Except all good players are going to vote for the team and it’s going to be approved no matter what. If evil votes against the team, and then it passes the mission, it would be like declaring themselves evil. Everyone is trying to look like the fifth good.
If that happens, the game is already lost for the evil team. Looking like the fifth good is irrelevant, we’ll have 3 successes before reaching the fifth mission.
Sure, but in this situation, what else can evil do? The 4 players on the team are going to vote for it, and (most likely) the 5th good is going to vote for it. It’s going to be approved. Voting against it just exposes evil.
Note that I’m not saying the team is with certainty good. I admit the possibility that someone on the team is playing a deep game, though I think it less likely than the alternative. We shall see very soon!
They could vote it down and hope that someone on the good team does too, it’s really their only hope. It really doesn’t matter if they expose themselves if they’ve already lost.
Well, this (evil voting for a good team) seems to happen in most of the late games when good thinks they may have found a safe team. Maybe we’re doing it wrong, but they’re hoping for 1) I use NC and we no longer trust the team, and 2) they can appear as a good alternative. And there is another game going on here, but we won’t talk about that one.
When I first saw that I thought you meant someone else was playing Avalon on this site, and I almost asked “Where?”
Well, while we wait for the results, I’d like to draw attention to this:
If this is true, why didn’t rho give me NC instead of giving me NC-lite?
I gave Chicago Proxy to soon and In the Spotlight to scott.
Ha, sorry, I remembered incorrectly, I blame Monday!
That was speculation based on common assumptions. That was what should be true if Mission 2 is clean and exactly one of Kane and Casey are Evil. But no one knows for sure until the end. I posted the lists because I can’t keep things in my head easily and wanted to organize my thoughts.
Also: if you are a Loyal Servant, don’t despair. The order/usual assumptions hurt Evil more than Good. If you have a game where all mission picks are clean, Evil is screwed (obviously), but if a mission fails, the neglected knight will have a chance for redemption.
Basically, if you’re really Good, we’ll figure it out.
In Dramatic Order
Evil is up 2-1
@rowe33 please distribute:
Take Responsibility: You must take a Plot card from another player / One-time use – The player to whom the Leader passes this card must take one Plot card from any other player.
No Confidence: You may null an approved Vote and force leadership change / One time use – The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to reject an approved Mission team (successful Vote). Using this card counts as a failed Vote
Then select 5 players for team 4. Team 4 requires two failure votes to fail.
Well damn. And now we need more information cards and haven’t drawn them.
That makes ZERO sense, unless we have two evils on the team. I don’t see why a single evil on mission 2 would ever vote success to tie it up.
I’m shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
Best guess, Rho, Scott and Casey are the evils.
Rho gives Scott the in the spotlight knowing he won’t highlight a evil, and Casey gives Scott the NC so he had give Kane the OC. Scott signaled to Casey that he wasn’t going to vote fail on the first team.
Not sure that makes much sense. (I mean, I know it’s wrong because I’m good, but even so).
Seems more likely to me that there was only one evil on the first team but two on the second/third. It goes a little way towards explaining how the second was allowed to pass.
You’ve got that backwards. @CaseyRobinson first gave OC to Kane, then Kane accused him, then he gave the NC to me, presumably because he assumed I was loyal if Kane was evil.
If Casey was evil, why would he expose himself to a loyal player? He could literally have picked anyone else.
So if Casey is loyal, then the baddies are @Dave_Perkins, @Snebmi, and @CF_Kane. That pretty much fits the facts, except it still leaves open why @Dave_Perkins didn’t fail mission 2. Anyone have a better explanation?
I’m not convinced that’s true: we’d talked a fair bit about it in here, so a lot of choices would have looked suspicious to the point of a soft reveal.
Not that I have a better explanation right now. I’ll have a think about it.