-
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.
Game over-Spy victory...partly through GM error? What more do you want?
I'll try to be accommodating. Let's wrap it up as pleasantly as possible.
I'll try to be accommodating. Let's wrap it up as pleasantly as possible.
I mean like, you know, actually saying the winners, make it look like a normal winner declaration? It's not a complicated request.
Hell no. The game wouldn't have gone like this at all. If there had been no sabotages we might have repeated that mission with you on, put the KACEOY somewhere else, but then ended up at this stage on mission 4, where you guys needed two sabotages to win, and at a different point in the leader order to boot. That's not a 5% change, Falc.
It made sense at the time. Or at least, a modicum of sense. Given the information we had there was nothing wrong with that proposal.
Nonsense. A different game might have had the two-spies-in-a-row somewhere else in the leader order, and would have had *exactly* the same problem.
You guys won because you got *lucky* and had that card in the hands of the right spy.
That's all there is to it. Contrast that to the resistance, that has to get it's ducks completely lined up correctly in order to win.
Maybe. But upping the proposal limit a bit really wouldn't hurt game balance at all, either. The resistance still has to figure out the spies correctly, but it has more time and the spies cannot blow up the process with a strong leader so easily. I call that an improvement.
People were way too willing to believe Marty's accusations as well. He actually openly lied about what I was supposed to have done and only I called him on it. What's that all about, really? Ditto for that ITS - someone who 'forgets' to play that should receive the Resistance equivalent of a public execution, really.
Meh. This wasn't a win, this was a "spies have an I-win-button and they pressed it" game.
To hell with your game, Randy.
This was a poor show, Euro. Really.
Not that I'm feeling very "satisfied" with it. I had only started to put pieces of the puzzle together, and midway someone just comes in and puts down the completed picture, yelling "tadaa!" .. oh, right. Whatever.
Sometimes people like that to be a surprise.
Spies:
For the record, falc did not sabotage, though that was probably more confusing for him than anyone else. I'm thinking that apart from that, the game would have otherwise mostly been unaffected most everyone else involved.
My inbox is too small, if it's ever got a greater capacity, that would would manage these games a bit more easily.
Spies:
marty99
falc
tamius
panzer
falc
tamius
panzer
For the record, falc did not sabotage, though that was probably more confusing for him than anyone else. I'm thinking that apart from that, the game would have otherwise mostly been unaffected most everyone else involved.
My inbox is too small, if it's ever got a greater capacity, that would would manage these games a bit more easily.
He means no/little change from if Falc himself had decided to sabotage, not from if he had approved.
Not exactly. Take it hypothetically that falc did (contrary to reality) sabotage. Since no cards were played, no one else knew for certain whether or not anyone else did sabotage. tamius probably figured out that it was falc who "sabotaged" (in terms of what happened in implementation) for several reasons. He knew all along that falc was a spy and that he was on a failed mission. Though he wouldn't have known what falc's intentions were, he, I assume, was able to guess falc was the likely sabotage (in practice).
I regret my error, and sincerely apologize. It could have been something far worse, and I stand by it having mostly been the same as if falc had meant to sabotage. The biggest effect would have been upon falc, who went through the rest of it believing that there was another Spy among the people on that team. For better or worse, no one else would have been mislead or thrown off by the events on the surface of things.
Yes, if falc had wanted the sabotage, it would have not been much different, and, if anything, easier for falc, and probably the other spies.
I don't see it as a big deal. If anything I'm surprised Falc didn't sabotage to begin with, also like I said the village didn't play well especially if what Randy says is true and we missed him catching marty in a lie. So in other words I think the spies would have had us anyway as I suspected a spy in Randy/Marty Combo, plus panzer is always suspicious though Tamius was pretty cleared I think so he would have probably gotten us.
No. After Strong Leader, the next leader is the next person on the list, not the person who was skipped or anything like it.
Imagine it's a token. When your turn as leader is done, you pass it to your left. Always, always, always pass it to your left.
Strong Leader allows you to take it, no matter where it is now, and when you're done, you pass it to your left.
Ok, thanks. That's the most intuitive way but I could've swore it worked the other way. Huh.
In that case, maybe we should change that part of it, just a thought?
Why make things more complicated than they need to be?
The idea of a 5 proposal limit is to prevent the village deadlocking and taking forever to decide. That's fine on a tabletop game, but in combination with the (later added) strong leader it becomes an automatic victory button for the spies.
What's wrong with changing that?
Ok. I really do not understand a word of what you're saying here.
Falc was on exactly one team: Glio, randakar, falc. That team failed with exactly one sabotage: That had to be falc.
What am I missing? Because as far as I understand, he did sabotage..
And everything after this which apparently is obvious logic sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.
My proposal was really, really simple, I thought. Are you sure you understood what I suggested?
From what I understand, he did not say that the mistake didn't change the game from how it would have been if he hadn't done that mistake, he says that Falc could have chosen to sabotage and his mistake had the same result as Falc choosing to sabotage.
Yes. You suggested making the strong leader card more complicated by making play return to whatever place in the leader order it was before SL was played.
That doesn't fix NC though. Or a combination of SL + NC.
I mean, really. SL and NC are both ridiculously good for the spies, especially in combinations.
Hypothetical scenario, that isn't theoretically impossible:
- Take a 4-spy team, put them all next to each other on the leader list.
- The second spy on the list goes first. He draws both strong leader cards, and gives them to the first spy on the list.
What happens? The spy team gets to propose, at maximum, 12 teams in a row and all of the cards go to them because they just play SL whenever the mission is approved and hand out all the cars to their team. Then of course all three NC cards show up after the second and third proposal, and spy #2 duly gives them to spy #1.
Is there really a way for the resistance to win that? With the spies being super obvious, just hoarding all the power?
Go back through the game history. Look at resistance games with plot cards that actually have all the spies knowing at least one spy. How many of them were decided by the spies by use of SL or NC cards, or a combination of both? How many of the spy wins were decided that way?
I think I know the answer to that last question: *all* of them.
C'mon randy. It's not that complicated
It's slightly more complicated than the original, but they're both really simple. And it makes it a bit less overpowered.That's why it's important to disucss the giving of cards responsible. You guys knew who to give the cards to, aedan and glio. But because of EURO's antipathy and perhaps if I flatter myself, to a little extent my sowing of distrust, they were given to the spies.
Funny thing is, randy, I actually made a post about this earlier.
Remember my post about not spreading the cards amongst people in the leader order?
This is exactly why I proposed it, it helps stop situations like that arising. It might not have been enough in this case, but if we followed my doctrine at the very least me and Panzer (adjacent in the list) would not have been both given SL and NC cards.
I still don't think I've expressed it clearly, but I will someday