Mafia Invictus ~ Game Over!

Fate · Post Post #175 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:30 am

We lynched a strong player yesterday based off TEHEHEHEHE and we were wrong.

We lost two over night.

Silavor is likely scum OR liability, he can't live.

Baby spice is possible scum OR liability, she has to die.

Its really as simple as that. Yin and Yang, tomorrow will be back to normal with scumhunting of ALL the players.

silavor · Post Post #176 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:33 am

how are baby spice and I liabilities?

Benmage · Post Post #177 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:36 am

v/la till next Monday

I like fates invictus suggestion. Although if we miss invictus... scum have no night kill fear... but again using it as essentially a double lynch sounds beneficial.

Quil is confirmed town.

Sil needs rope.

Invictus count me on baby spice.

Only able to post and read from phone right now.... I hate phones.

Gut · Post Post #178 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:37 am

You can't quickhammer Day 1 and then ask that question, silavor.

Vote: Tar

Invictus: silavor

danceHello · Post Post #179 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:37 am

Fate wrote:Silavor is likely scum OR liability, he can't live.

Baby spice is possible scum OR liability, she has to die.

Agree with Baby Spice, but I'm honestly not sure about how likely scum silavor would be. We could Invictus vote silavor instead and start the scumhunting now, instead of being down an additional competent town.

Aware how all of this looks if silavor is indeed scum. I don't really care about his life or death in this matter, so I suppose I wouldn't be afraid to hammer.

PEDIT: silavor, you're a liability because of the hammer and the questionimbus cloud looming over your head for the rest of the game. Baby Spice is unlikely to follow this plan imo. Would love to be proved differently.

-inHim

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #180 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:40 am

Gut wrote:You can't quickhammer Day 1 and then ask that question, silavor.

Vote: Tar

Invictus: silavor

VOTE: Gut

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #181 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:41 am

Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #182 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:42 am

Baby Spice wrote:
Vote Tarhalindur

There's a mindscrew coming. It may matter.

This is BS's only post thus far.

Quilford · Post Post #183 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:44 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

What if scum are invictused?

actually, I think all players with the invictus ability should claim. does everyone agree?

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #184 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:47 am

Quilford wrote:actually, I think all players with the invictus ability should claim. does everyone agree?

I'm sure the scum would like to know. Can we out all the power roles? I'm sure they're curious.

danceHello · Post Post #185 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:48 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

How can they avoid being Invictus'd themselves?

Benmage · Post Post #186 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:48 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

Its use is that of a second lynch... it is beneficial for the town. Even if its a twoforone.... that's one we don't mislynch.

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #187 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:48 am

danceHello wrote:
DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

How can they avoid being Invictus'd themselves?

By not killing players that have invictus'ed them?

danceHello · Post Post #188 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:50 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
danceHello wrote:
DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

How can they avoid being Invictus'd themselves?

By not killing players that have invictus'ed them?

Everyone agrees to the plan or we don't use it.

Benmage · Post Post #189 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:50 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
danceHello wrote:
DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

How can they avoid being Invictus'd themselves?

By not killing players that have invictus'ed them?

Yeah they can no kill... no problem for me.

They can't avoid invictus if its on scum.... and we are placiing it on people we'd lynch anyways..... its win win

Quilford · Post Post #190 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:51 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
Quilford wrote:actually, I think all players with the invictus ability should claim. does everyone agree?

I'm sure the scum would like to know. Can we out all the power roles? I'm sure they're curious.

Fate's plan fails if people don't have invictuses.

Benmage · Post Post #191 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:51 am

Everyone must agree... obviously.

I disagree to the claiming aspect.

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #192 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:51 am

Benmage wrote:
DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

Its use is that of a second lynch... it is beneficial for the town. Even if its a twoforone.... that's one we don't mislynch.

But Invictus is only for NK... not for lynches...

Zachrulez · Post Post #193 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:52 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:Are we really letting the scum know when they can get two townies for the price of one with the NK, while avoiding being invictus'ed themselves?

That's basically what I see reading this and I agree that it's a bad idea.

Benmage · Post Post #194 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:52 am

Quilford wrote:
DrippingGoofball wrote:
Quilford wrote:actually, I think all players with the invictus ability should claim. does everyone agree?

I'm sure the scum would like to know. Can we out all the power roles? I'm sure they're curious.

Fate's plan fails if people don't have invictuses.

No it doesn't... we are using invictus as a second lynch.

Fate · Post Post #195 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:52 am

Dumbest thing ever Quilford.

Now on to WHY I think the INvictus is a good idea:

normally I'm all AGAINST these sorts of communist plans, because it takes AWAY responsibility for kills.

But I realized NOW why I'm not against it this time (weird how that works, propose a plan and then realize why afterward)

Its because the people making invictus kills,

are DEAD by very definition of the mechanic

What bonus scumhunting information did we get from knowing KK supposedly suspected Hinduragi? Fucking NOTHING.

What bonus info will we get if we all argue about a second lynch?

SHIT TONS.

Anyone not voting invictus is clearly anti-town

COUGH
DGB
COUGH

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #196 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:52 am

I disagree with the invictus claim.

Unless I'm allowed to lie about it.

Gut · Post Post #197 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:53 am

We're not claiming who we're Invicting, DGb, we're voting on who to all Invict. It really is an extra lynch.

DrippingGoofball · Post Post #198 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:53 am

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Sorry I didn't get that.

Fate · Post Post #199 (ISO) » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:53 am

If the person who IS the invictus target gets NK'd, then LOLscum killed who wanted to second lynch.

We're OBV not claiming who has abilities, we are claming WHO we EVERYONE is going to choose as their Invictus target.