In post 9, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:You can still do the "do it or get modkilled"-version of Compulsive!
dem loopholes doe
In post 9, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:You can still do the "do it or get modkilled"-version of Compulsive!
In post 58, GreyICE wrote:
A role who learns who a person targeted at night
A role who learns what a person did at night
A role that learns if a person did something at night
A role that learns if a person can do something at night
A role that learns if a person was targeted at night
A role that learns what targeted a person at night
A role that learns if a person was targeted at night
A role that learns if a person targeted someone or was targeted by someone at night
In post 181, mastin2 wrote:Yeah, the problem with hiders became that no matter what standard used to exist, it had long-since been lost. It wasn't one or two common iterations; basically every hider was different from the last since there are like (I think) at least four if not five or six common ways for the role to be interpreted by current site usage and none of them were agreed on as being "right". That, plus the "weird" interactions = why they were removed, but I'm in favor of bringing back a standardized version.In post 178, Ether wrote:Yeah, we should really bring hiders back. They were pretty unambiguous when I was around? A bit complicated, but the exact same mechanics every time. The weird "every role that targets the person you're hiding with also targets you" thing came later.
My/mykonian's proposal was as such:
If they hide behind someone, it counts as a commute, unless the person they're hiding behind is nightkilled, in which case, they die.
This loses the most interesting part of the role, the weak modifier, but the weak modifier is currently considered Normal (at least I'm pretty sure we voted it Normal), so if someone wantsthatversion of the Hider (AKA, the actually cool version that most people generally think of), inside a Normal, all they have to do is tack on the 'Weak' modifier, and bam, you've got it.
In post 198, mastin2 wrote:Unlimited-BP, definitely.In post 196, pisskop wrote:Is it standard to not inform BPs of the use of their vest/kill attempt upon them?
X-shot, there's some debate there.
I'm not sure if there's an official Normal standard recognized, but personally in my games I will always, always, ALWAYS, 100% of the time, inform an X-shot BP how many vests they have left. (Which by proxy lets them know if they've been attacked.)
In post 201, Cheery Dog wrote:I personally wouldn't even tell an unlimited-shot.
In post 305, BNL wrote:Millers don't have the problem that Godfathers have. In the worst case scenario, a Cop investigating a Miller will result in a mislynch on the miller and the Cop getting NKed. This is nothing compared to a Cop investigating a Godfather, which is almost autoloss for town, especially if the Cop claims his results.