It’s certainly questionable to give Strong Leader to someone who just asks for it.
I want a pony next!
Well, it ain’t going to be the second option.
Also, too, a false outing here doesn’t make much sense. Better to play along and then fail the first mission.
Possibility: Casey and Rowe are in cahoots.
I propose any team with Casey must include Rowe. Because if both are evil them signaling not to double fail could be useful
Scenario A: Casey is Evil. I am Good. Jorn is Good.
Scenario B: Casey is Evil. I am Good. Jorn is Evil.
Scenario C: Casey is Evil. I am Evil. Jorn is Evil.
Scenario D: Casey is Good. I am Evil. Jorn is Evil.
Did I miss any?
C seems kind of unlikely?
Also E: All three are Good but Insane.
Nope, that looks right to me.
Yeah it does seem unlikely (and I know it’s wrong) but assuming that players are acting in ways that could be detrimental but aren’t outright ridiculous (a good player lying about an affiliation) it’s possible. It also might be more strategic than linking all the Evil. I’m not arguing for it, because I know my affiliation, but it’s possible.
@soondifferent If I have to give out a pony, you’ll be at the top of my list. Unless developments in the game change my pony-distribution priority list, which is likely.
@Knightsaber insanity seems even more unlikely.
I think Insanity should be a third party.
I have comments, but will wait for a team to be named.
We haven’t really tried any of the Lancelot variations
Let’s not, this is only my 3rd attempt at playing this.
I’ve played with Defectors (Resistance version of Lancelot) and I know they don’t work with a small group but I’ve never tried a bigger one. They can be pretty problematic, though, for a few reasons. Information crossing sides, for one. And I’ve found Lancelots won’t always play for their team because they figure they’ll switch, ie betting on which side they’ll end up on and acting like they don’t switch.
Also, a team proposal?
Proposed Team 1A:
@CaseyRobinson <- leader
@rho21
@rowe33
All Players Please Vote by replying to the Message I sent you to start the game (Including the Leader!):
@caseyrobinson
@rho21
@rowe33 Strong Leader
@knightsaber
@cuthbert
@soondifferent
@scottagibson
@craigm
@jorn_weines
@snebmi
So, thoughts:
As previously noted, I don’t think it likely that an evil denounced a good in the very first round of the game. There is a ton of downside to that scenario: since Jorn vouched for Snebmi, Snebmi falsely accusing Casey makes two evils known to Casey; and it only takes one more vetting card to expose the false accusation and two of the four evils to the entire cast. Far better IMO for an evil Snebmi to vouch for Casey, be rewarded with Strong Leader, be included on the team and then either of the evils fail that first mission.
Also, pay attention to the order of the cards. If evil Casey allows himself to be vetted first, he’s stuck. He will be denounced, and then the pressure will be on to distribute the OC to someone who can confirm the denunciation. Instead, he allows Snebmi to be vetted first, and by doing that sets it up so that only Snebmi has seen his card.
So, Casey is evil in my book, and Snebmi is good, and Jorn is unknown.
Also, Rowe’s call for the SL, and Casey giving it to him, smells a bit to me. So Rowe is very lightly stink-boxed.
I don’t agree with either of your arguments.
Snebmi doesn’t falsely denounce me on round 1 then we probably send a team of Jorn, Snebmi, and I. They can’t fail that without revealing Jorn, and even if they wait until mission 2 they still have a coordination problem.
If I Open Up first, and someone calls me evil, are you suggesting that I should then pass the OC to someone who could also check my card? Double checking one player is a pretty poor use of those kinds of cards.
I think evil will trade a failed mission for one outed evil every time.
I didn’t expect you to agree with me. But to the best of my recollection, the track record for evil in games where they’ve made a false accusation, for no reason, is…not good.
Team 1A Vote Results:
@caseyrobinson - Yes
@rho21 - No
@rowe33 - No
@knightsaber - No
@cuthbert - Yes
@soondifferent - No
@scottagibson - No
@craigm - No
@jorn_weines - No
@snebmi - No
2-8 No Go.
@rho21 please propose 1B