3 cult + Prince + bd sided neut
Prince jail exes CL
Noone can vote
Prince jail exes CL
Prince + Neut vote out the last evil
If the game is provably unwinable for one of the factions without throwing, the other remaining faction should generally just win.
If the cult left the Prince for last thatās on them lmao
The rule typically used in FoL is that the game is called when one faction can no longer win
Assuming the NK is out, this is often but not always equivalent to parity ā for instance, if you have a Knight, a Prince, a Cult Leader, and an Apostle alive, BD can still win, but if you have a Mastermind, an Assassin, a Servant, a Butler, and a Sheriff alive (no King because everyone forgot to vote) then Unseen always wins unless they gamethrow, so thereās no point in continuing
Just never call it too early, when bd can still win, cuz that damages the game
Yknow what I mean
Or, for instance, if you have a Mastermind, an Assassin, a Servant, a Sheriff, and a Merc (Sheriff is the only living contract), then BD cannot win, even though there is a neut alive and they can side with BD
if you have a Cult Leader, a Sellsword, and a Paladin alive, then you shouldnāt call it, because the Paladin could convince the SS that they are the true CL
I donāt think anyone disagrees with ādonāt call it if BD can still winā
Yeahā¦ Tho it can happen when the hosts are no mechanics nerds
anyways class time now so Iām not going to respond for a bit
I acknowledge that technically there was a path to victory for BD in FoL 24 but I think calling it was reasonable even if technically a moderror
The main argument against not calling games that are basically decided is that it can be used to derive information
for instance if you have a Mastermind, Assassin, Servant, Sheriff claim, and Butler claim, and the hosts would end the game if all those classes were telling the truth about their class, then if the game doesnāt end it can be deduced that someone is lying
Clearly the Assassin is lying
Heretics have the gut to claim like innocent child, this is why I am defending Derps at Day 3 previously so hard.
Marshal only had to kill him the next night, it does prolong under different circumstances.
Clarification of plurality lynching and ties
To the extent that this is a change, itās a change that was made in response to FoL 24 ā but Iām not sure if it was ever officially announced, so weāre clarifying now.
- If a tie for most votes happens at EoD between two or more players, taking into account all voting modifiers, then the lynch will be randed between those players, with each player having an equal chance of being lynched.
- If a tie for most votes happens at EoD between one or more players and No Lynch, the lynch will default to No Lynch. This is to prevent situations such as a 1v1 that literally becomes a coinflip.
Hot take
Defaulting to the first thing to get to the tie amount is a good-sounding system that is worth trying
Kinda meh when Its 1 v 1 or 2 v 2
i like this more than rand
but when itās like hja said 1v1 or 2v2 then yeah not great
maybe this system but nolynch always wins rands
That was implied
Anyways Iām not convinced punishing less active players in direct ties is worse than randomly punishing players
Weāre already bad enough at moderror-free VCs and now you want to add actual stakes beyond just āmake absolutely sure that youāre right about who everyone is votingā?