The Resistance: Avalon - 2019 Match 2 Game Thread


#262

I noted possible signaling from Scott, and also maybe from Kane.

Even with my suspicious hat on I’m not sure I can spot any signalling for team 3. Maybe I need to look further back.


#263

People are saying that there was most likely two Evils on Mission 2. Therefore:

If there was one Evil on Mission 1:
Scenario 1: Kane, you, and me are Evil
Scenario 2: Casey, you, and me are Evil
Scenario 3: Casey, you, and rowe are Evil

If there was two Evils on Mission 2:
Scenario 1: Casey, you, and scott are Evil
Scenario 2: Casey, scott, and rowe are Evil

You’re Evil in four out of the five scenarios. For you to be Good, Casey, Scott, and Rowe are all Evil.


#264

There’s also the possibility that there was only 1 evil on team 2/3 but it seems unlikely enough that I’ve dismissed it as an option. Unless evil goofed then there was no reason at all to succeed on team 2 as a single evil when they could have gone up 2-0.


#265

What do the rightmost two columns of @rho21’s chart mean? And if someone knows the answer, how the hell did you figure it out? Is it the number of evil players on each of those teams? And why are teams 2/3 grouped up?


#266

Yeah, and team 2 and 3 are grouped because we ran the exact same teams.


#267

Oh of course. Thanks!


#268

I’m thinking now E, F and I are the most plausible explanations.


#269

So definitely Casey and 2 out of scott, Dave and rowe. What’s your reasoning?


#270

Unless evil were playing mind games (possible, but let’s assume a simpler explanation) the only reason team 2 passed was that there were 2 evils who didn’t want to double fail, so @Snebmi is in the clear. I think Casey didn’t want to include evils in the chain of trust, so he picked Kane first to vet him, and then it seemed like he was priming to pick scott (until I made a fuss, maybe?) so he switched to Snebmi. So I’m leaning towards scenario I now – with both Dave and Rowe being evil.


#271

I have to say that if I was Evil I’d rather sink the mission and be up 2-0 than play mind games, especially when the same team would be picked again.


#272

In our forum game history, I think I’m the only person that’s ever extended the game on purpose when I could have ended, just to be more evil,and even then it was only that one time. So I’m of the opinion that someone either made a mistake or was playing too conservatively. Based on that a Dave-Snebmi duo is the only scenario that makes sense to me.


#273

So you’re saying you think Dave forgot to fail the mission or said “Screw it, I’m going to make them really confused”? I’m sorry but I don’t follow that that is the most likely scenario.

Plus I’m Good (drink).


#274

Makes more sense than Scott forgetting to vote fail after he put you in the spotlight.


#275

So you think both me and Scott are Evil? What? I’m not even following your line of thought, Rowe. What I’m suggesting is two of you, Dave, and Scott are Evil and failed to coordinate. What’s more likely, that or someone forgetting their allegiance?


#276

No, I said the most likely scenario was that you and Dave are evil. If you and Scott were both evil then he would have failed mission 2. If Scott and Dave were both evil then Scott would have used the Spotlight on Dave instead.


#277

Well, since rho and I are in the clear in all of these discussions, you wouldn’t have any problems giving us the cards right @rowe33?


#278

I’m inclined to think that Snebmi is good, although I doubt that many of you will accept my logic. I know that CaseyRobinson is evil because I saw his card, and I declared him as evil. If Snebmi was evil, he could have said that CaseyRobinson is good, which would have thrown me under the bus and likely resulted in an evil victory, as it would likely be seen to clear Casey. In addition, Dave noted that Snebmi is good as well, which I think speaks in his favor.

Assuming that Snebmi and I are both good and Casey is evil, a few players stand out in voting for me:

Dave stands out because he voted yes to every team. Soon voted yes to every team except 2B, which we now know had an evil player on it. Scott voted yes on only on teams 1D and 3A, both of which failed (and all three of which he was on).

I think that Scott is likely to be evil, although that does create the problem of 2 evil players on my team (1D). We all agreed that we needed to vote yes on 1D to prevent a potential automatic evil victory.

But at this point, I really don’t know what I’m doing anymore. Sigh.


#279

How does an evil someone with a spotlight fail to coordinate? You point the spotlight at the other evil. If he votes fail, then you vote success. If he votes success, then you vote fail. It’s trivial.

No one really thinks that if I were evil, I would not have failed mission 2, using the spotlight to prevent a double fail. People who claim to think that have some other agenda.


#280

Both of you can’t be evil but one of you certainly still could. I maintain that there’s no possible way that there could be only 1 evil on teams 2 & 3 though. And I know I’m good so it’s down to 2 out of the other 3.


#281

My apologies Scott, I thought you meant the spotlight as a kind of signal, “He played the spotlight so he fails it” kinda thing.

My instinct is that if you are Evil, you may have done it to cover your tracks given that I was the clear choice as I was leader next. I’m not sure. If you are Evil, I think it’s more likely you’d have done that than Dave would have refused to fail a mission as the only Evil.

I feel like I keep accusing people but I don’t know what to do here. This is my first game and therefore the first time I’ve had to accuse people and it feels mean. I just need to get used to it.

I have some thought but am quite busy right now. I will check back in soon. From my perspective Rowe, you should pick me, Kane, soon, and rho and you’d be the only unknown. But of course I can’t prove that. All I know is Casey is Evil and I’ve isolated the rest in you, Dave, and Scott. I don’t expect you to do that, though. I look forward to seeing the team selection and judging you afterwards.