Oh.
Indeed.
It's still rejected though
Yes, yes it is. I wonder why Cymsdale rejected his own team though. That seems weird.
And if it was myself, esemesas and reis, I would have voted for
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes, yes it is. I wonder why Cymsdale rejected his own team though. That seems weird.
And if it was myself, esemesas and reis, I would have voted for
Well, he must distrust either reis or myself. He's volunteered to work with you and esemesas.
While it would have been a more perfect team with me on it, I will approve this proposal.
Not entirely. If you combine that rule with "No Confidence" plot cards (and/or "Strong Leader" plot cards, in some cases) the spies could theoretically auto-reject-vote themselves a win. Especially with 8+ players when there are three of those in the deck.
So yeah, be careful who you give those cards to
That reminds me: Falc, your table on the first page has an error for the 6-player team setup. The number of team members should never go down .. ;-)
Not entirely. If you combine that rule with "No Confidence" plot cards (and/or "Strong Leader" plot cards, in some cases) the spies could theoretically auto-reject-vote themselves a win. Especially with 8+ players when there are three of those in the deck.
So yeah, be careful who you give those cards to
Of course, they can only nuke one vote, so allowing the 4th one to be Rejected is the Resistance's own stupid fault.
I copy-pasted that straight from the rules pdf (which is 404'd now it seems) and I verified with the Wikipedia page. If you're certain it's wrong, you'll need to provide me with better sources than those...
You assume the spies only have one of those cards. With 8 or more players, there are three of them in the game .. and two strong leader cards.
Assuming the spies have all five of them, it could go:
Game has two failed missions already.
Round starts: Spy plays strong leader, makes himself leader and puts his friends on the team. Declares himself a spy just to taunt the resistance. Vote fails.
Second vote: Some other spy plays strong leader, makes himself leader, and taunts the resistance some more.
Then vote 3, 4, and 5 get scuttled by no-confidence plays.
Do you see anything that would prevent this? I don't .. except of course that the resistance would be silly to let so much power fall into spy hands in the first place
A friend of mine has a physical copy of the game. I'll check with him.
It doesn't sound logical to have such a oddity, though. I mean, the idea behind that table is that the resistance can never really rest on it's laurels as the number of team members continually goes up over the course of time. To have it go the other way is decidedly odd.
So I think that even if it IS in the rules PDF it's probably a misprint.
Maybe the third and fourth mission need to be switched, though - first 3, then 4, instead of first 4, then 3 team members.
Found this interesting thread here that may explain the why of that:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/573728/targeting
So I retract my statement. That is probably intentional. Carry on.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/573728/targeting
So I retract my statement. That is probably intentional. Carry on.
Vote count:
REJECT: Cliges
APPROVE: the others
Mission is GO!
Members are esemesas, Kingepyon and Xarkan.
I have two Mission Actions already so we are once again waiting for esemesas
(Since it'd be obvious in a RL game who's played his card and who hasn't, I consider these revelations fair game. Feel free to say so if you disagree.)
REJECT: Cliges
APPROVE: the others
Mission is GO!
Members are esemesas, Kingepyon and Xarkan.
I have two Mission Actions already so we are once again waiting for esemesas
(Since it'd be obvious in a RL game who's played his card and who hasn't, I consider these revelations fair game. Feel free to say so if you disagree.)
In a RL game there is no possibility of having all resistance members having play "support" by default to mitigate the impact of absent players. So I disagree. Don't reveal who has played his cards and who hasn't.
Mission success is like a night phase in werewolf - you don't get to see who has send in orders and who hasn't.
I think this game is like werewolf in one important respect: The GM should, in case of doubt, always err on the side of NOT giving players information.
I assume that in this particular case it doesn't really matter because you *are* requiringing everyone to send in a "support" or "sabotage" order, but in a normal game the resistance isn't even allowed to send in a sabotage order anyway, so why force them to 'choose' one or the other here?
edit: Thinking about it, doing it that way implies that all spies will have to declare their intent to either support or sabotage a mission before the mission team vote ends. Otherwise, the mere fact that you have to wait for someone to choose "support" or "sabotage" already tells the players that there's a spy in that group ..
Mission success is like a night phase in werewolf - you don't get to see who has send in orders and who hasn't.
I think this game is like werewolf in one important respect: The GM should, in case of doubt, always err on the side of NOT giving players information.
I assume that in this particular case it doesn't really matter because you *are* requiringing everyone to send in a "support" or "sabotage" order, but in a normal game the resistance isn't even allowed to send in a sabotage order anyway, so why force them to 'choose' one or the other here?
edit: Thinking about it, doing it that way implies that all spies will have to declare their intent to either support or sabotage a mission before the mission team vote ends. Otherwise, the mere fact that you have to wait for someone to choose "support" or "sabotage" already tells the players that there's a spy in that group ..
Last edited:
Which is why I require a PM from everyone. Assuming that all the Resistance players will have preloaded their Support response is a dangerous assumption to make.
I'm assuming esemesas is a spy for the remainder of the game and rejecting all mission loadouts with him in it. It's close enough to an outing in my book.
Not if the rules require them to do so.
Nobody complains about having to 'preload' werewolf hunt orders either
That's nonsense, given how Falc handles support orders.
(I have no idea who the spies are. Just so you know.)
I'm assuming you are a spy for the remainder of the game due to making such conclusions and trying to incriminate others as spies. I see no advantage for the resistance to raise suspicions without proper cause.
Hey, you think what you will. I'll think what I will. GM should not reveal information. If I'm wrong, guess the resistance is f**ked, ah well. Better luck next time.
As much as you might want so, I don't think so. Only over my dead body.
@ Falc : This could be better with a RP theme, perhaps?
So you rejected a team you were on, pushed for me and Kinge to be on the team instead, and when that succeeded, you attempt to incriminate me based on the fact that Falc was awaiting my orders. Yep, totally Resistance play right there... /sarcasm