real life and people were allowed to tell people, factually or not, what their roles were.
Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt
I'd quite like to vote Magic as he's clearly a fuckwit, but on the other hand Hammer has breached the Spirit of Werewolf and has to go.
Of course you're allowed, but it's fucking stupid.
Thanks for informing us, Hammer. I'm sure all those who voted for you will take it under careful consideration and consider their stance against you.
I've played in other forums where it is also common. Not nearly as bad as people here make it out to be but whatevs.
Vote tally anyone? Jimmy is either being stupid, careless, suspicious or all of the above.
With named villagers it's shit. If they all did it the village would win pretty quickly.
A quick check I make it 7-3-3-4-4
That is not too bad I guess although anyone adding votes to Hammer later on (see Jimmy) goes into the 'lynch next' list.
Would they be so obvious though?
This thread is such an activity sink.
Booooooooooo.
Who's to know what they might or might not do. Wolves or not, they are hurting the town's interests.
Fair enough. The question we've got to ask is, was it obvious/predictable enough that Hammer was going to be lynched? I think so. Therefore I think Burnham could have voted for Hammer early, predicting him to be lynched.
Not sure though, we're still in the first round not too much to go on.
Is being a fuckwit grounds for a lynching? This isn't set in the 1100s you know.
So Hammer is gone and we have 7 (assuming no one else votes for him and no changes are made) that could be Burnham.
Not a bad outcome.
Reply With Quote
