The Resistance: Avalon - 2019 Match 2 Game Thread


#342

Currently I’m voting yes to rowe33’s team, because while I know it to contain one Evil, I find it unlikely it has two.

Here’s a logic puzzle for why it contains one:

Two of rowe, Dave, and scott are Evil. As this excludes Dave, there must be one Evil.

Or, one of soon and rho is Evil and only one of the previous group is Evil. Therefore the team has one Evil.

Or, scott is Evil in addition to one of rowe and Dave. Therefore the team has one Evil.

Or, both Kane and Casey are Evil, in which case there is still an Evil on this mission.

But I think it’s likely there is not two. I’m happy to change my vote - before we’re locked in - if someone thinks I am wrong.


#343

Team 4A Vote Results
@rowe33 (leader)
@rho21
@soondifferent
@CF_Kane
@scottagibson

@rho21 - Yes
@scottagibson - No
@soondifferent - No
@CF_Kane - Yes
@CaseyRobinson - Yes
@Dave_Perkins - Yes
@Snebmi - Yes
@rowe33 - Yes

@rho21 or @scottagibson would you like to No Confidence this team?


#344

That’s an interesting collection of votes. scott and soon would surely be in favour if they were evil and the team contained two evils. Knowing that I’m good, that means both Kane and rowe would have to be evil for it to fail. But if Kane is evil, Snebmi and Dave must be too. Therefore we’re at least 4 good on the team. I will not use my no confidence.


#345

That’s a pretty good argument, @rho21.

@Lantz, I will not use NC either.


#346

Team 4A
@rowe33 (leader)
@rho21
@soondifferent
@CF_Kane
@scottagibson

Please send me your mission votes.


#347

Not a particularly great voting outcome but it is what it is. Assuming we scrape by, need to hope for that OC or we’ll just be making educated guesses again.


#348

Well, we mostly agree this team is probably clean…

Wait.

Wait.

Mission 2: Snebmi, Dave Perkins, rowe33, scottagibson

Dave saw my card. Dave says I’m Good. Dave saw his card. Dave says he’s Good. We mostly agree there were two Evils on Mission 2.

This team has both rowe and scott on it. And Dave voted for a team that - if he’s good - almost definitely contains two Evils.

Why?

My guesses are either Dave figured everyone thinks he’s Evil and this team is clean and everyone wants to vote for it, or he thinks there was only one Evil on Mission 2 or he’s Evil.

Thoughts?


#349

Even if this mission passes, the path for good is pretty rough. Hard to really parse out the votes for this particular team since evil is trying to look good so they’re included for the 5th mission.

But you’re right that Dave comes out especially smelly from this, if we assume the very likely 2 evil on teams 2/3 theory. With soon and scott both voting No, it seems pretty safe for this one though.


#350

Looks as though it’s certain: if this mission passes the only remaining rows on my list will have Dave as evil. (Rows D, E, H, I, J.)


#351

Hmm.

If Kane told the truth about Casey, then Snebmi did the same, and the most likely two evils on team 2 are Rowe and Dave. With Casey the third evil, then there can only be one evil on this team.

If Kane lied about Casey, then Snebmi also lied, and Dave lied about Snebmi, and the two evils on team 2 were Dave and Snebmi. With Kane the third evil, there can be only one evil on this team.

So I think we are probably ok. That said, if there were not 2 evils on team 2, we could be in trouble.


#352

This would mean only possible scenarios are:

D: Kane, Dave, and me.

E: Casey, scott, Dave.

H: Casey, Dave, and me.

I: Casey, Dave, and rowe.

J: Casey, Dave, and rho/soon.

I personally know D and H aren’t true, so it’s a question of whether Evil is scott, rho/soon, or rowe.


#353

Team 4A Mission Results
@rowe33 (leader)
@rho21
@soondifferent
@CF_Kane
@scottagibson

In Dramatic Order

Success

Success

Success

Success

Success

We are tied up 2-2

Card Update:
@rho21 No Confidence
@scottagibson No Confidence
@soondifferent Chicago Proxy
@CF_Kane
@CaseyRobinson
@Dave_Perkins
@Snebmi
@rowe33

@rho21 please distribute:
Keeping a close eye on you: You may look at one played Mission card / One-time use – The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to examine a played Quest card. Using this card does not require a player to announce its use before the Quest cards are played, nor does it affect the Quest card played. Multiple Quest cards may be checked in a single round, but no more than one player may check a single player’s Quest card on a round

Strong Leader: You can become the Leader. Play before Plot or Team Cards have been distributed / One time use – The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to become the Leader. Use of this card must be declared before the Leader takes any actions (draw Plot Cards or distributing Team cards). When a "Strong Leader" is played, another "Strong Leader" may not be played until a Vote has been taken

Then select 5 players for team 5. Team 5 requires one failure votes to fail.


#354

Well we’re still in with a chance but we don’t get any more info.


#355

The results of that mission should prove my goodness, combined with my card distribution.


#356
Label Kane Casey scott Dave Snebmi rowe rho soon Team 1 Team 2/3 Team 4
U X X X 1 2 1
V X X X 2 2 1
W X X X 1 2 0
X X X X 1 2 1
Y X X X 1 1 1
Z X X X 1 1 1

I’ve relabelled all the possibilities and split me and soon up now that there aren’t so many rows.


#357

It will sound self-serving, but I’d discount V. It’s wildly unlikely there were 2 evils on team 1, and I would certainly have used the spotlight to safely fail mission 2.


#358

Rowe, how the hell does it prove that? It proves that scott is not Evil if you are Evil. You couldn’t have chosen a super sketchy team or we’d have voted it down and known you were a spy.

Edit: Scenario X, I mean, you can’t pick Dave because we all think he’s Evil and you can’t pick Casey because we all think he’s Evil. How does this prove your goodness?


#359

The Eye is useless here, give it to Dave. LOL!


#360

Going to stick with X as most probable scenario. It explains why team 2 passed (team 3 not double failing is the lesser mystery. Could be a subtle signal. One of them could be Mordred and assume the other will fail it.)

U/W doesn’t explain how team 2 passed.
V - scott’s explanation is compelling. He could have used Spotlight to fail 2 in that case.
Y doesn’t explain team 2 pass.
Z - drink


#361
  1. I put up a team that successfully passed this mission. If I’m evil, why would I do that?

  2. Why did I put up this team and then vote FOR it?

  3. Why did I vote for the team, knowing that if it’s approved, a good player would hand out cards (including a possible OC) for mission 5?

  4. If I’m evil, why did I distribute cards in such a manner that every card ended up in good hands?