I'd like to know more about how this works. If we say "rejecting gives us more information so let's reject", what information do we gain from that?
-
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.
I'd like to know more about how this works. If we say "rejecting gives us more information so let's reject", what information do we gain from that?
Just a question regarding the rules.
According the table 2 plot cards should be drawn with 8 players. However only one was dealt.
Or do I not understand the table correctly ?
According the table 2 plot cards should be drawn with 8 players. However only one was dealt.
Or do I not understand the table correctly ?
You are correct sir, it seems I was quite unfocused last night.
Second Plot Card to be handled by esemesas:
Keeping a close eye on you – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to learn whether a player SUPPORTED or SABOTAGED a Mission. If this card is in play, the GM will ask the player whether he wishes to use it after the GM has received all the Mission PMs. If two players have this card, they may use it in the same Mission phase but they may not use it on the same player.
I approve with my vote this team.
Also, I am not a spy. Just putting that information out there.
Also, I am not a spy. Just putting that information out there.
Randy has a valid point that more votes will give more information.
However if everyone knows beforehand that a mission team will be rejected I also think that reduces significantly the worth of the voting information.
Furthermore I also like to see how Cliges will handle his card. Will he (as Cymsdale suggested) use his card this round or not ?
Therefore my conclusion is to APPROVE this team.
I also don't see any reason to delay the deadline, so I give the GREEN light.
However if everyone knows beforehand that a mission team will be rejected I also think that reduces significantly the worth of the voting information.
Furthermore I also like to see how Cliges will handle his card. Will he (as Cymsdale suggested) use his card this round or not ?
Therefore my conclusion is to APPROVE this team.
I also don't see any reason to delay the deadline, so I give the GREEN light.
I really don't see the point in wasting a card just to prove my loyalty. Especially if esemesa's team is likely to succeed at the mission! But I'll put it this way-if out 2out of the three men on the team WANT me to do so, I will. But I really doubt that will happen-and I don't feel an obligation to use a card just try and convince one particular player that I'm on the right side. That's a bit much.
Last edited:
Ok, it's the first time I play this game, but I don't see why it's likely that the first mission will succeed.
In this game 3 out of 8 players are the spies, so the chance that someone is a spy is 3/8.
If the mission fails than we know that 1 out of 3 is a spy. That isn't a great difference. It's even less than the start chance. So a failed mission doesn't give us much information.
In this game 3 out of 8 players are the spies, so the chance that someone is a spy is 3/8.
If the mission fails than we know that 1 out of 3 is a spy. That isn't a great difference. It's even less than the start chance. So a failed mission doesn't give us much information.
A first team might support no matter what to gain confidence; any spies would hope that they'd get enough trust to be put on teams later on.
Basically, the things I've read about how the resistance is supposed to play the game is that people should not be afraid to reject a team or two at the start, because it will serve to get more information on the spies in a stage where we have less to lose.
So:
Vote Reject
Exactly
We give another player a chance to propose a team. From the composition of that team, we can make inferences about what allegiances he might have, if any.
As an example, spies would probably not want to have too many spies on a team, due to the danger of all of them sabotaging at once and thus giving us too much information on who they are.
Sounds fair
I don't think we're set enough in our ways yet to make this game predictable.
Except that spies may try to keep their noses clean this first round. Especially with that plot card you have there
Point about the rules here, and sorry if it has been covered and I missed it:
Since we are voting openly, once a majority decision has been reached, will the vote continue even if all players haven't made a decision?
Having the votes like this will lead to situations where one might wait to vote as he'd know he could vote either way and it wouldn't affect the perception of him as the decision would already be determined. It could also lead to players trying to out-wait each other, and hence delaying the game, to make their then meaningless vote. Those are some reasons why I think future games ought to revert to private voting. (Also, the potential for discrepancy between public statements and private votes would add a bit more complexity.)
Since we are voting openly, once a majority decision has been reached, will the vote continue even if all players haven't made a decision?
Having the votes like this will lead to situations where one might wait to vote as he'd know he could vote either way and it wouldn't affect the perception of him as the decision would already be determined. It could also lead to players trying to out-wait each other, and hence delaying the game, to make their then meaningless vote. Those are some reasons why I think future games ought to revert to private voting. (Also, the potential for discrepancy between public statements and private votes would add a bit more complexity.)
No, everyone should vote (or a hard deadline reached) before we continue, because people are allowed to change their vote.
In fact, I will switch my vote to REJECT because randakar's explanation of getting more information out of seeing multiple team proposals makes sense to me.
In fact, I will switch my vote to REJECT because randakar's explanation of getting more information out of seeing multiple team proposals makes sense to me.
I have to admit that I don't trust randakar here. I could be wrong in that, but I don't see much advantage in trying to overcomplicated matters this early in the game.
EDIT, by that, I mean, if we announce publicly that we ought to reject team one, just how much can be gained from an analysis of a votes on a proposal that already has a stated opposition? It's like the card I have; were I to use it immediately, how does that help analysis? If I said I will use it, anyone knows his vote is relevant (assuming I follow through and actually use it) and he can vote tactically for appearance's sake instead of what he *really* wants.
EDIT, by that, I mean, if we announce publicly that we ought to reject team one, just how much can be gained from an analysis of a votes on a proposal that already has a stated opposition? It's like the card I have; were I to use it immediately, how does that help analysis? If I said I will use it, anyone knows his vote is relevant (assuming I follow through and actually use it) and he can vote tactically for appearance's sake instead of what he *really* wants.
Last edited:
Reject as well.
Down with esemesas!
And I, too, would like to see Cliges use his card.
Edit: Now it makes sense
Down with esemesas!
And I, too, would like to see Cliges use his card.
Edit: Now it makes sense
Last edited:
I don't have a card. I think you meant Cliges.
Cliges, using your card is not for the purpose of "analysis". It's because in the hands of a spy the card is howitzer, and in the hands of a resistance member the card is merely a blunt screwdriver. I'd gladly give up a potential blunt screwdriver in order to protect myself from a potential howitzer.
Cliges, using your card is not for the purpose of "analysis". It's because in the hands of a spy the card is howitzer, and in the hands of a resistance member the card is merely a blunt screwdriver. I'd gladly give up a potential blunt screwdriver in order to protect myself from a potential howitzer.
AVN and I have the current cards. And I'm not using it on this mission-which might not even pass the approval stage anyhow.
And, assuming ese approves of his own team, that leaves only tamius yet to vote.
And, assuming ese approves of his own team, that leaves only tamius yet to vote.
Yeah, but getting rid of it soon could also benefit the spies more in the long run. It could quite possibly be a real boon to the resistance if used against the right team. And as for analysis-it would be a sort of ad hoc analysis of myself, right? Your stated intention here is to test my loyalty by seeing what I do with it.
I'm not saying you're up to anything here; I just don't think using the card right away is the best way to approach matters for right now.