-
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.
Eugh, that was just a mess.
I don't know if I would've won if Tamius' had allowed me to scan Jackson after all, but I knew I wouldn't after I was told to scan someone else.
Also, I expected much better out of my spymates than being discovered almost immediately.
I'll write up a more detailed breakdown of why the spy team's game fell apart later.
I don't know if I would've won if Tamius' had allowed me to scan Jackson after all, but I knew I wouldn't after I was told to scan someone else.
Also, I expected much better out of my spymates than being discovered almost immediately.
I'll write up a more detailed breakdown of why the spy team's game fell apart later.
Tamius, a question: when you got both Close Eyes on Jackson, what made you choose which one happened? First come first serve?
I have to say, seeing as that was my first game of The Resistance, I wasn't that impressed.
Then again, I understand that the goings-on were not exactly optimal in creating a good game.
Maybe I'll give it a second chance.
Then again, I understand that the goings-on were not exactly optimal in creating a good game.
Maybe I'll give it a second chance.
The game was absolutely lost in the second round. I dont understand what kind of strategy were you using at the beginning of the game but you gave the game to the resistance. My team and Aedan's team didnt matter at all, the game was absolutely lost by then, everybody knew four clear members so there was nothing we could do. The way you made everything in the first rounds made impossible to Aedan and me for making something without being exposed. We needed two spies in the team and that was impossible with 4 clear resistance members. My team was a joke, in fact I tried to surrender but It seems my spymates didnt surrender and I dont understand why
Last edited:
I was planning on framing Jackson for the sabotage by scanning him as the saboteur, which would have prevented a team of four cleared members from forming.
Instead Tamius' ruling made that impossible, and I knew as soon as he made it that I was fucked, and as far as I'm concerned, everything I did second round onwards was not of my own volition.
For future reference, I'd much prefer that rules didn't change in the middle of the game. If there's some kind of irregularity in the rules, then regardless of how it's supposed to be, keep it that way and have it fixed in the next game.
There's nothing more disorienting than having your plans invalidated by a sudden rules change since I was pretty much counting on the card bouncing back if Jeray also scanned Jackson. Instead I was thrown into the GM's death trap.
There's nothing more disorienting than having your plans invalidated by a sudden rules change since I was pretty much counting on the card bouncing back if Jeray also scanned Jackson. Instead I was thrown into the GM's death trap.
Okay, must say, really not nice of the spies of the spies to not surrender and drag out the game that long when it was obvious they were going to lose after the second round. Also really not nice of @Tornadoli to suddenly quit in the middle of the game with no explanation especially considering there were no subs available.
Please do! This was as much a good representation of a Resistance game as those 16-page lites are good standard werewolf games. The issue, I guess, is that we have those quite a lot here.
The rules didn't change. They were interpreted differently. All the rules said was that two people couldn't scan the same person, which they couldn't. Now what happened to their cards instead, that was never mentioned and as such up to the GM's interpretation. A GM in this forum only exists to facilitate things the players would do themselves in face-to-face games, and as such that is what Tamius did. Nothing really surprising
Please do! This was as much a good representation of a Resistance game as those 16-page lites are good standard werewolf games. The issue, I guess, is that we have those quite a lot here.
The rules didn't change. They were interpreted differently. All the rules said was that two people couldn't scan the same person, which they couldn't. Now what happened to their cards instead, that was never mentioned and as such up to the GM's interpretation. A GM in this forum only exists to facilitate things the players would do themselves in face-to-face games, and as such that is what Tamius did. Nothing really surprising
You're implying that it would not have been surprising if the cards that didn't go through were to spontaneously morph into other cards and be played on a random target because it didn't mention that they wouldn't, which I would disagree with.
Also, if he had made the ruling without telling everyone that I did use the card and wasn't lying, and that if he didn't tell anyone that I had the chance to use it again and thereby gave away important information to the resistance, I would have opted out of using it again. Instead, I was stuck in a situation where I had to use it, because now knowing it was a mission that failed, I'd have had no reason not to as resistance. "GM's ruling" should not include revealing actions that should have been hidden.
Also, Tamius already made a ruling on this issue on the 27th that I would keep the card and nothing else would happen, except that two days later he made a different ruling and went with that instead, which was annoying.
I can certainly understand your frustration.
However, you said you were "pretty much counting on the card bouncing back if Jeray also scanned Jackson" which is totally not written in the rules. So, you know, to some degree you dug your own grave.
I mean, what would you have done if Tamius had immediately responded with: "You can't use it on Jackson. Either choose a different target or don't play it, in which case I will publically state you chose not to play your card"?
I'm sorry you ended up on the wrong end of this, but if we had allowed this to stand and the Spies would have won, then the Resistance would now be complaining that you won by cheating.
However, you said you were "pretty much counting on the card bouncing back if Jeray also scanned Jackson" which is totally not written in the rules. So, you know, to some degree you dug your own grave.
I mean, what would you have done if Tamius had immediately responded with: "You can't use it on Jackson. Either choose a different target or don't play it, in which case I will publically state you chose not to play your card"?
I'm sorry you ended up on the wrong end of this, but if we had allowed this to stand and the Spies would have won, then the Resistance would now be complaining that you won by cheating.
I'm going to side with Hazbot here and say he should have been able to scan Jackson. There was some confusion, but after it being clarified that I've also checked Jackson, he should have still been able to check.
I disagree with that, the rules have always been that you cannot use two Close Eyes on the same player.
Now, I'm not privy as to what happened exactly. You say there was some confusion. Could you clarify (as in, maybe post PMs)?
Now, I'm not privy as to what happened exactly. You say there was some confusion. Could you clarify (as in, maybe post PMs)?
I must say I'm very happy I didn't have to deal with another game being accused by everyone and their mothers of being a spy while being a resistance member. I don't think it's Hazbot's fault though, since I don't think I've seen an issue like this before in a Resistance game.
So, yeah. Sorry for the mid-game holdup with the KACIOUs. I realised quite late on that there was a conflict with the cards, but prior to that I don't know if I could have said anything anyway, as Hazbot, who played the card second, shouldn't be privy to who Jeray was planning on using his on, anyway.
The problem was my fault really. I've never had this situation happen before, online or in face-to-face. So I didn't know what to do, and this much was obvious. This, not the rules themselves, is what hampered Hazbot.
Maybe the prohibition on two of them being used on one person should be lifted for online games, but once the game has started, it's not my job to change the rules.
I did it at random (but it turned out the same way).
This game isn't the best example of a Resistance game. It was slowed down in the middle because of the card bollocks and near the end a lot of people appeared to lose interest. In the past we've run games with 24-hour vote deadlines, and normally everyone would vote in that time. 36-hour periods with nothing going on in the thread aren't common, even with a GM on the wrong side of the world to the players. Maybe I should have been more ruthless but it might not have done much good. I felt I was being snippy enough as it was. Torn went AWOL, as well, which didn't help.
Torn's not posted on the forum at all since last Monday so I think something may have happened to him. Hope he's ok.
The problem was my fault really. I've never had this situation happen before, online or in face-to-face. So I didn't know what to do, and this much was obvious. This, not the rules themselves, is what hampered Hazbot.
Maybe the prohibition on two of them being used on one person should be lifted for online games, but once the game has started, it's not my job to change the rules.
I did it at random (but it turned out the same way).
This game isn't the best example of a Resistance game. It was slowed down in the middle because of the card bollocks and near the end a lot of people appeared to lose interest. In the past we've run games with 24-hour vote deadlines, and normally everyone would vote in that time. 36-hour periods with nothing going on in the thread aren't common, even with a GM on the wrong side of the world to the players. Maybe I should have been more ruthless but it might not have done much good. I felt I was being snippy enough as it was. Torn went AWOL, as well, which didn't help.
Torn's not posted on the forum at all since last Monday so I think something may have happened to him. Hope he's ok.
Just because a case isn't specifically defined in the rules doesn't mean that anything goes for it. To go for a slightly ridiculous and hyperbolic example, the rules don't say that nothing special happens when someone mentions pandas. They don't have to because if something like that isn't mentioned by the rules, we can assume that nothing happens. Nothing is stated to happen if you land on Free Parking in Monopoly, and thus nothing happens.
So I assumed the same would happen with the card. The rules state "a player's mission order may not be checked by more than one player," it doesn't go on to say anything else. I thought that this would be a reasonable invocation of the "if nothing is stated to happen, then nothing is supposed to happen" rule.
If Tamius did immediately respond to me with that, I would probably not join his games from then on given it's very difficult to play a game and enjoy it when important rules like that are either glaringly omitted or deliberately obfuscated, though I'm willing to give Tamius more of a chance given he was clearly confused by the situation and that it's not something that happens very often.
There's nothing really much of note in the PMs. It was just that I thought the situation was pretty clear-cut while Tamius didn't.
It went like this:
I ordered a KACIOU on Jackson and said I would sabotage the mission.
After the mission was over, Tamius tells me that Jeray used his card, so mine bounced back. He admits not knowing what should've happened here.
I claimed to use the KACIOU, which led to a rules discussion regarding the situation where I though Tamius might have revealed more information that he should have.
Two days later, after the discussion, Tamius then rules I get another chance to use my card.
I ask him if I can't target Jackson.
He tells me that I cannot.
I ask if he'd reveal that I had this possibility.
He told me that he inadvertently already had in the midst of the discussion.
I ordered to scan Falc, and lamented that my game was basically over at this point.
No, absolutely not. The point of the rule is that you cannot double-verify the same play. Just dropping that sounds like asking for trouble.