Is this considered , theoretically speaking , "gamethrowing"?

#1

Setup:
1 Marshal > Assassin
1 Alchemist
1 Court Wizard
1 Sheriff
1 Drunk > Good King

What was built to this moment:
Since The Drunk became The Good King , he tried to defend a wolfed Mastermind.(Another Sheriff Outted the Mastermind with Surveillance). My Mastermind got executed and said “Well , atleast I got a convert last night”(It was N5). The Sheriff died. The Next Day the King gets pushed up. Assassin immediately poisons The Court Wizard. The only person that is not confirmed is the assassin. He gets upped and exed.

I also want to add that The Court Wizard didn’t have any tornadoes and The Alchemist wasn’t healing , only bombing. Since I didn’t use 2-for-1 , The Marshal > Assassin could have decided if they wanted The Alchemist to win or not.

My question is :

Is this considered gamethrowing?
And if so , who threw? The Mastermind , The Marshal > The Assassin?

#2

Gamethrowing is about the plan. Not it’s results. You are asking the wrong question

#3

I don’t understand anything you are saying, sorry.

1 Like
#4

I cannot know if he is gamethrowing until I know why he did what he did.

1 Like
#5

Alchemists aren’t considered as Allies per se. It won’t be game throwing but of course Alch would probably be upset.

#6

Not letting Alch win is not gamethrowing btw.

#7

It’s just tough luck for the alchemist

#8

What Really bothered me is what the Mastermind said.
Also , because The Marshal > The Assassin poisoned someone , BD deduced who is evil.

#9

Not his fault still

#10

None of this is technically gamethrowing, but the fault lies with Marshal>Assassin. By poisoning, he confirmed that King wasn’t evil, which directly lead to his own death, and so caused a loss where a win would have been likely (technically possible for Unseen to lose if Alch bombed them). But since there’s no way to prove intent (and nothing here suggests an intentional throw), I would say that this is not gamethrowing.

3 Likes
#11

And relating to what the Mastermind said, given that the game didn’t end, the existence of another Unseen would have been immediately obvious. It looks to me as if the MM was attempting to set up the Drunk>King (since they did try defending the MM).

#12

But you do agree that if the Assassin didn’t poison anyone , we could have won that game?

1 Like
#13

Also an Evil King could have claimed poisoned to achieve this effect. Meaning that it didn’t even confirm the King

#14

Wait nvm. It was the CW

#15

Absolutely. Like I said, the fault for the loss lands on the Assassin for poisoning and thus confirming that King was not the last Unseen. If Assassin hadn’t poisoned, the King would have likely been hanged, giving the Assassin the power to kill the next night and take the win. But your question was whether or not it was throwing, and I do not believe that it was throwing.

#16

Bad play != gamethrow

#17

Okay thanks for clarifying this.