I'm barely off the first page, but since Ash claimed so early, I'll put down my thoughts now. Some of these may have been addressed further on, but I'd rather not have clouded judgement when expressing myself.
First, the claim:
-- "Enabler, that almost certainly enables town"
This is a very different situation than I had in MC, and I'm not comfortable with the comparisons that Ash draws between the two. I had neither knowledge of the role that I enabled, nor of the alignment of that role. As I was forced to make a guess regarding the alignment of the player whom I enabled, my claiming was not -strictly- bad for town. Rather, to clarify, my death was not strictly bad for town.
By that I mean that there were two situations that I was aware of being possible:
{Me} --- {Scum}
{Me} --- {Town}
Obviously, being town myself in MC, the second situation was a disaster. I was telling scum that not only could they kill me (someone they knew to be town), but in doing so they were effectively taking out a PR. In the first situation however, I felt like I was a detriment to the town to keep alive. I was essentially a VT-, instead of a VT+. My dilemma in MC was that I didn't know which situation I was in.
Now, back to this game. Ash has claimed that, having "created" (first used on f.ds) the role of 'Enabler', he's best equipped to judge how it should be played. He's said that he felt that I played it optimally, and that (Arch?) played it sub-optimally in MC. But our roles in MC, as I have shown above, were very different to what Ash has claimed here. Here, he's claimed to KNOW that he's in situation #2 above. And that leaves me at a loss from a town standpoint... because you're essentially telling scum (who, unless we're dealing with multiple scum, know that you're town) that you control town PR's, and that removing you from the game knocks out those PR's.
So what conclusions do I come to regarding the claim?
Well, there's a few things.
#1. Ash may be lying.
- This could be about what he Enables, who he Enables, or about what his role is entirely. For any number of reasons, he could very well be trying to draw a NK. He hasn't advocated his own lynch, which, given the exact nature of his claim makes sense (compared to me in MC anyway). "Town should never lie" isn't exactly always true. There are times, albeit rare, when that rule can and should be broken. But one must tread VERY carefully in doing so, and put a LOT of thought into it ahead of time.
#2. Ash could be trying to draw night protection, given that he could power multiple roles.
- This is dangerous, as we have an IC in our midst. Although there's an interesting game of 'cat-and-mouse' that could be played with time travel (I need to review how that mechanic works. I haven't looked at it since I /in'd way back when) in that, if scum kills the IC on, say, N1, then a time traveling doctor could go back and save them from N2, and they would be alive again on D3 (I think that's how it works....? Again, I'll need to review). Still, from a Town!Ash perspective, given that he couldn't know that we would have an IC announcement made, any plans he came up with on N0 regarding claiming and option #2 would, I think, be put on hold for at least a little while following the opening flavor while he chewed over the correctness of the claim.
#3. Ash is trying to get scum to WIFOM town.
- This is one I think that he's claimed to be the case, but really feels like a stretch to me. The premise goes, if I'm correct, that "I'm town, and I enable town. Scum want me dead, but they would rather see me lynched then wasted a NK on me. Thus by claiming, I make myself an obvious scum target N1... and in doing so, give them the option to NOT kill me, in the hopes of trying to get me lynched D2 on the theory that 'scum would've killed town!Ash N1, thus Ash's survival must mean he's scum'".
Whew, that's a mouthful. Umm.... maybe? It just feels really, really weak to me. Put another way, if what Ash claims is 100% accurate,and I had that role, then under no circumstances would I EVER, EVER feel that playing to option number 3 here was in ANY way optimal. Ever.
#4. Ash is scum.
- I suppose maybe this falls under #1, but it seems better to give it it's own piece. In the last game I played with Ash, Dynasty Warriors 1, he claimed very early on D1 to help us out with the setup. He took a lot of flak for it, but in general I supported the claim. As an IC myself in that setup, it allowed me to focus my thoughts throughout the game in a "If Ash is town then..." and "If Ash is scum then..." light. Our Vig stepping up to shoot him N1, while also controversial, was terrific. I digress some though - my point is that Ash knows a few things to be true: A) I'm a huge proponent of "solve the setup" Mafia. I think that he generally is as well. B) Ash is constantly aware of his town Meta's. B) While "Solve-the-setup" is one of town's greatest tools, "confuse-the-hell-out-of-town" is one of Scum's. Claiming "Town that Enables Town" is just a hard pill to swallow as being "pro-town" in any way. Thus every instinct in me says "It's not. Ash is trying to pull something". And maybe he is. The problem is... is he scum or town? If scum, he knows this brings attention to himself... but in MC that wasn't a bad thing, as scum had their own "Godfather granter" role... maybe there's something similar here?
I don't know. And point #3 keeps getting away from me because, well, I don't know. I guess the best I can describe my feelings on the claim are... "If 100% accurate, it makes no sense whatsoever from a town standpoint. Thus I'm forced to assume that it isn't true. Given then, that I don't believe the claim for what it is, which part of the claim do I NOT believe most?"
I'm not sure. But I think the 4 options above cover most of the spectrum of my feelings on it.
Author
Topic: RMM12: Time War Mafia (Game Over - Town + Survivor win!) (Read 157263 times)