Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Toaster]

Prince Irony:  What does your confirmed status mean in terms of your scum hunting?


Jim:  Why shouldn't we pick someone at random, kill them, and then repeat until the game is over?


Toony: If someone opened up the game by defending the prince, what would your interpretation of that action be?

Never mind.

If Player A attacked the Prince, and Player B did not immediately defend when he had the chance, would you consider A or B scummier?

[Mephansteras]

Is passing your turn final?  Like if you type it in bold or something?

Yes.

[ToonyMan]

If Player A attacked the Prince, and Player B did not immediately defend when he had the chance, would you consider A or B scummier?

Attacking the Prince is completely scummy (there's nothing complicated like redirects last I checked) and maybe Player B was going to the bathroom.  Player A is scummier!


Leafsnail: Would you wait for somebody to defend you if you were attacked or defend yourself as soon as possible?

Is passing your turn final?  Like if you type it in bold or something?

Yes.

Good thing none of us are named Pass.

[Tiruin]

Err, only colors will determine a player's action, or bolding the word 'passed', yes?

Also, are there extends or shortens in this game? Also, green or limegreen?

Your Royal Highness, IronyOwl: How will you go about in deciding who requires your attack or defense, as it seems every action is visible?

Toaster: How would you react if someone, in their first post, attacked a player?

ToonyMan: If in a player's first post, they defended you while asking you about how you felt by being defended, how would you generally react?

Deathsword: Suppose you're a Traitor Swordsmaster, how would you go about in using your abilities for your wincon?

Leafsnail: Suppose you were a Crossbowman (y'know Meph, if we can just look at others' weapons, it would be so much easier...), would you use your Unblockable attack if you were put under attack by other players? If so, or if not, why?

Caz: Never seen you before, so greetings in the Mafia board! Now, supposing you were a Loyalist Stalwart Guard, how would your playstyle be in relation to that added hit point? Would it affect anything?

[Mephansteras]

Only colors or Pass will determine an action, that is correct.

Defend is lime green

Note: You cannot preemptively Defend another player. Maybe I should rename it to Block, since what you're doing is cancelling another player's Attack.

[Tiruin]

EBWOP then.

Your Royal Highness, IronyOwl: How will you go about in deciding who requires your attack or defense, as it seems every action is visible?

Toaster: How would you react if someone, in their first post, attacked a player?

ToonyMan: If in a player's first post, they defended you while asking you about how you felt by being defended, how would you generally react?

Deathsword: Suppose you're a Traitor Swordsmaster, how would you go about in using your abilities for your wincon?

Leafsnail: Suppose you were a Crossbowman (y'know Meph, if we can just look at others' weapons, it would be so much easier...), would you use your Unblockable attack if you were put under attack by other players? If so, or if not, why?

Caz: Never seen you before, so greetings in the Mafia board! Now, supposing you were a Loyalist Stalwart Guard, how would your playstyle be in relation to that added hit point? Would it affect anything?

[Toaster]

Tiruin:

(y'know Meph, if we can just look at others' weapons, it would be so much easier...)

It's really foggy.

Toaster: How would you react if someone, in their first post, attacked a player?

I'd wonder if they read the rules.

Assuming it was done knowingly, I'd try to figure out why they did it.  If they had a good reason, it wouldn't be extremely scummy, but it'd be odd and watchworthy.

Your Royal Highness, IronyOwl:

You can't preemptively defend.  (PPE: Hi Meph)


Leafsnail:  What value does a massclaim have this game?  Is it affected by several roles being obvious when used?  (IE someone attacking or defending twice in a turn)

[Caz]

I will defend the prince with my life. At arms!



Tiruin: It's been stated that defending is reactionary. Are you pre-emptively defending the prince in an attempt to make you look better?

Deathsword: If you had a choice between defending an attack from the Prince, or attacking probable scum, which action would you take and why?

Caz: Never seen you before, so greetings in the Mafia board! Now, supposing you were a Loyalist Stalwart Guard, how would your playstyle be in relation to that added hit point? Would it affect anything?

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not really sure. I would be able to claim Stalwart if I was the target of a random lynching, but it might seem scummy so I would probably keep quiet. The extra hp would be useful to stop being killed so early and so I'd be more effective in defending the Prince.

[Teneb]

Tiruin: Caz beat me to it while I was typing this, but it really looks like you are trying to look town loyal by trying to defend him (which is reactionary, as stated by Meph). Also has this:

AHAHAHAHAHA, I WILL PLUNGE MY SWORD INTO YOU INFIDELS!

anything to do with your alignment?

As for your question: I would wait until most players have already defended before using my second attack, to increase the chances of hitting.

Caz: Depends on how much life the Prince still had at the time of the attack. If he was about to die, I'd defend him. If he wasn't, then attacking possible scum is better since it removes a possible threat. Unless I am reading your question wrong and you are asking if I'd defend myself/someone from an attack done by the Prince or attack possible scum. Please clarify.

[Caz]

As for your question: I would wait until most players have already defended before using my second attack, to increase the chances of hitting.

Are you roleclaiming Swordsman/Swordsmaster?

Caz: Depends on how much life the Prince still had at the time of the attack. If he was about to die, I'd defend him. If he wasn't, then attacking possible scum is better since it removes a possible threat. Unless I am reading your question wrong and you are asking if I'd defend myself/someone from an attack done by the Prince or attack possible scum. Please clarify.

You read it right. So you are saying if both Prince and the scum had 1HP remaining, you would target scum, correct?

[Tiruin]

Caz

Tiruin: It's been stated that defending is reactionary. Are you pre-emptively defending the prince in an attempt to make you look better?

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

I would be able to claim Stalwart if I was the target of a random lynching, but it might seem scummy so I would probably keep quiet. The extra hp would be useful to stop being killed so early and so I'd be more effective in defending the Prince.

How would claiming Stalwart seem scummy, to you?

PPE: Deathsword

Tiruin: Caz beat me to it while I was typing this, but it really looks like you are trying to look town loyal by trying to defend him (which is reactionary, as stated by Meph). Also has this:

AHAHAHAHAHA, I WILL PLUNGE MY SWORD INTO YOU INFIDELS!

anything to do with your alignment?

As for your question: I would wait until most players have already defended before using my second attack, to increase the chances of hitting.

First query: See statement to Caz at ^ of this post. Second, I did not receive my role when I posted that [pre-game, bro] so that was meant IC on my guard. Meaning, no.

And for your answer to my question:

Increase the chances of hitting? There is a %? Anyway, what would you do if you'd get called out on it? How does attacking after most have defended seem to you, if you were a loyalist?

[Caz]

How would claiming Stalwart seem scummy, to you?

It would seem scummy to me if someone claimed only as they were being attacked and in danger of dying that round. They could be claiming just to deflect suspicion from them so that another 'random' target would be chosen for the kill.

[Teneb]

As for your question: I would wait until most players have already defended before using my second attack, to increase the chances of hitting.

Are you roleclaiming Swordsman/Swordsmaster?

No. If you read what I said above, you'll see the WOULD, indicating that it's what I would do if I were a swordsman/master.

Caz: Depends on how much life the Prince still had at the time of the attack. If he was about to die, I'd defend him. If he wasn't, then attacking possible scum is better since it removes a possible threat. Unless I am reading your question wrong and you are asking if I'd defend myself/someone from an attack done by the Prince or attack possible scum. Please clarify.

You read it right. So you are saying if both Prince and the scum had 1HP remaining, you would target scum, correct?

No, once more you failed at reading what I said. If the prince is about to die, I'll defend him. Otherwise, I'd hit those I suspect. 1hp = about to die.

Increase the chances of hitting? There is a %? Anyway, what would you do if you'd get called out on it? How does attacking after most have defended seem to you, if you were a loyalist?

No, there isn't a %, but if I were to use it after most people had used their defends, then the chances of someone stopping my attack would decrease. Your question: if one attacks the Prince, then of course he is scummy. Attacking other players without a case is also scummy. But if you do have a case, then the scummy-ness of the act would depend on the case itself (if it's a good one or just a lot of BS).

Also: "Reaction Test", really? Can't you come up with anything better to explain that?

[Tiruin]

Meph: Are there FoS's here? The blue ones?

Also: "Reaction Test", really? Can't you come up with anything better to explain that?

Like something other than what I meant? No. Meph came in.

No, there isn't a %, but if I were to use it after most people had used their defends, then the chances of someone stopping my attack would decrease. Your question: if one attacks the Prince, then of course he is scummy. Attacking other players without a case is also scummy. But if you do have a case, then the scummy-ness of the act would depend on the case itself (if it's a good one or just a lot of BS).

I didn't say anything about the presence of a case. Anyway, hypothetically, why would you attack a player without a case anyway? If others have defended, it means progress and thus, ideas have been given. Why would you bring in the obvious? Back to being a traitor, when would you think is the best time to attack the Prince.

[Mephansteras]

Meph: Are there FoS's here? The blue ones?

Those are fine.

Noticed I missed your question on Extends and Shortens. Since this game goes on turns and depends on actions taken, I decided not to have those.