Mafiascum.net

[Could see scum throwing out a guilty in an attempt to get rid of the vigilante -- Dr Easy's days were prolly numbered, and he'd have to keep giving soft inno results which is unfortunate]

[If you wanted to sacrifice him this is probably how you'd do it. idk if Dunn is the target they'd choose but i don't really have any way of knowing who that is. It is a little convenient that Dr Easy got a guilty result on presumably the only player in the game who would be show up as guilty]

[So at this point, not only did Doctor Easy just so happen to have the very same obscure role that Bell fakeclaimed, he also just so happened to crumb it late, and he also just so happened to get a guilty result out of 1/12ish available targets where only one would show up as guilty. Now yeah, obviously he could remove correct townreads from those odds, but he still had to hit the exact scum player who performed the kill]

[Even if I think it's DEB tho, it still makes more sense to shoot him with vig so like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ doesn't really matter]

~Morning

I will hammer any target where a Super-saint concern might be. I'm confused how we have an enabler for Super-saint and no actual Super-saint though. Like, BM was a VT not a SS, so how did the kill happen?

We have a vig, scum likely has a supersaint

tbh if we are doing deb I would probably want dunn to hammer that

In post 4851, Toogeloo wrote:I will hammer any target where a Super-saint concern might be. I'm confused how we have an enabler for Super-saint and no actual Super-saint though. Like, BM was a VT not a SS, so how did the kill happen?

a supersaint doesn't take a phase to resolve it happens right away

What I mean is, wouldn't BM need to have been a SuperSaint in order for his venge kill to resolve? All we have is the Enabler claimed, which from I know of Enablers, they power the actual power role. If the Enabler does, the player who the Enabler was enabling power role loses its function.

I guess I just don't understand the role.

That still didn't look clear, even to me..

Player A has Role Enabler.
Player B has the Role being enabled.

Player A dies, Player B can no longer use his Role.

That's how I thought Enablers worked.

In post 4854, Double the Trouble wrote:a supersaint doesn't take a phase to resolve it happens right away

Also, if this is the case, why didnt NK15 resolve when BM was lynched?

In post 4857, Toogeloo wrote:

In post 4854, Double the Trouble wrote:a supersaint doesn't take a phase to resolve it happens right away

Also, if this is the case, why didnt NK15 resolve when BM was lynched?

because he's not a supersaint he's a vt

panda my guy whats going on?
BM is a VT. He couldn't vengekill anyone. A vig shot NK15.

That's why I'm confused. A SuperSaint isn't a Vig. Is a Vengeful.

Only the player lynched is vengeful.

[Ooh I like eliminating DEB with Dunn as a hammer since I lean he's the scum and if he's not actually a supersaint, then we lose no townies unnecessarily. If he is a supersaint, then it was unavoidable since we'd have eliminated Dunn anyway]

[Of course.. if it's obvious to others that DEB is the townie, then it would make no sense to do so. but Misty really thought Dunn was town and I personally just find DEB's behaviour to be wacky and incredibly coincidental in so many ways. He's probably one of the more suspected players on his team.. he has the role Bell claims.. he manages to hit the one guilty player in the game on his second try.. his crumb was delayed.. and he doesn't really have much to read off of other than this stuff.]

[I don't really know the "correct" scum plays, though, so I don't know if it's actually worth it for them to sacrifice DEB in order to potentially find or get closer to the vigilante. I would think it is if they felt that had a good shot at landing. Beyond that though, seems like a bad idea to do a 1 for 1 trade that you aren't sure will hit someone important.]

~Morning

In post 4860, Toogeloo wrote:That's why I'm confused. A SuperSaint isn't a Vig. Is a Vengeful.

In post 4861, Toogeloo wrote:Only the player lynched is vengeful.

[No supersaints have died.]

[If a supersaint were eliminated, they would instantly kill the hammering player, and then the night phase begins. If Misty and I were to die, then the kills from supersaints would get shut off and nothing would happen if they get eliminated]

[We have only eliminated a VT and a goon so far -- there has been nobody supersainted in this game]

[At this point it is clear either scum has a supersaint player, or there are no supersaints and our role does nothing]

~Morning

So then who is the Vig?

Who killed Not Known?

[The vigilante killed Not Known, yes. Why do you want to know who it is?]

~Morning

In post 4865, Toogeloo wrote:So then who is the Vig?

a player who claimed VT because we asked them to stay hidden

Ok, I must have missed that request. I just saw the claims and something wasn't adding up.

I thought it was some kind of weird shenanigans with the Solstices role.

What do you think of DEB v Dunn?

Toogeloo wrote:I thought it was some kind of weird shenanigans with the Solstices role.

[Oh there's shenanigans with our role, that's for sure, just not in that way]

[I didn't know scum could really get a hold of extra killing power, at least from a general balancing perspective. Maybe that's why we got so much power though -- or it could just be a red herring]

~Morning

In post 4871, Double the Trouble wrote:What do you think of DEB v Dunn?

I think the plan to lynch Deb is fine. I think I can hammer, and if DEB is legit, the vig can shoot Dunn. If scum have a SuperSaint and it's DEB, it's better I be the one that hammers.

In post 4873, Toogeloo wrote:

In post 4871, Double the Trouble wrote:What do you think of DEB v Dunn?

I think the plan to lynch Deb is fine. I think I can hammer, and if DEB is legit, the vig can shoot Dunn. If scum have a SuperSaint and it's DEB, it's better I be the one that hammers.

i wasn't really asking about what you thought about the plan but moreso who you think is more likely town between the two?