POG Anniversary Game Thread

[T. Bradshaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DO. NOT. VOTE. CONFUCIUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Has he made any posts other than those funny little confuciousisms? (I know I'm not one to talk)

[/ QUOTE ]

was he joking here too

[Yoko Ono]

[ QUOTE ]


THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.

THIS GAME IS ABOUT FINDING AND LYNCHING WOLVES, NOT TALKING ABOUT WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO BE A POWER VILLAGER.


[/ QUOTE ]
Think election. Village could easily trade off all the vanillagers and still win in that game (handily).

This game is doesn't have the effect, but it's same reasoning. With 2 seers + an apprentice on top of 8 power roles, lynching wolves doesn't matter all that much, because wolves won't be able to get X villagers lynched in this game simply because more than 1-X villagers will be clear by the end of the game.

As long as we can clear 1-X villagers (and it's really likely that we do), we will win.

Yes, we could lynch all the wolves, but that is far harder than simply clearing 1-x villagers, and shipping it.

[Yoko Ono]

Chocolate Rabbit, it has nothing to do with whether those arguments are correct or logically sound, it has everything to do with what kind of conclusions that wolves will come to (the right ones) and the kind of conclusions villagers will come to.

[freetokyonow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DO. NOT. VOTE. CONFUCIUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Has he made any posts other than those funny little confuciousisms? (I know I'm not one to talk)

[/ QUOTE ]

was he joking here too

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being dumb.

[Chocolate Rabbit]

We might as well all stfu & wait until the seers get all their peeks in then, shouldn't we? Oh wait, no we shouldn't. We win by lynching wolves. We don't win until they're all dead. It's pretty simple

[freetokyonow]

On that note, I am also not voting you any time soon as I am changing my m]ind on you. So come vote akimbo with me.

[Chocolate Rabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
Chocolate Rabbit, it has nothing to do with whether those arguments are correct or logically sound, it has everything to do with what kind of conclusions that wolves will come to (the right ones) and the kind of conclusions villagers will come to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But villagers would come to those conclusions. The one about the vote buyer is self evident.

[T. Bradshaw]

[ QUOTE ]
On that note, I am also not voting you any time soon as I am changing my m]ind on you. So come vote akimbo with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldnt you like to hear pope respond to his bandwagon first with something other than a vote for grindhouse?

[Yoko Ono]

[ QUOTE ]
We might as well all stfu & wait until the seers get all their peeks in then, shouldn't we? Oh wait, no we shouldn't. We win by lynching wolves. We don't win until they're all dead. It's pretty simple

[/ QUOTE ]
We could do that and win. It's obviously not optimal, but the thing is, it doesn't really matter how many wolves we lynch until 1-X villagers are cleared, as long as we can clear 1-X villagers.

Admittedly, there are two night kills in the game, which makes 1-X higher than it should be, but once one of those night kills is eliminated, 1-X just plain wins.

[freetokyonow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On that note, I am also not voting you any time soon as I am changing my m]ind on you. So come vote akimbo with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldnt you like to hear pope respond to his bandwagon first with something other than a vote for grindhouse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.