After a long night of an annoyingly large number of Evil King games, where we lost because the rest of BD doesn’t know how to identify an evil king by D4, I’ve decided there needs to be a new universal rule of thumb: If the king doesn’t give solid leads in D2 or D3, or outs his BD checks, then he needs to be executed D4. He’s probably an evil king at this point, or at least a very incompetent good king that deserves to be replaced.
https://forum.imperium42.com/t/addressing-the-no-info-evil-king-meta/4875?source_topic_id=7759
Read this. Just do me that favor, Kay?
1 Like
Only scenario OP uses is reaper chill, and king can just say he was chilled the next day before exe, I’ve seen this plenty of times working out… OP does not mention however scenario of king giving out his BD checks, and this is the number one thing a king should be executed for if it’s in the first 4 days - if he’s evil, then he doesn’t know how to play discreetly, and if he’s good, then he’s incompetent and doesn’t deserve being king. Secondly, I’ve seen numerous times kings work out who the scum are from the whispers coming to them on D3 if they hasnt checked any scum at night yet, and then they end up being good/neutral kings well deserving of their role. Just because this meta was discussed before doesn’t mean it’s resolved…
if you ask me, unless king has found some cult/unseen and is very engaging, execute him d4 if no other leads. He has the highest chance among the courtiers of siding evil (even if he is neutral, he will silently let the unseen win as soon as they have equal members to BD
Contradiction much? If a good King finds only allies, it doesn’t mean he is incompetent. Sometimes the Good King may be better to stay on the throne, as the next king does not get the allies ability. Therefore, you may have allowed Aristocrat to lead as the Unseen King and you have given the Unseen a free conversion if you eliminate the first King that may be good.
Never rely on meta like that, as that could cost you a win.
I’m calling a good king incompetent if he outs his BD checks before D5, not just in general for not having many strong leads.
So, kill the King day 4 for their incompetence for outing bd leads before day 5? What?
That is still a massive contradiction here
This is the most stupidest meta there is out right now. I don’t even do checks until n4. Statistically it is way better to save until n4 and you hit more. I should say this is for unseen games only. For cult I will start n3. We NEED to stop meta gaming like this. Granted a 33 % chance to be good sucks. King should start 50/50. No starting neutral kings to prevent this sheep mentality.
If king outs BD. He has to go no matter what.
Still tho, if the king even just hits a couple neutrals and manages to get the NK killed early, or identify any fools/scorned, it’s still a lot better than having nothing from not checking.
But accusing every neutral you find is contributing to the neuts out meta. People don’t want to deduce. They want a set specific way yo be sure someone is evil.
Person claims princess. They are MM so exe. Person claims knight. Guaranteed they are ass or NK so we better exe no questions asked.
King has no leads so exe d4 but secretly he found 3 bd, it’s considered no leads btw, or the 2 unseen he found that night died to alch or NK. Learn to stop leaning on the king. Play your own game and determine who is evil. When that good king gets exed then immediately the response is well he was a shitty player.
Also how many times has a king outted a fool/scorned from a check…id venture a guess and say never. They find neutral and that person claims alch. You know how the fool or scorned is always found? By trollbox and the fools good or bad play. 90 percent of the time what does a king who checks n1 thru 3 find? BD all day because it’s a 1 in 15 chance or they find the fool or scorned targeted who was framed… That isn’t very helpful at all. Save checks for n4 where 3 to 6 people are dead. Now you have a 1 in 10 chance without knowing anyone else’s claims or help from another investigative class.