IECERINT'S BIG POST wrote:When I received my D) ability, SX included a specification that I appeared to have interpreted it incorrectly. Rather than select a vengekill target AFTER dying, I choose a player BEFORE dying, and that player dies along with me after I die, whenever that should be. (The original wording is ambiguous about when the choosing would happen.) His way of clarifying it was that it was analogous to making myself one-way lovers with someone rather than vengekilling.
At this point and throughout the day I've been (slowly) PMing SX for clarifications regarding how I can use conditionals to set-up ability activations. Of particular interest is what happened after a series of queries that I sent after I became suspicious of Vi re: the "daykilling scum" hypothesis. Though I didn't think TOO much of it at the time, I was surprised by one specific allowance: I could use "Cut Through: I" (that is, an abbreviation of "Cut Through: Iecerint" such that it would activate "before" the daykill was used), and it would constitute a result where Vi would be killed by my subsequent death. However, I could NOT assign a vengekill during twilight.
I didn't dwell on it until a little after that, but that makes NO SENSE if Vi's ability works the way she claims it does. I shouldn't be able to interrupt her post and act in the middle of it like that; the point of conditional/triggered activations is to accommodate strategic intentions with the slower pace of MS play, not to introduce a whole new microgame. I'm extremely confident of this interpretation because when I tried sending SX more complex conditionals (like, if such and such is true AND this is false AND I've used Prince of Chaos, etc.), he specified that anything too crazy was kind of beyond the intent of the mechanic.
Given the above, the simplest reason I was allowed to use "Cut Through: I" as the basis of activation is that Vi's in-game kills are fake. They have no DIRECT connection to the player dying. They are masking one faction's otherwise-silent daykill.
[The following text is a bit deprecated -- this was written pre-claims -- but I still think it's worth including.]
While I'm not CERTAIN about her scumfriend, I SUSPECT that it is DUM. Consider the following:
1) The timing of DUM's claim.
2) The flavor-character of DUM's claim.
3) Vi's intent to kill DUM or C-Worl D3 AND...
4) ...Her shifted intent to kill C-Worl or myko today.
[<--- This part was mistaken; I had mis-remembered D3]
5) DUM's quick move to solidify anti-Gamma sentiment as soon as Ludi flipped, even though much of the anti-Gamma argument applied with equal validity to Vi.
I can elaborate on what I mean by any of this upon request. I want to keep this reasonably short.
