Forum Mafia - The Dark Tower Game Thread

[IWantToUseNumbersInMyName]

Gory's lynch did say he may only vote, so I've been assuming he can no longer facilitate daytalk.

 

[IWantToUseNumbersInMyName]

I'd personally put Coju leaning Red, Glib is not confirmed white yet either but probably leaning white. I'd trust him over CG. I think the whole CG / BA stuff D1 could be mafia distancing. From what I remember when I played mafia with CG is that he likes to distance himself.

Reading through Coju's posts on the thread for the first three days, they all seemed like very reasonable thoughts to have, and they weren't just following along with the crowd. In addition, on our days when we lynched town, he didn't vote with us to help out with the lynching. Both those facts make me think he's leaning white. If he had been silent and voted otherwise, that could be distancing...I think the talking+voting otherwise puts him at town.

 

[Zauper]

Gory's lynch did say he may only vote, so I've been assuming he can no longer facilitate daytalk.

Daytalk is a passive ability, not an active ability like a post. I would lean towards mafia being allowed daytalk.

 

[Noammr]

Morder (or whatever his name is) is red. If Gwaihir is a neutral that wins with town, how can part of his wincondition be that he loses if a member of the red is alive? That makes no sense.

This is a very good point.
I saw Gwaihir's response but I'm leaning toward this being a slip and him having a whole different win-con.

It seems to me that you are playing a lot of follow the confirmed townies..... I am not sure we've had many actual thoughts from you.

Then get sure, I have lot of thoughts!
Here, have a bit more of my mind:

The way today is going is fine, putting our votes on someone different than Gwaihir's kill ability maximizes potential progress with very little risk (as phar said, we'd have to lynch Gory at some point anyway). Very suspicious of people vocally arguing for keeping our votes on BA (lookin' at you, coju).

Assuming Gory and BA are both gutted today, next likely suspects for tomorrow imo are:
Gwaihir - I tend to believe half of what he said at this point - he's neutral, he has a kill ability which he used on Bad Ash.
However, I'm not sold on his win-con and the rest of his abilities. Town-favorable wincon and attitude are very convenient. Also seems to have far too many death-avoiding abilities, as if to discourage us from considering wasting lynches on him.
Laarz - claim seemed believable at first (also, can't see why the scum would choose the same target for silence and nk), reluctance to share targets so far is odd and makes me rather wary of him.
coju - been playing a shifty game these past couple of days, avoided the townie lynch trains. Is now making strange arguments for keeping our votes on Ash today.

Another issue is flub's investigations, we really need to figure out how trustworthy they are.

That's off the top of my head.

 

[Noammr]

Reading through Coju's posts on the thread for the first three days, they all seemed like very reasonable thoughts to have, and they weren't just following along with the crowd. In addition, on our days when we lynched town, he didn't vote with us to help out with the lynching. Both those facts make me think he's leaning white. If he had been silent and voted otherwise, that could be distancing...I think the talking+voting otherwise puts him at town.

Explain bolded part, please.

 

[IWantToUseNumbersInMyName]

Explain bolded part, please.

I just feel that his posts seem very town and independent, and that coupled with not jumping on our lynch trains, makes me think he's more likely to be town. If he was just voting against the townie lynch trains, without posts to support independent thought attempting to decipher what's going on on his own, I would think he's scum. However...the last few posts about BA make me question my previous thoughts. He's probably closer to unsure now than likely town.

 

[Phillinnicus]

Lol. I am not Varys, sorry (Game of thrones reference for those who didn't catch it).



Interesting. So going for both sides here? You are putting your faith in me, but if that faith is misplaced, you are saying I told you so?



Congrats!



Really? So if BA dies today, you think that the best idea is to lynch me? Even if it takes 3 days to do?



I am not sure everyone follows my definition, but here they are:

Town: Wins when anti-town is eliminated
anti-town: wins when other factions can not prevent them from winning
nuetral: can win with either town or anti-town factions.

From this I consider SK and cult to be anti-town, although others seem to think otherwise.

I on the other hand am neutral, with 2 conditions:
1) Mordred is dead
2) I am alive when game ends

As for why I have that win condition - probably to make my role more interesting than a normal survivor, to match book flavor (Walter dies trying to kill him in the books), and to balance the rest of the powers I have been given.

Me winning in no way prevents the town from winning. It also does not prevent a mafia win. I can win alongside either faction.

I got your joke, nice one. As for why I voted Goryani: I feel like there's now no chance of locking BA, but I'm still a little reluctant about it. I'm just hoping I can trust you, which is generally something I wish I could avoid in a mafia game.

I can govetoe gotryoinei oh good greig htha lookds likd nonsense. Vot e : Goryeani

Hvae mercy...

Long time ago I'm Stnley Ruiz the retarded kid.

Gyah do you poeple evne reanld th e theeread??

Just lol.

 

[Moar]

I'm not going to get myself modkilled intentionally. I'll read, vote and voice my opinions as usual. What I won't do is getting really involved with the game and spend hours on scumhunting, rereading the thread or the wikia.

I think Gwaihir is talking BS. Last time we had someone claim he needed to kill some specific person it was a mafia fake claim (Ender's Game? Gory?). I think his kill on BA may very well be real though. I'd rather vote Gory instead of BA.

Gwaihir claims lynchproof and/or NKproof for about 3 days in a row? That might just be in hope of us not daring to try it. We already have 2 people we have to lynch twice (3 with kestegs, but he's a good guy, so no lynch candidate), so what are the chances of there being another one. I would like to lynch Gwaihir tomorrow, after Gory, if the night actions don't give us a better candidate.

Could somebody please post a plain and easy overview on who claimed what investigative results and who counterclaimed them? I am a bit confused there and don't know who to believe. Flubby says that his CG result is the one he thinks is absolutely true. Who had another result on CG? If Flubbylove is to believe, I would prefer to lynch CG today, before Gory since Gory seems to have no other ability than a vote.

 

[coju]

1)We're changing because it's a risk that gives us information. We need to eventually lynch Gory one day either way, so he's going either today or tomorrow.
2) If Gwai's kill on Bad Ash doesn't go off, then we take 1x strongman hit, but we also get to add another scum to our list. so we have guaranteed scum lynches for another day.
3)Kestegs is white and a member of the masons group.

Thanks numbers.
@pharphis, No, I am following along. Just wanted to double check my memory and the reasons for lynching Goryani were the same as the town.

Vote: Goryani

 

[Zauper]

Thanks numbers.
@pharphis, No, I am following along. Just wanted to double check my memory and the reasons for lynching Goryani were the same as the town.

Vote: Goryani

Did you just admit to being non-town?

 

[Zauper]

Also, it looks like town has decided Goryani is the right one to lynch. I'm not sure he's better than lynching BA and letting the strongman go into the night phase. But.... I guess it's worth the risk?

If Gwaihir is lying about how his ability works, we'd lynch him after BA, so it doesn't help him. If he's telling the truth, I guess that helps town.

Vote: Goryani

 

[Kestegs]

This is a very good point.
I saw Gwaihir's response but I'm leaning toward this being a slip and him having a whole different win-con.



Then get sure, I have lot of thoughts!
Here, have a bit more of my mind:

The way today is going is fine, putting our votes on someone different than Gwaihir's kill ability maximizes potential progress with very little risk (as phar said, we'd have to lynch Gory at some point anyway). Very suspicious of people vocally arguing for keeping our votes on BA (lookin' at you, coju).

Assuming Gory and BA are both gutted today, next likely suspects for tomorrow imo are:
Gwaihir - I tend to believe half of what he said at this point - he's neutral, he has a kill ability which he used on Bad Ash.
However, I'm not sold on his win-con and the rest of his abilities. Town-favorable wincon and attitude are very convenient. Also seems to have far too many death-avoiding abilities, as if to discourage us from considering wasting lynches on him.
Laarz - claim seemed believable at first (also, can't see why the scum would choose the same target for silence and nk), reluctance to share targets so far is odd and makes me rather wary of him.
coju - been playing a shifty game these past couple of days, avoided the townie lynch trains. Is now making strange arguments for keeping our votes on Ash today.

Another issue is flub's investigations, we really need to figure out how trustworthy they are.

That's off the top of my head.

Gory targeted pharphis.
Laarz targeted me.
I protected pharphis, so they then both targeted me.

Of course those targets could be flipped, but only if they're both scum.

 

[Kestegs]

I can govetoe gotryoinei oh good greig htha lookds likd nonsense. Vot e : Goryeani

Hvae mercy...

Don't think that's gonna count.

 

[Moar]

About Laarz:

He claimed to be a jailkeeper. From my knowledge a jailkeeper jails a person for a night, so nobody can do anything to that person and neither can the jailkeeped person do anything. To me that means that kestegs couldn't protect pharphis and kestegs couldn't be killed either unless there was a strongman around. The ka-tet says that BA was the strongman and he was dead at that time.

So if Laarz jailkept kestegs:
- if scum targeted kestegs, there is either another strongman or Laarz lied.
- if scum targeted pharphis, Laarz is lying if there isn't another roleblocker out there.
- if there is another roleblocker out there who targeted Laarz, then kestegs wouldn't be blocked and could protect pharphis
- if there is another roleblocker out who targeted Laarz, then why did Laarz get a message about "failed action". That is not normal.

Conclusion: Laarz is lying. It makes no sense otherwise.

 

[Drixx]

I totally slept for 12 hours solid. I'm also not going to answer the mechanics questions or mod confirm people, sorry.

 

[Zauper]

About Laarz:

He claimed to be a jailkeeper. From my knowledge a jailkeeper jails a person for a night, so nobody can do anything to that person and neither can the jailkeeped person do anything. To me that means that kestegs couldn't protect pharphis and kestegs couldn't be killed either unless there was a strongman around. The ka-tet says that BA was the strongman and he was dead at that time.

So if Laarz jailkept kestegs:
- if scum targeted kestegs, there is either another strongman or Laarz lied.
- if scum targeted pharphis, Laarz is lying if there isn't another roleblocker out there.
- if there is another roleblocker out there who targeted Laarz, then kestegs wouldn't be blocked and could protect pharphis
- if there is another roleblocker out who targeted Laarz, then why did Laarz get a message about "failed action". That is not normal.

Conclusion: Laarz is lying. It makes no sense otherwise.

Moar:
Kesteg's ability was passive, not active. That means there are three possibilities, IF mafia targeted pharphis:
1) Laarz gets a 'failed action' message because he was roleblocked out of jailkeeping.
2) Laarz gets a 'failed action' message because he did successfully jail kestegs; but kestegs passively swapped himself for pharphis.
3) Laarz is lying.

 

[pharphis]

Who asked for players to be mod-confirmed?

 

[Moar]

If kestegs save was passive:
- Laarz shouldn't have got a failed message
- Laarz could have gotten a failed message if there was an active action kestegs did

Conclusion: You need to tell us if there was an active action Laarz could get a fail on.

 

[Moar]

And he shouldn't have gotten a failed message if he was roleblocked. Since if you are roleblocked, your action doesn't happen, so it can't fail.

 

[Zauper]

And he shouldn't have gotten a failed message if he was roleblocked. Since if you are roleblocked, your action doesn't happen, so it can't fail.

Or it fails to occur? The way it is communicated to a player is up to the mod.