The Resistance: Avalon - 2019 Match 2 Game Thread


#122

There were three members on team 1, and one of them failed the mission, and two of them are in a dispute over which one it was based on one of them having claimed the other is a revealed evil, and you’re worried about me?

What would that ‘signal’ even mean?


#123

Hmm, I think it would have been better to use the Establish Confidence first. If, as seems likely, that had shown Snebmi to be good, it’s then an easy choice for Casey to open up to Snebmi and form a nice Chain of Good™ (or look super-suspicious by choosing someone else). If instead Snebmi had been called evil, Casey could avoid that new conflict and open up elsewhere.

As it stands, Casey probably opens up to Snebmi and we have to hope that Snebmi gets called good from the Establish Confidence so we end up with useful information out of the whole thing. Would someone else on Team 2 be a better choice to open up to? It loses out on forming such a large chain, but we can be even more confident they’re good as they probably would have thrown a failure if evil.


#124

I agree, the best move would have been for @Snebmi to first establish confidence before directing the OU to someone. Quite aside from the business of establishing a chain of trust, it would have eliminated any suspicion about where that card was sent.

It’s fixable though. If @CaseyRobinson Opens Up to @Snebmi, and then @Snebmi ECs to someone successfully, we get to the same place, e.g. a chain of someone -> @Snebmi -> @CaseyRobinson.

I suggest the EC is to me. Of course anyone would suggest that, but no one can reasonably believe I’m the one who failed the first mission, and the second mission succeeded, so I think I’ve got some credibility.


#125

Eh, it’s an easy thing not to think about when you know your own card is good. I’m going to stick to very mildly suspicious for now. Hopefully our concerns will be cleared up soon.


#126

Wait, @Lantz, doesn’t the EC have to be resolved first? It says Use Immediately, and haven’t we always played it so that the leader who receives it must resolve it first?


#127

It doesn’t need to be resolved first, it just means that it’s a card that must be played and can’t be held on to. It’s not worded amazing.


#128

Ah, OK. Maybe it’s just that we’ve always expected it to be resolved first.


#129

I need a reminder as to why no one can reasonably believe you’re the one who failed the first mission.


#130

Because there were three of us on that mission, and one person failed it, and then @CaseyRobinson gave @CF_Kane an OC, and @CF_Kane used it to declare @CaseyRobinson evil. So at least one of those two is evil, and they are the one that failed the mission.

So I’ve been on 2 missions and not failed either one. If I’m evil, I’m bad at it.

(It’s possible that I failed mission 1 and one of CF or Casey are evil, but how did we avoid a double fail? My explanation is simpler. And again, why didn’t I fail mission 2 to go up 2-0?)


#131

Ok thank you! As you know, I am a big fan of what’s the simplest explanation.


#132

I don’t really see why this must be the case. Here’s my logic:

If Casey Opens Up to me: regardless of whether I see Good or Evil, I will EC to someone on Mission 2.

If Casey Opens Up to someone on Mission 2 and is called Evil: I will either Open Up to someone on Mission 2 or CF_Kane. It makes sense that if Casey is Evil, CF_Kane might be good? Not 100% though, so I could also EC to the same person Casey Opened Up to, or one of the others. I doubt two people on Mission 2 were Evil.

If Casey Opens Up to someone on Mission 2 and is called Good: I will EC with Casey to join the chain. Worst case is I am called Evil, know two Evils instantly, and have Kane backing me up (knowing Casey is Evil and therefore is less likely I am Evil). Best case we have a chain of three people of which I am almost surely Good (as that would mean the chain would include all Evils).

I don’t see how this is necessarily more messy than me Establishing Confidence first. I will admit, though, I did it this way because I would like more information before I do this (I very much don’t want to Establish Confidence with an Evil and be called that!) and because I can resolve them in any order I choose, and because I didn’t see a real reason to do it the other way.

So I guess the bottom line is I’m not sure why it’s easier if I did it the other way around. Perhaps an explanation would be helpful?


#133

It probably doesn’t make any difference. As I said, it’s fixable; we can still get a chain of trust, if you avoid ECing to a closed loop.


#134

I would still be surprised if any of my fellow mission two teammates turns out to be evil. Going up 2 to nothing would be impossible for us to overcome.


#135

If there was no Evil on Mission 2 (from my perspective, I know you can’t know I’m Good - yet) that means:

Good:
scottagibson
rowe33
Dave_Perkins
Snebmi (unproven as of now)
One of CF_Kane and CaseyRobinson

Evil:
rho21
soondifferent
The other of CF_Kane and CaseyRobinson

Seeing it all written out like this it doesn’t look quite right but maybe that’s just my nerves. I don’t know.

I guess we’ll wait for @CaseyRobinson’s declaration before any more revelations? If this list is true, depending on the use of Open Up, I can reveal to pretty much anyone on the Good list.


#136

Crap, I can’t believe I didn’t realize this.

There is one scenario in which it makes sense for Evil to vote Success on Mission 2. If there were two Evils.

Of course, this is very unlikely. I’m not accusing anyone and I’m not saying I think it’s true. But it’s something to consider.


#137

It could mean that you’re Mordred, and that you wanted one of CF_Kane/Casey to vote failure, since you were going to vote success.

Now, granted, the success in team 2 is a big checkmark in your favor, but from my perspective in order for team 2 to be all good Kane and Casey both have to be evil, and there was nothing said by them prior to team 1 vote that could be considered a semaphore.

Well, actually maybe this:

Take this how you will. I’m leaning towards there having been more than 1 evil in team 1.


#138

But just to reiterate, @CaseyRobinson I would find disclosing to @scottagibson very suspicious, and would suggest you disclose to either Dave or Rowe.


#139

Yes, I get that you’re stuck in the group of 3 of whom probably 2 are evil. I’ll let my actions speak for themselves.

Edit: And I’m not totally convinced myself that team 2 was all good. I can’t explain why it wasn’t failed, but it’s possible someone thought they had a reason to try to keep hiding. But if I were the evil one, I’d have failed it in a heartbeat to go up 2-0.


#140

Hey, I backtracked a bit and saw that Kane did say something that could be a signal. I’m just saying that you were widely considered to be the most trustworthy person going into team 2, but that’s based on the assumption of only 1 evil in team 1. Now I see that there’s two messages that I would consider a signal (if I were evil) so I think that assumption is moot.


#141

I can think of one possible reason. (All of this is speculation)

Let’s say there’s an evil among you, rowe, and Dave. I choose the same mission as before, but we don’t have the spotlight. It fails with one fail. All eyes immediately go to me. I’m essentially confirmed Evil. For Mission 4, I’m removed and we add whichever one of Kane and Casey we now trust and a relatively blind pick from rho and soondifferent. If the mission fails, it’s game over. If it succeeds we can try to isolate the Evil in rho and soon, but I’m still off the team, and since we need all good knights for Mission 5, it fails and we lose.

Of course, another path to winning is failing the second mission and having us all have absolutely no clue what to do from there. Maybe it was something to do with the order? Evil doesn’t have a knight in the right spot to propose such a mission? I don’t know, I’m not Evil.

Speculation aside, I’m going to think for a little bit now. There’s not much able to be done until Casey makes a choice.